I agree Bennis.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
I really hate to break it to you but The Walking Dead IS about social issues and how humanity is affected under teh extreme duress of a apocalyptic event. So things like racism, sexism, childhood, relationships, etc etc are all represented in teh story lines. The story is more about the survivors than the actual zombies.bennisboy wrote:
Spoiler (highlight to read):-Sh1fty- wrote:
Spoiler (highlight to read):bennisboy wrote:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
My prediction is rick actually died, but was brought back to life by some variant of the virus that didn't affect his brain in the same way as everyone else (Or maybe he is immune to the bad effects of it). It would explain why Shane couldn't hear his heartbeat. It wouldn't be something so "mundane" as the kid isn't Rick's in a zombia apocalypse
So you don't think multiple M4s executing patients @ 150dB would somewhat mask the sound the heart makes? Rick wasn't on life support, when the machine went out with the power, his heart was still pumping quite well.
The doctor wouldn't whisper that she's pregnant to Rick. That would be a total let-down by the writers. Nobody wants to wait 9 months to hear something the doctor didn't have to hide. Not to mention the series would turn into a lame-ass soap opera.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
If it was Shane's kid then Rick wouldn't have gone on calmly as he did.
Except there was a lull in the shooting when he had his head to his chest. It would be a much better story if Rick was found to have some kind of immunity and needed to find someone that could produce a cure from his blood, than if it went "OMG wife is preggerz n the baby isn't mine, catastropheeeez
If it seriously is that lame of a development I will stop watching it. It's just trying to deal with one more ridiculous social issue that is just ridiculous to cover in a series about a zombie apocalypse
Last edited by SonderKommando (2010-12-09 16:41:23)
I understood that after I read the comic book synopsis.
My question is, how can they end this series?
On a side note, I don't quite understand the walkers. Are they dead and their heart is not pumping, but their brain and other muscles are? Wouldn't they rapidly decompose?
My question is, how can they end this series?
On a side note, I don't quite understand the walkers. Are they dead and their heart is not pumping, but their brain and other muscles are? Wouldn't they rapidly decompose?
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Robert Kirkman says he doesnt plan on ending the story.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I understood that after I read the comic book synopsis.
My question is, how can they end this series?
On a side note, I don't quite understand the walkers. Are they dead and their heart is not pumping, but their brain and other muscles are? Wouldn't they rapidly decompose?
Thats one of the things about the Zombie apocalypse, they would decompose.
Cracked article
Good article, and that's why I've always preferred Danny Boyle's "infected" story compared to George Romero's "walking dead". It's easier to understand and makes more sense. Plus, it allows the humans to retain their speed.SonderKommando wrote:
Robert Kirkman says he doesnt plan on ending the story.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I understood that after I read the comic book synopsis.
My question is, how can they end this series?
On a side note, I don't quite understand the walkers. Are they dead and their heart is not pumping, but their brain and other muscles are? Wouldn't they rapidly decompose?
Thats one of the things about the Zombie apocalypse, they would decompose.
Cracked article
That article does fail to realize one thing though - I think everyone realizes that a Zombie apocalypse could never happen. It's fantasy. The Walking Dead is a fantasy show that's out for mere entertainment, and that's what it does. It's like Transformers. Is it a good story? No. Is it even really a good movie? Eh. Is it pretty entertaining for what it is? Absolutely.
Darabont's attempt to add in a storyline to a Zombie apocalypse show is a noble one, but the last 3 episodes weren't the strongest writing. I hope they can turn it around next season or they're going to lose me as a viewer.
if the zombie genre is so obviously fantasy, why the fuck do the annoying, condescending pricks keep trying to include gritty social realism?
when i watch zombie shit i want just that: fun zombie shit
i don't want a probing investigation into race-relations in 21st century america. fuck off with your annoying try-hard shite.
when i watch zombie shit i want just that: fun zombie shit
i don't want a probing investigation into race-relations in 21st century america. fuck off with your annoying try-hard shite.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
then don't watch
holy shit a revelation
holy shit a revelation
oh yeah go tell that to ebert about every film he criticises and has bad things to say about
JUST DON'T WATCH THE FILM, DUMMY!
is your book bad? nevermind the critics. just tell them to not read it!
rofl you are fucking hilarious
JUST DON'T WATCH THE FILM, DUMMY!
is your book bad? nevermind the critics. just tell them to not read it!
rofl you are fucking hilarious
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
If he doesn't plan to end the series he's going to have to keep us entertained better than last season.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
That might be the worst analogy I think I've ever heardUzique wrote:
oh yeah go tell that to ebert about every film he criticises and has bad things to say about
JUST DON'T WATCH THE FILM, DUMMY!
is your book bad? nevermind the critics. just tell them to not read it!
rofl you are fucking hilarious
you keep watching and every time you keep saying it's bad...it's not like it's your job like it is for ebert, he does what he does for a living
it's obvious the series isn't for you. diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.
so stop watching the fucking series... jesus. it's almost like you watch just to talk shit about it afterwards
Last edited by Poseidon (2010-12-09 18:00:08)
Uzique is hard to understand at times.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
of course i derive some enjoyment from it. to say that a tv programme has bad parts - incredibly frustrating, patronising bad parts too, at that - isn't so say "OH THIS IS SO AWFUL I JUST CANNOT BEAR TO WATCH!" that would be to take an extremely critical view. you, on the other hand, seem to take an extremely rapturously-praising view of everything you like. the stuff you like is always '_ of the year' or 'groundbreaking' or something or other. it's not. it's entertaining, but the writing is pretty fucking mediocre.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
he just doesn't make any sense... he first came into this thread to bash my calling it "deep for a zombie show" (which it is)-Sh1fty- wrote:
Uzique is hard to understand at times.
then he claims to have watched it and then consistently after each episode makes it out to be poochinski or something
if i don't like a video game i stop playing quickly and trade it in... i don't keep playing to expect it to get better
find me 3 good examples of where i rate what i like as the "best ever". even kanye's album which you were quick to jump on me for (GOD FEAR THE MAINSTREAM ) i don't rate as the best of the decade let alone album of the year. LOST is one of my favorite shows of all time but I don't consider it the "best ever". Maybe in my life, sure.. but I've only been watching TV series since about '04.Uzique wrote:
of course i derive some enjoyment from it. to say that a tv programme has bad parts - incredibly frustrating, patronising bad parts too, at that - isn't so say "OH THIS IS SO AWFUL I JUST CANNOT BEAR TO WATCH!" that would be to take an extremely critical view. you, on the other hand, seem to take an extremely rapturously-praising view of everything you like. the stuff you like is always '_ of the year' or 'groundbreaking' or something or other. it's not. it's entertaining, but the writing is pretty fucking mediocre.
seriously, you just make this shit up as you go along... it's amusing.
i think the show got boring near the end v0v
after the first 2-3 episodes i found myself not caring
after the first 2-3 episodes i found myself not caring
it is not 'deep', that has always been my criticism and still is EXACTLY my criticism. how is it confusing? the lame attempt to throw in 'engaging' social and domestic issues is a fucking yawn-fest. it's like a cliche tour-de-force of recent 'hot topics'. writing tokenism is not a qualification for 'deep' television. i find it condescending for exactly that reason: it is posing as well-written, thoughtful television, but really it's absolutely patronizing.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
it is deep COMPARED TO OTHER ZOMBIE MEDIA
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest, darabont attempts to create a well written story that mixes human emotions with a zombie apocalypse? does he do it that well? not really, no... as I said, the writing is mediocre especially with the last 3 episodes. is it deep compared to other zombie media? absolutely. I don't think you can deny that this is a bit more enhanced story wise than Dawn of the Dead.
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest, darabont attempts to create a well written story that mixes human emotions with a zombie apocalypse? does he do it that well? not really, no... as I said, the writing is mediocre especially with the last 3 episodes. is it deep compared to other zombie media? absolutely. I don't think you can deny that this is a bit more enhanced story wise than Dawn of the Dead.
28 days later/28 weeks later = emotions
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
i'm not reading it like that at all. if you would re-read your posts you would see that i am calling the attempt to 'deepen' the zombie genre a generic failure-- inherent, perhaps, in the constraints and expectations of the subject. i'm saying that i don't think it has worked-- i recognize what they've tried to do and integrate into all the zombie-slaying action, but my exact critique is that it comes across as tacky tokenism, rather than thoughtful engagement.
this is not a complicated critique.
this is not a complicated critique.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-09 18:31:32)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
im waiting for rick to leave his family to go off on a mission . .again
Stopped reading there. The Living dead series all had deep meanings behind them. It just wasn't in-your-face simple.Poseidon wrote:
it is deep COMPARED TO OTHER ZOMBIE MEDIA
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest,
First Living dead- Southern racism
Dawn of the Dead (70's) - Materialism in the U.S.
Day of the Dead- militarism.
Re watch the movies and do a bit of research before you call George Romero films simple 'violence fest'.
Last edited by Macbeth (2010-12-09 18:30:37)
Yeah I wouldn't call Romero's films "deep" in that sense, more that there was a message behind the violence that was easy to see and forget about.Macbeth wrote:
Stopped reading there. The Living dead series all had deep meanings behind them. It just wasn't in-your-face simple.Poseidon wrote:
it is deep COMPARED TO OTHER ZOMBIE MEDIA
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest,
First Living dead- Southern racism
Dawn of the Dead (70's) - Materialism in the U.S.
Day of the Dead- militarism.
Re watch the movies and do a bit of research before you call George Romero films simple 'violence fest'.
Serious Flex
Uzique wrote:
i'm not reading it like that at all. if you would re-read your posts you would say that i am calling the attempt to 'deepen' the zombie genre a generic failure-- inherent, perhaps, in the constraints and expectations of the subject. i'm saying that i don't think it has worked-- i recognize what they've tried to do and integrate into all the zombie-slaying action, but my exact critique is that it comes across as tacky tokenism, rather than thoughtful engagement.
this is not a complicated critique.
In response to the first episode, and only the first episode. You flipped on me for it. The first episode was the only one that had a really deep emotional story, with Rick's sighting of the family who'd killed themselves (with "God forgive us" written on the wall in blood), with the black guy being absolutely unable to shoot his wife regardless of the fact that she was just a shell of her previous self, Rick going back to kill the leg-less zombie out of sympathy and telling her "I'm sorry this happened to you". You're really going to argue that Dawn of the Dead had more emotion than that? Really?Poseidon wrote:
It's VERY deep. Especially for a show about... well, zombies. But that's AMC for you. Home of Mad Men and Breaking Bad... two of the best shows of the past 20 years.
I agree with you that they failed to create the emotional feelings since then. I'm not disagreeing. The first episode, to which I made that post, was great. Since then it's been nothing more than "okay". I thought they'd use the whole CDC ploy to create something but the entered it and exited it in the same episode. Fucking disappointing.
Are you kidding? Day of the Dead was worth nothing more than it's violence. What's different about those attempts than The Walking Dead's attempts other than the increased violence?Macbeth wrote:
Stopped reading there. The Living dead series all had deep meanings behind them. It just wasn't in-your-face simple.Poseidon wrote:
it is deep COMPARED TO OTHER ZOMBIE MEDIA
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest,
First Living dead- Southern racism
Dawn of the Dead (70's) - Materialism in the U.S.
Day of the Dead- militarism.
Re watch the movies and do a bit of research before you call George Romero films simple 'violence fest'.
Try again.
They weren't deep. Macbeth just likes seeing violence.eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:
Yeah I wouldn't call Romero's films "deep" in that sense, more that there was a message behind the violence that was easy to see and forget about.Macbeth wrote:
Stopped reading there. The Living dead series all had deep meanings behind them. It just wasn't in-your-face simple.Poseidon wrote:
it is deep COMPARED TO OTHER ZOMBIE MEDIA
wow. it is an absolutely fundamental lack of reading on your part, uzique. as it always is. compared to a george romero violence fest,
First Living dead- Southern racism
Dawn of the Dead (70's) - Materialism in the U.S.
Day of the Dead- militarism.
Re watch the movies and do a bit of research before you call George Romero films simple 'violence fest'.
Last edited by Poseidon (2010-12-09 18:37:03)
I guess you don't pick up on a theme, concept, or meaning behind a story unless it's pointed out to you in a painfully obvious way.Poseidon wrote:
Are you kidding? Day of the Dead was worth nothing more than it's violence. What's different about those attempts than The Walking Dead's attempts other than the increased violence?
Try again.
I'll do the second living dead since it's the one freshest in my memory.
The second living dead in the early 70's was a critique about materialism in the U.S. during the time when malls first started popping up and consumerism was really taking off. The whole thing about the people barricading themselves in a mall having a good time while the world fell a part around them was representative of how blind and careless consumerism is. Later on when the white soldier gets killed because he started being reckless with the zombies is representative of how people get detached from reality/life when they are swallowed by materialism. The bikers invading and destroying the mall after the group barricaded inside refuses to share the mall with them is representative of greed and it's effects.
Did you also notice the final shots of the movie where of the zombie walking around the mall being well zombies. The shot was meant to make people see the similarity between being a zombie in a mall and being a 'zombie' buying shit you don't need.
A bit of trivia: in the original shooting of the movie 2 of the 4 main characters kill themselves in the end. One by shooting themselves the other by taking her head through a helicopter's rotors. I'll let you figure out how that fits in with the theme of the rest of the movie.
You could just admit you're wrong about Romero and save me from having to explain to you how the first living dead is about southern racism and the third is about how militarism is a bad thing.
yeah and transformers is about how far a man will go to show a woman how much he loves, and the capability of a man to create a friendship with not only a robot, but with a robot with no voice due to the fact that friendship has no bounadries
see how easy it is?
it's one thing to have a theme... it's another to implement it successfully. that's where the walking dead failed
see how easy it is?
it's one thing to have a theme... it's another to implement it successfully. that's where the walking dead failed
Oops my bad. It was the credits of the movie that had the zombies walking around the mall aimless.