# The Walking Dead thread (encore) [SPOILER ALERT]



## Alberto7

Now, I am very surprised that all of the threads for this show that have been created have been abandoned. I thought it had a huge following.

In any case, I just finished binge-watching the entire show in exactly one week... I feel dirty. 

The season 5 finale was pretty amazing, but it ended right on its climax and I feel like it resolved very little. The season itself was great, but I felt it lacked direction. It's like it had two half-arcs; the latter half of one, and the first half of another (unresolved) one.

I'm glad I picked this show up, but alas, it's done enough damage as it is already... it's the first time I actually skip class because I stayed home watching a show.  As long as it didn't interfere with my final exams, I was okay with skipping that one class to get it over with. 

Thoughts?


----------



## coffeeflush

Im very happy with how the season ended. 
Couldn't agree more with rick. 

What happened to morgan's son ?


----------



## Alberto7

^


Spoiler



It's revealed in season 3 that Morgan lost his son not long after Rick and him parted ways in the beginning of the series. This happens when Rick and part of his crew run into Morgan while out on a run to find guns to take the governor down.


----------



## Rosal76

Alberto7 said:


> Thoughts?



I enjoyed it. Morgan has turned into Darth Maul.

Abrahams speech to the community about Rick was gold. Possibly my favorite lines of all 5 seasons of The Walking Dead.


----------



## AndrewFTMfan

Rosal76 said:


> I enjoyed it. Morgan has turned into Darth Maul.
> 
> Abrahams speech to the community about Rick was gold. Possibly my favorite lines of all 5 seasons of The Walking Dead.



Nah, "Who's Deanna!?" And "shave me down all over, dolphin smooth" were Abrahams best lines. "son of a dick" is a close contender.

When it comes to one liners though, he's the best


----------



## Alberto7

"Son of a dick" had me in stitches for quite a while.  Abraham is such a great character; I wish they put a bit more focus on him.

That finale had me on the edge of my seat. I kept thinking someone would die on every scene they showed. 


Spoiler



I was surprised at the lack of tears though, which I don't know how to feel about.


----------



## Rosal76

Alberto7 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I was surprised at the lack of tears though, which I don't know how to feel about.





Spoiler



Lack of tears from someone dying (Pete) or that Glenn/Nicholas and Sasha, Maggie and Gabriel are praying in the chapel together?


----------



## Alberto7

^ The former. Deanna's husband was such a whatever character that I just didn't care. However,


Spoiler



it was reason enough to make Deanna tell Rick to put a bullet in Pete's head, which pleased me quite a bit.


----------



## mongey

I thought it was pretty solid tie up for the season 

wouldve liked to know a bit more about the wolves this season 

and morgan was kick ass


----------



## Alberto7

^ Yeah, that's one habit that this show has gotten into that I don't particularly like. Arcs that overlap seasons annoy me. They closed well, but the arc still feels like it's just starting.

Also, I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten more hits; I thought this show would be more popular around here!


----------



## flint757

It _was_ awhile back. I lost interest during season 3 personally, but it definitely picked up quite a bit. I'm definitely enjoying the direction of the show more, but I haven't gotten around to finish this season yet.


----------



## Rosal76

Alberto7 said:


> Also, I'm surprised this thread hasn't gotten more hits; I thought this show would be more popular around here!


 
I love the show and would contribute more to the thread but a lot of the things I would discuss are really, really trivial. Almost to the point where the average/casual watcher wouldn't have noticed/not understand the connection and/or don't even care. Example: Has anyone caught the homage/reference to "Dawn of the dead (1978)" in the last episode of Season 5 of the Walking Dead? When I mean homage/reference, I don't mean the obvious "zombies walking around eating people". So far, I have seen 3 homages/references to "Dawn of the dead (1978) and 2 for "Day of the dead (1985). * There are more. I just have not seen them. These are not consequences between the movies and the t.v. show but are confirmed homages stated by Greg Nicotero. 

Here is a homage that the Walking Dead give to zombie star, Bub who appears in the 1985 version of "Day of the dead". Bub is zombie on the right. Zombie on left is from the Walking dead. It's hard to tell in the picture on the left but the zombie from the Walking dead does indeed have a "zombie collar" around his neck.







There are a lot more homages/references between the movies and t.v. show but I can't post the pics because of the gory makeup on some of the zombies and I don't want to get in trouble with the moderators.


----------



## Alberto7

^ Aaaahh you see, that's the kind of cool stuff that I want people to point out for me, because I suck at finding those things!  I only saw the 2004 version of the film, though I do not even remember whether or not I liked it.


----------



## Rosal76

Alberto7 said:


> I only saw the 2004 version of the film, though I do not even remember whether or not I liked it.



Alberto7. I need you to stop everything you are doing right now. And watch all 6 George A Romero zombie movies. In order if you can. 

Night of the living dead. 1968 
Dawn of the dead. 1978 < Essential watching.
Day of the dead. 1985 < Same as above.
Land of the dead. 2005
Diary of the dead. 2007
Survival of the dead. 2009

If time to watch or access to the movies is a problem, at least try and watch "Dawn" and "Day". They are considered the "masterpieces of zombie movies".


----------



## Rosal76

Caution: Useless trivia below!!! 

I would like to point out that The Walking dead t.v. show has a lot of "George A. Romero zombie movie DNA" in them because of Greg Nicotero. Nicotero who is heavily involved in the Walking dead (producer, director, occasional zombie extra) has appeared in 4 of Romero's zombie movies (Day, Land, Diary and Survival) as either a actor or special effects artist. All of the homages/references to Romero's zombie movies that appear in The Walking dead are Nicotero's thanks to Romero and his huge, successful contribution to zombies on film. 

Here is Greg Nicotero (right) with Andrew Lincoln and Scott Wilson on the Walking dead. * Take notice of plant in Scott Wilson's hand. 






Here is Greg Nicotero (right) as he appears in Romero's "Day of the dead (1985)". This is Greg's first movie as a actor and special effects artist and is the beginning of Greg's successful career in movies and t.v shows.






* You can't tell in the picture above but Greg Nicotero and Phillip Kellams (soldier on right) are smoking a joint. In the scene, Nicotero and Kellams are passing it back and forth to each other. I keep cracking jokes that Nicotero got the weed from Hershel. See first picture of Hershel handing plant to Nicotero. 

I'm just joking of course.


----------



## mongey

thought new season 1st EP was pretty good. I was pretty burnt out on it by the end of last season so wasn't sure if I'd be into it


----------



## Adam Of Angels

They really impressed me with that season opener. The actual direction and cinematography is much more artsy and I was really enthralled the whole way through. I felt like I had finished watching a movie when it was over. 

Also, I hate gore, and I don't know how I ever got into this show.


----------



## Rosal76

Adam Of Angels said:


> Also, I hate gore, and I don't know how I ever got into this show.



+1.

That's the power the show has. Quantity and quality. My Mom hates any and all kinds of gore and or blood; movies, t.v. shows, medical shows, lions attacking a zebra on National Geographic, someone with a nose bleed on the 9 o'clock news, etc, etc, etc, but she has a genuine interest in The Walking Dead show. Thank you for having a open mind about the show and looking past the gore.


----------



## mongey

well 3rd episode was good



Spoiler



sad to see him go but think its kind lame if he survives. there is just no way you'd survive that many walkers on you


----------



## coffeeflush

^^
Honestly its taken the show to a new level. 
Where you die for trusting people who are not strong enough. 

This breaks the stalemate of the group always coming up with another adversary worse than themselves and instead facing the consequences of their own choices.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

For whatever reason, the producers and show runners are leaving the whole thing ambiguous - maybe to keep milking all of the hysteria from the fans, but possibly because there's some clever twist that none of us have been able to figure out yet. 

On another note, it seems like there's a strong possibility that Jon Hamm will be Negan. I think they'll skip over him simply because he's already a big time AMC star, and it would be like Brian Cranston showing up in Walking Dead at this point (......Heisenberg as Negan???). But, I would probably audibly cheer at the television is Jon Hamm comes on the screen as the supervillain.


----------



## mongey

liked this season allot, then the last 2 episodes sucked


----------



## crg123

Why 'The Walking Dead' Season 6 now belongs to Negan | cleveland.com



> It's been confirmed actor *Jeffrey Dean Morgan* ("Watchmen," "Grey's Anatomy") will play Negan, the leader of the ruthless Saviors during the second half of Season 6. And the show isn't wasting anytime teasing his arrival.


----------



## mongey

ok so I'm am officially over the show . there were things I didn't like this season ...Hi Glen ..,1 or 2 interesting story lines ... Hi Carol and Morgan 

but to end the season the way they did I actually find insulting as a "fan "


----------



## wankerness

I read about the end of the last ep since it was sorta making waves on various entertainment sites with some critics loudly proclaiming they were done with the show because it was so incredibly stupid and showed how empty the show really is. It triggered my curiosity, so spent a while looking through the death wiki for the show to see how much the lineup changed between the end of season 4 and now. Boy oh boy, am I glad I stopped watching then. They killed off half the characters I liked and we've still got Carl and Carol, my two least favorites this side of Dale. 

If I have to watch a show pointlessly kill off characters all the time, I'd like to make sure that there are good qualities about the show that balance that frustration out for me. Hence, I'll stick with GoT, but this...hell naw.


----------



## Alex Kenivel

I've been with this show since the beginning. My wife had to drag me through a few of the last seasons (sleepers, IMO) but this last one was an improvement


----------



## QuantumCybin

My girlfriend and I watched this entire series over the last year or so and man, we are hooked. My girlfriend isn't even a zombie fan, and she loves it. I just think seeing Rick's transformation over the course of the show is awesome. He goes through so much; I feel like he is a very well written and layered character. I could go on a lot longer but I'm on my phone. I'm so ready for season 7.

We even started watching the first season of Fear The Walking Dead. I personally am really enjoying it so far; I like that it's set in L.A. and I think it's pretty cool seeing the initial sh!t hit the fan in such an urban city.


----------



## Gravy Train

Did anyone watch the Season 7 Premiere last night? That .... was so brutal and heartbreaking. Hell of a way to start the new season.


----------



## jerm

^It was pretty damn intense. If Rick ended up doing what was asked with the axe it would've been just over the top drama haha


----------



## Gravy Train

jerm said:


> ^It was pretty damn intense. If Rick ended up doing what was asked with the axe it would've been just over the top drama haha



I agree! They are really pulling off Negan as the baddest villain the show has ever seen. I'm interested to see where they go from here.


----------



## TheShreddinHand

Yeah, that was intense to say the least. Sheesh!


----------



## mongey

I liked it. I wasn't a fan of some of last season but this was a good start.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

I've watched the show up until this point. I'm done now. There really is absolutely no reason to put that kind of garbage on TV when you know millions of people are going to be watching it. We should be using our artistic mediums for uplifting, empowering, thought provoking, paradigm shifting ideas, not the most disturbing images you can think up. Of course, if this was an obscure independent project, I'd having almost nothing to say about it, but this is the highest rated TV show. That's insanity.


----------



## kylendm

To be fair, it's just staying true to the comic.
SPOILER
http://media.comicbook.com/2015/10/twdneganglennbffs-156650.jpg


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Adam Of Angels said:


> I've watched the show up until this point. I'm done now. There really is absolutely no reason to put that kind of garbage on TV when you know millions of people are going to be watching it. We should be using our artistic mediums for uplifting, empowering, thought provoking, paradigm shifting ideas, not the most disturbing images you can think up. Of course, if this was an obscure independent project, I'd having almost nothing to say about it, but this is the highest rated TV show. That's insanity.




I feel like you're trolling.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

There's an obvious line between every gory scene in the entire series, and those particular scenes from the Season 7 premier. Yes, it's more or less exactly as it happened in the comic... which is crazy, because there's also a very obvious line between a cartoonish hand drawn image and a realistic live action recreation of that image. It's super disturbing in the comic. We're way to desensitized to violence, and we choose to be desensitized to violence, apparently. Basically, the show has always done a good job of keeping it fun but then pushing you out of your comfort zone every now and then, but this just isn't fun, tolerable, or tasteful unless you're beyond numb. It's just not for me - I think we should doing better things with our biggest creative projects.


----------



## blacai

I enjoyed it a lot... one of the best episodes so far.

About gore scenes. I am fine with it. Until now everything was extremely soft and my idea about how an "apocalypse" should evolve is this. People are getting more and more violent, crazier, emotionless, hopeless.

There are lot of tv-shows out there and nowadays news show more blood than TWD


----------



## sawtoothscream

Wasn't expecting that at all, should be a intense season.


----------



## Vrollin

I have a feeling that axe is going to be a part of this seasons climax...


----------



## fps

There's something off about the Negan actor. He's not doing anything wrong, I just can't buy him as being that evil. He has friendly eyes. I'd have a beer and wings with the guy, which... shouldn't be the case.

I don't think it's a great show; it'll be remembered for how popular it was rather than how good it was.


----------



## Jonathan20022

fps said:


> There's something off about the Negan actor. He's not doing anything wrong, I just can't buy him as being that evil. He has friendly eyes. I'd have a beer and wings with the guy, which... shouldn't be the case.
> 
> I don't think it's a great show; it'll be remembered for how popular it was rather than how good it was.



That's definitely the actor  I can't not look at Jeffery and see Denny Duquette.

Hershel's death was more disturbing and shocking to me overall, and we've seen worse gore within the show easily. The only reason this is striking so many nerves is because they showed the bodies mutilated after the fact and that it's characters that people loved.

Tasteless would have been recreating and showing what Michonne *should* have done to the governor during that ark.

Spoilers if you plan on reading the comics



Spoiler



She is raped by the Governor, and in a later issue decides to take her revenge on him while the others escape Woodbury. She ends up cutting off an arm, nailing his dick to a board, drilling his shoulder, sticking a spoon in his ass, then using the same spoon to remove one of his eyes



Critiquing the premiere, if they planned to take 2 people they should have split them up. Or at the very least shown us


Spoiler



Abraham


 in season 6's finale, then when everyone thinks they're clear, Daryl triggers the 2nd death in the premiere. I think it would have left less of a sour taste with fans, but overall that's an issue for caught up viewers. People who binge watch the show and have the content readily available won't have to endure several months to find out what happens


----------



## Rosal76

fps said:


> There's something off about the Negan actor.



IMHO, he's too cartoonish. Makes too many jokes, smiles too much, phrases some of his lines like he's a sport announcer like when he says, "I knoooooow, that just didn't happen!!!!, owns a bat which he named and talks about it like it's a person. He would be fine if he was a villain in a Batman movie. Despite what I think of him, I still love the show, though.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Jonathan20022 said:


> Hershel's death was more disturbing and shocking to me overall, and we've seen worse gore within the show easily. The only reason this is striking so many nerves is because they showed the bodies mutilated after the fact and that it's characters that people loved.



I can't recall anything more gory than what just happened - Hershel's death was perhaps less anticipated, and therefore more of a shock for some people, but not more graphic by any means. Not even close. The Terminus bat scene was definitely the most disturbing thing on the show up until this most recent episode, but still wasn't as gory. Noah's death was pretty horrific, but also pretty ridiculous, and very horror-movie-ish (that is to say, not at all realistic). I would argue that you could do very little to get more graphic than what happened in the Season 7 premier.


----------



## narad

Rosal76 said:


> IMHO, he's too cartoonish. Makes too many jokes, smiles too much, phrases some of his lines like he's a sport announcer like when he says, "I knoooooow, that just didn't happen!!!!, owns a bat which he named and talks about it like it's a person.



Dude, that's how it's written -- that's not the actor.

Anyway, yea, _'s death was really appalling to watch. I don't have any criticism -- it's supposed to be pretty gross, and reality check: it's called "the walking dead"., but yea, won't be rewatching that one...


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Adam Of Angels said:


> There's an obvious line between every gory scene in the entire series, and those particular scenes from the Season 7 premier. Yes, it's more or less exactly as it happened in the comic... which is crazy, because there's also a very obvious line between a cartoonish hand drawn image and a realistic live action recreation of that image. It's super disturbing in the comic. We're way to desensitized to violence, and we choose to be desensitized to violence, apparently. Basically, the show has always done a good job of keeping it fun but then pushing you out of your comfort zone every now and then, but this just isn't fun, tolerable, or tasteful unless you're beyond numb. It's just not for me - I think we should doing better things with our biggest creative projects.



So you were perfectly fine with them cutting up essentially a dead body and wearing its guts in one of the first few episodes? What if they had crushed its head and wore its brains? Would that have been worse? It's your opinion that we could be doing better things and perhaps we could, but this is mere entertainment. All I can say is, when it comes to fans who refuse to watch because of a few seconds of gore, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Rosal76

narad said:


> Dude, that's how it's written -- that's not the actor.



Yeah, I know. It was just my personal opinion about the character's behavior. Not like a personal campaign for AMC to change and/or remove him from the show.


----------



## Mike

PunkBillCarson said:


> So you were perfectly fine with them cutting up essentially a dead body and wearing its guts in one of the first few episodes? What if they had crushed its head and wore its brains? Would that have been worse? It's your opinion that we could be doing better things and perhaps we could, but this is mere entertainment. All I can say is, when it comes to fans who refuse to watch because of a few seconds of gore, don't let the door hit you on the way out.



It was pretty brutal man. Just want to say I can understand where Adam is coming from.


Spoiler



Glenn (and Abraham's) deaths


 were a real portrayal of what you could pretty much expect to happen if a real person was bludgeoned to death with a bat like that. 

When they're killing zombies, wearing their guts and splattering brains all about I think we tend to view that as more fictional and cartoonish considering zombies aren't real anyway. 

We all know it's fake and for entertainment and whatnot, but they were definitely trying to push the envelope with the gore and brutality inflicted on what we see as real people.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

PunkBillCarson said:


> So you were perfectly fine with them cutting up essentially a dead body and wearing its guts in one of the first few episodes? What if they had crushed its head and wore its brains? Would that have been worse? It's your opinion that we could be doing better things and perhaps we could, but this is mere entertainment. All I can say is, when it comes to fans who refuse to watch because of a few seconds of gore, don't let the door hit you on the way out.




Nobody is capable of going out into the world and smothering themselves in zombie innards in order to navigate a crowd of zombies undetected. It's over the top and gross, but almost laughable in how ridiculous it is. We all know it's not realistic. Smashing a zombie's head is also ridiculous, in that nobody with half a brain (pun?) thinks they can actually go out and find a zombie head to smash. Taking a character you've grown to love over several years and doing what is easily one of the most horrific things you can do to him, in front of his friends/family, in graphic detail, is incredibly realistic and disturbing. 

Pointing to the name of the show and/or putting "Horror" in front of the description doesn't actually justify it. Things are what they are. I watched the show for the story, the amazing actors, the characters, the camera work, the art of it, etc.... I was never in it for the gore, and you have to be pretty ....ed in the head to be in it for the gore. It's a fantastic piece of work, so much so that I was able to tolerate the gore up to a point, but this is just a step across the line. You might be conscious of the fact that it's fake, but your subconscious mind and body are not nearly as convinced. Again, this is THE biggest creative project on TV, possibly the most funded and far reaching creative project across the board, and it consists of horrific, brutal, hyper realistic violence. Unless you're a nihilist, that is a moral concern.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Adam Of Angels said:


> Nobody is capable of going out into the world and smothering themselves in zombie innards in order to navigate a crowd of zombies undetected. It's over the top and gross, but almost laughable in how ridiculous it is. We all know it's not realistic. Smashing a zombie's head is also ridiculous, in that nobody with half a brain (pun?) thinks they can actually go out and find a zombie head to smash. Taking a character you've grown to love over several years and doing what is easily one of the most horrific things you can do to him, in front of his friends/family, in graphic detail, is incredibly realistic and disturbing.
> 
> Pointing to the name of the show and/or putting "Horror" in front of the description doesn't actually justify it. Things are what they are. I watched the show for the story, the amazing actors, the characters, the camera work, the art of it, etc.... I was never in it for the gore, and you have to be pretty ....ed in the head to be in it for the gore. It's a fantastic piece of work, so much so that I was able to tolerate the gore up to a point, but this is just a step across the line. You might be conscious of the fact that it's fake, but your subconscious mind and body are not nearly as convinced. Again, this is THE biggest creative project on TV, possibly the most funded and far reaching creative project across the board, and it consists of horrific, brutal, hyper realistic violence. Unless you're a nihilist, that is a moral concern.



What difference does it make whether it was a zombie or not? Essentially, it was a decaying body, rather humanoid in appearance. A zombie's appearance isn't supernatural. All it is is a decaying human body. And if you think no one is capable of doing what they did if you think about the body as such, you're mistaken. This is a screwed up world we live in. People have committed all kinds of atrocities, so much that the action of covering oneself with remains is probably way down on the list of the worst. Point is, if you're going to give up on a show for a few seconds of gore that was meant to drive the point of how brutal this character can be, that's just too bad. Assuming they go with the base of the plotlines coming up, that scene is actually going to do quite a bit to advance the story, something you claim to care about. Maybe YOUR sub-conscience can't tell between art and reality, but I think it's rather judgmental and naive to suggest that about everyone else.

Toodles.


----------



## fps

Jonathan20022 said:


> That's definitely the actor  I can't not look at Jeffery and see Denny Duquette.
> 
> Hershel's death was more disturbing and shocking to me overall, and we've seen worse gore within the show easily. The only reason this is striking so many nerves is because they showed the bodies mutilated after the fact and that it's characters that people loved.
> 
> Tasteless would have been recreating and showing what Michonne *should* have done to the governor during that ark.
> 
> Spoilers if you plan on reading the comics
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> She is raped by the Governor, and in a later issue decides to take her revenge on him while the others escape Woodbury. She ends up cutting off an arm, nailing his dick to a board, drilling his shoulder, sticking a spoon in his ass, then using the same spoon to remove one of his eyes
> 
> 
> 
> Critiquing the premiere, if they planned to take 2 people they should have split them up. Or at the very least shown us
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham
> 
> 
> in season 6's finale, then when everyone thinks they're clear, Daryl triggers the 2nd death in the premiere. I think it would have left less of a sour taste with fans, but overall that's an issue for caught up viewers. People who binge watch the show and have the content readily available won't have to endure several months to find out what happens



In the comics he looks more brute-ish, perhaps? A little less *just got this sweet new outfit*? I'm surprised by the reaction too, it would appear this show has carried a lot more non-horror fans than realised. I thought it seemed in keeping with the way that world would be headed, and one of the only ways to keep order in a newly developing world. That said, let's be honest


Spoiler



(is this even a spoiler?_ they would have just killed Rick and Daryl if it wasn't a show


 I haven't watched this since the start, but others are complaining that it's going to be a pretty similar arc to previous series, just in a more hardcore way. That seems fair, unless they bring some new surprises pretty quickly.


----------



## Cloudy

Im a little disappointed they went with the predictable route and copied the comic books. Would have been much more interesting to see someone new go. Already went through this emotional rollercoaster 4 years ago with comic issue 100


----------



## Vrollin

If a show that encorporates blood, violence and gore under the title of "walking dead" surprises/offends you then maybe it's just not the show for you. The rest of us fans aren't so sensitive about what happened in the last episode so there is no need to preach sensitivity to us, simply stop watching. Easy... The show wasn't written for you as an individual so stop acting as though it's your entitlement to have the imagery and story line suited to your sensitivity level...


----------



## MoonJelly

I think the way HDM plays Negan is great. The most successful killers are the ones you don't see coming. So him being really friendly, charismatic, likeable...that kinda plays into the most infamous serial killers IRL. It's surreal, yes, but I think that's how it might actually be if you met that kind of person...you might never even know it...


----------



## fps

Vrollin said:


> If a show that encorporates blood, violence and gore under the title of "walking dead" surprises/offends you then maybe it's just not the show for you. The rest of us fans aren't so sensitive about what happened in the last episode so there is no need to preach sensitivity to us, simply stop watching. Easy... The show wasn't written for you as an individual so stop acting as though it's your entitlement to have the imagery and story line suited to your sensitivity level...



This is an odd comment. All I've seen are people commenting on artistic choices. Whether you enjoy watching these images or not doesn't make you a badass or a wuss, or whatever outdated masculine cliches we can come up with, it just means you're with the way the story is being told or not. It's a discussion around a show. I've had a look since seeing the backlash, and the show is about as mainstream as can be at this point. It has as many Likes on Facebook as Metallica! You keep on watching, as I will, but it doesn't make you some connoisseur or guardian of the show. While the show is called The Walking Dead and about zombies, that gives them carte blanche for what they *could* do in terms of violence, but the far more interesting question is what they *should* do, and that's the conversation being had.

I thought the violence was in keeping with the show, although I haven't been with it since the beginning. I tried to join it a couple of times but it just wasn't good enough to hold attention. But the dragging out of the episode and the van trip were pointless - is Rick important enough to save? Or expendable enough to die in a field, in which case, kill him. The scriptwriting is also very poor.


----------



## narad

fps said:


> This is an odd comment. All I've seen are people commenting on artistic choices. Whether you enjoy watching these images or not doesn't make you a badass or a wuss, or whatever outdated masculine cliches we can come up with, it just means you're with the way the story is being told or not. It's a discussion around a show. I've had a look since seeing the backlash, and the show is about as mainstream as can be at this point. It has as many Likes on Facebook as Metallica! You keep on watching, as I will, but it doesn't make you some connoisseur or guardian of the show. While the show is called The Walking Dead and about zombies, that gives them carte blanche for what they *could* do in terms of violence, but the far more interesting question is what they *should* do, and that's the conversation being had.



I'd argue yours is the odder comment. You're bringing like gender issues into this! 

So when parents took their kids to Deadpool and were offended when it was way over-the-top too mature for them, despite the comic being that way, despite the mention of this in the promos, despite the movie's more mature rating. Parent's basically wanted Deadpool to not be Deadpool. There's other marvel movies for general audiences -- bring your kids to those, that's why they exist.

And I honestly don't see what the popularity has to do with how far the show should waiver in its faithfulness to the comic. It is what it is. If someone watches an episode that's very faithful to the comic telling, and gets offended or grossed out, don't ask, "Could you tone down the violence?" Ask, "Is this a show and story that suits me?" If someone's not comfortable with that level of violence from time to time, then they're not comfortable with The Walking Dead, and they should stop watching it.


----------



## blacai

narad said:


> I'd argue yours is the odder comment. You're bringing like gender issues into this!
> 
> So when parents took their kids to Deadpool and were offended when it was way over-the-top too mature for them, despite the comic being that way, despite the mention of this in the promos, despite the movie's more mature rating. Parent's basically wanted Deadpool to not be Deadpool. There's other marvel movies for general audiences -- bring your kids to those, that's why they exist.
> 
> And I honestly don't see what the popularity has to do with how far the show should waiver in its faithfulness to the comic. It is what it is. If someone watches an episode that's very faithful to the comic telling, and gets offended or grossed out, don't ask, "Could you tone down the violence?" Ask, "Is this a show and story that suits me?" If someone's not comfortable with that level of violence from time to time, then they're not comfortable with The Walking Dead, and they should stop watching it.



It is easier to get offended and blame others


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Speaking for myself and own comments, its not so much about being offended and blaming others. What I'm saying is, at a certain point, its concerning. At what point does the violence and imagery become so disturbing that we all agree it shouldn't be a form of entertainment for a healthy person? If you're suggesting that there is no such tipping point, my suggestion is that you're either not being honest, or you're a nihilist/sadist/sociopath/etc.. Surely at some point the line is crossed. I feel that what just happened on the show was crossing the line, at least to the extent that I can't see a good reason for anybody to actually _enjoy_ seeing such a thing, and that makes me wonder why its on TV, let alone produced by one of humanity's very biggest creative projects. 

It doesn't have to do with entitlement - I'm simply saying that we could be empowering and uplifting folks with our entertainment, but instead more of us reach for something like this, and at a certain point, its concerning. Personally, I can't support that.

Also, you don't have to be angry about what I'm saying. I'm trying to be strictly logical about this, but we can disagree without being emotional, fellows.


----------



## fps

narad said:


> I'd argue yours is the odder comment. You're bringing like gender issues into this!
> 
> So when parents took their kids to Deadpool and were offended when it was way over-the-top too mature for them, despite the comic being that way, despite the mention of this in the promos, despite the movie's more mature rating. Parent's basically wanted Deadpool to not be Deadpool. There's other marvel movies for general audiences -- bring your kids to those, that's why they exist.
> 
> And I honestly don't see what the popularity has to do with how far the show should waiver in its faithfulness to the comic. It is what it is. If someone watches an episode that's very faithful to the comic telling, and gets offended or grossed out, don't ask, "Could you tone down the violence?" Ask, "Is this a show and story that suits me?" If someone's not comfortable with that level of violence from time to time, then they're not comfortable with The Walking Dead, and they should stop watching it.



I don't think the violence in and of itself is the issue for a lot of people, apart from those who, as I've said, maybe don't understand what kind of show this is and are from the mainstream. That said, violence preferably will be used to serve a story, rather than replace it. The complaints I'm seeing most of are to do with the violence being used to mask deficiencies in writing, storytelling and emotional punch. 

The comment I replied to was odd, it was one of those *if you can't handle it just stop watching* comments that contributes nothing in a discussion of how the show is developing and the choices being made. As if being able to watch a show is some measure of nerve or fibre.


----------



## wankerness

Yeah, I've read several articles about how awful this episode was, and NONE of them said it was because of the violence being too much.


----------



## narad

fps said:


> The comment I replied to was odd, it was one of those *if you can't handle it just stop watching* comments that contributes nothing in a discussion of how the show is developing and the choices being made. As if being able to watch a show is some measure of nerve or fibre.



I was with you up until the last sentence, because yea, if you're not able to watch the show, it's probably a measure of it not being a good show _for you to watch._ I don't think anyone was implying there was anything great about being able to stomach the violence. It's just clearly a show for people who want some violence in there, as removing the violence would not be true to the story as envisioned by its author and illustrator. Same as far as the writing is concerned. If your tastes differ from the theirs, then I don't think you have any leg to stand on: it's simply not for you.

I don't like spinach. I don't petition for spinach to taste more like ice cream, I just don't eat spinach. I'm not a lesser person for it -- it's just not my thing.


----------



## Rosal76

Adam Of Angels said:


> It doesn't have to do with entitlement - I'm simply saying that we could be empowering and uplifting folks with our entertainment, but instead more of us reach for something like this, and at a certain point, its concerning. Personally, I can't support that.



You're not the only person who thought the episode was over the top. Aside from the countless fans, many of the actors including Jeffrey Dean Morgan thought the same thing. Jeffrey even stated this comment about the episode in a interview:

"It got to the point where I didn't want to do it anymore ..."

Link to interview for those who are interested.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/10/jeffrey-dean-morgan-on-the-walking-dead-premiere.html

I was angry, disturbed, and sad about the episode, also. I'm sure it was absolute torture for the actors/crew who were there to film it.


----------



## glassmoon0fo

In the violence of the show, is a message that some people already understand and don't need to be reminded of, and that some people need a refresher on. The universe itself doesn't give a damn what you deserve or how you want your existence to go, and offing our poor protagonists in that terrible way was Kirkman's way of reminding people what the show was about. The shock and gore of it all was part of that, and if you're disgusted, that's exactly what he was going for. 

TWD was never written to have happy, neat resoloution. Kirkman himself has said that he would never even speak about what the outbreak was, where it came from, or if it ever ends, he just want's to explore the "realities" of what a zombie apocalypse would be like. I believe the quote on the first issue inside cover was "99% of people would do the same thing, taste delicious." I for one, am glad that he has tried to keep that sense of foreboding, truly gut-wrenching terror alive in the series, because if we're being honest, most people ALREADY ARE desensitized to the violence going on in our world today. I think that rejecting the reality of that violence is more dangerous that being asked to deal with it on TV.

Kirkman gets a passing grade here from me, for the simple fact that people are talking about these scenes like they didn't happen to Emmett Till in real life, just for example. Don't like it? I'm sure his mother didn't either. Just something to think about.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Personally, the way I look at it, the violence wasn't just there to shock. It was there to really get to you and when I see someone say that everyone's been desensitized on one board and then turn to a few others and see comments about how they couldn't watch it anymore, and it disturbed them, that to me doesn't say desensitized. It tells me the scene worked. I don't get grossed out by fake gore. I get grossed out in real life when someone's finger gets cut off (I work in a factory) trying to clear a jam in a machine. You can say all you want that our sub-conscience doesn't register the difference, I disagree. There is a vast emotional difference between what you see on TV and what you experience in real life. For me, there is a difference. The sheer brutality of it and the way the character pokes fun at those he's just killed, THAT is what bothered me about the scene, and that's why I know the scene worked.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

glassmoon0fo said:


> In the violence of the show, is a message that some people already understand and don't need to be reminded of, and that some people need a refresher on. The universe itself doesn't give a damn what you deserve or how you want your existence to go, and offing our poor protagonists in that terrible way was Kirkman's way of reminding people what the show was about. The shock and gore of it all was part of that, and if you're disgusted, that's exactly what he was going for.
> 
> TWD was never written to have happy, neat resoloution. Kirkman himself has said that he would never even speak about what the outbreak was, where it came from, or if it ever ends, he just want's to explore the "realities" of what a zombie apocalypse would be like. I believe the quote on the first issue inside cover was "99% of people would do the same thing, taste delicious." I for one, am glad that he has tried to keep that sense of foreboding, truly gut-wrenching terror alive in the series, because if we're being honest, most people ALREADY ARE desensitized to the violence going on in our world today. I think that rejecting the reality of that violence is more dangerous that being asked to deal with it on TV.
> 
> Kirkman gets a passing grade here from me, for the simple fact that people are talking about these scenes like they didn't happen to Emmett Till in real life, just for example. Don't like it? I'm sure his mother didn't either. Just something to think about.



You made an assumption about the universe/reality that is nothing more than pessimistic and perhaps nihilistic conjecture, not fact. I would argue that the opposite could actually be true. At the very least, we (humans) are capable of making choices that have positive effects on each other and the planet, so why would we choose to instead keep violence and ugliness in mind? Yeah, it happened to somebody in real life, and it was terrible..... what sense does it make to recreate it artificially to keep it fresh on our minds? You could do any number of horrific things to people if you choose to, but that doesn't in any way mean that we should keep those images in our mind. It exists in society when people choose for it to exist, and it simply doesn't have to. In case you might say "lions slaughter gazelle", you aren't a lion, and nobody else is a gazelle. We are intelligent awareness, if nothing else, and we can choose to make the world a better or worse place. 

PunkBillCarson: the thing with the subconscious mind is that it partially consists of more primal elements than your conscious mind does. It's reactions aren't necessarily in line with the beliefs and conditioning of the conscious mind. When you see violent images, a part of you assimilates that information as if it were real, in the same way that your biology reacts to pornography as if it were an actual sexual experience, in part. I'm not suggesting that seeing these images will lead you to replicate them in reality, or that it effects you exactly as much as the real thing, but it certainly doesn't contribute to happiness or health in the same way that empowering and positive ideas do. 

This might all sound a tad hippyish, but just think about it: what does it say about a person if they choose violence and gore for entertainment? Can you say, with confidence, that it's not an indication of something concerning either personally or societally? 


Anyway, so as to not get too far off track: to make this relevant to the discussion, I think the show would be dramatically improved by implying some of the more disturbing content, rather than going into graphic detail. Or, it may actually fall on its face without the gore, at this point.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

Adam Of Angels said:


> Speaking for myself and own comments, its not so much about being offended and blaming others. What I'm saying is, at a certain point, its concerning. At what point does the violence and imagery become so disturbing that we all agree it shouldn't be a form of entertainment for a healthy person? If you're suggesting that there is no such tipping point, my suggestion is that you're either not being honest, or you're a nihilist/sadist/sociopath/etc.. Surely at some point the line is crossed. I feel that what just happened on the show was crossing the line, at least to the extent that I can't see a good reason for anybody to actually _enjoy_ seeing such a thing, and that makes me wonder why its on TV, let alone produced by one of humanity's very biggest creative projects.
> 
> It doesn't have to do with entitlement - I'm simply saying that we could be empowering and uplifting folks with our entertainment, but instead more of us reach for something like this, and at a certain point, its concerning. Personally, I can't support that.
> 
> Also, you don't have to be angry about what I'm saying. I'm trying to be strictly logical about this, but we can disagree without being emotional, fellows.



You're making assumptions that because those of us that weren't offended by the episode like you were, are sadists/nihilists, not normal healthy people, are ....ed in the head, and you're "concerned". Sorry, just because you couldn't handle it, doesn't mean there's something wrong with those of us that could. 

It was a disturbing scene, I've grown to love those characters and it was absolutely brutal and very intense. I doubt too many of us sat there and cheered or watched with a smile while this occurred, but it fits the show/world they're living in perfectly.

People like Negan do exist in the real world, Nazi's experimenting to see how much brutal abstract methods of torture human beings could withstand, Japanese Imperial officers having contests to see how many prisoners they could decapitate in an afternoon, serial killers wearing other peoples faces etc. There are people in our world that could do what Negan did, and smile while doing it, so I don't think this is so over the top that it's not acceptable. Horrible and difficult to watch, but realistic and it completely got the reaction Kirkman was going for.

There are uplifting moments on the show, where they've worked together to survive, sacrifices along the way so that others could live. But look at the world they're living in, society destroyed, no consequences for ones actions(lawfully speaking), the dead consuming the living. Uplifting positive moments would most certainly be few and far between and the show reflects that.

Ricks group has gone through a .... ton, accomplished a lot, but they got cocky and ....ed with the wrong people and now they're paying for it.This was a great start to a new season, and what Negan did set the tone. The Governor was a pretty horrible person so in bringing in a new villain to TWD it had to be someone even worse. Kirkman has done this with Negan.

I love having someone to hate, it usually makes a show for me. And I'm looking forward to more TWD than I have in a while. Can't wait.


----------



## blacai

I will say also, for me, this is the best scene so far...


What is the difference now?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

FILTHnFEAR said:


> You're making assumptions that because those of us that weren't offended by the episode like you were, are sadists/nihilists, not normal healthy people, are ....ed in the head, and you're "concerned". Sorry, just because you couldn't handle it, doesn't mean there's something wrong with those of us that could.
> 
> People like Negan do exist in the real world, Nazi's experimenting to see how much brutal abstract methods of torture human beings could withstand, Japanese Imperial officers having contests to see how many prisoners they could decapitate in an afternoon, serial killers wearing other peoples faces etc. There are people in our world that could do what Negan did, and smile while doing it, so I don't think this is so over the top that it's not acceptable. Horrible and difficult to watch, but realistic and it completely got the reaction Kirkman was going for.



I don't want to repeat myself needlessly, but it's not about whether or not I can "handle" it. I'm not loosing sleep over it. It's about, why are we accepting this as entertainment? If somebody finds that scene entertaining, there is something wrong. I'm not really even suggesting something ridiculous here. 

Again, yes, people do screwed up things in the world, because they choose to do those things..... why does that mean we should recreate it and witness it willingly? That is a very bizarre notion. Its not acceptable in reality, so why is it acceptable in our entertainment? I have a better idea: let's not do that kind of stuff at all in the real world. At the very least, let's not recreate it artificially if we can help it. Once more: our very biggest art project is filled with horrific violence. That's concerning.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

You do realize there are "happy places" and "happy" forms of entertainment for you to peruse, right? And what I want to know is, why is this form of entertainment that is the Walking Dead that you're attacking? Are you just doing it here, or are you going all over the Internet and attacking exceptionally gory pieces of work?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

PunkBillCarson said:


> You do realize there are "happy places" and "happy" forms of entertainment for you to peruse, right?




Again, this is one of, and possibly society's biggest creative project (taking into consideration budget, viewership, franchise, etc.), and it's not above what we saw the other night. There is much worse out there, but this show is huge.


----------



## PunkBillCarson

Adam Of Angels said:


> Again, this is one of, and possibly society's biggest creative project (taking into consideration budget, viewership, franchise, etc.), and it's not above what we saw the other night. The is much worse out there, but this show is huge.



Yes, but it's not the only one is what I'm getting at. If it makes you feel better, go on strike. OR use YOUR talents to create something happier and draw in more viewers. But I feel like you're using a good amount of restraint in not directly saying you're better than the rest of us. That's the impression I'm getting and if we are a bunch of sick, twisted, nihilistic individuals, oh well. That's your perception, but not the only one and certainly not one that's been proven by fact to be "right."


----------



## narad

Adam Of Angels said:


> Again, this is one of, and possibly society's biggest creative project (taking into consideration budget, viewership, franchise, etc.), and it's not above what we saw the other night. There is much worse out there, but this show is huge.



It's not society's project.


----------



## glassmoon0fo

Adam, I get that you're coming from an intensely positive and hopeful place, and I really like that. I wouldn't say that I'm nihilistic, but as the head of a household I like to be realistic. Horror movies took on a very different meaning for me when I realized, if I'm in the movie, I'm the first line of defense between the bad guy and my loved ones. So, for me, Sunday was a shot to the arm, and a reminder to me personally that even though we wish the whole world could be chocolate covered cherries and unicorns riding rainbows and shyt, we essentially all live in one giant bad neighborhood, and I choose to lock my doors.

You want us to promote positivity, I got positivity out of it. Mission accomplished.

EDIT: as far as my conjecture about the universe, I say to you, good people die every day. If you choose to give reason to it, then sure, we have differing opinions at the very base of our own arguments here. Would perfectly explain why we disagree, and I'm cool with that. I do like your vision, but I don't think a world that COMPLETELY forgets that violence has been THE main enforcer of power throughout the first 98% of human existence would do a good job of knowing what to do with that part of our nature. Everybody knows and shows their light, but their darkness tells them so much more about themselves when they deal with it. IMO.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

PunkBillCarson said:


> Yes, but it's not the only one is what I'm getting at. If it makes you feel better, go on strike. OR use YOUR talents to create something happier and draw in more viewers. But I feel like you're using a good amount of restraint in not directly saying you're better than the rest of us. That's the impression I'm getting and if we are a bunch of sick, twisted, nihilistic individuals, oh well. That's your perception, but not the only one and certainly not one that's been proven by fact to be "right."



I didn't say anything that could even be misconstrued in this way - I don't think I'm better than you guys. You're jumping to some pretty intense conclusions.

To make my point another way: if the top two candidates for a Presidential election were murderers and rapists, and they both had plenty of supporters, it would be safe to say that we (as a society) are not reserving our highest platforms for things/people/ideas that preserve moral integrity and empowerment. It would be safe to say that we don't have our priorities straight, and that we're not striving to be the best that we can be.

Similarly, what concerns me is that our greatest artistic platform is not above what we saw the other night. It's a project that only grows this large with a great deal of support from society, and so it is by and large a product of society's priorities and moral backbone. Listen, I've watched the show up to this point and loved it. But there is definitely a point where the line is crossed, and beyond that point, I can't support the cause. I was hoping that TWD and AMC would choose to handle that scene with more reservation and mind for the size of their viewership, but "shock" and "effectiveness" took priority over any such consideration. You don't agree - I get it. But at what point would you say that it's been taken too far? Surely there is a line that you feel shouldn't be crossed. Surely you don't think that it's acceptable for people to support and enjoy the most horrific thing you can imagine, right? If I'm right about that, then it's simply a sliding scale, and I argue that what happened on the Season 7 premier was more graphic than should be acceptable from our very biggest art project.

Narad: read above. This show wouldn't be in its 7th season if it wasn't for society's dedication to it.


----------



## Necris

Adam Of Angels said:


> I think the show would be dramatically improved by implying some of the more disturbing content, rather than going into graphic detail. Or, it may actually fall on its face without the gore, at this point.


I can appreciate where you're coming from with your general argument in the thread. I don't think you're necessarily wrong but I don't personally see the killings in this episode and the general popularity of the show as some sign of society's moral/spiritual decay, either. Regarding the statement above I'd argue that I don't think society would be "dedicated" enough to this show to keep it running for seven seasons if all it had to offer viewers was gore. I'd be shocked if a show filled with gore but no appreciable story or character depth/development made it past season 2 (at best).


----------



## QuantumCybin

Man, I love this show. Unforgiving and brutal. Never read the comics so I was very surprised and heartbroken at the new episode but you know what, this show always goes where you think they won't. So good.


----------



## Vrollin

Adam Of Angels said:


> To make my point another way: if the top two candidates for a Presidential election were murderers and rapists, and they both had plenty of supporters, it would be safe to say that we (as a society) are not reserving our highest platforms for things/people/ideas that preserve moral integrity and empowerment. It would be safe to say that we don't have our priorities straight, and that we're not striving to be the best that we can be.



Only the similarities between the show and your scenario here are ZERO...

The show is not one of two shows on TV, there is a huge range of entertainment options available for you to watch (perhaps a Hugh Grant rom com is more your speed), the show is not a choose your own adventure and you do NOT get to vote for its content. However if you were to treat it like an election you would simply vote for the other party, in this case not supporting the show simply by not switching on to it.....


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Necris said:


> I can appreciate where you're coming from with your general argument in the thread. I don't think you're necessarily wrong but I don't personally see the killings in this episode and the general popularity of the show as some sign of society's moral/spiritual decay, either. Regarding the statement above I'd argue that I don't think society would be "dedicated" enough to this show to keep it running for seven seasons if all it had to offer viewers was gore. I'd be shocked if a show filled with gore but no appreciable story or character depth/development made it past season 2 (at best).



What I said may have been poorly stated - I mean to say that I think the show would be dramatically improved if it were less gory, but that maybe I'm wrong and they are upping the ante in lieu of whatever story-telling magic that made the show so great to begin with. 

I also don't mean to say that the most recent episode is necessarily a sign of society's moral decay, but I'm saying that the show is taking things farther than I find acceptable, despite their full awareness of the enormous, growing audience it draws in. I can't support it, and I wonder at which point others start to feel the same if not after


Spoiler



seeing the most beloved, least morally corrupt character have his ....ing head smashed to bits and pieces by a baseball bat for next to no reason while his friends and family looked on in utter horror.






Vrollin said:


> Only the similarities between the show and your scenario here are ZERO...
> 
> The show is not one of two shows on TV, there is a huge range of entertainment options available for you to watch (perhaps a Hugh Grant rom com is more your speed), the show is not a choose your own adventure and you do NOT get to vote for its content. However if you were to treat it like an election you would simply vote for the other party, in this case not supporting the show simply by not switching on to it.....



No, presidential elections and TV ratings aren't perfectly symmetrical examples, but that wasn't the point I was making. I'm saying: what criteria must be met for a person, thing, idea, body of work, etc. to occupy our highest platforms (president, most popular tv show, most successful company, most subscribed to blog, etc.)? The analogy works, because the Walking Dead is at the top of the food chain as far as Art goes. In terms of viewership, budget, and franchise/merchandise, it's easily the biggest ongoing art project (barring Star Wars), exclusively because of its growing fan base. It's been elevated to that position by popular demand. The important idea here is simply that we are putting more energy behind a very ugly project than any other. In my analogy, I'm saying the same thing: there is more energy put into supporting the ugliest ideas/person than any others.


----------



## Vrollin

Adam Of Angels said:


> No, presidential elections and TV ratings aren't perfectly symmetrical examples, but that wasn't the point I was making. I'm saying: what criteria must be met for a person, thing, idea, body of work, etc. to occupy our highest platforms (president, most popular tv show, most successful company, most subscribed to blog, etc.)? The analogy works, because the Walking Dead is at the top of the food chain as far as Art goes. In terms of viewership, budget, and franchise/merchandise, it's easily the biggest ongoing art project (barring Star Wars), exclusively because of its growing fan base. It's been elevated to that position by popular demand. The important idea here is simply that we are putting more energy behind a very ugly project than any other. In my analogy, I'm saying the same thing: there is more energy put into supporting the ugliest ideas/person than any others.



Aren't perfectly symmetrical? Symmetry didn't even come to mind, it was an example so far left of field and a horrible attempt at shifting the goal posts.
What criteria? You mean ratings...
Biggest ongoing art project? Bigger than any long running band? Bigger than any long running book series? You're trying to tell me that TWD is bigger than say, Michael Jackson, Harry Potter, Pokemon or The Wiggles? There are quite literally endless examples of art that are "happy/positive" that have bigger followings than shows like TWD, .... I'll bet Oprah and Ellen, both extremely positive people with their shows being their artforms, have bigger and longer running followers than TWD and one of them is over....
To be honest, you come across as someone who is simply pissed that they lost one of their favourite characters and knowing that you can't bring them back want to just stomp your feet and attempt to ruin everyone else's time...


----------



## blacai

> the Walking Dead is at the top of the food chain as far as Art goes


Actually I think MTV and others(I don't know about america...) have TV Shows and sh*** stuff with a lot of more viewers than TWD.

Just because TWD community uses more internet doesn't mean they are more than others.


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Vrollin said:


> Aren't perfectly symmetrical? Symmetry didn't even come to mind, it was an example so far left of field and a horrible attempt at shifting the goal posts.
> What criteria? You mean ratings...
> Biggest ongoing art project? Bigger than any long running band? Bigger than any long running book series? You're trying to tell me that TWD is bigger than say, Michael Jackson, Harry Potter, Pokemon or The Wiggles? There are quite literally endless examples of art that are "happy/positive" that have bigger followings than shows like TWD, .... I'll bet Oprah and Ellen, both extremely positive people with their shows being their artforms, have bigger and longer running followers than TWD and one of them is over....
> To be honest, you come across as someone who is simply pissed that they lost one of their favourite characters and knowing that you can't bring them back want to just stomp your feet and attempt to ruin everyone else's time...



You're not seeing the correlation in my analogy, perhaps because you're choosing to criticize what I'm saying instead, but it is there. 

The Walking Dead is the most watched cable TV show of all time, and has had the most ratings of any cable TV show for several years in a row. In terms of scripted dramas, when you consider viewership, budget, and franchise, it's the biggest ongoing, current art project. If we flex the definition of "ongoing art project" a bit, we can split hairs, but the Walking Dead is the biggest show on TV. Let's be serious: we are splitting hairs here anyway. The Walking Dead is HUGE - what happens on that show reaches more people than most other mediums. It's held in very high regard, and is as big as it is because many people support it. What I'm saying here isn't effected by Pokemon being more popular. I shouldn't have to explain this for a third time, but my point is that it's concerning that our most supported and beloved projects, ideas, and things are ugly. Or rather, at least our most beloved TV show is.

Also, considering that I never said anything about being upset that my favorite character is dead, your last sentence is a hard reach. I'm not talking about that at all, and if you're getting that from what I'm saying, you're not putting what I'm saying together. It's late, and I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'm going to leave the discussion open to anyone who is willing to actual read what I've said here. Everybody else is free to keep enjoying the show and whatnot.


----------



## fps

narad said:


> I was with you up until the last sentence, because yea, if you're not able to watch the show, it's probably a measure of it not being a good show _for you to watch._ I don't think anyone was implying there was anything great about being able to stomach the violence. It's just clearly a show for people who want some violence in there, as removing the violence would not be true to the story as envisioned by its author and illustrator. Same as far as the writing is concerned. If your tastes differ from the theirs, then I don't think you have any leg to stand on: it's simply not for you.
> 
> I don't like spinach. I don't petition for spinach to taste more like ice cream, I just don't eat spinach. I'm not a lesser person for it -- it's just not my thing.



I like the analogy. These shows are definitely not thought through as pieces of artistic genius, with grand masterplans behind them. That's not how American shows tend to work beyond the first couple of seasons, though it doesn't make them worse. They listen to feedback, they roll with punches, they alter. So, if you kinda like spinach, but don't want it to be quite as bitter, if you feed that back enough, the taste of spinach may well change, you know?


----------



## fps

PunkBillCarson said:


> Yes, but it's not the only one is what I'm getting at. If it makes you feel better, go on strike. OR use YOUR talents to create something happier and draw in more viewers.



This is footstomping and immaturity of the highest order. *Accept the thing in its entirety and be fine with it, or ignore it and never return! No grey areas! No discussion! No thought! It's either totally mega-awesome or you can get lost!*

Poor stuff.


----------



## fps

glassmoon0fo said:


> In the violence of the show, is a message that some people already understand and don't need to be reminded of, and that some people need a refresher on. The universe itself doesn't give a damn what you deserve or how you want your existence to go, and offing our poor protagonists in that terrible way was Kirkman's way of reminding people what the show was about. The shock and gore of it all was part of that, and if you're disgusted, that's exactly what he was going for.
> 
> Kirkman gets a passing grade here from me, for the simple fact that people are talking about these scenes like they didn't happen to Emmett Till in real life, just for example. Don't like it? I'm sure his mother didn't either. Just something to think about.



To be honest, I've lost my original point I think. I didn't have a problem with the violence. I had a problem with the violence clearly being directed towards the people it was, simply because Rick would have been murdered if this was real life. I've seen much worse violence in art, and obviously worse happens in the real world every day, if anything the choices just reminded me I was watching a show. But I wasn't as invested in Glenn dying as I haven't been watching as long. They could have filmed it in a different way to make me care more about the dude's death, mind. Not entirely, but some of the editorial and directorial decisions, it was both a bit too on-the-nose and yet too artsy with the fantasy scenes.

The *accept it in its entirety or **** off* attitude of some people shows a real lack of understanding about how many different ways the same event can be portrayed, even when still including graphic visuals.


----------



## wankerness

Adam Of Angels said:


> You're not seeing the correlation in my analogy, perhaps because you're choosing to criticize what I'm saying instead, but it is there.
> 
> The Walking Dead is the most watched cable TV show of all time, and has had the most ratings of any cable TV show for several years in a row. In terms of scripted dramas, when you consider viewership, budget, and franchise, it's the biggest ongoing, current art project. If we flex the definition of "ongoing art project" a bit, we can split hairs, but the Walking Dead is the biggest show on TV. Let's be serious: we are splitting hairs here anyway. The Walking Dead is HUGE - what happens on that show reaches more people than most other mediums. It's held in very high regard, and is as big as it is because many people support it. What I'm saying here isn't effected by Pokemon being more popular. I shouldn't have to explain this for a third time, but my point is that it's concerning that our most supported and beloved projects, ideas, and things are ugly. Or rather, at least our most beloved TV show is.
> 
> Also, considering that I never said anything about being upset that my favorite character is dead, your last sentence is a hard reach. I'm not talking about that at all, and if you're getting that from what I'm saying, you're not putting what I'm saying together. It's late, and I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'm going to leave the discussion open to anyone who is willing to actual read what I've said here. Everybody else is free to keep enjoying the show and whatnot.



This popularity = high regard, ongoing art project, etc thing is funny, considering it inherited the most popular cable TV show title from WWE wrestling. Was that beloved art cause it was the most popular then? What about highest rated network shows like classics such as Dallas or Friends or Big Bang Theory?  I take most popular to usually mean LOWEST BROW. This show definitely fits into a similar category as WWE - constant violence and "money shots" for entertainment. WWE just happens to have a sense of humor about it!


----------



## PunkBillCarson

fps said:


> This is footstomping and immaturity of the highest order. *Accept the thing in its entirety and be fine with it, or ignore it and never return! No grey areas! No discussion! No thought! It's either totally mega-awesome or you can get lost!*
> 
> Poor stuff.



I'm pretty sure I discussed it with the posts that I made. If you refuse to see that, that's your issue, not mine. It's okay. I loved Glenn, too.


----------



## Vrollin

fps said:


> This is footstomping and immaturity of the highest order. *Accept the thing in its entirety and be fine with it, or ignore it and never return! No grey areas! No discussion! No thought! It's either totally mega-awesome or you can get lost!*
> 
> Poor stuff.



Well you kind of have to accept it, it is what it is and they aren't going to rewrite the episode... it's not a democracy, this was established a few seasons ago....


----------



## PunkBillCarson

fps said:


> To be honest, I've lost my original point I think. I didn't have a problem with the violence. I had a problem with the violence clearly being directed towards the people it was, simply because Rick would have been murdered if this was real life. I've seen much worse violence in art, and obviously worse happens in the real world every day, if anything the choices just reminded me I was watching a show. But I wasn't as invested in Glenn dying as I haven't been watching as long. They could have filmed it in a different way to make me care more about the dude's death, mind. Not entirely, but some of the editorial and directorial decisions, it was both a bit too on-the-nose and yet too artsy with the fantasy scenes.
> 
> The *accept it in its entirety or **** off* attitude of some people shows a real lack of understanding about how many different ways the same event can be portrayed, even when still including graphic visuals.



Except I didn't tell him to accept it. But what are you going to do? You going to stop watching because of a few seconds of gore? By all means, go ahead. No one will care besides you and when the story progresses because of the events and you and he miss out on it, your fault not mine. You don't have to accept anything, but again, what are you going to do about it? If you're on a board talking about how the world needs to be a better place with more positivity, then get out there and make it more positive instead of bitching on a website.


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

Adam Of Angels said:


> It's late, and I'm tired of repeating myself, so I'm going to leave the discussion open to anyone who is willing to actual read what I've said here. Everybody else is free to keep enjoying the show and whatnot.



You don't have to keep repeating yourself, I think most of us reading this thread understood what you were trying to say the 1st time, I for one, just completely disagree with you. You seem to be the only one so "concerned" about the direction of the show. 

It's a show about the complete breakdown of society and the dead eating the living and you're shocked because a couple guys got their heads smashed in?  

What about when Rick ripped the one guys throat out with his teeth and spit it out? Countless people being torn apart right in front of our eyes since the start of the show? At Terminus when they smash the guys' heads with a bat and slit their throats to bleed them out in a trough? Those weren't over the top, but this was?

People like to be scared, they like to be shocked, they like to see things that are almost unfathomable in their daily lives. Big deal, this show does that. Saying we are sadists and ....ed in the head because we don't feel this episode was too much, is laughable. If it was too much for you and you don't want to continue to support the show, that's fine, it's your right to do so.

And fps, Rick wouldn't have necessarily been the one to die in real life. Negan enjoys what he's doing. He knows Rick is the leader, the strongest in the group and his point of killing the others instead of Rick was to see Rick broken. It worked. And probably also because if Negan is wanting them to collect supplies so he can take half, he most likely figures they'll be able to do that better if Rick is still alive. Just my


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^You actually are still missing what I'm saying. I didn't say you were a sadist or ....ed in the head if you don't think this was taking it too far, but rather if you're in it specifically for the gore. That was just a piece of the bigger point I was making. Again, if anybody wants to discuss what I was actually saying, great. Otherwise, oh well.


----------



## Vrollin

The thing is Adam, you did say exactly that...



Adam Of Angels said:


> At what point does the violence and imagery become so disturbing that we all agree it shouldn't be a form of entertainment for a healthy person? If you're suggesting that there is no such tipping point, my suggestion is that you're either not being honest, or you're a nihilist/sadist/sociopath/etc...



Well your words, not ours.... although I had to really listen as it was hard to hear you from way up on your high horse...


----------



## Adam Of Angels

Once again: not what I said. That very clearly says that the enjoyment of gore and violence itself, at a certain point of extremity, becomes unhealthy. Reading comprehension. Also, please learn to have a discussion without being so accusatory and hostile - it will be better for everybody.

Edit: more to the point, what I was asking there is, at what point does the show cross the line for you? When is the violence too much? Is there no limit?


----------



## Jonathan20022

I'd wager very few people "enjoyed" the point of concern in the episode. Just because it's entertainment as a category for the media, doesn't mean that absolutely everything shown to you will be entertaining. There are extremes to portray emotion and shock and horror certainly go a long way to do that. And it doesn't really say anything about a person being sane/healthy having watched that episode. There's a demographic that didn't read the comic and didn't see it coming, there's people that did know and decided to watch it. Someone was getting bludgeoned to death in the premiere, we all knew it. And everyone flocked to find out who got the bad end of the stick.

I'm sad to say that it didn't phase me at all, and I've seen worse in person when living and staying in Brazil with my family. The worst part of the episode besides the sadness was the build up to


Spoiler



Rick potentially slicing his son's arm off


. It was more intense and the acting reinforced that moment as the strongest point in that episode, I was genuinely feeling terrified at that point.

Regarding violence and gore, the line isn't defined and never has been. Something is either too much or fine, it's an issue in the gaming industry moreso because most times you're more attached to a show after several seasons that you're willing to stomach it than in a video game for something you've never seen or characters you've never grown with.

Music many of us enjoy depict dark and morbid themes, our Televised entertainment is filled with violence and gore, so are the Video Games we play. Unfortunately if it's not for you, then the easiest path is just to not partake. Sex and Violence sells, always has and I don't see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## RevelGTR

I went back and rewatched the first episode of TWD after the season premiere last week and was surprised just how much more I enjoyed it than the newer episodes. Even when it was gorey, sad, etc. it is was still vivid and enjoyable.


----------



## Vrollin

WSchaferJR said:


> I went back and rewatched the first episode of TWD after the season premiere last week and was surprised just how much more I enjoyed it than the newer episodes. Even when it was gorey, sad, etc. it is was still vivid and enjoyable.



I'm sure you've probably seen it, but have you checked out fear the walking dead? I tend to like that series more as it's closer to reality, that transitional period of the break down of humanity...


----------



## RevelGTR

Vrollin said:


> I'm sure you've probably seen it, but have you checked out fear the walking dead? I tend to like that series more as it's closer to reality, that transitional period of the break down of humanity...


I watched the first season and really enjoyed it but haven't seen the second, how is it?


----------



## Adam Of Angels

^ Same - I liked the first season of "Fear" but never went back to watch the 2nd for some reason.

By the way, I read a short interview with Andy Lincoln and he claims that the rest of this season has elements of humor and hope rather than bleak despair. He said it generally feels different than the past seasons. Take it with a bit of salt.


----------



## RevelGTR

Adam Of Angels said:


> ^ Same - I liked the first season of "Fear" but never went back to watch the 2nd for some reason.
> 
> By the way, I read a short interview with Andy Lincoln and he claims that the rest of this season has elements of humor and hope rather than bleak despair. He said it generally feels different than the past seasons. Take it with a bit of salt.


I hope so, more recent seasons feel like a series of cliffhangers with little actual content.


----------



## Vrollin

WSchaferJR said:


> I watched the first season and really enjoyed it but haven't seen the second, how is it?



It takes a bit more of a walking dead story line turn while still holding elements of that's wtf is going on and how do we deal with this phase. I was hoping it would really drag out the initial outbreak more but it escalates fairly quickly. Still a good watch though!


----------



## lewis

despite the naysayers, I think this season and its slow burn build up has been absolutely fantastic. Its been building characters and connecting all the dots (communities) together ready for all out war.

The revelation moment at the mid season finale felt way more rewarding because of what we have had to endure upto now with the season. The Rick/Daryll Embrace etc. The returning of Ricks Gun. Those moments in that finale would have felt pretty feeble imo had we not had the type of story telling they opted for this season.

People complain about it being boring but is people forgetting season 02? The farm?. Apart from the departure from the farm, that season was truly boring.

Sidenote: Negan, and his portrayal have been a breath of fresh air for me. He pisses all over the governor as villains go.

I cant wait for its return!!!!!


----------



## wankerness

I just hope Steven Yeun gets a new gig. His guest appearances on Conan were some of the best, so he needs to remain famous so they can continue!!


----------



## mongey

I thought there were highs and lows to the season. a few episodes felt a little like filler in parts ,and it ended pretty much where it was obviously going to .overall it was worth watching though 

the saviour (pun intended) has been Negan .I don't know the comics but love how he's played it


----------

