View Single Post
Old November 7 2013, 05:48 AM   #557
Triskelion
Rear Admiral
 
Triskelion's Avatar
 
Location: In my dune buggy
Re: The Walking Dead Season 4

RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
It's too bad that Romero doesn't like Walking Dead. It's certainly different from his style of storytelling, but so what? Variety is the spice of life.
I agree, RJ. It's like sibling rivalry or something. They are more alike than they are different.



Sindatur wrote: View Post
Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
Triskelion wrote: View Post
Carol lost me when she traumatized the little girls losing their father by letting them hang around for the euthanasia - let alone shoving a knife in their hands and telling them - not only to kill someone but start with their father.
Actually the oldest of the little girls suggested she be the one to euthanaise their father but backed out.
Yea, that's definitely a relevant point many keep leaving out. Carol was going to do it, it was only after the girl insisted it be a family member that Carol relented and allowed it, and only after she froze (Putting herself in danger) that Carol encouraged/ tried to "force" her to do it.


Oh, thanks x 2 - I must have misheard the telly again. I'm like that Second Hand News guy on Weekend Update. Honestly? I have to watch TWD with captions.




TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Triskelion wrote: View Post
I'm also glad Carl's not (yet) stepping into Shane's antagonistic role. He's still got a lot to learn from his father.
...like plotting to hand over another person to a certain death save your own ass...oh, I mean "protect the group."


Who, Michonne? Michonne and he are both warriors. The others are civilians. I really don't think these acts are "equal" but definitely, as you bring up, worth debate. Further, at that time, Michonne was not, in fact, a member of their group. She was an outside threat being assessed. Her fate could have easily gone either way "for the protection of the group" or even "saving one's own ass." Like the yelling hiker on the road whom Rick ignored. Why? Because by that time, trust of strangers no longer could be be afforded.


Is Carol turning into another Shane? Maybe exiling her was the humane thing to do, and would allow Rick to avoid some particularly painful history repeating itself.

However, at no point do I think Rick acts to "save his own ass." Everything he does is for the protection of others - maybe the group, maybe his kids selfishly - but I have not seen him act out of cowardice or avarice. Then again, it's entirely open to interpretation.

"You get to come back" seems to be a theme that has repeated itself in Carl's case, thanks to Rick's efforts - a theme that Carol would eventually have to face with her own two new "daughters." Again, it's interpretation - did she tell them not to call her "Mom" for their own protection? Or for her own inability to get close again? As for Carl and Rick, they still have a lot to teach each other.

Rick isn't perfect - but if you think he's a villainous plotter acting out of purely selfish motives, I don't think that would fully account for the popularity of his lead role in this show. You might consider that he does not come off as that type of character for the show's producers and majority fan base. Of course interpretations are like snowflakes. You can't argue with them, and sometimes you need a shovel! You're right to judge his behaviors. What is "good" or "right" is a powerful thread in this story.


TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post


Changes like the comicification of entertainment. The conventionalization of big budget productions - you don't see shows that are raw, quirky or daring or adversarial as much as you used to; though offending people for its own sake is common.
Actually, the producers of the various AMC series pride themselves on being "raw," or "daring," simply because of the content--like the last 20 years of drama series thinking content cannot be relevant unless pushing buttons (incessantly), being offensive or depressing in one way or another,
Well, sure - and I definitely agree with this description of many dramas in recent history. The TWD producers, et al, do a great job, no question. But they don't define the zombie genre.


In this latest episode, the gas station zombie was killed with a you-know-what. This was one of the only humorous kills I can recall in this series. Humor - satire - was part of the charm of original zombie movies that helped crystallize the genre's popularity. "1001 Ways to Kill a Zombie" type gags. In Romero's 1978 Dawn of the Dead, one zombie stepped up a wall near a helicopter and shaved the top half of his skull off - hilarious! TWD doesn't have this kind of fun, opting instead for gruesome decomposition and carnage. There can be more to this story than drama and carnage. As it is now, TWD is largely escapism. A soap opera video game. Delicious - but rarely commenting on our present society, let alone challenging it or daring us to change, or showing us how.

I don't have any answers, but I get some of Romero's criticism. You know what I'd like to see? Robert Heinlein's take on Zombie Apocalypse survival. That would be truly challenging, and not just story based on visual effects with interminable (ha) soap opera emotional fluctuations sans happy endings. Don't get me wrong, today's FX RULE. Though I do miss film's resolution, hopefully it will become more possible, available and affordable in digital formats.

Zombies can be more than gore fodder. They are supposed to be us.
__________________

Triskelion is offline   Reply With Quote