The Walking Dead - AMC TV Series (spoilers everywhere)

the show's 'rules' actually illustrate how poorly written it is, if fire kills them as you say why wouldn't they just pour gasoline on the entire herd in the quarry and burn them the fuck up? by the time they even walked towards forrest or trees they'd probably already be dead. Secondly if we already know from the prison season that zombies can infect you with their fingernails/scratching you why is nobody ever afraid of hand to hand combat with zombies? Its fucking stupid.

it's fucking zombies, stop over thinking it.

but all other zombie movies even shitty ones don't have these types of inconsistencies. Its pretty remarkable how 'gritty' the walking dead universe is portraying itself with such unrealistic behavior, more unrealistic than say ZombieLand starring jessie Eisenberg. If Walking Dead was tongue in cheek I'd forgive it, but the ultra serious tone combined with very poor writing is a show implosion that is unstoppable.

none of that changes the fact that it's just fucking zombies.

zombies have to be the dumbest fictional invention of the modern age. doesn't mean they can't be fun, but come on...

nah. the best zombie fiction has always had an internal logic and parallels to the real world. it's been a means of exploring aspects of the human psyche and both individual & collective human behaviour, and in that respect it's one of the 20th century's best fictional creations.

the social commentary aspect of it has been a feature from the classic Night of the Living Dead all the way to 28 Days Later, which was the best new twist on the old concept. nothing has really raised the bar since then, and it's only now with weaksauce pseudo soap-opera bullshit like this that it's become a joke. I particularly despise TWD for being one of the final nails in the genre's coffin. I feel like zombie fic now needs go away for a while before someone can bring it back with something fresh.

yeah, I've always heard that said about the original movies. I always thought they were terrible though, so maybe that's why I'm so unbothered by the silliness of TWD.

1.columbo

2. tied - sopranos & neighbours

3.walking dead

so are you even a fan of zombie fiction? if you're not I don't see why you're even wasting your time with TWD.

  On 11/18/2015 at 12:23 PM, usagi said:

so are you even a fan of zombie fiction? if you're not I don't see why you're even wasting your time with TWD.

Not especially, I watch the show because I enjoy watching the show.

I liked the comic, and I find the show pretty entertaining despite some obvious flaws. I don't expect much from it in terms of the writing at this point. Not everything has to have the most detailed and believable characterisations, or even coherent realism, as long as there are other things to enjoy about it (since the uneven first season it has been well shot, acted, and directed for example).

  On 11/18/2015 at 7:02 AM, usagi said:

nah. the best zombie fiction has always had an internal logic and parallels to the real world. it's been a means of exploring aspects of the human psyche and both individual & collective human behaviour, and in that respect it's one of the 20th century's best fictional creations.

 

the social commentary aspect of it has been a feature from the classic Night of the Living Dead all the way to 28 Days Later, which was the best new twist on the old concept. nothing has really raised the bar since then, and it's only now with weaksauce pseudo soap-opera bullshit like this that it's become a joke. I particularly despise TWD for being one of the final nails in the genre's coffin. I feel like zombie fic now needs go away for a while before someone can bring it back with something fresh.

glad you mentioned 28 days later since i'd argue that movie holds up incredibly well for a couple of reasons (ones that jump to my mind at least)

- they showed that if zombie blood was infectious (as it is in walking dead) that getting any on you is not a smart idea. The part where the droplet of blood falls right onto the guy's eye was pretty genius.

- the 'bad guys' of 28 days later weren't just generic 'we want power' Governor style bad people, they were sex starved military brats who wanted to repopulate the world and hold females captive as sex slaves. Pretty clear cut and realistic motive. To me the lack of sexual assault or even borderline rapey stuff in Walking Dead in and of itself is unrealistic. Any remotely good looking or fertile female in an apocalyptic situation would be in danger

Good to know you're looking for the rapey-est of intentions with your post apocalyptic zombie soap-opera...

TBH I think they'd catch a ton of flack for that, however realistic it is. I totally agree with your take on the 28 days later blood drop scene - that movie is one of the best and most realistic zombie movies IMO.

  On 11/18/2015 at 8:26 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 11/18/2015 at 7:02 AM, usagi said:

nah. the best zombie fiction has always had an internal logic and parallels to the real world. it's been a means of exploring aspects of the human psyche and both individual & collective human behaviour, and in that respect it's one of the 20th century's best fictional creations.

 

the social commentary aspect of it has been a feature from the classic Night of the Living Dead all the way to 28 Days Later, which was the best new twist on the old concept. nothing has really raised the bar since then, and it's only now with weaksauce pseudo soap-opera bullshit like this that it's become a joke. I particularly despise TWD for being one of the final nails in the genre's coffin. I feel like zombie fic now needs go away for a while before someone can bring it back with something fresh.

glad you mentioned 28 days later since i'd argue that movie holds up incredibly well for a couple of reasons (ones that jump to my mind at least)

 

- they showed that if zombie blood was infectious (as it is in walking dead) that getting any on you is not a smart idea. The part where the droplet of blood falls right onto the guy's eye was pretty genius.

 

- the 'bad guys' of 28 days later weren't just generic 'we want power' Governor style bad people, they were sex starved military brats who wanted to repopulate the world and hold females captive as sex slaves. Pretty clear cut and realistic motive. To me the lack of sexual assault or even borderline rapey stuff in Walking Dead in and of itself is unrealistic. Any remotely good looking or fertile female in an apocalyptic situation would be in danger

 

Yeah, it was an exceptionally great take in terms of realism for such movies (they even showed the cause of infection in a couple of minutes in a pretty smart way, blaming both of the sides - those who secretly experiment and those who boldly fought against animal abuse, a bit overly moralistic yet still cool), aside from miraculous transformation of the protagonist into ninja to defeat the bad guys.

Writer Alex Garland went on to debut as a director for Ex Machina with some style. Would be interesting to see him do an action written by himself like 28 days later.

Dang I'm gonna have to watch the 28 days movies again, both of them are great. Really hope they get around to 28 months later, although with zomb overload lately it may be bad timing

"most realistic zombie movies" lol

sup w/the lol on that? It's just an opinion.

zombies are such a ridiculous concept, I just find it amusing to list realism as one of the things to look out for in the genre. how come when all the flesh rots off all the other parts of their bodies it doesn't damage the brain? eh? answer me that.

It's fantasy.

edit: The zombification in 28 Days Later is basically ultra-rabies, so I guess that's more realistic than radiation, magic or any of the usual explanations.

I'm not arguing or debating with ya bud. I do agree the notion is ludicrous. A corpse that had no circulation or is essentially animated dead would cease to function in any way and deteriorate even if somehow animated by an inside force (i.e. zombie virus or something)

Just saying, the way the world was in the 28 days movie was the most realistic in a zombie movie to my taste or idea of what would happen in that situation, if possible- going with JE's rapey-apocolypse comment.

It's just entertainment. One can find a level realism in anything and say something is the 'most realistic' even if it's far from real... realism is pretty much defined by individual perception, innit? I dunno

I know your opinion, now you know mine. Isn't this lovely Let us leave the logic-battles for threads that don't have something to do with a zombie drama on AMC, puhleeeeeze.

ha, wasn't trying to turn this into an all out logic war.

Good, let's hug it out now.

^ hugs are gay. what we need itt is a classic WATMM shitfight. ROUND 1...

  On 11/18/2015 at 9:03 PM, fletcher said:

Dang I'm gonna have to watch the 28 days movies again, both of them are great. Really hope they get around to 28 months later, although with zomb overload lately it may be bad timing

but 28 Weeks Later was watered-down ripoff bollix

Jeffrey Dean Morgan from Watchmen has been cast as Negan.

imo they totally fucked up the whole glen thing and also missed a lot of possible opportunities with it.

when glen fell his head was situated away from the thing he and that guy were standing on, but somehow when he's laying there he crawls under it as if his head was pointing back at it, unless i maybe missed it showing him somehow crawl back in that direction with a ton of zombies pulling at him? either way, it was totally cheating. tv shows/movies cheating with things like this, where they show you one thing and then kind of change what they showed you to get out of a problem they made, goes back to the old days. i kind of hate when they do it. i hated it about the game heavy rain where they had to sort of retroactively change what you saw to explain how the twist could be possible. imo its bad writing that ruins something that could've been cool had they put more thought into working it out in a more consistent with the established facts manner.

anyway, i think they clearly intended the fake glen death thing to be the cornerstone for this season since they dragged it out so long, and they totally fucked it up. was any one person at all surprised when they showed him again? the idiots couldn't even keep their own secret a secret for literally like 5 minutes because they had the talking dead guy basically clue you in that what you just saw may not have been what it looked like. is this a byproduct of our pussified PC society and the walking dead team assuming society couldn't handle a fake out of a 'favorite tv show character' being killed, so they had to soften the blow by giving us a wink and nudge right after? i mean what the fuck, why even do it, act like its a big part of the season, if they aren't even going to commit to it 50% of the way? i can't understand what logic went behind this at all.

one opportunity they totally blew is that even tho this kind of thing has been done by shows/movies forever, they had something none of those had, which is the chance to take the fake-out to a meta level. because they have that stupid talk show about the show, they could've brought glen's actor on, had him act like he really was killed off, then bring him back. that might've been lame in its own way but at least it would've been a unique thing, and also a more modern 'meta' way of doing the age old fake-out. can't believe how bad they fucked this up...

GLERB IS ALIIIIVEE!!1

The Glen fake-out was used by TWD crew as a tester to see how the audience is going to react to...

That outcome is the only way I could forgive them for this fake-out bullshit. If Glen is not used in the spoiler scene, seriously fuck that show.