Post by Ripley on Oct 3, 2015 12:18:34 GMT -5
A writer claims in this 11/05/13 piece casting Andrew Lincoln as Rick Grimes was a mistake, as was killing off Jon Bernthal as Shane Walsh
I don't personally agree with the writer that Andrew Lincoln was miscast as Rick Grimes nor that Shane should have survived instead. While I agree the show does have issues with uneven writing, the general treatment of female characters with the writing and the continued silo-ing of certain characters who seem "allowed" to interact only with a few other characters (why does Glenn never intact with Carl or Carol or Daryl?) , those seem fixable and I hope that happens in the future.
What are your thoughts on this piece?
"... mention all of this upfront for a reason. See, I’m about to say some extremely critical shit about The Walking Dead (critical shit about the show’s writing, its characters, its pacing, the relationship it has to its source material, the show’s incredibly problematic casting—oh, there’s gonna be all kinds of critical shit being said), and I want everyone to understand that I say these things knowing full well how successful The Walking Dead has become/always was/will go on to be. Yes, the show (and all the officially licensed games, toys, books and tie-in shows surrounding it) generates an enormous sum of money for AMC. Yes, more people become fans of the show with each new season. Yes, the cast is massively popular and generally treated like The Beatles whenever they appear together (and probably even when they’re flying solo) out in public. Yes, yes, yes-- agreed, on all counts. Let’s acknowledge that we all recognize these facts, if only so we don’t have to go over them again later. Are we all on the same page? Good. Now, here’s why I don’t care about any of that shit...
...And that, right there, is The Walking Dead’s biggest flaw. One of many, to be sure, but for my money this is one is the show’s slashed Achilles heel, the fundamental weakness destined to prevent The Walking Dead from ever breaking out of its shuffle and into a much-needed sprint: many of its cast lack charisma, and none moreso than the show’s lead, Andrew Lincoln. From the very first episode, Lincoln’s Rick Grimes struck me as a total blank. I gave writer/director Darabont the benefit of the doubt in those early episodes, hoping that Rick’s blankness was intentional: maybe, I’d think, they’ve got Rick’s character dialed down to nothing in order to help the audience quickly identify him as our stand-in, the everyguy/girl blank canvas we can all project onto while watching the show. Or maybe, I thought, this Lincoln guy turns into the most compelling actor on the planet whenever he’s playing something other than “Grief-Stricken and On The Verge of Tears” (that one still might be true: we’ll find out if Rick ever decides to try on a different emotional state). I gave Lincoln, Darabont, and the writers several episodes to find a way to make Rick compelling, but it simply never happened. That first season was only six episodes long, and by the end of it I was convinced that a critical casting error had been made...
...add all of this up-- Lincoln's lacking charisma, Bernthal's consistent watchability, the way Rick's interactions with the rest of the cast were ever as interesting as Shane's, the fact that Darabont and Kirkman wanted to make the Walking Dead TV series its own animal in surprising ways that encouraged fans to engage both versions, the "Team Shane" contingent, and on and on-- and what conclusion do you come to? The obvious answer is also the correct answer: you kill off TV Rick, make TV Shane the lead. Just consider the ways in which this decision would have approved the show: you'd have a more charismatic actor in the lead role, not to mention the dramatic possibilities inherent in a violent-but-generally-well-meaning-nutcase tasked with leading a group of survivors across an apocalyptic hellscape. You'd be doing something no other book-to-film adaptation (least, none to my knowledge) had ever attempted, charting unknown creative waters from there on out. You'd blow away the longtime comic readers-- none of whom would've really expected that-- and you'd ensure their viewership from there on out. Newcomers would have probably heard about Shane's imminent demise by then, so they would've been just as shocked...not to menton more determined than ever to hunt down the comics and find out how the story played out in the reality "where Rick survives" (darkest timeline?). If you're Robert Kirkman, you get the chance to make changes you may have always wanted to make to your storyline and cast, and you could use a second go-round to employ some of the story ideas you'd decided against in the past. If you're the showrunner/director, you're going to be further stamping your name into the TV version of the franchise, visualizing many of Kirkman's ideas for the first time (for instance: Shane VS The Governor) and earning kudos for taking such a unique approach in adapting a successful brand..."
full article link
I don't personally agree with the writer that Andrew Lincoln was miscast as Rick Grimes nor that Shane should have survived instead. While I agree the show does have issues with uneven writing, the general treatment of female characters with the writing and the continued silo-ing of certain characters who seem "allowed" to interact only with a few other characters (why does Glenn never intact with Carl or Carol or Daryl?) , those seem fixable and I hope that happens in the future.
What are your thoughts on this piece?
"... mention all of this upfront for a reason. See, I’m about to say some extremely critical shit about The Walking Dead (critical shit about the show’s writing, its characters, its pacing, the relationship it has to its source material, the show’s incredibly problematic casting—oh, there’s gonna be all kinds of critical shit being said), and I want everyone to understand that I say these things knowing full well how successful The Walking Dead has become/always was/will go on to be. Yes, the show (and all the officially licensed games, toys, books and tie-in shows surrounding it) generates an enormous sum of money for AMC. Yes, more people become fans of the show with each new season. Yes, the cast is massively popular and generally treated like The Beatles whenever they appear together (and probably even when they’re flying solo) out in public. Yes, yes, yes-- agreed, on all counts. Let’s acknowledge that we all recognize these facts, if only so we don’t have to go over them again later. Are we all on the same page? Good. Now, here’s why I don’t care about any of that shit...
...And that, right there, is The Walking Dead’s biggest flaw. One of many, to be sure, but for my money this is one is the show’s slashed Achilles heel, the fundamental weakness destined to prevent The Walking Dead from ever breaking out of its shuffle and into a much-needed sprint: many of its cast lack charisma, and none moreso than the show’s lead, Andrew Lincoln. From the very first episode, Lincoln’s Rick Grimes struck me as a total blank. I gave writer/director Darabont the benefit of the doubt in those early episodes, hoping that Rick’s blankness was intentional: maybe, I’d think, they’ve got Rick’s character dialed down to nothing in order to help the audience quickly identify him as our stand-in, the everyguy/girl blank canvas we can all project onto while watching the show. Or maybe, I thought, this Lincoln guy turns into the most compelling actor on the planet whenever he’s playing something other than “Grief-Stricken and On The Verge of Tears” (that one still might be true: we’ll find out if Rick ever decides to try on a different emotional state). I gave Lincoln, Darabont, and the writers several episodes to find a way to make Rick compelling, but it simply never happened. That first season was only six episodes long, and by the end of it I was convinced that a critical casting error had been made...
...add all of this up-- Lincoln's lacking charisma, Bernthal's consistent watchability, the way Rick's interactions with the rest of the cast were ever as interesting as Shane's, the fact that Darabont and Kirkman wanted to make the Walking Dead TV series its own animal in surprising ways that encouraged fans to engage both versions, the "Team Shane" contingent, and on and on-- and what conclusion do you come to? The obvious answer is also the correct answer: you kill off TV Rick, make TV Shane the lead. Just consider the ways in which this decision would have approved the show: you'd have a more charismatic actor in the lead role, not to mention the dramatic possibilities inherent in a violent-but-generally-well-meaning-nutcase tasked with leading a group of survivors across an apocalyptic hellscape. You'd be doing something no other book-to-film adaptation (least, none to my knowledge) had ever attempted, charting unknown creative waters from there on out. You'd blow away the longtime comic readers-- none of whom would've really expected that-- and you'd ensure their viewership from there on out. Newcomers would have probably heard about Shane's imminent demise by then, so they would've been just as shocked...not to menton more determined than ever to hunt down the comics and find out how the story played out in the reality "where Rick survives" (darkest timeline?). If you're Robert Kirkman, you get the chance to make changes you may have always wanted to make to your storyline and cast, and you could use a second go-round to employ some of the story ideas you'd decided against in the past. If you're the showrunner/director, you're going to be further stamping your name into the TV version of the franchise, visualizing many of Kirkman's ideas for the first time (for instance: Shane VS The Governor) and earning kudos for taking such a unique approach in adapting a successful brand..."
full article link