Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    The Walking Dead « previous next »
Author Topic: The Walking Dead  (Read 20297 times)
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 ... 19 Print
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #440 on: 03-14-2012 01:09 »
« Last Edit on: 03-18-2012 16:16 by totalnerduk »

Okay futurefreak, you need to watch a total of five essential movies to bring yourself up to speed.

Firstly, watch Night of the Living Dead. Then, watch either the remade Dawn of the Dead or the original. Both have good and bad points. I think the remake is slightly better, and I'm certain that most people will hate that opinion. Meh. Next on your list should be Invasion of the Bodysnatchers, which is not an actual zombie film, but deals with the spread of "infection". The 1973 remake is my recommended version here.

Next you'll want to watch Shaun of the Dead, and then you have a choice. You can round out the list with 28 Days Later or Resident Evil to round out your zombie curriculum.

Then you'll be ready to properly experience any zombie movie or TV series that comes out in the future.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #441 on: 03-14-2012 01:15 »
« Last Edit on: 03-14-2012 01:21 »

I thought the Dawn Of The Dead remake was well done, certain aspects about it I don't like, but overall it's a good zombie film. Day Of The Dead is my favorite of the original trilogy, though.

The 1978 (not 1973 confused) Invasion of The Body Snatchers is definitely a great film, not sure if it's essential watching for the zombie genre, though. It's must-see sci-fi, for sure.

Also, putting 28 Days Later and Resident Evil as equal options is a joke. 28 Days Later is a brilliantly scary film, Resident Evil is a mediocre popcorn flick.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #442 on: 03-14-2012 01:30 »

Resident Evil is one of the worst films ever made. The sequels somehow manage to be even worse.

Watch Romero's original Dead trilogy (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead) and you'll be as up to speed with the genre as you need to be. The Evil Dead trilogy is also must-see cinema, but they're not exactly "true" zombie films. I mean, they are zombie films but they don't embody many of the genre tropes, conventions or general tones.

If you want to see some more good zombie films, I highly recommend Shaun of the Dead, Re-Animator, Braindead, Zombieland, I Walked with a Zombie, [Rec] and the Dawn of the Dead remake (not as good as the original, but still a good effort).

And I suppose 28 Days Later... is culturally significant enough to warrant watching although it is essentially just an unofficial remake of Day of the Dead with some elements from The Day of the Triffids and Dawn of the Dead thrown in.

And personally, I'm a fan of Pet Sematary but with that, we're getting into more obscure stuff. If you develop a taste for the genre, get back to me and I'll give you further recommendations.


But yes, the Resident Evil movies are cinematic abominations.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #443 on: 03-14-2012 04:31 »


Yes, but the first one does have a couple of redeeming qualities.  Milla Jovovich + cold water makes something more inviting than virus zombies...

In any case, it was supposed to be an homage to the video game, for the fans.

cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #444 on: 03-14-2012 05:02 »

Yes, and it completely failed as both that and a film on its own merits.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #445 on: 03-14-2012 06:39 »

That's your opinion.  Yet, the series has been commercially viable enough to spawn 4 sequels (probably a fifth one too).

Also, Walking Dead does not necessarily follow the conventions of the Living Dead trilogy.  The zombie phenomena in those movies is attributed to all sorts of crazy shit including meteor radiation.  The CDC episodes clearly imply that the Walking Dead zombies are caused by some sort of bloodborne pathogen, but the writers are clearly making up rules as they go along.  Furthermore, later Living Dead installments follow even more complicated mechanisms than the not-explained-at-all forms in the first three Living Dead movies.

28 Days Later (not necessarily a true zombie movie) is probably the closest realistic explanation for zombies, and does a good job explaining enough why people are turning into (for lack of a better term) zombies.  Walking Dead seemed to be following this up with the end of season one, and then dropped it in favor of not explaining anything.  It wouldn't be the first time they've decided to do something like that, or else all the characters would just waltz around wearing dead corpses.  Whether you're familiar with the Living Dead trilogy or the zombie genre in general, the mechanisms for the propagation of zombies are inherently confusing in Walking Dead, and this is almost definitely deliberate on the parts of the show runners and writers. 

As for tnuk's list.  Watch both Dawn of the Dead movies; they're both good in their own ways.  28 Days Later is a far better movie than Resident Evil, and you should definitely watch 28, where as the Resident Evil films are merely action movies meant to entertain on a lower subconscious level.

The original Resident Evil game is probably worth checking out... actually probably get a copy of RE:Make.  The movies themselves are 'ok' homages to the videogames.  There are certainly worse movie adaptations of videogames (Super Mare-ee-oh Brothers, and Doom off the top of my head), but the RE movie franchise tells a completely different story from the RE game.  Eventually the movie franchise and the game franchise cross over in a variety of ways, and each has their own pros and cons.  If you have nothing better to do and enjoy scifi action stuff, I'd say the Resident Evil movies are worth watching; just don't go into them expecting the most surreal and artistic cinema experience you've ever imagined and you should be fine.  All of the movies feature hot actresses and actors, so they've got that going for them too.

cyber_turnip's list is pretty decent too.  The Evil Dead trilogy is not zombies, slightly less so than Invasion of the Bodysnatchers (I have no idea why tnuk picked that), but it is a decent set of cult horror films.  I only suggest watching the first two though--Army of Darkness sets the franchise off in a completely different direction.  Also, Evil Dead I and Evil Dead II are the same movie, that's why you should watch both.

28 Days Later is not an unofficial remake of Day of the Dead btw.  Just because both films have soldiers in them doesn't mean that one is exactly like the other. The more prominent portions of 28 happen outside the soldier encampment, and 28 features great landscape shots and visceral atmospheric motifs, as well as a half-way decent emotional connection between the viewers and the characters.  It may not be a zombie movie, but it tells a better story character wise, in my opinion, than most zombie movies hope to achieve.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #446 on: 03-14-2012 14:37 »
« Last Edit on: 03-18-2012 02:39 »

That's your opinion.  Yet, the series has been commercially viable enough to spawn 4 sequels (probably a fifth one too).
Futurama was deemed to not be commercially viable at one point and yet I don't think that makes it bad. Twilight on the other hand is a cash-cow.

Quote
Also, Walking Dead does not necessarily follow the conventions of the Living Dead trilogy.  The zombie phenomena in those movies is attributed to all sorts of crazy shit including meteor radiation.  The CDC episodes clearly imply that the Walking Dead zombies are caused by some sort of bloodborne pathogen, but the writers are clearly making up rules as they go along.  Furthermore, later Living Dead installments follow even more complicated mechanisms than the not-explained-at-all forms in the first three Living Dead movies.
All I know is that Robert Kirkman was always very open about his zombies following Romero's rules and logically the show will follow the comic. That said, I can't see the zombies in The Walking Dead learning to the same degree as zombies in Romero's later efforts.

Quote
The original Resident Evil game is probably worth checking out... actually probably get a copy of RE:Make.
If you're going to play a Resident Evil game, play Resident Evil 4.

Quote
The Evil Dead trilogy is not zombies
They're people possessed by demons which are arguably zombies in that they're active without being truly conscious. Plus, half of them are dead and re-animated by their demonic possession - especially in Army of Darkness which is my favourite of the three, personally. It turns the franchise into something of a self-parody and ditches all semblance of horror but I'm totally down with that.

Quote
Also, Evil Dead I and Evil Dead II are the same movie, that's why you should watch both.
Surely that's an argument to only watch one of them?

Quote
28 Days Later is not an unofficial remake of Day of the Dead btw.  Just because both films have soldiers in them doesn't mean that one is exactly like the other. The more prominent portions of 28 happen outside the soldier encampment, and 28 features great landscape shots and visceral atmospheric motifs, as well as a half-way decent emotional connection between the viewers and the characters.
Even if you don't see it as a rip-off to the same extent as me, you've got to admit that they're similar.

Quote
It may not be a zombie movie
28 Days Later... absolute is a zombie movie.

Zombies don't necessarily have to be dead by definition; that's a modern bastardisation of the word brought about by a misunderstanding of its meaning perpetuated by zombie movies.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #447 on: 03-14-2012 15:50 »
« Last Edit on: 03-14-2012 15:57 »

You're right, 28 Days Later and Day Of The Dead are very similar. Now edit that post so that it doesn't spoil them both for people who haven't seen them. hmpf

Honestly, as far as Randi goes, I'd simply recommend the Dawn Of The Dead remake and 28 Days Later. Both are more recent films that are easier to get through for someone who might not necessarily enjoy watching older films, while being good introductions to the serious zombie genre and good films on their own merits. And then Shaun Of The Dead, of course. That goes without saying. Those three movies should be enough without overwhelming you.

Watching any of the original trilogy (which are certainly classics of the horror genre) is something I would recommend doing with a group of friends who enjoy them, rather than just by yourself, unless you really like watching older films. I'd just venture a guess that Randi is not one of those people who prefers to spend her free alone time watching films from the 70s.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #448 on: 03-14-2012 19:50 »

I'd argue that the Evil Dead series is about deadites (it's even arguable whether or not the people are possessed by demons as it were; the series tangents toward pantheistic beliefs in its roots) which are distinctly different from zombies in most senses of the word.

Resident Evil (the original) is a fantastic game; since we're talking about zombies, it's also a better choice in the series than RE 4.  However, RE 4 is a fantastic game as well, of course.  (spoiler: it has nothing to do with zombies)

As for the RE movies: I found them entertaining.  I also didn't expect much from them other than action, ridiculous science, gore, and hotties.  That series of movie delivers on all of those accounts, and as long as you don't look further than that, I'd say they're worth watching.

I can whole heartedly agree that there are similarities between 28 Days Later and Day of the Dead, and admit that many scenes in 28 Days Later are clear references to the latter movie.  However, my argument is that they are not the same movie, and unfortunately 28 Days Later is a better film, well worth watching on its rights in many respects.

I'm very tired of your racist remarks, JoshTheater.  Night of the Living Dead is a classic movie, and Duane Jones is a phenomenal actor who actually helped shaped that genre of film into commentary on society and its role in facilitating individuality.  I'd appreciate it if you could stop making snide remarks about the importance of black people in classic cinema.  Everybody should watch Night of the Living Dead, especially children (Fuck you Roger Ebert), and I have a copy and everybody can come over and watch it with me.

Lastly, I enjoyed the last episode of Walking Dead, and Shane will be missed.  I think Shane's biggest problem was that he was unappreciated and he came to know things of which he could never have.  The problems Shane made in the group could have easily been solved, in my opinion, if Rick had let him know that he appreciated the things he did, which ultimately saved Rick's life, his wife on numerous occasions, and even his son at the cost of another individual's life.  Shane was very misunderstood, and one of the better characters on the show.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #449 on: 03-17-2012 02:02 »

Thanks for all the helpful reviews guys, I am sure my friend has almost all if not all of them...maybe I can convince him to do a zombie marathon day like his other marathon days...

Good points about Shane, winna. As I said in my review to the previous episode, Shane was good to have around because he was able to make those quick decisions, albeit sometimes considered slightly skewed morally in a perfect non-zombie apocalypse world, in order to save the group that Rick wasn't able to make. Shane never would have had to drag the kid to the woods and break his neck had Rick just shot the kid as an act of mercy to spare him the zombies to begin with. It was pretty unbelievable when he was commanding Hershel to perform surgery on him when he was stuck when they didn't have time for that...

In a perfect world, yes that would have been the right decision for Rick. But he brought back this guy to this whole group, not just him. And that I think was irresponsible on Rick's part. If Rick was a solo traveler and still wanted to save him, then that would have been his decision to make and risk his own well being to save this newbie. But not when it involves other people, and especially someone else's own shelter/farm who has allowed him to stay for that long.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #450 on: 03-18-2012 02:48 »

You're right, 28 Days Later and Day Of The Dead are very similar. Now edit that post so that it doesn't spoil them both for people who haven't seen them. hmpf
Apologies, done.

Resident Evil (the original) is a fantastic game; since we're talking about zombies, it's also a better choice in the series than RE 4.  However, RE 4 is a fantastic game as well, of course.  (spoiler: it has nothing to do with zombies)
They absolutely are zombies just as the infected in 28 Days Later... are zombies.[/quote]

Quote
As for the RE movies: I found them entertaining.  I also didn't expect much from them other than action, ridiculous science, gore, and hotties.  That series of movie delivers on all of those accounts, and as long as you don't look further than that, I'd say they're worth watching.
I agree; if you have no taste, they're worth watching.

Quote
Everybody should watch Night of the Living Dead, especially children (Fuck you Roger Ebert)
I absolutely agree with this. It's one of the most important films of all time so far as I'm concerned but I suppose you have to be a film-fan for that to really be relevant. Still, it had a huge impact on cinema in general and is a classic in every sense of the word.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #451 on: 03-18-2012 03:48 »

You're right, 28 Days Later and Day Of The Dead are very similar. Now edit that post so that it doesn't spoil them both for people who haven't seen them. hmpf
Apologies, done.

No worries. I didn't mean to sound like I was ordering you around, sorry about that.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #452 on: 03-18-2012 17:11 »

I'd like to clarify something. The list I gave futurefreak was not intended to be a list of "good" zombie movies. Not even a list of zombie movies. More like a list of the necessary pop-culture background to the whole "zombie fiction" thing.

The choices I gave have reasoning behind them. If futurefreak is drawn towards the more modern, flashy, mile-a-minute sort of a film, she'll enjoy the remake of Dawn of the Dead. She'll also probably pick Resident Evil over 28 Days Later. If she's more into the actual sensation of creeping menace with bursts of action like the original Dawn or 28 Days, she'll have more enjoyment with those.

It's not to say that she can't go watch the others later, just that if she's going to give herself an introduction to the genre of zombie movies, she needs to have an enjoyable and entertaining one. So I've left her choices.

I've also included Bodysnatchers because it's a different kind of film that focuses on the same problem. The spread of infection or contamination in a society totally unready for it, the removal of emotion and feeling from a population and the struggle of survivors in the hostile environment that results. Plus, it's got one of the actors from Star Trek in it, and Futurama have made quite a few references to it. She will particularly enjoy it for those reasons.

Honestly, as far as Randi goes, I'd simply recommend the Dawn Of The Dead remake and 28 Days Later. Both are more recent films that are easier to get through for someone who might not necessarily enjoy watching older films, while being good introductions to the serious zombie genre and good films on their own merits. And then Shaun Of The Dead, of course. That goes without saying. Those three movies should be enough without overwhelming you.

You may have a point.

28 Days Later... absolute is a zombie movie.

Zombies don't necessarily have to be dead by definition; that's a modern bastardisation of the word brought about by a misunderstanding of its meaning perpetuated by zombie movies.

In that case, Bodysnatchers is a zombie film. But, there's a problem with this thinking.

The word zombie literally means re-animated corpse. I suggest reading through the Wikipedia article if you're confused. It is allegorically applied to people in various states such as catatonia or fugue. It is used in a figurative sense to denote mindlessness of one degree or another. These are modern bastardisations of the word.

Somebody who is literally a zombie has died, and has been brought back to life. Either by some kind of dark magic, or a biological vector. The zombies from Romero's films have all been confused to some degree or another with what they were symbolising/satirising at the time. They're still ambulatory dead people. That's all a zombie is. Applying the term figuratively or allegorically or metaphorically to various still-living people seems to have become popular, but is not correct.

The tendancy for people to get all metaphysical about what constitutes being a zombie is the real modern bastardisation. These people tend to be ill-informed about the origins of the term zombie, amongst other things, and view "modern" as meaning "recent". In actual fact, the "modern" corruption of the term is older than the "recent" trend of describing zombies more correctly.

In short, a zombie is a re-animated corpse. Vampires are technically zombies. Frankenstein's monster is a zombie. Romero's zombies are zombies (not communists or mindless consumers). The people in Bodysnatchers are alien duplicates of the originals. The people in 28 Days are living people infected with the rage virus. Resident Evil portrays zombies and non-zombies over the course of the series (in fact, it is an example of a different genre. Survival horror. This utilises zombies but is not exclusively dependant on them to provide the horror or the context for survival).

Anybody who insists that 28 Days is a zombie film can go fuck themselves with something spiky. It's bloody well not. It may be a loving tribute to several zombie films. It may be an excellent piece of cinema. It may share several elements in common with zombie fiction but it does not feature zombies except perhaps in an allegorical sense. Which is in no way something that makes it a zombie movie. Film students can frame all the counter-arguments they like, but none will ever get past the fact that a zombie is a re-animated corpse and 28 Days doesn't feature any re-animated corpses.

Saying "zombies don't have to be dead" is just plain fucking wrong, and should be treated with the derision, scorn, and outright contempt that it deserves. It's just another example of how our society seems to think that it's okay to re-interpret anything it likes as it sees fit, without regard for the original intent. Context gets lost.

Context, in many cases (and especially here) is everything. Without the context that a zombie is a re-animated corpse, you could make all sorts of ridiculous arguments as to what constitutes a zombie. You could even say that we're all zombies right now. Mindless slaves to popular opinion and so forth. roll eyes

The zombie trilogy by David Wellington needs to be made into a TV series. That's probably the best zombie fiction I've read (and I've read a lot of zombie fiction).

As to The Walking Dead, I am sorely tempted to begin watching it. I only stayed with it for the first couple of episodes, originally. Now I'm thinking perhaps that was an error in judgement and I should give it another chance.

Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #453 on: 03-18-2012 17:25 »
« Last Edit on: 03-18-2012 17:31 »

Hey, are the zombies the protagonists of this series?  Because they are the only one I am rooting for.

The only reason I use the 'bastardisation' of the word 'zombie' is because as you mention yourself, vampires would be zombies.  But 're-animated corpses' are often called 'undead'.  Why have two words for the same meaning?  I agree that vampires are undead, but I don't think they are zombies.

Zombies - to me at least - is useful for a term that affects a lot of people (not just individuals) of some sort of mindless virus where they do things without much thought.  If they are undead or not is unimportant to me.  Especially when it comes to the format of a gaming genre.

There are lot of them.  They are coming at you.  You cannot reason with them.  You need to kill them.  Zombies.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #454 on: 03-18-2012 17:34 »

Unfortunately for you, your usage is a figurative or allegorical one. They're only zombies if they are re-animated corpses.

Since vampires have died and become re-animated, they are zombies. However, whilst all vampires may be zombies, not all zombies are vampires. Your non-literal use of the term is incorrect, and therefore you identify some creatures that are not or may not be zombies, as zombies.

This ought to bother you. It really should.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #455 on: 03-18-2012 17:37 »

It really doesn't.  What bothers me is that there are two words meaning the same thing.  And I don't like that.

This is one example of a new meaning that is far more appropriate and useful than its old meaning.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #456 on: 03-18-2012 17:48 »

<svip> "Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person."

You have a point there. Not all vampires are zombies, I'll give you that. What we have is not two words meaning the same thing, but a word that's subject to some ambiguity.

Whilst you may consider your usage of the word "zombie" more appropriate and useful than the correct usage, cosider this:

"Zombie" refers to a class of undead monster. A corpse that has been restored to a semblance of life (or at the very least, motion). It is an umbrella term (heh. Umbrella. Zombies. Get it? No? Go play Resident Evil again).

To dilute the meaning of "zombie" further and apply it to groups of living people displaying obsessive, mindless or group-mind behaviour means that we lose specificity. From a term that is already somewhat ambiguous. Eventually "zombie" could come to mean almost anything if this trend continues.

I do not like this idea. I like words to mean what they mean, and for people to apply them correctly. There is no redundancy here. "Zombie" has a specific application as a word, and means "re-animated corpse". That is the literal definition. Your informal (allegorical, metaphorical or figurative) sense of the word undermines that somewhat, and is indicative of a trend to "pollute" language with ambiguity.

You wouldn't stand for the same thing being done to a flag.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #457 on: 03-18-2012 17:51 »

To dilute the meaning of "zombie" further and apply it to groups of living people displaying obsessive, mindless or group-mind behaviour means that we lose specificity.

This right here is a useful meaning to have one term for.  Because it occurs rather often.  But we cannot use the term 'sheep', because we agree that sheep is a different kind of mindlessness, yes?

So if you don't us using 'zombies' for this, what do you propose?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #458 on: 03-18-2012 17:58 »
« Last Edit on: 03-18-2012 18:07 by totalnerduk »

But we cannot use the term 'sheep', because we agree that sheep is a different kind of mindlessness, yes?

To describe people as "sheep" indicates that they are following the herd (ie: doing the same things as their neighbours and trying to be as unindividual as possible). I would agree that this is a different type of "unthinking" than the current informal usage of the word "zombie".

"Crowds" is a word that exists, and refers to large numbers of individuals. The term "crowd mentality" also refers to mindlessness. As does "mob mentalilty"... which brings us to the term "mob". Think along those lines and there are plenty of words to choose from. Why bastardise others?

We already have words for these things, it's just that people seem determined to sensationalise things by referring to crowds or mobs of people as "zombies" and thus introduce overtones or undertones of terror or horror into the phrase to serve their own ends.
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #459 on: 03-18-2012 18:05 »

Isn't mob just another kind of sheep, i.e. a sheep that actually takes action?  I don't think the kind of 'unthinking' that zombie films are famous for are covered by any of these terms, I'm afraid.

You also forgot to close your brackets.
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #460 on: 03-18-2012 18:11 »

Brackets closed. Thanks.

A mob is a large collection of people behaving as one, unquestioning of their de facto leadership or without leadership entirely. They do not have to take action. All that is required of a mob is that it exist. It needn't exist in a physical "crowd" form, either. A mob can be composed of people across the world, banding together via the internet to "like" pages on Facebook, for example.

It's just a word for a packed, seething mass of humanity that threatens to overwhelm the rest of us (as well as having had their own common sense overwhelmed by participation).

It fits rather well for the "unthinking" and "mindless" masses you described IMO. YMMV, of course. The important thing to bear in mind is that it is more correct than calling them "zombies" (although to simply call them "infected" would certainly be as fitting as calling them a "mob" if they have been caught up in the throes of an idea, or affected by an infectious agent like a virus).
Svip

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #461 on: 03-18-2012 18:15 »
« Last Edit on: 03-18-2012 18:16 »

Yeah, I can settle for 'infected'.  Because they usually are to be these kind of mobs.

Especially in games you need some sort of way to convince you that - unlike a member of a regular mob - these 'people' cannot be reasoned with.  And 'infected' captures that meaning as well.

Left 4 Dead makes a point of calling them 'infected' rather than 'zombies' (although the characters do call them 'zombies'), and separates them into categories: 'Common infected', 'Uncommon infected' and 'Special infected'.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #462 on: 03-19-2012 05:44 »

So...fans of the comics are going to be pretty damn happy.

And I am too. The series just got a crap ton darker, and I love it.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #463 on: 03-19-2012 07:48 »

Nice finale, but the action in the beginning seemed unbelievable at times. Like how Rick and Carl were way ahead of the zombies then in the next second they caught up. What the...?

Also, so that IS what CDC guy told Rick. I was wrong. But why/how did he not realize/hear Shane had turned in that scene and Carl had to save him (other than for the sake of having some similarity with the comic)?

Excited for that new character at the end. Already seen the action figure, so I know the character is...
Zmithy

Professor
*
« Reply #464 on: 03-19-2012 11:59 »
« Last Edit on: 03-19-2012 12:00 »

Love the look of that new character, all kinds of creepy.

I'm glad that Hershel made it out. Don't put good odds on him surviving for too much longer, but it'll be nice to have him in the show for a bit longer,

Also, T-Dogg is the smartest character and totally right... in terms of simple logic, anyway. Get out to the coast, on to a boat, it's the most defensible position possible against a land-based enemy, and also mobile. if you can make it on to an off-shore oil rig, even better, limit on-land activity to raiding for supplies.

On the other hand, all the people on the coast probably had that idea already, and armed humans are way more dangerous than zombies, so T-Dogg is back to being an idiot. tongue

Also, if this show was set in India, they totally would have been able to all fit in that one car.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #465 on: 03-19-2012 19:58 »

Also, so that IS what CDC guy told Rick. I was wrong. But why/how did he not realize/hear Shane had turned in that scene and Carl had to save him (other than for the sake of having some similarity with the comic)?

Didn't he explain this in his speech at the end? He didn't really believe what Jenner had told him until the whole Shane thing happened.
i_c_weiner

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #466 on: 03-19-2012 20:22 »

Nothing too big came out of this episode. It was more like a prologue to next season than a finale for this one. The big finale-type surprises had already been dealt with in the previous episode (people turn into zombies when they die regardless of how they die, the farm was going to be overrun, they have to start anew probably). The other points, like Michonne and the prison, were more teasers than twists. You got to see Michonne with her chained walkers, sure, but that was it. And the survivors doesn't even know they're near the prison yet. It was a good prologue, but not a great finale.

Also, aw, T Dog got some lines! It's nice that they've decided to finally do this after a season without any lines!
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #467 on: 03-19-2012 20:31 »

The other points, like Michonne and the prison, were more teasers than twists.

Without qualifying that that's true only from the perspective of someone familiar with the comic series, that's an unfair assessment. It is true for those familiar with the comics, but for those who aren't familiar with them they were absolutely twists, as they were introductions of totally unexpected story elements...which is pretty much the definition of a twist.
fryfanSpyOrama

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #468 on: 03-19-2012 23:32 »

awesome ending, can't wait for season 3.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #469 on: 03-20-2012 04:40 »

Also, so that IS what CDC guy told Rick. I was wrong. But why/how did he not realize/hear Shane had turned in that scene and Carl had to save him (other than for the sake of having some similarity with the comic)?

Didn't he explain this in his speech at the end? He didn't really believe what Jenner had told him until the whole Shane thing happened.
But if you were in that position...and had seen the two security guards from that previous episode without bite marks (but with supposed scratch marks)...would you really let your guard down even for a second, considering the consequences? I felt it a lazy explanation for having Rick AND Carl be the ones to kill Shane, so to speak, to align at least part of it like the comic. Don't get me wrong - I appreciated the outcome (Carl killing undead Shane) but don't see how Rick couldn't at least had heard him coming in the grass...maybe my senses are just more defined (I am one of those people who can sense when someone is in my doorway when my back is turned, or in this case of a few nights ago, sleeping [don't ask]). I would think though in that post-apocalyptic scenario that your senses would grow and learn to feel hear and see everything that could be a threat but who knows...
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #470 on: 03-20-2012 16:37 »

Also, so that IS what CDC guy told Rick. I was wrong. But why/how did he not realize/hear Shane had turned in that scene and Carl had to save him (other than for the sake of having some similarity with the comic)?

Didn't he explain this in his speech at the end? He didn't really believe what Jenner had told him until the whole Shane thing happened.
But if you were in that position...and had seen the two security guards from that previous episode without bite marks (but with supposed scratch marks)

Hm...I don't even remember this part. Jog my memory?
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #471 on: 03-20-2012 19:10 »

Sure. It was two or three episodes prior, when Rick and Shane are driving Randall off to ditch him at the city grounds. They approach the fence and see two (albeit skinny) security guard walkers. They draw blood so they come up to the fence so they can kill them up close silently rather than use ammo from a distance. One of the two guys (don't remember who) remarks that these walkers have no bite marks - but they have scratches it seems. They seem curious about how that could be, but quickly move on to try and dump off Randall.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #472 on: 03-20-2012 23:26 »

I think they just assumed that the infection could be passed through scratches as well as bites. That's the way it works in most zombie fiction too.
airbagfailure

Space Pope
****
« Reply #473 on: 03-26-2012 12:21 »

I hate how everyone just wants Rick to solve everything.
And when he's trying to be logical they all get upset about stuff.

Why was his wife all pissed off about what happened with Shane? He was gonna kill him! it had to be done.  Would she have gathered Shane had killed Rick? She does have a bit of a charmed life, doesn't she? (considering the situation)..... bah.

Also Undead is one of my favourite Zombie films.
futurefreak

salutatory committee member
DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #474 on: 03-26-2012 21:04 »

Yeah I was annoyed at Lori in that scene, specifically because a couple of episodes ago she was doing the whole Lady Macbeth thing whispering in his ear how bad he was and possibly alluding to the notion that he needed to be taken care of.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #475 on: 03-26-2012 21:06 »
« Last Edit on: 03-26-2012 21:07 »

I think she was most upset about the fact that Rick allowed Carl to shoot zombie Shane, which is kind of reasonable. Why Rick felt it was necessary to divulge that information to her, along with the whole "I wanted him dead" thing, I don't know...he could have easily left that stuff out.

She's still a bitch, though.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #476 on: 03-27-2012 00:51 »
« Last Edit on: 03-27-2012 00:53 »

But we cannot use the term 'sheep', because we agree that sheep is a different kind of mindlessness, yes?

To describe people as "sheep" indicates that they are following the herd (ie: doing the same things as their neighbours and trying to be as unindividual as possible). I would agree that this is a different type of "unthinking" than the current informal usage of the word "zombie".

"Crowds" is a word that exists, and refers to large numbers of individuals. The term "crowd mentality" also refers to mindlessness. As does "mob mentalilty"... which brings us to the term "mob". Think along those lines and there are plenty of words to choose from. Why bastardise others?

We already have words for these things, it's just that people seem determined to sensationalise things by referring to crowds or mobs of people as "zombies" and thus introduce overtones or undertones of terror or horror into the phrase to serve their own ends.

That's how the evolution of language operates.  Furthermore, I like the idea of creatively expressing ideas by combining different words in an abstract collage like analogy in an attempt to bring about a more acute understand of the idea being expressed.  <---- Sucks that you couldn't do it with that sentence, amirite?  You could use the word 'idea' like 15 times though, fucking asshole.

Also, so that IS what CDC guy told Rick. I was wrong. But why/how did he not realize/hear Shane had turned in that scene and Carl had to save him (other than for the sake of having some similarity with the comic)?

Didn't he explain this in his speech at the end? He didn't really believe what Jenner had told him until the whole Shane thing happened.
But if you were in that position...and had seen the two security guards from that previous episode without bite marks (but with supposed scratch marks)...would you really let your guard down even for a second, considering the consequences? I felt it a lazy explanation for having Rick AND Carl be the ones to kill Shane, so to speak, to align at least part of it like the comic. Don't get me wrong - I appreciated the outcome (Carl killing undead Shane) but don't see how Rick couldn't at least had heard him coming in the grass...maybe my senses are just more defined (I am one of those people who can sense when someone is in my doorway when my back is turned, or in this case of a few nights ago, sleeping [don't ask]). I would think though in that post-apocalyptic scenario that your senses would grow and learn to feel hear and see everything that could be a threat but who knows...

Totally agree with you.  It's stretching the imagination for us to believe Rick after being told that at that CDC didn't put two and two together with the security guards, but then magically did it with Shane.  It's not impossible, perhaps Rick's slow, but it does serve to make the audience go "wait what?"  In fact, this whole series as a whole does a good job of making you go "wait what?" rather than having a cohesive narrative; despite that facet, it's not unrealistic, and that's why even though I don't prefer it, it's difficult for me to argue completely against it.  

This goes deeper with the group interactions and how the characters are portrayed.  As an example, it's realistic that Rick didn't tell anybody what he heard at the CDC because he didn't want to frighten the group, but at the same time his reasoning was generally stupid and the way the situation was handled was stupid.  Same thing with Lori getting scared-pissy about Rick killing Shane; it was a realistic emotional reaction, but that just makes me think Lori is a dumb bitch.  Furthermore, all of the problems with Shane, in my mind, would have been easily solved if Rick had just told him, "Hey, you're my best friend, you're like my brother, and although I don't like the fact that you were with my wife, I honestly appreciate that you took care of my family when I couldn't.  I think you care about the well being of this group, and although I think your approach is a little hasty at times, I think you're willing to make sacrifices to insure that safety, and I appreciate that.  Can we try to work on being on the same level about this stuff and quit playing around with the alpha male bullshit?"  Randolf was another example... he could have easily been assimilated into the group, if they hadn't have tortured him. roll eyes

We can also add to that list, the fifty or so times any of the characters have mentioned "we live in a different world now" or "I don't know if I want to live in this world anymore".  Completely realistic responses from any individual, but they're completely childish and I'd expect a lot of these characters to be mature enough to have a different approach.  I expect this because I know they have to be interesting, cold, mature characters because they survived a fucking zombie apocalypse when 99% of the general population got fucking zed'ed.

I enjoyed the second half of season two though.  I think it made a lot of progress away from the complaints I've just made, even if they were still present to certain degrees.  The show is dramatic enough to keep my attention, and at this point, at least I have a basis to know the characters' names and identify with them somehow, which I believe season 1 failed to do.  The season finale for 2 was pretty awesome, and I'm genuinely interested to see what happens next.  Andrea's new friend was ... awesome ... however, it's completely different from how the rest of the show and characters have been portrayed.  I can forgive that for a character that wears a cloak and shackles two armless zombies to her legs; I can also forgive the strange logic of shackling two armless zombies to your legs for that amount of sheer awesome imagery.

Also Undead is one of my favourite Zombie films.

Suggestion heartily noted! big grin
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #477 on: 03-27-2012 16:05 »

Also Undead is one of my favourite Zombie films.

Suggestion heartily noted! big grin

Thankskilling is also worth some consideration; while not a strict zombie film per se, it falls under a broader category of survival-horror that fans of the zombie genre will certainly enjoy. The combination of realistic characters, gripping story, and painstakingly-crafted dialogue makes Thankskilling a must-see for any film aficionado.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #478 on: 03-27-2012 23:16 »

Also Undead is one of my favourite Zombie films.

Suggestion heartily noted! big grin

Thankskilling is also worth some consideration; while not a strict zombie film per se, it falls under a broader category of survival-horror that fans of the zombie genre will certainly enjoy. The combination of realistic characters, gripping story, and painstakingly-crafted dialogue makes Thankskilling a must-see for any film aficionado.

I wholeheartedly agree. You'll be gripped within the first five minutes.
airbagfailure

Space Pope
****
« Reply #479 on: 03-28-2012 07:35 »

There was talk that Lori was upset that Rick killed Shane and not the other way around.

It's the only logical explanation. She set the whole thing in motion by pretty much telling Rick that Shane needed to be put down cause he was hurting everyone and was obsessed with her.
What'd she expect?


Sounds like we're not the only ones annoyed with Lori...
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 ... 19 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.295 seconds with 17 queries.