The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion *Spoilers*

[davejames]

Tom Hendricks wrote:

---

My only issue with how Shane died, was how he died. As in being killed by Rick and then put down by Carl. I personally would have preferred that Carl actually killed Shane to protect his father. You could have kept the same setup, with Shane leading Rick out into the woods, with Carl following them. I would have had Carl find the gun that Shane hid and that Shane would have been killed with his own gun. I think it would have been a little more satisfying in the end, to me at least.

Nah, I think the final showdown had to be between Rick and Shane, and Rick killing his best friend.

Carl shooting Shane might have played well in the comic, but as established in the series I just don't buy that he would have had the guts to do it. Plus him holding the gun on his father seems like a much more unexpected and surprising development to me.

[Sindatur]

wissaboo wrote:

---

am I the only one who wanders around thinking things like....

do any of them know how to make cheese? what if they reform some sort of society and cheese becomes a lost art.

or chocolate. How long will it take before they can import cocoa again?

or bread. where does yeast come from? how are they going to make bread? do any of them know how to make baking soda? how are they going to make cookies? do I want to make cookies without chocolate chips? would a life without cheese even be worth living?

Wow, you sure know how to deflate Surviving and Outliving the Zombie Apocalypse

You're right though. Even at the end of it all, some things you valued and relished before would be lost for at least years to come, if not forever

[Hugo Rune]

sojourner wrote:

---

I wouldn't say it meant they were "correct", more that they got away with it. You cite yourself that the last half of the season was better than the first half. How much of that is due to money saving measures in the first half? How much better would the entire season have been? how much higher could the ratings have been if not for the bad word of mouth generated by the first half of the season?

Actually, I stated that I felt the second half of Season 2 was better than everything that came before it (since the pilot, which was genuinely brilliant). Now, the budget cuts were there for the entirety of season 2 and clearly limited the scope of the storytelling, yet I found the stories of the vast majority of season 1 to be pretty bland, and other than the pilot the only moment I can recall thinking "Yup, that be some good TV" was the death of Lori's sister and her reaction to it.

Apart from a couple of drives out from the farm, a short time out on a street following their excursion to a studio-shot bar, the vast majority of the storytelling STILL revolved around the Farm and its surrounding woods, like the first half. The difference being, the writing appeared to tighten up, as did the friction between the characters. Some of it was super-heightened, for sure (especially between Dale/Rick, Rick/Lori) but it made for more engaging television for me. Then they blew the rest of their cash on the finale.

And, also, in the end, let's not kid ourselves. The people who spend their time critcising the show on the internet, or in the papers, clearly don't register on the shows' ratings.

The first season finale aired with 6 million viewers. The second season premiere came in with 6.6 million. The Second season mid-season finale came in with 7.4 million, the Mid-season premiere came in with 8.1 million and the finale came in with 12.9 million (source below). The show, regardless of criticisms during the second season for its slowness and "one-set" stories, still kept on growing, and more people came back for the mid-season premiere than the Season premiere. Almost unheard of in TV.

I don't agree that the Execs should have cut the budget, but in the end this is actually quite a SMALL story - a band of misfits on the run being chased by landsharks - and clearly it can be made on a small budget (and still LOOK wonderfully cinematic, even if nowt is happening) and STILL bring in the viewers, week after week, growing in the key advertising demos.

I don't expect to see a budget but again for season 3, but neither do I expect to see an increase. For all the moaning AMC's business model on this show works. Did they get lucky? Not sure, I think they realised they didn't need to put 50 zombies and a tank in every episode to make it work.

Again, nothing against Darabont, and from the rumour mill it does appear he was unjustly shafter, but those 6 episodes run by Mazzara felt closer to what I wanted from the show than the 12 following the pilot run by Darabont.

We'll see if it was a fluke come season 3, but given what the comic has to offer, and the fact that the writers appear to enjoy throwing in the occasional curveball to keep the comic reader on his/her toes (See Dale) then I have much higher hopes going into Season 3 than I did going into Season 2.

But that's just me


Hugo - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...ratings-301516

[wissaboo]

I don't understand all the complaints about zombies. Where would be the thrill if zombies were predictable? You aren't going to jump at the appearance of a zombie if you are seeing one every 5 minutes.

[Tom Hendricks]

I don't disagree with you, what we got was satisfying. I'm just talking about my drothers.

davejames wrote:

---

Nah, I think the final showdown had to be between Rick and Shane, and Rick killing his best friend.

Carl shooting Shane might have played well in the comic, but as established in the series I just don't buy that he would have had the guts to do it. Plus him holding the gun on his father seems like a much more unexpected and surprising development to me.

[marillion]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Wow, you sure know how to deflate Surviving and Outliving the Zombie Apocalypse

You're right though. Even at the end of it all, some things you valued and relished before would be lost for at least years to come, if not forever

Blessed are the Cheesemakers??

Sorry... Someone had to say it..

[Cutter John]

wissaboo wrote:

---

am I the only one who wanders around thinking things like....

do any of them know how to make cheese? what if they reform some sort of society and cheese becomes a lost art.

or chocolate. How long will it take before they can import cocoa again?

or bread. where does yeast come from? how are they going to make bread? do any of them know how to make baking soda? how are they going to make cookies? do I want to make cookies without chocolate chips? would a life without cheese even be worth living?

I'm sure it would be rediscovered eventually. And thankfully we haven't become a totally digital society yet. Theres still a lot of cultural data to be found in books.

[sojourner]

Cutter John wrote:

---

a lot of cultural data to be found in books.

cheese cultures?

[wissaboo]

Cutter John wrote:

---

I'm sure it would be rediscovered eventually. And thankfully we haven't become a totally digital society yet. Theres still a lot of cultural data to be found in books.

lots of things burned down though. Not to mention librarys are usually in city centers that are likely to be over run with zombies.

we are doomed to a future with no cheese.

[RJDiogenes]

Especially if the Zombies eat all the cows.

[Caligula]

And in that event, we'd be without hamburgers, steaks, etc. I don't know how I could live in a world without beef.

[Silent_Bob]

Caligula wrote:

---

And in that event, we'd be without hamburgers, steaks, etc. I don't know how I could live in a world without beef.

Presumably society would adapt to whatever meat supply was abundant then use that for its culinary needs. How do you like your rat steaks cooked? Well done or still squeaking?

[Dorian Thompson]

Vegetarianism, my friends. A no meat diet. It can be done. Once you give up meat, you don't miss it. Find a safe and hopefully secluded spot with some natural fortification like marshes or a hill, put up a fence, stock the ammo and grow your own vegetables.

Sometimes I cheat with fish and become a pescaterian, though. Fish is healthier anyway, and it seems to be a more viable option when you have throngs of zombies eating all the cows. Take your gun with you for protection and go fishing for catfish and trout. Cows on your land would attract hungry zombies.

[sojourner]

Just watched John Bernthal playing the stereotypical "intelligent reporter protecting his sources" type of character on an episode of L&O: SVU. Weird to hear him talk patiently with a slight (and well done) New York accent.

[Cutter John]

Libraries aren't the only source of books. Plenty of colleges out there.

I'm sure there'd still be plenty of cattle in the Midwest and the prairies. And if all else fails, buffalo are pretty good eating.
Which reminds me. Someone care to explain to me how a zombie that took the better part of an afternoon to pull its feet out of the mud managed to take down an adult cow?