AMC's The Walking Dead

Things I hope to see next season: Carl getting a haircut, Lennie James' character, an explanation of how long the zombie thing has been going on, and a train coming down the tracks (which might be tough given the tunnel situation, I realize but... )

 

I'm with you on Lennie James. I liked his character and James is a superb actor. He was great in Jericho.

 

I know the creators want to avoid it, but the Army guy and his scientist buddy create a chance to fill in some blanks that have never been filled.
Of course, if they wanted them filled, they would've been already.

 

Kirkman has said many times that he is not interested in delving into what caused the zombie Apocalypse or how it works. That is just a backdrop for him to tell stories.

I had a guess about the scientist, but I have since read about how that goes in the source material, so I will keep it to myself.

 

I know, but I still think that's a crap excuse and a real shortfall of the writing of the show.
I'm not interested in the comic books. I'm a TV viewer, and shortcomings of the comic book should not be an excuse for the shortcomings of the TV.

In many ways, it might be too late for some of the exposition, though. Rick's awakening from his coma was the time when we could've been given some background info. The visit to CDC could have provided some additional background info.
The army guy and the scientist should be a legitimate way to get in some exposition. One would expect the other survivors to have questions.

I hate when characters vomit exposition in the guise of forced dialogue; however, this show has had ample opportunities to provide some exposition organically.
The show refuses to provide such information. That's intentional. They're making a creative decision to not address it.
As a viewer, I believe that is the wrong decision.

 

Then don't watch. It isn't a flaw in the writing. It is a conscious choice by the writer. Kirkman is the one leading the way for both the comic and the show.

The details of the outbreak are irrelevant. That is just the setting, not the story.

 

Just because something is intentional doesn't mean it's a good decision.
How the audience responds is the overall benchmark as to whether a creative choice was a good one or a bad one.
In the mind of this audience member, the lack of exposition is a bad creative choice.

If I'm a chef, I might decide to put hot fudge on chicken parm. That's my creative choice. I did it intentionally.
If diners don't like it, then it's probably a bad creative choice.

If you're writing your game story and choose to leave out information about which team won the game, that's probably a bad creative choice.


As for watching the show, I have enjoyed it more than I have been bored, until most of this season.
But I can enjoy something while realizing it's not great or perfect.

You can be a fan of a baseball team but still admit the team need's more power in the lineup.

Same thing.

 

I'm very curious about the cause of the zombie outbreak. On the other hand, if they provide background on what happened to cause all this, it could cost some viewership, so I wouldn't do it either. Some people may quit watching for the same reason they quit watching a show (Moonlighting, for example) where there was sexual tension between two characters and they finally got together. Others (like people on this thread) might think the cause is ridiculous and quit watching the show for that reason.

 

I think it's a flaw in the show, but not such a large flaw that I won't watch.
The lack of exposition pales in comparison to the show's ongoing problem with pacing.

I don't think I'd like it if they tried to answer every question about before Rick woke up.
But I'd like to know a little bit more.

 

There are stupid or sloppy mistakes and then there are creative choices that people can reasonably disagree about. This falls into the latter category.

Bottom line is, you almost definitely will not get that information, unless somehow Kirkman is separated from the show. He doesn't want to go there and nobody else involved seems to be interested in it, either.

Personally, I don't care. I don't see what it adds to the story no matter the explanation. Some of the worst zombie stories I've seen took time for the explanation. Some of the best didn't bother.

Actually, the only one I enjoy that did explain the outbreak is the Ex-Heroes series of novels by Peter Clines, which is pure literary junk food, but kinda fun. It is kinda like Walking Dead mixed with Avengers in that there are superheroes trying to protect the remnants of humanity after the zombie outbreak. I won't spoil it, but the explanation helped serve the story. I just don't see how that would happen in Walking Dead.

 

Agreed, there is a difference between a sloppy mistake and a creative choice.
I'm simply arguing that I don't have like or agree with every creative choice, even if I'm a fan.
I like 'The Final Cut' and so did Roger Waters, but David Gilmour feels much differently and most fans agree with him.

RE: Exposition - would it serve the story or not?
I don't know. It certainly could serve the story if done properly.
As I've said, I don't want every detail explained, but the complete lack of background info can be frustrating at times for me as a viewer.
Especially when it seems the characters lack the background info themselves.
For example, I don't expect the survivors to be experts on predicting zombie behavior, but I expect a sheriff's deputy to know where the prisons are located within several hundred square miles of his jurisdiction.

 

That is a completely different point, and a good one. They really should know their surroundings better.

I think the lack of information regarding the cause of the outbreak makes sense. The government is apparently gone. If anybody was able to do the research to find the cause, how would it have made it to these people?