Walking Dead Season 7

Umm can you see into the future? Why don't you give the people who said they're quitting a chance to quit. The second show of the season has yet to air. Six weeks from now if people who said they quit are still bitching about the show then you can give them a hard time. I for one have had enough of the repetitive course the show is on, the lack of consistency in the characters, and the villain of the season story lines are tiring. Who comes after Neegan? An even biggerer, badderer, strongerer bad guy (or gal) who kills not one, not two, but three of the main characters? I don't care to see how Rick and crew get their revenge after this, they've all devolved into idiots.

Umm I can remember the past. The same people that are done watching the show after the opener are the same people that were done after the cliffhanger. They were done numerous times during last season. They were probably done the season before that.

A lot of people are tired of a bigger, badder threat turning up over and over. What would you prefer? Just going around killing the same zombies week in an week out? Or would you prefer the zombies to start evolving and offering more of a threat? Aliens perhaps? There has to be an antagonist or there is no story.
 
Umm I can remember the past. The same people that are done watching the show after the opener are the same people that were done after the cliffhanger. They were done numerous times during last season. They were probably done the season before that.

A lot of people are tired of a bigger, badder threat turning up over and over. What would you prefer? Just going around killing the same zombies week in an week out? Or would you prefer the zombies to start evolving and offering more of a threat? Aliens perhaps? There has to be an antagonist or there is no story.

It is entirely possible to have a well-written, compelling narrative without a "bigger, badder" external threat every season. It's called psychology. The literary term is man vs self, or man vs nature, if you want to focus on the survival elements of privation and the struggle to sustain one's group.

Bring the narrative back down. Condense it. Make it personal again. Focus on the individuals in this group and their interactions instead of bringing in ever-more-insane external forces against them.
 
Actually, yes. You could easily convey the exact same thing without even showing the gore, which might even have been more powerful through suggestion, if you show only some of the violence, and otherwise have the scene play as the reactions of the Alexandrians watching it. Ask yourself something: is the scene more about showing the audience the horror of the moment, or showing the Alexandrians' reaction to the horror? You suggest that it's to bring home the impact on the Alexandrians, in which case the camera should be pointed at them, showing their reactions, not at the gore. By focusing on the gore, the show is titillating and grossing out the audience, which is why it's manipulation that isn't really tied to the story. You can tell the same exact story beat and probably tell it better by focusing on the people we're supposedly focused on: the Alexandrians and their reaction to not being such badasses after all.

Meanwhile, the audience has seen plenty of gross-outs and gore in previous seasons, so continuing to focus on it seems more about titillation and "shocks" than about conveying part of the narrative.



Well, we don't live in that world. The characters do. But it's also been abundantly clear that the world in which the characters live is horrific, brutal, and unforgiving. That said, there's just no need to show a guy's cheek getting ripped from his face in realtime, except to glorify the moment itself in a kind of "Whoa! Look at how awful that is!" sense. But the audience is already there with you. The audience already knows the world is awful and cruel for these characters. So, are you showing this to remind the audience of that? Or are you showing it to excite the audience? If it's the latter, that's just cheap manipulation.

I think all of the above is for reminding the audience of the brutality of the environment. As people have said there can be episodes with very little action, it serves to remind us (and the characters) that even though things are quiet you can't take your eye off the ball. Living in that world requires constant vigilance.



I haven't watched the episode, but having read the comic, and seen how graphic it was in the comic, I'd say that the purpose of the scene and the graphic nature of the horror of Glenn's death is to really, really, really get you to hate Negan.

So it does serve a purpose. Also to show why Rick gets broken down. It puts us side by side with the character feeling the helplessness and futility of his predicament.





That's about where I am already: zero investment in the characters anymore. The thing is, the show spends a decent amount of time introducing these characters just to kill them off, and I can't help but ask...why? The guy that Nick got killed with his cowardice, the one from the hospital, that whole hospital sequence was made up for the show. And it didn't really accomplish anything except getting Emily Kinney out of her contract and swapping Not-Chris in for her, only to kill him off a few episodes later. The whole detour didn't really accomplish much of anything aside from that. In fact, it simply grew out of the already protracted "Walking to Terminus" story arc. All of this stuff just seemed to pad out the story, without really accomplishing anything and without being particularly interesting.

So, in the process, we introduce Not-Chris because we padded out the season, then we kill him off almost as randomly as we introduced him. The show is full of this stuff, and it strikes me as being far more about the production schedule and needing to fill episode orders rather than telling a tight story. Characters are introduced and killed not because they necessarily further the tale, but because we have time to kill. It's sloppy, and ultimately just kind of manipulative because we're supposed to sort of care, but these folks are really just horror movie victims.

Yeah, but what you gonna do? Have them build characters over multiple seasons and then die, people would be complaining that there was not enough danger to the protagonists, that it was too easy for them. Or you going to full red shirt? Its a fine line to tread. I think they do an OK job with it. It probably could it better. But 2nd tier characters getting offed and the occasional big death is appropriate to the story and universe




Sure, lots of shows do this. But most of them disguise it better and handle it better.

I don't see a difference, they're all doing it. They all want you talking about and promoting their show in the off season.
 
Bring the narrative back down. Condense it. Make it personal again. Focus on the individuals in this group and their interactions instead of bringing in ever-more-insane external forces against them.

Sounds boring. They need antagonists of some kind otherwise it would become AMC presents Kevin Smith's The Walking Dead.
 
hmm not bad start in my opinion.

in my vision. (forgot his name) the guy who stole darryls bow helps darryl (remember negan saying he would not kill injured men or women?) so he shot him in the shoulder. he will help darryl escape, they both go to tell rick where negan is vulnarable and rick goes off to kill him. end of season.

or something like that but i still believe that guy wants away from negan. he stole darryls bike to get away, negan caught him and scared the guys face.he could have killed darryl easily when he shot him through the schoulder, all off them actualy
 
I think all of the above is for reminding the audience of the brutality of the environment. As people have said there can be episodes with very little action, it serves to remind us (and the characters) that even though things are quiet you can't take your eye off the ball. Living in that world requires constant vigilance.

Yes, but any death would serve that purpose. My point is that the show goes to lengths to demonstrate just how really gory and brutal the death is, and it passes a point where the show is reminding us of how cruel the world is, and trends into just reveling in the gore for its own sake or purely to shock.

So it does serve a purpose. Also to show why Rick gets broken down. It puts us side by side with the character feeling the helplessness and futility of his predicament.

I haven't claimed otherwise with respect to the Negan kills. They serve a purpose. The thing is, at least from what I read, the whole "Let's go get an axe" thing is a perfect example of the show padding out a story to fill running time. It's completely extraneous. The comic doesn't do it at all. Negan kills Glenn, Rick is pissed, and yet he knows he has to back down in the moment. Time to move on. The story doesn't require a 10-15 min side journey complete with a fight vs. walkers to get the point across. It's just a sequence for the sake of filling time.

Yeah, but what you gonna do? Have them build characters over multiple seasons and then die, people would be complaining that there was not enough danger to the protagonists, that it was too easy for them. Or you going to full red shirt? Its a fine line to tread. I think they do an OK job with it. It probably could it better. But 2nd tier characters getting offed and the occasional big death is appropriate to the story and universe

You know what show handles this issue admirably? Game of Thrones. People die in that story, but it usually happens in a pretty fitting way. Stuff goes over the top, but again, it actually usually fits in context. GoT even knows how to handle implied gore. Think about the Mountain's duel where he crushes a dude's head with his hands. It's INCREDIBLY brutal, and yet...you actually don't see the head crush. Everyone thinks they did, but they didn't. They saw the guy's eyes start to bleed, then they cut back to the Mountain squeezing, we hear the skull shatter, blood spatters on the Mountain's face, everyone screams, and then they cut back to the aftermath. Which is still bloody and awful, but the key difference is the camera doesn't linger on the skull crushing....because it doesn't need to. It's a sequence that plays out mostly on the faces of the observers, because their reactions are what really matter, not the killshot itself. Compare that to most of the kills on TWD, and you'll see that it's quite different. TWD indulges in the gore. It puts you up close and personal with it. And it does so in a way that, often, is just about "Look at the gore! Isn't it INTENSE??!?!?" rather than about telling the story.

Sounds boring. They need antagonists of some kind otherwise it would become AMC presents Kevin Smith's The Walking Dead.

So, here's the thing.

TWD when it started was a smarter, better show than your average horror film. Its characters were more believable and better written, the situations were less insane, and the show seemed to have its "moments" as a result not of some big action sequence or flashy death, but because of the cost of living in this world in a way that was just as often understated. People died all the time, often brutally and cruelly, but their deaths weren't showcased the way some have on the show. And it all got the point across that the world was dangerous and forever changed just fine. Moreover, the relentlessness of the death got that point across as all manner of characters would die.

In your average horror film, usually the point of the film is the flashy kills. The films are mostly vehicles to string together a thin narrative to showcase exploitative showy death.

AND THAT'S FINE, because horror films of that sort rarely pretend to be anything else. You go into a slasher flick knowing exactly what to expect, and you usually get it. Some masked, silent psycho (possibly themed around a holiday?) will slaughter horny, drug-and-booze-indulging teens in a variety of creative ways that occasionally may even border on humorous. That's the point. That's why you watch 'em.

TWD started as something that wasn't just about guessing who's gonna die this week, and showcasing flashy kills and such. Over time, though, it's morphed into...well...what it is. I think it's a shame that we've lost the smarter, less self-indulgent show. But I also think that if that version of the show is gone, then the one in its place should stop pretending as if it's some deeper meditation on human nature or whatever, and ditch the supposed character-focused episodes, focusing instead on action-packed post-apocalyptic zombie thrills. I'd be fine with that. But let's not pretend that the show is something else, something thoughtful. It's not. Not anymore. And if that's the case, then let's ditch the meanderings and put in more straight-up action. If the show's not gonna take itself seriously, at least focus more on the thrills and quit slowing everything down with the "And now TWD's rendition of Lord of the Rings: More Walking."
 
Yes, but any death would serve that purpose. My point is that the show goes to lengths to demonstrate just how really gory and brutal the death is, and it passes a point where the show is reminding us of how cruel the world is, and trends into just reveling in the gore for its own sake or purely to shock.
See, I don't think they do enough of the big over the top gore to say that they are revelling in it. You got maybe 2 big shockers a season, which is why they stand out as over the top. If there was one of those sequences every episode I would agree with you completely. Although as I'm saying this I have to concede, that because they do it twice(ish) a season that is somewhat contrived, we are looking at season opener and closer usually.

On a personal level too, I am massively desensitised to gore through work, so maybe I don't react to it the same as others.



I haven't claimed otherwise with respect to the Negan kills. They serve a purpose. The thing is, at least from what I read, the whole "Let's go get an axe" thing is a perfect example of the show padding out a story to fill running time. It's completely extraneous. The comic doesn't do it at all. Negan kills Glenn, Rick is pissed, and yet he knows he has to back down in the moment. Time to move on. The story doesn't require a 10-15 min side journey complete with a fight vs. walkers to get the point across. It's just a sequence for the sake of filling time.

In the last few seasons we have seen Rick become very strong in his leadership, to the point of arrogance. I didn't feel that that was filler, it was a bully breaking down that strong character and knocking the arrogance out of him, a demonstration of the power he had over him.



You know what show handles this issue admirably? Game of Thrones. People die in that story, but it usually happens in a pretty fitting way. Stuff goes over the top, but again, it actually usually fits in context. GoT even knows how to handle implied gore. Think about the Mountain's duel where he crushes a dude's head with his hands. It's INCREDIBLY brutal, and yet...you actually don't see the head crush. Everyone thinks they did, but they didn't. They saw the guy's eyes start to bleed, then they cut back to the Mountain squeezing, we hear the skull shatter, blood spatters on the Mountain's face, everyone screams, and then they cut back to the aftermath. Which is still bloody and awful, but the key difference is the camera doesn't linger on the skull crushing....because it doesn't need to. It's a sequence that plays out mostly on the faces of the observers, because their reactions are what really matter, not the killshot itself. Compare that to most of the kills on TWD, and you'll see that it's quite different. TWD indulges in the gore. It puts you up close and personal with it. And it does so in a way that, often, is just about "Look at the gore! Isn't it INTENSE??!?!?" rather than about telling the story.

I've never been able to get into GOT. So I'm not familiar with it. I suppose though, I view the TWD universe as a violent one and am comfortable with the violence as they portray it and do think it is appropriate to both that world and within story. At this point we're just into personal preferences.


TWD when it started was a smarter, better show than your average horror film. Its characters were more believable and better written, the situations were less insane, and the show seemed to have its "moments" as a result not of some big action sequence or flashy death, but because of the cost of living in this world in a way that was just as often understated. People died all the time, often brutally and cruelly, but their deaths weren't showcased the way some have on the show. And it all got the point across that the world was dangerous and forever changed just fine. Moreover, the relentlessness of the death got that point across as all manner of characters would die.

In your average horror film, usually the point of the film is the flashy kills. The films are mostly vehicles to string together a thin narrative to showcase exploitative showy death.

AND THAT'S FINE, because horror films of that sort rarely pretend to be anything else. You go into a slasher flick knowing exactly what to expect, and you usually get it. Some masked, silent psycho (possibly themed around a holiday?) will slaughter horny, drug-and-booze-indulging teens in a variety of creative ways that occasionally may even border on humorous. That's the point. That's why you watch 'em.

TWD started as something that wasn't just about guessing who's gonna die this week, and showcasing flashy kills and such. Over time, though, it's morphed into...well...what it is. I think it's a shame that we've lost the smarter, less self-indulgent show. But I also think that if that version of the show is gone, then the one in its place should stop pretending as if it's some deeper meditation on human nature or whatever, and ditch the supposed character-focused episodes, focusing instead on action-packed post-apocalyptic zombie thrills. I'd be fine with that. But let's not pretend that the show is something else, something thoughtful. It's not. Not anymore. And if that's the case, then let's ditch the meanderings and put in more straight-up action. If the show's not gonna take itself seriously, at least focus more on the thrills and quit slowing everything down with the "And now TWD's rendition of Lord of the Rings: More Walking."

The thing I've always liked about the zombie apocalypse is the logistical problems. How are they going to solve the issues etc. Thats how I've viewed TWD, its watching how people survive and how they overcome. I never thought of it as anything that cerebral in the first place. On that point, I do find it infuriating that the characters don't evolve and make stupid decisions (check the season 6 thread for my rant on herding walkers out the quarry)

Plus as a zombie show it does have to straddle that line in the demographic to bring in the zombie fans,horror fans etc
 
I've never read any of the comics, so are the comics still running? Did they end?
Just yesterday I was reading about Negan in the comics. He first came out in issue 100 back in 2012. He is still alive in the comics today that are still coming out. So I expect the show to REALLY drag his character out now.
 
Just yesterday I was reading about Negan in the comics. He first came out in issue 100 back in 2012. He is still alive in the comics today that are still coming out. So I expect the show to REALLY drag his character out now.
I'm a big fan of negan. In all honesty, it's hard to top the governor for villains. But they developed negan well enough that it was a different type of villain.

And they've done a great job on the show getting us to see the full strength of negan's gang. There is still more to come, too. Especially when we get to king ezekial.

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
 
Umm I can remember the past. The same people that are done watching the show after the opener are the same people that were done after the cliffhanger. They were done numerous times during last season. They were probably done the season before that.

A lot of people are tired of a bigger, badder threat turning up over and over. What would you prefer? Just going around killing the same zombies week in an week out? Or would you prefer the zombies to start evolving and offering more of a threat? Aliens perhaps? There has to be an antagonist or there is no story.

Well I agree with you on that, if they say they're going to quit watching they should just do it. I'm proud to say that every TV show or movie series I've vowed to stop watching I've actually stopped watching. I don't give a crap if everyone else is talking about a show, I don't need to stay on the bandwagon for fear of missing something, as far as the Walking Dead is concerned there is nothing more to see.

I realize that the show needs an antagonist I just find the way Walking Dead is portraying them to be a bit repetitive and dreary. I guess for me the cycle that the show has to follow is not interesting enough to keep me watching. The character arcs went nowhere, they keep doing idiotic things, and it appears that they're just going in circles.

That's it for me and the dead, on to more inspiring (hopefully) entertainment...
 
So they screw the audience by making a cliffhanger last season, and then **** on them further by making them wait another 20 minutes for the first to die. Screw them.
 
It is entirely possible to have a well-written, compelling narrative without a "bigger, badder" external threat every season. It's called psychology. The literary term is man vs self, or man vs nature, if you want to focus on the survival elements of privation and the struggle to sustain one's group.

Bring the narrative back down. Condense it. Make it personal again. Focus on the individuals in this group and their interactions instead of bringing in ever-more-insane external forces against them.

They've done this before. They did it on the farm. They did it in the prison. And people complained that it was boring. Personally, I like both aspects. That's why the show still works for me.

I've never read any of the comics, so are the comics still running? Did they end?

Yes, they are still going strong.

You know what show handles this issue admirably? Game of Thrones. People die in that story, but it usually happens in a pretty fitting way. Stuff goes over the top, but again, it actually usually fits in context. GoT even knows how to handle implied gore. Think about the Mountain's duel where he crushes a dude's head with his hands. It's INCREDIBLY brutal, and yet...you actually don't see the head crush. Everyone thinks they did, but they didn't. They saw the guy's eyes start to bleed, then they cut back to the Mountain squeezing, we hear the skull shatter, blood spatters on the Mountain's face, everyone screams, and then they cut back to the aftermath. Which is still bloody and awful, but the key difference is the camera doesn't linger on the skull crushing....because it doesn't need to. It's a sequence that plays out mostly on the faces of the observers, because their reactions are what really matter, not the killshot itself. Compare that to most of the kills on TWD, and you'll see that it's quite different. TWD indulges in the gore. It puts you up close and personal with it. And it does so in a way that, often, is just about "Look at the gore! Isn't it INTENSE??!?!?" rather than about telling the story.

This is actually a bad example because it was almost EXACTLY how the deaths occurred in TWD. You see Negan hit them over the head. You then see the aftermath of that first hit. You never actually see Lucille crushing their skulls. While that's happening it's a view from behind Negan, or reaction shots, or shots of the bat arcing through the air. Then you see the aftermath. Almost exactly like this scene, and many more in GoT.

So they screw the audience by making a cliffhanger last season, and then **** on them further by making them wait another 20 minutes for the first to die. Screw them.

Do you have an example of a show that didn't leave you with a cliffhanger at the end of a season?
 
I'm kind of an outsider looking in on this - lost interest in TWD somewhere around season 4, I guess - but just going by some of the comments here I wonder if TWD feels it has to compete with GOT now for shock, controversy and youtube reaction videos.
 
I'm kind of an outsider looking in on this - lost interest in TWD somewhere around season 4, I guess - but just going by some of the comments here I wonder if TWD feels it has to compete with GOT now for shock, controversy and youtube reaction videos.

More likely they are following what transpired in the comic. Glenn's death on the show was identical to the comic including the popped out eye.
 
I think the best path they could have gone down is to have ended last season with Abraham's death....and then to have killed Glenn in the first five minutes of this season

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
i cant believe all the hate towards the opening episode. again i am not a fan so my opinion doesnt count. but all my friends loved it and they cant stop talking about it. i have to agree with many members heres posts about the long dragged out episode, and teasing. but after reading many of the links its surprises me how many fans are upset after seeing how many of my friends are charged up
 
I wonde how much the show's ratings would go down if all the hate-watchers actually quit?

*Moans* - we didn't get to see who got their head smashed in :( :(
*Moans* - we got to see too much of who got their head smashed in :( :(
*Moans* - there's not enough action, too much boring character stuff :( :(
*Moans* - there's too much character stuff, not enough action :( :(
*Moans* - I stopped watching ages ago, but I know what's happening and I'm going to carry on moaning.:( :(

And in my case, *Moans* I still like watching, still enjoy it, still like moaning about it :( :(
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top