The Walking Dead Season 5

[Locutus of Bored]

Nah. Bob Hope established long ago which political party comprises the bulk of the zombies in America: http://youtu.be/4a6YdNmK77k/

And with the rebuttal against Bob Hope, here's Bob Hope to tell us that zombies are bipartisan:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_AgoX_jam8[/yt]

Actually, I'm pretty sure he was referring to ghosts, not zombies, in that clip, insofar as its from a different film, "The Cat and the Canary," which is a haunted house movie.

How many clips of Bob Hope talking about the dead "coming back" and comparing it to a political party do you possibly think there are? I thought it was pretty impressive to find one that actually worked as a joke rebuttal, but you had to go and get all pedantic about it.

 

[DarthTom]

Yeah, they were established characters in the comics for a few years now. I wouldn't call it any more a ratings stunt than introducing Michonne or Abraham.

True, but the TV show has also not followed the comics verbatim. E.g. IRC, in the comics Dale is still alive when they reach Alexandria- TV show not.

Regarding, the Twitter comments-read on Huffington this morning. It is very disappointing.

Homophobia has morphed in my real life experience of the past decade. Most everyone I know are fine with gay people, they just don't want to see two men kissing. Two women - that's OK, but not men.

Look at the real life reaction to when Michael Sam kissed his boyfriend after learning that he was drafted. Some people who likely tend to be more tolerant of the concept gay people and gay relationships simply just don't want to see it on more mainstream television.

It's interesting to also note that the new show on Fox, Empire - which BTW I also really enjoy this season - wrestled with the same issue.They introduced a gay character but when he kissed a man the test audiences reacted negatively. Thankfully, the producers of the show left the scene in anyway.

 

[Vendikarr]

True, but the TV show has also not followed the comics verbatim. E.g. IRC, in the comics Dale is still alive when they reach Alexandria- TV show not.

Actually, in the comic, Dale suffered Bob's fate at the church. He didn't make it to Alexandria. But your point stands. Comics Dale died differently than series Dale.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Imagine the outcry if for all of the typical plotting of Grey's Anatomy or Scandal was suddenly showered with overtly supernatural plots, such as werewolves, demon possession, man-made monsters or..hmm...reanimated, flesh-eating corpses?

The base would howl in protest. That is the basis of the complaint about certain plotting elements which have found their way into TWD.

Introducing some gay characters in a show isn't at all analogous to a reality-based medical procedural shifting into a supernatural show.

The Walking Dead is about the human condition as it relates to the zombie apocalypse. Just because you see a human condition that you haven't seen before does not make it some radical change to the show.

 

[Scout101]

^while the homophobic response is disappointing, I'll say it's at least still progress. Trends have gone from not wanting to allow it to being ok with it and just not exactly wanting to watch it in front of you. And even that's a fading viewpoint, and getting the ridicule that it deserves. Not the best, but definitely progress...

 

[DarthTom]

^while the homophobic response is disappointing, I'll say it's at least still progress. Trends have gone from not wanting to allow it to being ok with it and just not exactly wanting to watch it in front of you. And even that's a fading viewpoint, and getting the ridicule that it deserves. Not the best, but definitely progress...

Yea. It's odd to me quite frankly. Will & Grace was out more than a decade ago and was very popular too, yet something about the Sci-Fi/Horror genres brings out some real backward thinking people who are fans.

Trek struggled with the same thing and ultimately never introduced a gay male character.

The only times they flirted with the notion was with lesbians and when Dax kisses the other female trill and of course the Riker episode with the gender neutral species but of course he/she had to be more female to make it palatable.

Here is the real question I wish I could get a clear answer to; what about about two males and intimacy makes some heterosexual men so uncomfortable? Shit we have someone on this very forum who posted earlier who feels this way - maybe he can explain. And presumably he's a Trek fan - ya know the Star Trek about a group of future humans who travel the galaxy spreading, 'enlightened human values,' to other alien races.

Edited to add; found all of the deviations TV v. Comics:

Spoiler: involving the comic

***spoiler alert. Yes Glenn dies in the Alexandria safe zone story arc, but that doesn't really mean anything. In the comic, there is no Daryl. in the comic, Dale dies much later (Bobs death). in the comic Hershels death was Tyreses death. In the comic baby Judith died at the prison. In the comic Michonne was raped by the governor instead of Maggie being molested. In the comic Rick has his hand cut off by the governor. In the comic Carol killed herself in the prison. In the comic Sophia survives and is adopted by Maggie and Glenn.... ect. The show and the comic are pretty drastically different. The comic is used as a guideline for the show, not the script. You can enjoy them separately.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Crept in? You mean like the drama elements that have been there since the second episode? That came straight from the source material?

At the start of the series, the soap opera element was limited to the Rick triangle, as he was the main character. We largely see the world and experiences through his eyes (at the time).

As the series moved on, do you think the stories the fans were responding to was just their imagination? The endless criticisms of the series being more soap opera than anything else? Were the fans who latched on Daryl + Beth / Daryl + Carol and "ooh and ahhed" if they een detected a hint of chemistry (romantic) between Rick & Michonne all dreaming this up?

Get real.

And now you're using the free speech argument? You are aware this is a privately run website and not bound by the bill of rights?

You might want to check on your use of the word "hypocrisy".

The moderator is not shy about deleting posts or closing threads based on the very kind of attacks seen over the last three pages. That is a speech/behavior issue, which is monitored and controlled when it goes too far.

And yes, it is the height of hypocritical behavior for some to sit on their throne of judgement--incssantly making personal attacks against another, yet do not grant the same freedom to the target.

Again, some are so filled with alleged indignation (more plain hatred), that they cannot see the boomerang effect happening before their eyes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Indeed. The show has never been about the threat the zombies pose. Pretty much from the beginning they've been little more than a nuisance that the characters have had to deal with. Or a plot device to push the characters a certain way (so we're not still on that god-forsaken farm!) The show has always been about the characters and the drama there; what happens to people, what can happen to people and how a group of people stripped of society and civilization cope and behave.

One of the reasons season two was/is so despised is the lack of horror in favor of the (by then) ramped up soap opera going in many directions. It was not just "oh, that farm is boring" No. The central complaint was that it turned into "he said, she said" or "will they?" "won't they?" All the reason why fans were jumping for joy when "Beside the Dying Fire" saw the end of the Greene farm forever.

Way to miss the point. I don't recall anyone saying anything about that scene beyond that it made Eugene look like a creeper. Which, well, it did. But wasn't my point.

You missed your own point; that sex scene was not the focus for audiences, and was not used for that purpose at all--it was strictly about Eugene, thus Abraham and Rosita were merely a means of shining a light on a dysfunctional man. That's all.

My point was that here we have Abraham and Rosita engaged in an almost not-safe-for-even-basic-cable sex scene and no one batted an eye or complained

See the reply above.

Shane, as a plot-point, nearly rapes Lori. No problems.

So, after five seasons, you did not get that the attempted rape at the CDC was just adding to the reasons why Rick would be forced to kill him sooner or later? A scene constructed to lead characters and audiences in one direction. This was not filmed for prurient reasons.

Shane already aimed a rifle at Rick, and challenged him about his taking care of Lori & Carl. Even if some never read the comic, the writers of season one all but had a flashing message across the screen saying, "this guy is not long for this world".

Lori and Shane have sex in the woods, her having just lost her husband and him his best-friend (as far as they both know). No problems. Maybe some judgment on Lori's choices and devotion to her husband and Shane his best friend's, but overall no problems and chalked up to being desperate for any sense of normalcy in the face of overwhelming tragedy. (The fall of society.)

Chalked up? Oh, there were problems in the packaging of Lori to the audience. She was one of the most hated characters in WD history--all because of her motivations and flip flopping. Few found her actions acceptable, and were pleased to see her go.

Andrea has at least two romantic nights with The Governor, one at a point where we know he's a manipulative mad-man with his own agenda. No problems.

What series were you watching? Clearly a failing on the part of the writers/producers, but Andrea repeatedly chasing immoral / violent men (Shane & the Governor) had her being criticized for being nothing more than a desperate dumbass. Another character with a death that was more welcome than regretted.

See what's going on here?

Yes, I see you misrepresented several characters and scenes, which I have presented as intended.

You are not asking yourself the deeper issue of why--just why do you see negative responses, and don't simplify this by more of the insults and childish, hypocritical soap boxing seen in this thread.

 

[Servo]

Indeed. The show has never been about the threat the zombies pose. Pretty much from the beginning they've been little more than a nuisance that the characters have had to deal with. Or a plot device to push the characters a certain way (so we're not still on that god-forsaken farm!) The show has always been about the characters and the drama there; what happens to people, what can happen to people and how a group of people stripped of society and civilization cope and behave.

One of the reasons season two was/is so despised is the lack of horror in favor of the (by then) ramped up soap opera going in many directions. It was not just "oh, that farm is boring" No. The central complaint was that it turned into "he said, she said" or "will they?" "won't they?" All the reason why fans were jumping for joy when "Beside the Dying Fire" saw the end of the Greene farm forever.

Way to miss the point. I don't recall anyone saying anything about that scene beyond that it made Eugene look like a creeper. Which, well, it did. But wasn't my point.

You missed your own point; that sex scene was not the focus for audiences, and was not used for that purpose at all--it was strictly about Eugene, thus Abraham and Rosita were merely a means of shining a light on a dysfunctional man. That's all.



See the reply above.



So, after five seasons, you did not get that the attempted rape at the CDC was just adding to the reasons why Rick would be forced to kill him sooner or later? A scene constructed to lead characters and audiences in one direction. This was not filmed for prurient reasons.

Shane already aimed a rifle at Rick, and challenged him about his taking care of Lori & Carl. Even if some never read the comic, the writers of season one all but had a flashing message across the screen saying, "this guy is not long for this world".



Chalked up? Oh, there were problems in the packaging of Lori to the audience. She was one of the most hated characters in WD history--all because of her motivations and flip flopping. Few found her actions acceptable, and were pleased to see her go.

Andrea has at least two romantic nights with The Governor, one at a point where we know he's a manipulative mad-man with his own agenda. No problems.

What series were you watching? Clearly a failing on the part of the writers/producers, but Andrea repeatedly chasing immoral / violent men (Shane & the Governor) had her being criticized for being nothing more than a desperate dumbass. Another character with a death that was more welcome than regretted.

See what's going on here?

Yes, I see you misrepresented several characters and scenes, which I have presented as intended.

You are not asking yourself the deeper issue of why[/Iw]--just why do you see negative responses, and don't simplify this by more of the insults and childish, hypocritical soap boxing seen in this thread.

Exactly what is your point? For all your long-winded posts, I can't fathom what the hell you're trying to say. Do you agree with Brent that the gay characters should be left out? All you seem to be doing is berating people for mocking a homphobe, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

As has been pointed out; intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance. Yes, Brent is entitled to his opinion, no matter how idiotic, but then so is everyone else - which includes the right to call people out for making idiotic comments. If the mods think that people are going too far, then they'll step in. Simple.

So why are you in here, whining about people standing up against an intolerant viewpoint?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Will & Grace was out more than a decade ago and was very popular too, yet something about the Sci-Fi/Horror genres brings out some real backward thinking people who are fans.

I think those shows are skewed to different demographics. Those who would complain about gay people just wouldn't bother with Will & Grace. But as soon as something enters what they consider to be their sphere of interest, that's when they get more upset I guess.

Here is the real question I wish I could get a clear answer to; what about about two males and intimacy makes some heterosexual men so uncomfortable?

There's probably a few components to it. One is probably an unfamiliarity. Some people just may not have any kind of regular experience with seeing gay people, much less seeing them make out. I mean, even with my straight friends and family, I don't think I've seen any of them make out.

Another is society imposed gender roles. While women have broken the barriers a lot on moving into the established roles of men (you don't often see people complaining about Carol being a badass, although I'm sure it exists), there's still a pretty big taboo on men moving into the roles of women. If a man displays what's considered as feminine traits, that may be challenging their worldview of how sex and gender works.

Relating to worldview would be religion, but I think that only reinforces some of these other reasons. I know plenty of religious people who don't care about gay relations, and non-religious people who do. So it's partially used as an excuse because of the aforementioned acceptance of other sins on TV, many of which are even in the ten commandments, not just stray passages in the Bible.

Lastly, they may have no interest in it. While maybe some are scared that they might find it arousing, I'm sure there are plenty who just don't find it arousing. When they see people being intimate, they want to sort of put themselves in the characters' shoes, and they can't if something is just too much of a turnoff.

These are my guesses anyways. There's probably more reasons.

 

[kitik]

Boooo for posting spoilers in this thread, especially main character deaths!

 

[Trekker4747]

Go see...

You again miss my point. All of the counter arguments you offered are more or less "in universe." People opposed Andrea/The Governor because she was an idiot about it. Everything you presented misses my point.

Yes people talked about those incidents but discussed the decisions characters made and they whys. But didn't protest the very existence of it as being an uncessary distraction to the show or part of some sexuality driven agenda.

Criticize Andrea all you want for he choices, or the writers for making her look dumb and naive but no one opposed the very existence of the relationship simply because it was relationship, not in the manner some have spoken against this relationship. Big difference between the talks around other relationships and saying this greeting between two men was unnecessary, shouldn't have been shown and was there to serve some vague agenda.

 

[TheSeeker]

DarthTom. Using the actual spoiler code would have been appreciated. Using "***spoiler alert" followed directly by the spoiler is a pretty useless spoiler alert.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Exactly what is your point? For all your long-winded posts, I can't fathom what the hell you're trying to say. Do you agree with Brent that the gay characters should be left out? All you seem to be doing is berating people for mocking a homphobe, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

You are making my point, like others who are so self righteous in their personal attacks, that they cannot see the hypocrisy bleeding from their every post.

Discussing the view of another member is not attacking / insulting the member. One would have thought that was a lesson learned long ago, but it is clear some have a "do as I say, not as I do" / would-be "on high" world view.

If you cannot understand the time proven error of that, then you are fooling yourself in expecting any form of civility anywhere in this world--or anyone else calling attention to the counterproductive damning & clawing going on in this thread.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Go see...

You again miss my point. All of the counter arguments you offered are more or less "in universe." People opposed Andrea/The Governor because she was an idiot about it. Everything you presented misses my point.

Yes people talked about those incidents but discussed the decisions characters made and they whys. But didn't protest the very existence of it as being an uncessary distraction to the show or part of some sexuality driven agenda.

Criticize Andrea all you want for he choices, or the writers for making her look dumb and naive but no one opposed the very existence of the relationship simply because it was relationship, not in the manner some have spoken against this relationship. Big difference between the talks around other relationships and saying this greeting between two men was unnecessary, shouldn't have been shown and was there to serve some vague agenda.

...and you skipped over the heart of the matter:

You are not asking yourself the deeper issue of why--just why do you see negative responses, and don't simplify this by more of the insults and childish, hypocritical soap boxing seen in this thread.

Attacking the member is not getting to the heart of anything. It is just abuse and an attempt to shout down something you do not wish to read.

 

[Servo]

Exactly what is your point? For all your long-winded posts, I can't fathom what the hell you're trying to say. Do you agree with Brent that the gay characters should be left out? All you seem to be doing is berating people for mocking a homphobe, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

You are making my point, like others who are so self righteous in their personal attacks, that they cannot see the hypocrisy bleeding from their every post.

Discussing the view of another member is not attacking / insulting the member. One would have thought that was a lesson learned long ago, but it is clear some have a "do as I say, not as I do" / would-be "on high" world view.

If you cannot understand the time proven error of that, then you are fooling yourself in expecting any form of civility anywhere in this world--or anyone else calling attention to the counterproductive damning & clawing going on in this thread.

A load of rhetorical twaddle which does nothing to mask the fact that you have no point. Like I said; arguing for the sake of arguing. Bore off.

 

[JD]

Exactly what is your point? For all your long-winded posts, I can't fathom what the hell you're trying to say. Do you agree with Brent that the gay characters should be left out? All you seem to be doing is berating people for mocking a homphobe, and arguing for the sake of arguing.

You are making my point, like others who are so self righteous in their personal attacks, that they cannot see the hypocrisy bleeding from their every post.

Discussing the view of another member is not attacking / insulting the member. One would have thought that was a lesson learned long ago, but it is clear some have a "do as I say, not as I do" / would-be "on high" world view.

If you cannot understand the time proven error of that, then you are fooling yourself in expecting any form of civility anywhere in this world--or anyone else calling attention to the counterproductive damning & clawing going on in this thread.

Meh. If a person is stupid enough to spout out homophobic crap in a place like this, then they deserve whatever response they get. We've had this kind of discussion in the past often enough that it's ridiculous to get upset when people react like this.

I still haven't seen the scene in question so I don't know how the two compare.
But I do have to wonder how many people who are having a fit over the guy-guy kiss on TWD

Spoiler: this week's The 100.

liked the girl-girl kiss on The 100.

 

[Sindatur]

I find it amusing that, now, the "Gay Agenda is unnecessary" bigotry is trying to be explained away as the audience hate the Soap opera elements of the show. Nothing could be further from the truth about the show being solely a Horror show and the Soap Opera elements are unnecessary and ruining it.

The Ratings have increased, each and every single season, if it wasn't for the Soap Opera elements, there is no way the show could go on for 70+ episodes, it would've petered out long ago, if it was nothing but a Horror show focusing on the Zombie Fighting

 

[JD]

And if the show didn't have the "soap opera" elements, than people would be complaining that it was unrealistic that nobody was having relationships, and there would be anywhere near as much character development.

 

[Trekker4747]

Go see...

You again miss my point. All of the counter arguments you offered are more or less "in universe." People opposed Andrea/The Governor because she was an idiot about it. Everything you presented misses my point.

Yes people talked about those incidents but discussed the decisions characters made and they whys. But didn't protest the very existence of it as being an uncessary distraction to the show or part of some sexuality driven agenda.

Criticize Andrea all you want for he choices, or the writers for making her look dumb and naive but no one opposed the very existence of the relationship simply because it was relationship, not in the manner some have spoken against this relationship. Big difference between the talks around other relationships and saying this greeting between two men was unnecessary, shouldn't have been shown and was there to serve some vague agenda.

...and you skipped over the heart of the matter:

You are not asking yourself the deeper issue of why--just why do you see negative responses, and don't simplify this by more of the insults and childish, hypocritical soap boxing seen in this thread.

Attacking the member is not getting to the heart of anything. It is just abuse and an attempt to shout down something you do not wish to read.

I think people who express anti-homosexuality views should be treated the same as people who express racist or sexist views. In fact, I think it should be proposed to board staff. If people had expressed problems with the budding romance between Rick and Michonne, or problems with any mixed-race relationship in any show or movie they'd be rightfully smacked down.

It's well past time anti-homosexuality sentiments be treated the same way. I see no difference between someone (hypothetically) saying "There was no need to show Rick and Michonne kissing. That kind of relationship has no place on TV." And saying "They should keep homosexual relationships off TV."

I see them as the same. And people who express anti-homosexual views I see as, and think shoild be treated the same as, a racist.