One of the more interesting recent films about the paranormal was Stakeland. In that universe, vampirism becomes widespread across the USA. But though it does, the vampires are not unable to be controlled. They're even affected by the weather. By doing this, the writer could have them as problems to solve, while other humans used them as a weapon against other groups of humans. That was far more interesting and creative. I fully expected for the winter to affect the walkers. Nope.
Great scot, it's as though the very title of the show has a double meaning and the walkers may not be the worst antagonists! Zounds! Wut?
You went the wrong way again. Because it's all future magic, explain why the inverse tacheon field CAN'T do what they said Where the shit hits the fan is when it can't do it the previous week, when doing so would end the episode 30 minutes early. That's the nit to pick. Not that TWD's method of refusing to deal with any problem at all is really better. As eye rolling as the Trek explanation is, at least they try to give you something. If TWD showrunners were doing it, the deflector dish would just flash, you'd travel through the parallel universe, and no one would comment on it or question it. Not explaining anything works for a while, until you go to that well too often, or just kick the can too far down the road without giving out parts of the answer. End of the day, Trek is in the future, so even if the explanation is dumb, you can't disprove it (usually, unless it's REALLY dumb). Lot of the stuff TWD won't explain is stuff that we already know how it SHOULD work, and for some reason they won't talk about, it DOESN'T. That's where the frustration is. Kinda like how electricity is the magic thing on Revolution (another one you try to defend like this). We understand electricity. They way they've explained things WOULDN'T work, and would be outright dangerous. Well, not dangerous, so much as not conducive to life continuing to exist on earth. It's better when you screw up future science than 1900s science...
Star Trek can't keep transporters consistent from season to season of TNG. No need to expand the scope across series. Your flailing to find a reason to not like the show by looking for issues that aren't pertinent to the story being told. By your argument, you should hate Star Trek for never explaining how impulse drive works. (And they never have provided a canonical definition for it, search the trek tech forum for numerous debate threads on how it works)
I don't know where you got that I wasn't a fan of the show. I've watched every episode. Daryl reminds me of a good portion of my neighbors and even myself. Maggie is like many Southern women in my locale despite being actually portrayed by someone raised in the UK. Who couldn't like Glenn? Having a discussion and debate is much more appealing than a wankfest over how someone dispatched a walker. Your comments regarding Star Trek are odd given the huge community you decided to be a member of too.
In fairness to TWD, Dr. Jenner did give a partial explination but they just didn't go any further. Since I haven't read the comics maybe someone could in spoiler code tell us if they ever deal with why it happened to begin with and/or if the outside world has made any progress with a, 'cure.' BTW - assuming that Judith lives - my guess long term her DNA/blood will hold some clues for a cure/vaccination from the virus.
I dunno, we can give Trek a pass on stuff because it's "alien/future" technology but that shouldn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want it should stay consistent and not give them immunity on stuff. I maintain that by and large the technobabble in TNG "made sense." And it was rarely used to solve the main problem of the story and if it was it was usually what the main "problem" was but not what the "story" was. Like in "Deja Q" a lot of time and technobabble is spent trying to figure out how to correct a moon's orbit. But that's not what the story is about, Q dealing with his new-found humanity/mortality. Now, Voyager on the other hand used technobabble ALL OF THE TIME to solve the episode's problem or dilemma and a lot of the time it was some "magical" technological or alien component that could pretty much do whatever the plot needed it to. (Read: Seven's Borg technology/components, the deflector dish.) And I think Voyager deserves all of the criticism it gets for this. It doesn't get the pass of "alien/future technology." Because it abused that excuse. In the case of things happening in one episode and forgotten another (like the transporter's abilities; particularly when it comes to aging/de-aging people) that's poor writing the series are guilty of and they deserve criticism for it. We could *probably* argue that future ethics prevent people from doing this all of the time or the episodes were special circumstances where things happened to go right but it's not a 100% effective technique. What does this all have to do with The Walking Dead? Nothing. Just that Trek is guilty of things when it comes to its internal logic and it is criticized for it in the appropriate places. The Walking Dead isn't being criticized for it's violating logic because it's NOT violating it's internal logic. It's violating logic compared to the real world, sure, but we're not talking about the real world in the show we're talking about a fictional world where we have to accept things in order for the show to work. I mean, hell, let's compare it to the Marvel Cinematic Universe which takes place in present day and it has things happening that violates science and logic. Tony Stark basically has (had) a perpetual motion/energy device implanted in his chest that can generate gobs of energy to power a suit that allows him to fly without any visible fuel storage, shoot weapons and pretty much be invincible. In the 1940s when people were just kind of figuring out how the body works and what we're made of a scientist develops genetic engineering in order to make a man a model of human perfection. And this technique is never successfully duplicated in the intervening 70 years! In one case of trying to duplicate it exposure to high levels of radiation doesn't kill a man it just causes him to turn into a monster when he "gets angry." But it all gets a pass. Why? Because it's a comic book movie? Because it's good enough for us to ignore and accept these things? So why is TWD any different? Why bring in arguments about our knowledge of decomposition, how diseases and virus worked and so forth? We know more about what's behind the technology in Trek than we do what's going on here. We know more about the technology in the MCU than we do here. How does the Enterprise violate pretty much all of the laws of physics and travel 1000s of times faster than light without suffering the problems of time dilation? Errrr... "subspace"! Einstein compensator! How did they make Captain America? Errr... secret formula and vita-rays! TWD hasn't even given us that much. The most we know about the Walkers is what we were told in the last episode of the first season. "It could be viral or bacterial." and that when you die at some point in the next few hours you reanimate partially as a "zombie" with only the most basic of instincts. The only way to kill them is to damage the brain. Anyone who dies turns. (Everyone is already "infected") Getting bitten causes you to get very sick, die, and eventually turn. Removing a bitten limb quickly enough prevents turning. That's literally everything we know and the show has stayed consistent with it.
Why? Is Trek above criticism? I'm just trying to point out the illogic in your views. TWD has been internally consistent. Trek has not. Yet you take one to task for it's fictional components and the other you don't.
And this is precisely why TWD's writing suffers. It's lazy writing that can't be bothered to let the characters discuss their situation and assess it. It's more important to show a walker with some weird rotting going on. You can do both, and usually within speculative shows the writers do this. Take a culturally popular show like the X Files. A great effort was made to explain all manner of oddities within conspiracy theory and the paranormal. Some really arcane information was discussed. That made the show great. If it was just about dealing with an extraterrestrial threat and dispatching them, then I doubt it would have had the same significance. And regarding criticizing the show, of course we all do that to some degree, but it's rather like doing that while at a football game and sitting among the hardcore fans of that team. You know a comic book can have a lot of depth within it. Take Neil Gaiman's Sandman for example. That book had all kinds of references to myths from diverse places, literature, history, science, etc. But many comic books are not like that. They're not intended to do that. They're largely action driven and written for adolescents. I guess that's what TWD is going to be about. By the way, there is a special wiki for TWD with lots of information about the series and comics. http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_Wiki
It's not lazy writing it's just not the focus of the show. The show's point isn't what caused/is causing the problem with the Walkers, how society collapsed or what's going on with any remaining government. Hell, it's not even the focus of the show on the many, many ecological disasters waiting to happen around the world should humanity collapse. The point of the show is the characters and their actions of survival, dealing with themselves, and dealing with others. The Walkers are just a side-point and occasional threat to keep the characters moving. (Really, the only reason why they're moving from place to place is the walker hordes.) Our characters aren't in the position, or educated enough, to find out more about what happened nor does it matter at this point. It's not like this show is "Lost" and the point of the series is the mysteries of what is going on and we're not getting sufficient answers. This show isn't about the Walkers and what happened. It's about the characters and how they cope.
Then it ultimately fails to satisfy since they're not surviving really in any realistic way, something frequently mentioned by the very fans of TWD. Why? Well many of the fans actually practice bushcraft from historic rural skills or they're ex or current military who've taken survival training. What they're doing is being nomadic but without the abilities or knowledge to be nomadic and survive...except for Daryl and Herschel.
It's further less about actual survival in terms of food, water and the like and survival with each other. Dealing with other people, dealing with other groups and, hell, dealing with themselves in some of the actions they have to take.
Congratulations. You finally made a valid criticism of the show. Yep, our group of survivors aren't the best at surviving, as many have pointed out in this very thread. Yep, familiar with the wiki. I figured out google was good for finding stuff like that long ago.
Glad to have your approval...not. The only reason I mentioned the wiki was DarthTom asked for spoiler tags when the wiki has the answer (corrected) EDIT: I found a comment that I was looking for from George Romero, for all purposes the founder of zombie genre in the postmodern era. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s1...n-the-walking-dead-its-just-a-soap-opera.html "They asked me to do a couple of episodes of The Walking Dead but I didn't want to be a part of it," Romero said. Basically it's just a soap opera with a zombie occasionally. I always used the zombie as a character for satire or a political criticism and I find that missing in what's happening now." His intent was zombies as being mindless folks within American culture who were products of that culture and had stopped thinking. They were a threat and he mocked them. Now it's gone full circle with Kirkman and TWD. You have the zombied fans of popular culture emulating zombies without catching the irony.
^ You have to watch the video linked into the article. Great to see the whole setup and Norman's reaction. Priceless... (quite funny too)
Norman Reedus in real life is practically a Renaissance man. Not only is he trained and gifted in multiple art forms, he's also a pretty rough and tumble guy walking around with a titanium eye socket. Then dated Helena Christensen to boot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Reedus His real life is a far cry from Daryl's but he pulls it off in a very believable way.
That's fantastic. I'll have to show that to my niece. And that kid has a fantastic attitude. Every day you hear people whimper and whine about the most trivial things, and here's this kid missing an arm and two legs and getting along just fine. I hope they give him a part on the show.
Why? ST is the far future, so it cannot be so strictly judged by the scientific assumptions / expectations of the present day audience; you would be better off just accepting that entire world as operating on a level completely out the range, so it cannot be held to the same standard as a series set in the here and now. On the other hand, TWD is set in the here and now--and while we accept the fantasy framework of the series, you must remember that TWD prides itself on how "real" it is across the board, from its soap-opera, no low is too low relationships, to the gruesome attacks and/or deaths at the hands of the living and the dead. For that, TWD--whether the showrunners want it or not--the series is expected to present scripts that reflect reality, not avoid it. In the history of zombie productions, few have been brave enough to tackle the why of the ZA; most were willing to fall back on the "if you are bitten, you turn," and not much else. Night of the Living Dead (1968) suggested radiation from a Venus probe may have triggered their ZA, while The Return of the Living Dead pointed to some sort of military chemical stored in barrels. Plausible or not, the two productions at least provided the audience with the most natural response: why? We already know we're in for horror, escape scenes and drama, but audiences have a desire to know why or how the dead could rise to be cannibals. Is it too much to ask the allegedly "realistic" WD to even explore that? Or are the creators/showrunners so cowardly to risk" being challenged by...oh, I don't know...being creative and give more than Jenner's one-off, unsubstantiated statements. Instead, the series--considering its network--is content to be more soaper than horror drama. It is more about characters overacting anguish, anger, sadism or depression than moments where people truly take just a moment to talk about the problem and what they can do to fight it. Place yourself in the position of the survivors in season two's finale: after Rick tells them Jenner's opinion, would YOU just accept it as truth? Look, no one is saying characters do not have off-camera conversations, but the on-camera scenes--that which is presented to audiences--has characters just moving on, as though a life-changing catastrophe of this kind is just as easy to accept as an usually long rainy season. That is where TWD's showrunners deserve criticism--you have a show trying to be SO realistic in its present day settings, but runs away from any real consideration of why the dead walk at all.