# The Walking Dead - TV Show



## WiiCube_2013 (Nov 18, 2014)

Did any of you see this week's episode?

It's by far one of the worst of this season and to top it off, that fucking stupid van scene was absolutely ridiculous because no way in hell would it fall flat on its four wheels.

​


----------



## Yumi (Nov 18, 2014)

I hear its a good show, never watched it but I guess I  will watch a few soon.

P.S. I can see your point in that scene.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 18, 2014)

It got worse?

Though probably a repeat of what I have said in the past it runs "the pilot had loads of promise, the series failed to deliver and then just got awful so I gave up".

All I can hope now is that it does not taint the notion of zombie TV shows.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 20, 2014)

Nope. I watched the pilot, liked it, started the first season, hated it, and quit after the fourth episode. I've never looked back since.

I highly recommend it.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 25, 2014)

So, what's your guys' problems with the series? I'm curious because this type of vitriol is usually reserved for Star Wars nerds who complain endlessly with their rose-colored glasses about 1, 2, and 3 being the worst movies ever made, or something equally ridiculous.
If I had to guess, I'd say that you guys probably don't like that the shows isn't all zombies, all the times. I can get on board with that somewhat, but that's not sustainable as a TV series.

Edit- Again, to be clear, I'm genuinely interested in why you guys don't like the series. I like it, and think it's great, but I like hearing other opinions.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 25, 2014)

Poorly written, characters that are morons*, poorly paced (though I can try to deal with that) and all built on top of a pilot that I genuinely did both like and think showed lots of promise -- wasted potential in my entertainment is something that really gets to me.

*I do not expect every character to be a master ninja, engineer, medic and survivalist all in one, however if you are going to accuse characters of having something resembling combat skills then try not to have them make basically every mistake at all points in time, ditto those with some amount of skills in the other areas that were showcased.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 26, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> If I had to guess, I'd say that you guys probably don't like that the shows isn't all zombies, all the times. I can get on board with that somewhat, but that's not sustainable as a TV series.


 
Tsk, tsk, assumptions, assumptions.

The pilot was really well directed (which, seeing as Frank Darabont was behind the helm, goes without saying) and strongly written. Rick worked well as a character; he was compelling and sympathetic from the get-go. Watching him wander through the remains of his town trying to piece together what happened, seeing him have to kill his first zombie, it was all good stuff. It faithfully adapted the opening of the comic while working well on its own merits. I was interested in Rick's story and wanted to know what happened next.

Then came the next episodes... and everything was different. Frank Darabont was no longer directing, for one, but I suppose that was to be expected. However, the writing just felt very rote and cheap. There weren't characters, just shallow bickerers and orbs of arbitrary conflict. Everyone practically introduces themselves with their defining characteristic ("Hello, I'm the racist!" "Hi, everyone, I'm the sexist!" etc.). Then when it comes time to act, the characters just did whatever the plot needed them to do to die or start a fight and get someone else to die. There was nothing interesting or compelling about them. I got to the first red shirt exodus in episode 4, where a smattering of one note cardboard cutouts we had no investment in whatsoever are just removed and the show acts as if it's supposed to mean something. What's the point?

I've read a bit of the comics, and from what I've seen of the bits and pieces I've watched afterwards, the show has the same problems. The stories and characters get beyond dumb ("Behold the Walking Dead, a gritty, serious take on the zombie genre... with a woman carrying two zombies like backpacks and wielding a fucking katana.") and repetitive ("Look out, Rick, it's a pack of cannibals/rapists/cannibal rapists! Alas, truly it is us who are the walking dead!"). Worse, it's not even leading to anything; there's no buildup to any sort of resolution or endgame. It just meanders about aimlessly. Characters are brain dead when the plot needs them to be, and zombies alternate between being shambling tinfoil and ninja masters whenever someone has to die. It's cute that the world of the Walking Dead functions as if zombie fiction had never existed, but what's the point if you're going to follow all the standard cliches anyway?

I was hoping that The Walking Dead would be closer to something like World War Z (the book, not the Pepsi commercial), an examination of how people try to adapt to a world that's completely fallen apart. Instead, it's a tepid show that wants to be a character drama but has no interesting characters or drama. It has some "cool" zombie kills-of-the-week, I guess, but for someone who's already watched, played, and read plenty of zombie fiction, there's nothing new about it.

Cut Through the Bullshit TL;DR: The writing's bad. Poor pacing, poor characters, etc. If you want to watch a bunch of guys with straggly beards try to adapt to a decaying, dangerous world, just watch Breaking Amish.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 26, 2014)

Well, you guys are way off about the characters being poorly-written and acted. Quite frankly, that's kind of ridiculous to say. It wouldn't be the most popular show on cable if that were true. We can agree to disagree on that, though.
What shows do you guys like?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 26, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Well, you guys are way off about the characters being poorly-written and acted. Quite frankly, that's kind of ridiculous to say. It wouldn't be the most popular show on cable if that were true. We can agree to disagree on that, though.


 
Popularity /= Quality. If that was the case, the Transformers movies wouldn't make hundreds of millions of dollars each time.

Personally, I'd guess the show is popular because people like zombies and it's been the only mainstream zombie show on television for years now. It's something people can watch for the"zombie kill of the week" or the latest melodrama and talk about around the water cooler the next morning.



Tiffani said:


> What shows do you guys like?


 

I haven't been really gripped by a tv show for a little while. The last to do that was Breaking Bad, I think. I've been trying to get more into chinese cartoons lately; JoJo is a lot of fun.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 26, 2014)

What Gahars said.

I also said nothing about poorly acted. Poor writing*, poor direction, poor editing and various things that those previous three are ultimately responsible for turning out poor, absolutely. The acting, at least up to the point where I gave up, was perfectly acceptable, given the... "rotating cast of characters" nature of the show such things may have changed since then though, it did manage what I saw of it though.

*poor writing may have ultimately made for a poor performance in one or two cases but I would like to believe I can see past that.

Shows I like. TV is probably second only to books or, in some cases at least, computer games when it comes to worldbuilding and telling me an in depth story. Give me that and we are good, fortunately many TV show makers seem to be on board with this. Equally here they seem to be on board with long form storytelling, they just screwed it up after they showed they could pull it off.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 26, 2014)

FAST6191, I never said you bashed the show for bad acting. 
And Gahars, you're off with your comment about Transformers. Those movies are popular because they're the ultimate in popcorn movies. In that sense, they're of high-quality. It's much the same as if you said that the make-up is so good on TWD that it's the reason why it's so popular. The difference being, though, Transformers movies only come out every few years and are 2.5 hours while TWD is a weekly show of 16 episodes a year. The fact that the show is more popular now than it was when it first came out is because people like the stories, they like the characters, etc.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 26, 2014)

?
"Well, you guys are way off about the characters being poorly-written and acted."

Anyway
"The fact that the show is more popular now than it was when it first came out is because people like the stories, they like the characters, etc."

People are quite free to like drivel -- some people wish for stuff to not have to think about and that is fine. Even by zombie film standards though I find it pretty weak. I try to aspire to something slightly greater though.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 27, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> FAST6191, I never said you bashed the show for bad acting.
> And Gahars, you're off with your comment about Transformers. Those movies are popular because they're the ultimate in popcorn movies. In that sense, they're of high-quality.


 
"Ultimate popcorn movies." It's a buzzword cornicopia!

I don't know, I'm not a film snob by any means, I can enjoy a good dumb action flick or dumb movies in general; shit, one of my favorite genres is "slasher movies." However, to praise the Transformers movies as "ultimate popcorn flicks," you'd have to lower the bar enough to dig through to China. They're stuffed with awful humor ("Oh, look, Sam's Mom is high on the marijuana. Isn't that craaaaaazy?"), awful characters, pointless characters, obnoxious camerawork and effects ("I hope you like shaky footage of two indistinguishable hunks of metal colliding into each other, folks, because that's about the last 45 minutes of the movie), and, worse, run for way, way, way too long. Between Revenge of the Fallen and Manos: The Hands of Fate, I think I'd take Manos; at least it ends faster.

Why is it popular? Well, there are explosions and there's technically action, plus they've got the "Michael Bay" brand attached. Really, not everyone cares about the quality of the movie they're watching; Batman and Robin still made more than a hundred million dollars. They're not dumb or evil or anything like that, we all have our own interests, but it does mean that they're not the best barometer for quality.

Just because you're making something dumb doesn't mean you can't do it well. Shoot 'Em Up is just about a guy who shoots 'em up, but everyone involved put actual effort into their work, producing a movie that functions well while remaining fun throughout. There's no bullshit; you get exactly what it promises. If you've never seen it, I'd highly recommend it.



Tiffani said:


> It's much the same as if you said that the make-up is so good on TWD that it's the reason why it's so popular. The difference being, though, Transformers movies only come out every few years and are 2.5 hours while TWD is a weekly show of 16 episodes a year. The fact that the show is more popular now than it was when it first came out is because people like the stories, they like the characters, etc.


 

Popularity, like I mentioned before, is a terrible indication of quality. Just because people watch it doesn't mean they watch for it every aspect of the show (Writing, characters, etc.), and just because a lot of people like something doesn't make it better than other things. The Walking Dead gets higher ratings than Breaking Bad; does that mean Breaking Bad is an inferior program? Shit, Mad Men gets beat out by both. Does that mean Mad Men has worse characters and writing than The Walking Dead?

Shakespeare wasn't the most popular playwright of his era; should we throw Hamlet and Macbeth in the river and start praising those other guys? (Also, interesting parallel: One of Shakespeare's most popular plays during his lifetime was Titus Andronicus even though most scholars would agree it's one of his weaker works if not his weakest. Why was it so popular? Because audiences responded to the extreme violence and melodrama. Hmm...)


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Nov 27, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Nope. I watched the pilot, liked it, started the first season, hated it, and quit after the fourth episode. I've never looked back since.


Normally I'd say that you can't watch the first couple of episodes of a show and write it off but The Walking Dead is an exception. It just isn't any good. I'm still watching it (mostly as background noise at this point) just because I've already invested four seasons into the show at this point and it's still just as bad as you'd think. Even with those rare moments where it seems like the show has found its footings, it won't be long before the next shitty episode.

If you want to watch and support quality television that's currently airing, try something like The Americans. Or Person of Interest. Or even The Flash for fucks sake. Anything is better than this turd of a show.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 27, 2014)

FAST691, again, I never said YOU bashed the show for bad acting. 
"Well, you guys are way off about the characters being poorly-written and acted."
That is in no way saying that you specifically bashed the show for poor acting. If Guy A says the sky is red and Guy B says the clouds are purple, I would say "You guys are way off about the sky being red and clouds being purple." I have no idea why you can't see the difference there.

Anyway, moving on to something actually worth addressing and not some guy reaching for an excuse to be offended. 
Gahars, I never said that popularity equals quality. I would appreciate it if you guys would quit putting words in my mouth. You may call "ultimate popcorn movie" buzzwords, but guess what? They're an absolutely accurate description here. And btw, bringing Shoot 'Em Up into this proves my point. The story is even more stupid and insipid than any of the Transformers movies. The acting is better, but the characters and situations are just as lame and nonsensical, if not more so. It's a fun movie, though, so who gives a shit? I'm a big Giamatti fan so I got into the movie. 

Honestly, you two sounds like hipsters who just have to hate anything popular in the mainstream. FAST691, saying things like "People are quite free to like drivel -- some people wish for stuff to not have to think about and that is fine. Even by zombie film standards though I find it pretty weak. I try to aspire to something slightly greater though."  smacks of so much pretension that it's possible you'll break your back trying to carry it.
Gahars, you don't come off as arrogant but you do have a Dennis Miller thing going on where you try to bring up the most obscure thing you can in an effort to appear smarter than whomever you're debating. 
soulx, I give you credit for bringing Person of Interest into this discussion. I personally don't think the show is all that good myself (not bad by any means, but just okay) but bringing up a network show in a discussion like this takes guts because you risk getting sneered at for liking something mainstream. I like The Blacklist, Elementary, and Chicago Fire though so I certainly like mainstream shows. You do lose points for still watching a show you profess to dislike so much. It can't be that bad if there's still a reason you watch.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 27, 2014)

Gahars and the previous posters did not say anything about the acting quality either. I did actually check in case that was aimed at someone else and would not have brought it up otherwise -- there are a few actors I will not bother watching in something, none of the walking dead peeps from the ones I saw, give or take the child actors but child actors are so very rarely any good anyway, have seen me discount their future works.

If you would prefer a rephrasing of my pretentiousness then "just because it is trashy TV does not mean it can not be good/well made trashy TV". Walking dead features zombies (something that has worked for me on many occasions), post/ruined society (frequently something I like), a reasonably wide variety of people with different skillsets and abilities (most of which are probably not of immediate use and possibly not of very high level) trying to survive in that scenario (I am the kind of person that picks my associates in such a scenario a little bit more wisely but dead weight has been known to band together) and we also have the previously discussed aspect of the good pilot showcasing potential.
Such a setup is well within my sphere of enjoyment, indeed a very similar setup having been done very well in 28 days later (less well in 28 weeks later but still not bad if taken as a kind of double feature)


----------



## Gahars (Nov 27, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Gahars, I never said that popularity equals quality.


 
Then why bring up their popularity in the first place?



Tiffani said:


> You may call "ultimate popcorn movie" buzzwords, but guess what? They're an absolutely accurate description here. And btw, bringing Shoot 'Em Up into this proves my point. The story is even more stupid and insipid than any of the Transformers movies. The acting is better, but the characters and situations are just as lame and nonsensical, if not more so. It's a fun movie, though, so who gives a shit? I'm a big Giamatti fan so I got into the movie.





Tiffani said:


> The story is even more stupid and insipid than any of the Transformers movies.


 
Is dis ninja serious? Or did I forget the parts in Shoot 'Em Up where Clive Owen goes to robot heaven? And the part where the characters make a point of standing under robot testicles? Or when these guys showed up?

Shoot 'Em Up is well shot, filled with good actors turning in fun performances (like Paul Giamatti, as you referenced), and well-paced; it doesn't stretch itself out to an interminable endtime. There's no wasting the audience's time. The movie is 86 minutes long, and yet more memorable scenes happen within that 86 minutes than the endless hours of any of the Transformers movies. Shit, in the time it takes to watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, you could practically watch Shoot 'Em Up twice over.

Like I said, it's dumb and it knows it. The difference is, it's well-made dumb. Just because you're making a dumb movie doesn't mean you can't do it smartly or that there's no need for effort or restraint.



Tiffani said:


> Honestly, you two sounds like hipsters who just have to hate anything popular in the mainstream.


 
Because disliking a popular show and movie franchise means that you hate all popular things and that you hate them _because_ they're popular, right?

Tsk, tsk.



Tiffani said:


> Gahars, you don't come off as arrogant but you do have a Dennis Miller thing going on where you try to bring up the most obscure thing you can in an effort to appear smarter than whomever you're debating.


 
Shoot 'Em Up is "obscure" now? Sure, less popular, but I don't think obscure is quite the right word. Anyway, if you take umbrage with that example, there's plenty of other actually good "popcorn movies" out there. There's a smattering of little series like, you know, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, shit, most of Marvel's output (give or take the Thors), etc.. The Avengers doesn't have a whole lot of depth; its big message is "It's good to work as a team," but that's a movie that has exciting characters, decent pacing, amusing humor, interesting action (even if the final battle runs a bit long, it feels a hell of a lot more earned than any finale in Transformers), and a basic understanding of cinematography.



Tiffani said:


> You do lose points for still watching a show you profess to dislike so much. It can't be that bad if there's still a reason you watch.


 

Clearly you've never got stuck in a routine and/or gawked at a trainwreck. As someone who somehow watched to the end of Dexter, there's something to be said for both.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 28, 2014)

FAST6191, I would much prefer you not sound like a 15th century monarch sneering at the plebs "People are quite free to like drivel" coupled with "I try to aspire to something slightly greater, though" is about as pretentious as it gets. 

Gahars, I brought up the popularity because it has increased over the show. That shows that there is something about the series that appeals to people. You guys said " The writing's bad. Poor pacing, poor characters, etc." (Gahars) and "Poorly written, characters that are morons*, poorly paced" and "Poor writing*, poor direction, poor editing and various things that those previous three are ultimately responsible for turning out poor, absolutely." (FAST6191)

If this is true, then why has the show gained viewers? The only remaining thing would be action, but guess what, there isn't that much action in the series. Nor is there a ton of gore. Sure, there are episodes with good to great action and gore, but those don't happen all the time. 
Popularity doesn't equal quality, but _sustained_ popularity does. They must be doing something right if they've _gained_ viewers. I can cite many examples of shows that were very popular but died off when they dropped in quality. Heroes is the first I think of, but Revolution is another recent one.
If TWD were as bad as you guys say it is, the ratings would have fallen, not increased. 

Moving on, your points about Shoot 'Em Up are very valid, but the movie is the very definition of obscure. It was a big commercial flop and lost money. You could ask 1,000 people if they've seen it and maybe 5 would say yes, and that's really pushing it. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie or anything, but it's very obscure. 
There's a big difference between gawking at an accident and continuing to watch a TV show that sucks. Again, I cite Heroes and Revolution. The difference with Dexter is that the finale sucked, but up until then the final season wasn't bad at all. It wasn't all that great, but it was pretty decent. But the finale sucked so much that it tainted the season for most people.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 29, 2014)

I fear we may be suffering some variation on the "two countries separated by a common language" thing. Though I can certainly be accused of being verbose, perhaps even overly so, I would argue against a charge of my speech patterns/word choice being antiquated or an example some kind of class based derision. Likewise I am not sure pretentious, if I can be called that and if we are using the same definition (it has fallen into the something of a similar problem to the irony and the definition thereof), is a negative.

The popular choice is not always the "right choice", though given earlier parts of this conversation I may wish to revise the phrasing there.
There are various concepts at play

Gahars and I both seem to have taken the time to learn about story structures, writing for entertainment and [insert long list of related fields]. There is something of a truism in life of the best something you ever have is when the someone making it is preparing/doing it for the entertainment of their peers. Related to this would be the "your trade will impart abilities to tell where somewhere else trying their hand has failed", or if you prefer it in webcomic form -- http://xkcd.com/1015/ . I will come back to it in a little while but I can not switch my head off in a lot of cases and such things will be glaringly obvious.
As making something to that kind of standard is hard then few bother with it, doubly so when a) most people can not tell why something is bad and b) most of those in a) would probably use phrases like "boring arthouse shit". I would say something like Walking Dead is a zombie show for someone that has never seen any zombie fiction before, however that would probably be being too generous.

Back on the switching my head off thing. Most of the time I do not get enough mental stimulation during the day, or at least I do not bog myself down with boring nonsense and burn myself out*, so my chosen entertainment usually skews towards the complex and involved. Others do not want this, and this is absolutely fine, and instead prefer to have a little story wrapped up with a bad guy getting shot at the 42 minute mark, just in time for a pithy remark, a scene at a bar to finish it all off and a fade to credits. I would maintain that walking dead is still poor by those standards but that might be a different discussion.

*see also "Why would I want to use a computer at home? I spend all day looking at one.".

On shoot em up I will have to look into the accounting for it. As a surface reading I guess you may say that but there is the term "Hollywood accounting" for a reason. http://www.theatlantic.com/business...make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ , to say nothing of DVD/video releases not getting bundled in with all that. Equally I am not sure how that fits the definition of obscure.

"There's a big difference between gawking at an accident and continuing to watch a TV show that sucks."
Perhaps, however it could be water cooler culture at some level. As a society we seem to have fractured our entertainment, which is no bad thing by me, but some will still partake just to talk about it at the office -- I see it all the for soap operas, talent contests (if you wanted another example of popular =/= quality then those would surely do), stuff like Lost* and choices of radio station.
Equally the sunk cost fallacy could be a thing. "They were awful but I have to know how it ends" being something I have heard more than once in my life.
Lack of options could be another -- in the US the show airs on Sunday nights, traditionally and presently not the most exiting point in the TV week and also the "I have work tomorrow" day for many.

*I had not considered Lost and Walking Dead together like this before... I might have to ponder this further.

In the end I think I will trot out the phrase I used when we were discussing the failure that was the N64

"Like what you want to like, however if you are going to try to convince me that I would like it too then bring ammo".

I have watched it so it is not like I am doing this without having experienced it myself (the last thing I remember seeing as part of a back to back thing was them messing around with a zombie in a well), I did also see later things like the video I link in a second that would appear to have confirmed my decision
 
I am willing to admit part of it might have been some bitterness over having the rug pulled out from underneath me -- the pilot did promise one thing and the show delivered another, not the first time such a thing has happened but it seldom gets any easier.


----------



## cracker (Nov 29, 2014)

I'm sure many have said it... This season is pretty bad in comparison and it barely keeps me wanting to watch it. If they can't add any new thrilling twists soon they should put it out of its misery while it still has fans left.


----------



## Tiffani (Nov 30, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> I fear we may be suffering some variation on the "two countries separated by a common language" thing. Though I can certainly be accused of being verbose, perhaps even overly so, I would argue against a charge of my speech patterns/word choice being antiquated or an example some kind of class based derision. Likewise I am not sure pretentious, if I can be called that and if we are using the same definition (it has fallen into the something of a similar problem to the irony and the definition thereof), is a negative.
> 
> First, it's ridiculous that you're trying to argue that pretentious could be a good thing. That's just absurd. It is a bad thing. A cursory look at a frigging dictionary would tell you that. Seriously, come on. And before you come back with some BS about how I don't understand the original meaning, let me cut you off. To be pretentious is to have the quality of wanting to appear to be more important or impressive than you really are. That describes your behavior in this thread perfectly. For examples, look no further than your 3rd paragraph. Secondly, it's not that your word choices are antiquated, it's that they're condescending and arrogant. Here's you describing something you don't like- "People are quite free to like drivel...I try to aspire to something slightly greater." That just drips with arrogance and condescension.
> 
> ...


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 30, 2014)

I really seem to have rubbed you the wrong way and I am not sure why. Though I must admit I do find it terribly amusing and my instinct is to twist harder, mainly because I aspire to be cunt above all else. Equally you accused me earlier of attempting to be offended, I am not sure if this is projection or the need for a mirror but... yeah.

If we are going to use that definition of pretentious then year in most cases it would not be ideal (the main counter being the "If everybody tried to be better than they are the lowest common denominator would be better than "normal"." ). Equally I am not sure that describes my behaviour here: I am keenly aware that I am just some random arsehole, one with a few relevant skills to the matter at hand but probably not enough to do real damage, presently discussing things on a semi popular games forum, talking about a TV show (so not even the main subject of the forum) in a thread that will at best see my contributions gain a few giggles from people that probably already know the broad notes of my online persona and be forgotten, possibly even by myself, in a few weeks.

"The popular choice is not always the "right choice", though given earlier parts of this conversation I may wish to revise the phrasing there.
There are various concepts at play

Again, with the condescension..."
That was actually supposed to be a joke.

"The unmitigated arrogance of your first sentence is something to behold. "...I...seem to have taken the time to learn about story structures...etc." The implication obviously being that I know nothing about this stuff."
With regards to someone's knowledge on a high level matter, especially one with the, for want of a better term, academic side of things so readily accessible to all, I seldom assume anything on these forums or in real life, and certainly did not in this case. Gahars and I have spoken fairly extensively about such matters in the past, our general tastes are fairly well aligned and for the purposes of this discussion I was trying to loosely group us rather than see the discussion splitting between us when Gahars had said nothing I really disagreed with before that.

On the matter of pigeon holing I would say you are attempting to put words in my mouth. Zombie fiction may be a loose grouping but it is still a grouping. Beyond that though if walking dead happened to be trying something new ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896534/ might be an example), not something I necessarily seek as I am just as ripe a target for the "same stories, eternally retold"/hero with a thousand faces thing, then that would be one thing, as it stands the source material is your fairly typical people surviving in a zombie scenario over the longer term, as were the telltale games and so seems to the TV show. However I do expect some consistent logic within the show -- you have someone with basic logic and at least basic weapons training, act like it then*, you have someone that has some mechanical training...., some medical training...., and most of the failures there are not even explainable by some kind of panic. We could start discussing concepts like how zombies are typically seen as a pondering, possibly condemnation, of a consumer society (or big government or communism, either way unthinking masses, conversely vampires tending to be the lone degenerate or aristocratic version of the boogeyman) but I am not sure where that would lead us for the purposes of this discussion.

*I looked it up and the lead character is main a sheriff’s deputy, now this may merely mean baseline law enforcement weapons training (possibly not even swat/armed response or equivalent) and almost certainly not full on wilderness/urban survival, SERE and the like. I will give that they are marginally better than a lot of TV shows when it comes to weapons but better by no means is good.

"And that's fine that you want something like that, that you want something mentally engaging. The problem lies in the fact that you love to place yourself above others. See my comments about pretentious, pompous, etc. Saying that you think it's fine for people to like whatever they want, and then directly following that with snide comments about the things others like, is condescending and insulting. It's also a rash generalization because there are plenty of popular shows that are mentally engaging. You need to get over this idea that just because you don't like something means it's poorly done or somehow mindless entertainment. "

If one can place themselves above others for the purposes of an intellectual debate it tends to be a good option, assuming you are not trying to feign ignorance as a debate strategy. If someone I can recognise as a photographer tells me a picture I am looking at is out of focus, has no concept of white balance, is noisy, is not well framed and suffers from a bit of operator induced blur but another person says they like the cool picture of the thing on fire they can both be right, however I will certainly take heed of the photographer's words before the other (assuming the other is not one that commissioned the work, the would be the main audience....). Likewise I stand by my earlier words -- "like whatever you like if it is not hurting people, if you are going to try selling me on the merits of something then we have more to discuss" would be a distillation of the concept. I have no problem with popularity whatsoever, it is not a particularly useful guide, or at least not a particularly useful one where others are far more readily available and still easy to digest (there is a reason that statistically inclined reviews often tend to be weighted when compared), but never a good reason to outright diss something -- in most cases one really has to try something to call its merits.
Though popular things tend not to be mentally engaging (the diluting/playing it safe thing being well documented in commercial* entertainment that aspires to be truly popular, see also executive meddling) I would never say it precludes it. Likewise my not finding something enjoyable does not mean I think it is poorly made, there is a serious amount of overlap between the two concepts (my standards for entertainment are actually quite low in many regards and I will watch/play/read many things). For instance I do not give a damn about 18th century impressionists, at least while I have things I find far more interesting to learn about still unknown to me, but that does not mean you can not make a good documentary, drama or something about them and their work, a great one** might have made me care but you can still have a well put together example of said concepts featuring the key players, the key events, that sets the scene of the society of the time and other follows what are otherwise considered to good practices for editing, storytelling, pacing and the like, I just probably will not derive any particular enjoyment from watching it. Beyond that though undead (as opposed to voodoo or something) and not so mentally capable zombie scenario with a broad cast of characters trying to survive over a longer period and adjusting to their new world is something that is very much in my entertainment wheelhouse, however they took that concept, made a good start and then ultimately made it borderline unwatchable for me.

*unrelated I know but not all entertainment is commercial and outside the US you do tend to find a lot of taxpayer (or effectively taxpayer) funded stuff that would never make it back from advertisers.

** I don't actually care about most paintings/painters, however there was one documentary that also covered the mathematical underpinnings of a lot of art (be it the rise of perspective, projection based art, fractal mathematics and more besides) and despite it not being the focus of it you can bet I was glued to the screen for the rest of the series and probably now know the names/works of more artists than I likely would have otherwise.

Regarding the "most people can't tell" thing when it comes to judging the quality of their media I do not see it as particularly arrogant -- it is a skillset that most people do not have and tends not to be derived as a matter of course by most people. To what extent I can claim such a skillset is potentially up for some debate, on the flip side though constructive criticism does not need you to suggest things on how to fix it, just where it falls over and I reckon I have the nous to do that for this show. I am not sure I even view it as a universal positive -- I live a life of leisure/constant pleasure seeking and it would be nice to be entertained by any old light show rather than have to spend time seeking things to amuse me, especially if things that ultimately qualify/do for the "can't switch it off" bit are not produced in great enough volume to fill the gap (or at great enough frequency at all points in time).

On popular vs obscure the money earned at the box office does not necessarily reflect the general awareness of the property, it may allow you to count it but it is by no means the dominant metric. I have yet to run the numbers though so I can not argue much further on the matter of shoot em up at this point. For some thinking points though http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465602/ is the listing for the film for IMDB (I dare say we can both agree on it being a workable source) and at the time of posting it has 119,637 ratings from users. In and of itself that probably does not mean much (though 100000 people taking the time to rate something is hardly an indicator of poor popularity) so we probably want to go relative. Rather nicely they provide a top 250 films (by user driven quality ratings but hey) for me to look at 
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?ref_=nv_ch_250_4
Now how I proceed from here is tricky. I can link something like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/?ref_=chttp_tt_21 (that would be the 21st film in the 250 list and it has less than double the people doing ratings at 188,388), however it is an older film and generally the older films have few people rating them. The top rated films from similar eras to this do sometimes end up in the several million range, others (fight club - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/?ref_=chttp_tt_10 ) barely crack a million, the matrix is bellow the 1 million mark ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/?ref_=chttp_tt_19 ). Now I have to be careful about saying things like ten times when numbers in the hundreds of thousands and millions are involved but for ballpark figures I will go it.
Going back to shoot em up
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465602/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus
That would be the box office stuff for shoot em up, the following is for transformers
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus
Same year, transformers opened on some 4000 screens, shoot em up was some 2000. Superbad ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829482/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus ) was just shy of 3000. http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2007,2007&title_type=feature&sort=moviemeter,asc if you fancy going more of them.

"Two things here. One, plenty of people think those talent contests are quality entertainment. I don't like them myself, but that doesn't mean they're not quality. Again, just because you don't like something doesn't mean it lacks quality. Two, TWD airs directly against the NFL on Sunday nights, which is the most popular show on TV in the U.S. The fact that it draws such high ratings against powerhouse competition speaks well for it."

Assuming the aim of the talent show is to consistently find some talent then would any argue they have not failed miserably in their quest, on the other hand if it is a gawk at the freaks type of show (a distinct possibility) then we may have something more to discuss. Up against the NFL is something I would not as a scheduler, however I do have to ask what goes when the NFL is not on (with thanksgiving this week I believe this very night sees less American football less of a thing than other weeks), what the demographics might be (though figuring out demographics is no easy feat either), the nature of PVRs and more at this point.


On the N64 thing I really do not want to go there in this thread (feel free to necro one of the others we have). However something that sees a company go from industry leading/dominating powerhouse to practically scraping buy/getting by virtue of their handhelds in this case, much less to a relative newcomer (though Sony and MS were hardly lightweights), losing much of their support among developers and ultimately having a library that could stand to see some question is ultimately something that you would have to qualify to call a success.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 1, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Gahars, I brought up the popularity because it has increased over the show. That shows that there is something about the series that appeals to people. You guys said " The writing's bad. Poor pacing, poor characters, etc." (Gahars) and "Poorly written, characters that are morons*, poorly paced" and "Poor writing*, poor direction, poor editing and various things that those previous three are ultimately responsible for turning out poor, absolutely." (FAST6191)
> 
> If this is true, then why has the show gained viewers? The only remaining thing would be action, but guess what, there isn't that much action in the series. Nor is there a ton of gore. Sure, there are episodes with good to great action and gore, but those don't happen all the time.
> Popularity doesn't equal quality, but _sustained_ popularity does. They must be doing something right if they've _gained_ viewers. I can cite many examples of shows that were very popular but died off when they dropped in quality. Heroes is the first I think of, but Revolution is another recent one.
> If TWD were as bad as you guys say it is, the ratings would have fallen, not increased.


 
"Popularity doesn't equal quality... except when it does." 

You're relying on a shit ton of assumptions here: that gore/violence/zombies must be consistent to draw people in, that the writing/characters must be good to draw people in, etc. As I mentioned before, The Walking Dead has been pretty much the only game in town when it comes to mainstream zombie shows right as we've gone through a zombie craze of sorts; timing can be everything. The quality of the writing and sustained public interest aren't really correlated, as melodrama, hackneyed cliches, etc. still draw audiences. I mean, the Twilight books and films were tremendously popular over a period of years and years, but that doesn't retroactively make Stephanie Meyer a good writer or give the books real literary merit. Is The Big Bang Theory funny because it's been one of the highest rated programs on television throughout most of its run? There's only one answer, you get one guess, and the answer is "Bazooper!" Besides, this logic would suggest that if sustained popularity is indicative of high quality, then sustained unpopularity must be proof of poor quality, and there's a graveyard full of great shows that withered away in obscurity proving that notion wrong.

The point being, there's a lot that goes into why a show maintains, gains, or loses popularity. To pick and choose what you think it does and does not validate is just goofy.

Beyond all this, the idea of "sustained popularity" is a meaningless metric because popularity and fads comes and go. If it gains ratings for several years and then is dismissed and forgotten for the rest of history, which matters more? Dallas maintained record-breaking ratings throughout much of its initial 12 or so year long run, but how many people now cite Dallas as an exemplary television program? Do people even talk about it at all anymore, except in relation to "Who Shot J.R.?" or the failed reboot? To go back to the example of Shakespeare, his peers maintained greater popularity throughout his entire lifetime; we're talking about a period of decades. If that meant anything, why is Shakespeare "The Bard" while those other guys have been left as, at most, footnotes?

...Also, what's the point of this argument anyway? You asked us why we didn't like the show, and when we criticized the writing, the characters, and other such aspects, now you turn around and say, "Well, lots of other people like it, so you're just wrong!" Yes, different people can have different opinions... and? If you need others' approval to validate your own opinions, whether it be about a show or anything else really, that's pretty weak. Let your tastes and preferences stand on their own.



Tiffani said:


> Moving on, your points about Shoot 'Em Up are very valid, but the movie is the very definition of obscure. It was a big commercial flop and lost money. You could ask 1,000 people if they've seen it and maybe 5 would say yes, and that's really pushing it. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie or anything, but it's very obscure.


 
Lost money, yes. Big commercial flop? In a world of Delgos and Cutthroat Islands, that's quite excessive. The movie still made more than $25 million at the box office, received significant airtime on television (HBO especially, iirc, I think that's where I first saw it), and was widely distributed on DVD. Unpopular, sure, niche, sure, but "very obscure" is really pushing it unless your definition is "something that 100% of people might not recognize." 

Anyay, I chose the movie as an example of an intentionally dumb movie made well. I feel like you're getting sidetracked on this issue.



Tiffani said:


> There's a big difference between gawking at an accident and continuing to watch a TV show that sucks. Again, I cite Heroes and Revolution.


 
There isn't, really. Sure, lots of people stopped watching Heroes, but tons kept on going right to the end. When you've invested enough time and effort in something, it's hard to give up, even in something as effortless as watching a tv program (the Sunk Cost Fallacy is a bitch). Along with that, people can still derive plenty of pleasure from watching something utterly fail; the popularity of movies like The Room more than proves that. 



Tiffani said:


> The difference with Dexter is that the finale sucked, *but up until then the final season wasn't bad at all*. It wasn't all that great, but it was pretty decent. But the finale sucked so much that it tainted the season for most people.


 






Pfffffffffft

Alright, seriously thought, this sort of tells me all I need to know about where your standards lie. That's not an insult or anything, we're all free to like what we like, but it looks like we have our bars in two very different places; we're just probably not going to come to an agreement on this.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 1, 2014)

I'm going to address each of you separately. FAST6191, in the future could you please either color your messages to me or my quotes you're responding to. It makes it a lot easier to read. Ok, here goes. 



FAST6191 said:


> I really seem to have rubbed you the wrong way and I am not sure why. Though I must admit I do find it terribly amusing and my instinct is to twist harder, mainly because I aspire to be cunt above all else. Equally you accused me earlier of attempting to be offended, I am not sure if this is projection or the need for a mirror but... yeah.
> 
> I fail to see the part where I'm attempting to be offended. That's just a load of bullsquirt and makes it seem as though you're just trying to smokescreen. I deal with dickheads every day so it takes a lot to offend me.
> 
> ...


 

Nintendo made money on the N64. That makes it a success, or at least a draw. They've lost support of developers because of the way they treated them, not because the N64 was an inferior machine. Also, the N64 library has some of the most beloved games of all-time. If they had lost money and support of developers then you'd have a point.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 1, 2014)

Gahars said:


> "Popularity doesn't equal quality... except when it does."
> 
> You're relying on a shit ton of assumptions here: that gore/violence/zombies must be consistent to draw people in, that the writing/characters must be good to draw people in, etc. As I mentioned before, The Walking Dead has been pretty much the only game in town when it comes to mainstream zombie shows right as we've gone through a zombie craze of sorts; timing can be everything. The quality of the writing and sustained public interest aren't really correlated, as melodrama, hackneyed cliches, etc. still draw audiences. I mean, the Twilight books and films were tremendously popular over a period of years and years, but that doesn't retroactively make Stephanie Meyer a good writer or give the books real literary merit. Is The Big Bang Theory funny because it's been one of the highest rated programs on television throughout most of its run? There's only one answer, you get one guess, and the answer is "Bazooper!" Besides, this logic would suggest that if sustained popularity is indicative of high quality, then sustained unpopularity must be proof of poor quality, and there's a graveyard full of great shows that withered away in obscurity proving that notion wrong.
> 
> ...


 
See, this is the hipster douche shit I was talking about. You clearly didn't watch when it was airing because most people thought Season 8 was fairly good. Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it. Instead of wasting your time looking for gifs about the show and looking like a dumbass, you could have googled early season 8 episode reviews and figured that out. And "...this sort of tells me all I need to know about where your standards lie." is an insult. It makes you sound like an arrogant hipster douche. Where have I heard that before? Of, that's right, it's what I've been saying this entire time. And hell no I'm not going to agree with an arrogant hipster douche because neither of you guys have presented a good enough argument. You can cherry-pick stuff from every show ever made that is stupid and unbelievable, it doesn't make you right.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 1, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Yeah, you're free to criticize the writing and the characters and all that. You're also free to look like hipsters who criticize anything popular. Keep on watching your Chinese cartoons, if you think that makes you look more cultured. I hope it's subtitled, though, you'd hate to be seen watching something us plebs can watch.


 
You're just jelly of my superior waifus. No matter what you do, 2D > 3DPD always.



Tiffani said:


> See, this is the hipster douche shit I was talking about. *You clearly didn't watch when it was airing because most people thought Season 8 was fairly good. *Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it.


 
Please.

http://gbatemp.net/threads/dexter.347903/
http://gbatemp.net/threads/so-dexter-season-7-has-arrived.335250/

I watched the first four seasons on DVD, watched season 5 live, gave up on season 6, and then watched 7 and 8 right to the end. Are you so deluded that you think anyone who disagrees with you is just a hipster? Shit, it's not even like it was an unpopular opinion. Most of the people in these threads on GBAtemp alone were shitting on the show well before the finale. Fuck, even the Dexter subreddit was shitting all over the show, and subreddits for shows are usually praise circle jerks (r/BreakingBad, for example).

Tsk tsk. You're not very good at this whole "historical revisionism" thing if that's what you're trying.



Tiffani said:


> Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it. Instead of wasting your time looking for gifs about the show and looking like a dumbass, you could have googled early season 8 episode reviews and figured that out.


 
Well, if you want to go there, here's just one example: http://www.avclub.com/tv/dexter/?season=8 (The comments are a laugh riot, definitely worth checking out)

Also, if you have to turn to others' reviews to validate your tastes, that's pretty weak. Let your tastes and preferences stand on their own, don't run to others for approval.

(Also implying I don't have a treasure trove of Dexter content saved from as the show went down. Step it up, senpai.)



Tiffani said:


> And "...this sort of tells me all I need to know about where your standards lie." is an insult. It makes you sound like an arrogant hipster douche. Where have I heard that before? Of, that's right, it's what I've been saying this entire time. And hell no I'm not going to agree with an arrogant hipster douche because neither of you guys have presented a good enough argument. You can cherry-pick stuff from every show ever made that is stupid and unbelievable, it doesn't make you right.


 

I said that we have very different standards and we clearly do, and your defense of Dexter is a clear indication of that. If someone told me they thought that they thought Breaking Bad was utter dreck and that the epitome of television programming was "Heil Honey, I'm Home" then I'd say the same thing. I'm sorry "Let's agree to disagree" is somehow offensive to you.

You might want to take a break if talking about television shows is making you so mad that you have to insult others ("hipster" really seems like your go-to one here). Repeat to yourself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax." Take a few breaths if you need to, it's cool.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 1, 2014)

> There is no other definition of pretentious. Stop acting like there is. This isn't like "gay" or something where the meaning has changed. But even if it did have a different definition in the past, it would be ridiculous to go by the old definition because it's changed.
> 
> No, you're putting the words in your own mouth. Here's what you wrote- "I would say something like Walking Dead is a zombie show for someone that has never seen any zombie fiction before, however that would probably be being too generous." Saying something like "someone who has never seen zombie fiction before" is like saying "someone who has never seen horror fiction before". Don't you see how absurd that sounds? There is no one zombie fiction, just as there is no one horror fiction.
> But then you veer off into this "However I do expect some consistent logic within the show..." which has nothing to do zombie fiction. That's an entirely different discussion as this happens with all shows. Name a show and I guarantee you that I can find inconsistency within that show. It doesn't matter what show, they all have inconsistency in areas. Breaking Bad, The Wire, Game of Thrones, MASH, The Sopranos, Doctor Who, etc.
> ...



On pretentious there appears to be some scope for disagreement. Mainly that the lack of merit part of the claim is actually optional, however I was happy enough to continue the discussion with your chosen definition (which is a valid in a few respectable dictionaries)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretension

I agree there is no one zombie fiction in a mathematically quantifiable grouping, rather more loose ones exist and walking dead is slap bang in the middle of that. It is your bog standard biological/nature based, bite them and it transmits, the world did not manage to contain it and is now falling apart zombie stuff and the main focus seems to be survival/group dynamics in that situation, nothing in that I have problem with or would even call stale/overdone as a concept. Or if you prefer there is zombie fiction in the same way there are police procedurals, such things run from basically soap operas (a UK example might be the bill) to stuff like the wire -- few would confuse the two shows but they sit in the same broad category (though calling the wire a police procedural at some level has probably just got me in a fight with a few people around here). On never seen horror then all I really have is anecdotal evidence, however I would find it no more odd for someone to have not seen a good example of the concept than I would for someone to have not seen an anime. Moreover when walking dead was little more than a comic and a leaked pilot I had a look to see what other zombie TV shows there were -- aside from anime there was basically nothing that happened on North American TV (or indeed elsewhere that would have really reached North America), save for one off episodes of the x-files, buffy the vampire slayer and similar shows. Now someone being part of western culture not knowing what the western concept of a zombie is would be something to raise an eyebrow about, them having not properly (or perhaps recently) experienced some kind of zombie fiction would be considerably less so (trailers and back of the whatever text blurbs tend not to give the game away for most zombie films, games and books). Alternatively we occasionally have the "I want to introduce my friend to rpgs/puzzles/BDSM/platformers/anime/eating insects as food/board games....." discussions and though the answer is usually "tailor it to their likes" a part of that is also "in most cases don't throw them in at the deep end", my position was, and still is, that walking dead might well be suitable for that no deep end bit if it was made to a better standard.

On the "However I do expect some consistent logic within the show..." stuff I was going back and expanding upon the claims of poor writing from earlier. I am not so worried about a minor continuity error or something -- I would probably say something along the lines of you can no more make an inconsistency free show than you can a bug free program, however it is pretty clear when it is either made by a hack or suffered something like design by committee. I will also refer back to my earlier comments on making entertainment to such a standard, and to the level discussed in the next paragraph, is hard and as a sustainable population of people probably do not much care then the need to go to such lengths is reduced.

People can like what they like, that is for them to like and possibly discuss with others; the only time I can say they do not like something is if I have donned a hypnotist's hat, or I guess as a response to someone saying "I can't remember if I saw/liked it". This probably lands us right in the "What is art?"/"Where does fashion come from?"/"What is music?" arena and it would not be hard to get phrases along the lines of "it is all a huge con" to willingly pass my lips when discussing such subjects. In the absence of something better though I will defer to academic side of things, something that, for better or for worse, the average pleb does not understand, and by all I know from that the Walking Dead TV show is not great (hence the comments on the characters, the editing, the pacing, the lack of logic used by the characters....). I usually see the phrase referring to music but it works here as well "there are rules on how to make art/music, you can break them but you had better know why you are breaking them in the first place".

"I said Shoot 'Em Up is obscure because most people have never heard of it."
Leaving aside the hugely subjective nature of that you then went on to discuss box office stats, the "loss" making nature of them and call it the definition of obscure. My issue was with box office stats/profits being used in that regard, if only because it did not account for DVD and what is known as Hollywood accounting. The IMDB stuff, mainly that it happily operated in similar orders magnitude to the unarguably not obscure stuff, was a holdover until I could pull together some numbers regarding DVD sales and whatever else. I was not about to claim it was bigger than Jesus, just that it could not comfortably be called obscure. Now we could probably use a variation on this logic/discussion for the N64 stuff, speaking of which

I really did not want to do the N64 in this thread (we have far better ones for that). My response would arguably be summed up by "won the battle but lost the war". Still "They've lost support of developers because of the way they treated them, not because the N64 was an inferior machine."
Devs did seem to dislike cartridges (space availability and manufacture costs being the main two) and it is not noted as being the easiest device to program for. As for the treatment thing -- the consoles tend to be business ventures with marketing and ecosystem strategies, assuming it is not just games I care about (though even then the "legendary" N64 library did not hold up on second glance for me, much less have much of great merit to go back and look at today, all this and more discussed in said other N64 threads) I would have to consider that too.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Dec 1, 2014)

The midseason finale episode had some pretty shitty CGI and once again they commit poor decisions for the best of their people.

Ideally I'd have preferred if they done it this way:

Church - Let Gabriel be eaten and keep secured from the outside

Rick and co. - Get info from the cops, kill them, invade and rescue their people. I kinda wish they'd have gone MW2 Airplane scene when they had Noah on their side as they [the remaining of that other group] didn't deserve to live anyway due to their actions, and yeah, this also includes the doctor (he's no innocent either).


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 2, 2014)

To Gahars- Let's see if I can make this as simple as I can for your obstinate dumb ass.

"Also, if you have to turn to others' reviews to validate your tastes, that's pretty weak. Let your tastes and preferences stand on their own, don't run to others for approval."

That's what you wrote to me, but then you turn around and

"Most of the people in these threads on GBAtemp alone were shitting on the show well before the finale. Fuck, even the Dexter subreddit was shitting all over the show,"


You can't have it both ways. You can't accuse me of trying to validate my opinions with the reviews of others and then do the exact same thing. Better watch your neck, whiplash is a bitch.
And do you even know what a hipster is? It's a guy who thinks he's more knowledgeable than he is, shits on anything that's mainstream, thinks he's better than everyone else, watches obscure stuff because he thinks it makes him look cultured, and is so arrogant about things that you want to kick his ass. That perfectly describes you, all the way from how you talk to others, throw out obscure references for no reason, and basically act like a know-it-all. There's not a lot worse than a know-it-all who doesn't know shit. And that's you. Hell, look at your avatar. And btw, GBATemp is full of hipsters, several of which commented in those threads you linked.

And your link to AV Club starts with a B-, A-, and B for the first three episodes. That doesn't really prove your point there bud, unless it's to show you're a dumbass. Also, I could always counter with http://www.ign.com/tv/dexter/8 or how about the metacritic page? http://www.metacritic.com/tv/dexter/season-8
Looks like you need to step it up, pal.
Finally, telling me "this sort of tells me all I need to know about where your standards lie" is you telling me that I have low standards compared to you. My "defense" of Dexter was that the final season was "The difference with Dexter is that the finale sucked, but up until then the final season wasn't bad at all. It wasn't all that great, but it was pretty decent" Wow, that's a really strong defense. Look out, guys, #1 Dexter superfan here.


To FAST6191, if you can find another definition of pretentious, please let me know. I'm serious, btw, not being sarcastic.
As for the iMDB stuff, I wasn't trying to make the point of it losing money being why I consider it obscure. I'm not sure if I gave you that impression, but it wasn't my intention. If I did mislead you, I regret that. My point was more about how it made about $5 million on opening weekend. That means less than 1 million people saw it. Even if we were to assume that everyone who saw it, remembered it (possible but not likely) that's a small percentage of people. We can add in DVD sales and other such avenues but it's unlikely that it would jump the percentage significantly. That doesn't make Shoot 'Em Up a bad movie, but it does make it one that not a lot of people know about. That makes it obscure.
And I'll refrain from commenting too much about the N64 since you don't want to discuss it here, but I think the business practices Nintendo employed dating back to the NES days came back and bit them severely during the 5th gen with the N64. I think their fall during that gen was a long time coming in the eyes of many developers who felt wronged by things Nintendo had done in the past.
That said, I'll make that my last comment about the N64 in this thread.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 2, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> To Gahars- Let's see if I can make this as simple as I can for your obstinate dumb ass.
> 
> "Also, if you have to turn to others' reviews to validate your tastes, that's pretty weak. Let your tastes and preferences stand on their own, don't run to others for approval."
> 
> ...


 
You insisted that no one disliked the show at the time while I provided evidence to the contrary. I wasn't saying, "I'm right because others agree," but that you were wrong to insist that it was universally beloved until the final episode. There's a subtle distinction, I know, but that's what reading is for.



Tiffani said:


> And do you even know what a hipster is? It's a guy who thinks he's more knowledgeable than he is, shits on anything that's mainstream, thinks he's better than everyone else, watches obscure stuff because he thinks it makes him look cultured, and is so arrogant about things that you want to kick his ass. That perfectly describes you, all the way from how you talk to others, throw out obscure references for no reason, and basically act like a know-it-all. There's not a lot worse than a know-it-all who doesn't know shit. And that's you. Hell, look at your avatar. And btw, GBATemp is full of hipsters, several of which commented in those threads you linked.


 
Yeah, you know me, shitting on anything mainstream. I only reference obscure indie titles like the recent Marvel films, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones. You know, you've probably never heard of them. And Shakespeare, I guess, but he's pretty underground.

The only "obscure" thing I referenced was Shoot 'Em Up, which was still a major motion picture distributed in theaters and on home video that received plenty of television airtime. If you want to keep harping on that as obscure, be my guest, but you just seem a bit obsessed with this notion as if it means anything at all.

On the point of the avatar, though, step off. You better leave Mott Romnoy alone. Only a man with a face that tiny could possibly have the know-how to shrink our deficit!

Also, on the note of "hipster" here...



Tiffani said:


> And your link to AV Club starts with a B-, A-, and B for the first three episodes. That doesn't really prove your point there bud, unless it's to show you're a dumbass.


 
...Followed by a deluge of C's and D's for the majority of the season leading up to the finale. Can you read?



Tiffani said:


> Also, I could always counter with http://www.ign.com/tv/dexter/8 or how about the metacritic page? http://www.metacritic.com/tv/dexter/season-8
> Looks like you need to step it up, pal.


 
Really? I'm not the one resorting to citing IGN, of all things. If you want, though, check the comments. Even on IGN the users were a whole lot less charitable throughout, which again goes to show that no, the season wasn't only retroactively reviled after the finale.

What are these reviews going to prove anyway? That some people liked it? Well, sure, no doubt, I never disputed that. You're the person who claimed I couldn't have watched it at the time because everyone else liked it.

Look, the world could've universally cherished Dexter Season 8 (or pretty much the show as a whole after Season 4) and it wouldn't make someone's dislike of it any less valid or legitimate. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like; just because you might disagree with others, even a lot of others, doesn't mean you're lying or just being a contrarian. Sometimes your tastes align with the majority, sometimes they don't; it's cool, it's just a part of being your own person.

Saying an opinion is bad because just because its uncommon is just asinine as saying one is bad just because it's "mainstream." I don't think you grasp this.



Tiffani said:


> Finally, telling me "this sort of tells me all I need to know about where your standards lie" is you telling me that I have low standards compared to you. My "defense" of Dexter was that the final season was "The difference with Dexter is that the finale sucked, but up until then the final season wasn't bad at all. It wasn't all that great, but it was pretty decent" Wow, that's a really strong defense. Look out, guys, #1 Dexter superfan here.


 
No, that's saying we have different standards. We so clearly diverge on how we perceive the quality of the season that it's clear we look for different things in our television programming. Don't work yourself up over nothing. You'll presume yourself into a fit at this rate.

Personally, considering how shit Dexter's last season was (and the ending of Season 7, especially after its strong start), I'd say that's still a pretty radical, extreme endorsement. It'd be like defending The Room as "a pretty well-made drama with decent performances." Of course, that's just my opinion, but then, isn't that obvious?

If you can't talk about television shows without resorting to petty, childish tantrums and insults, you really should take a break. You don't make yourself look any better when you have to call someone a dumbass for daring to disagree with you.

When tv shows get you this worked up, you might need to reevaluate your priorities a bit.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 3, 2014)

Gahars said:


> You insisted that no one disliked the show at the time while I provided evidence to the contrary. I wasn't saying, "I'm right because others agree," but that you were wrong to insist that it was universally beloved until the final episode. There's a subtle distinction, I know, but that's what reading is for.
> 
> Sweet fucking Jesus, you either have the world's worst reading comprehension or you're purposefully trying to smokescreen because you don't have a leg to stand on. I think it's the latter, but I don't know you very well so maybe it's the former? I NEVER (emphasis to ensure you see this) said that no one disliked the show. I said it wasn't as bad as you said it was.
> "...pretty decent." is nowhere near "...universally beloved..." Pretty decent is about a C or C+, which falls exactly in line with where the scores were. You're the one who needs to learn to read if you don't know the difference between pretty decent and universally beloved.
> ...


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 3, 2014)

> No, what you don't grasp is that there's a big difference between not liking a show and saying the show is garbage. Just because you don't like a show doesn't make it shit, or poorly written, constructed, etc. Your original words about TWD were that the show was poorly-written, had poor characters, etc. There's no other way to read that than to see it as you saying that the show is shit, the implication being that anyone who watches it has no taste. I find it irritating as hell when someone thinks they're better than others. Everyone could throw out obscure references about stuff, even if they had to do so in the same tortured way you do (ie not in the flow of the conversation) but they don't.



Gahars did not say he did not like the show and therefore it was shit, more that the show was shit and therefore he (and I for that matter) did not like it, a notion made doubly painful for me by the pilot actually being good. Such a thing is a fairly important disctinction from where I sit.
At this point the only thing left to do as far as justifying that position would be to go into schoolboy book report mode and detail its failings in detail, though I would hold that video I linked is pretty damning on the weapons handling front; I do not mind fantasy weapons but when a whole segment was devoted to doing it better in the pilot and the theme is pretty recurring from then on it does not speak well of things.
Randomly ignore the logic of the universe, fill it with one note/one trait defined characters and edit such that its apparent pacing is tedium inducing and you risk reducing the whole affair to a pretty lights show for anybody that was drawn in by the promises of not that, or generally seeks that in a show. Ultimately I have limited time, even if there is still a lot of it, to experience entertainment, and entertainment seeking is a something I consider worth my time, so the logical conclusion of all that is do not waste it and seek something that could at least tell a meaningful story, something that a lack of consistent/underlying logic tends to preclude.

"the implication being that anyone who watches it has no taste"
Though I would seriously question the tastes of those that truly enjoy walking dead as it stands today, especially as far as being a useful source of recommendations of things for me to watch in the future, it is less that that have no taste and more that they have different ones, indeed radically different ones as far as this is concerned.

"I find it irritating as hell when someone thinks they're better than others."
Though it can get odd in matters of subjectivity, such as it might count here, it is never the less quite possible to be better than someone else.


----------



## Gahars (Dec 4, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> Sweet fucking Jesus, you either have the world's worst reading comprehension or you're purposefully trying to smokescreen because you don't have a leg to stand on. I think it's the latter, but I don't know you very well so maybe it's the former? I NEVER (emphasis to ensure you see this) said that no one disliked the show. I said it wasn't as bad as you said it was.
> "...pretty decent." is nowhere near "...universally beloved..." Pretty decent is about a C or C+, which falls exactly in line with where the scores were. You're the one who needs to learn to read if you don't know the difference between pretty decent and universally beloved.


 


Tiffani said:


> See, this is the hipster douche shit I was talking about. You clearly didn't watch when it was airing because most people thought Season 8 was fairly good.





Tiffani said:


> Of course you conveniently leave out that my "pretty radical, extreme endorsement" is exactly in line with pretty much everyone else. I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is just a Dexter superfan?


 
Ah, "pretty much everyone else," gotcha.

I'll admit, my wording could've been better, but you're the person who attacked me for disliking the show. You're the person who said I couldn't have watched the show at the time because I disagreed with what you perceived to be the majority opinion. When I provided two threads showing that I watched alongside the broadcast, you called me a dumbass. When I provided examples showing that a negative take on Dexter's last season wasn't even necessarily a fringe viewpoint as you were claiming, suddenly you act as if you'd never made this statement in the first place. Who's the one with selective memory?



Tiffani said:


> You guys are the ones who got all pissy because I called the movie obscure. Any replies I've made with regards to that movie were explaining the definition of obscure to you because you refused to accept the truth. You're the one who keeps harping on it, you're the one who seems obsessed with proving it's not obscure, which you've failed miserably at, btw.


 
It's almost as if I responded because you claimed I offered Shoot 'Em Up as an example to appear superior. In fact...



Tiffani said:


> Gahars, you don't come off as arrogant but you do have a Dennis Miller thing going on where you try to bring up the most obscure thing you can in an effort to appear smarter than whomever you're debating.


 
...That's exactly what I did. I said I didn't agree with your definition, but moved on and brought up other examples instead.



Gahars said:


> Shoot 'Em Up is "obscure" now? Sure, less popular, but I don't think obscure is quite the right word. Anyway, if you take umbrage with that example, there's plenty of other actually good "popcorn movies" out there. There's a smattering of little series like, you know, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, shit, most of Marvel's output (give or take the Thors), etc..


 
Then you pushed the point and I again tried to move past it. I gave my brief thoughts on why I thought "obscure" was excessive (because, you know, words have connotations outside their strict dictionary definitions) and ended that point by reiterating that the entire reason I cited the movie was because I liked it and I thought it was a good example, end of story.



Gahars said:


> Anyay, I chose the movie as an example of an intentionally dumb movie made well. I feel like you're getting sidetracked on this issue.


 
But still you persisted. The fact that you think I was trying to "prove" it wasn't obscure like this was some court drama kind of goes to show that. Even better, though, now you're calling me a hipster because I, apparently, only watch "obscure" things to feel superior to everyone else. Honestly, this Shoot 'Em Up fixation just seems to be a part of your larger hard-on for calling people "hipsters" here. Apparently I'm a hipster, FAST's a hipster, GBAtemp is full of hipsters, the Princess fucking Bride is now hipster (because well-known 80s fantasy films are hipster now?), etc. You're like McCarthy if McCarthy blew a gasket over flannel instead of red.

If you're going to go charge after windmills, can't you at least imagine up a more interesting enemy?



Gahars said:


> My point was that the season started off fairly well, then slowly got worse and worse. That's what I said. Can you read?


 
But that's not what you said. You said that only the finale was bad and then everyone retroactively hated it.



Tiffani said:


> Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it... you could have googled early season 8 episode reviews and figured that out.


 
And then when I pointed to a critical example, you only said:






Tiffani said:


> And your link to AV Club starts with a B-, A-, and B for the first three episodes. That doesn't really prove your point there bud, unless it's to show you're a dumbass.


 
If you want to people to respond to what you mean, say what you mean, rather than post something you (apparently) don't think and then get angry when people reply to your posts and not your innermost thoughts.




> And you're the one resorting to citing AVClub, what's your point? That one of the largest sites on the internet is somehow a bad source? Also, way to skip over Metacritic, which is even more damning to your point.


 
Yeah, IGN's been a laughingstock for years now. Where have you been?

I'm sorry I have to explain again, but I posted the AV Club reviews to show that, hey, these reviews weren't uniformly positive as you were claiming ("you could have googled early season 8 episode reviews and figured that out.") so that you're idea that disliking Dexter Season 8 at the time wasn't such a fringe position. You posted IGN and Metacritic to "prove" that some people liked it, which I never disputed in the first place.

You might want to reread that post, because I actually did respond to your citations, Metacritic and IGN, at the same time. (Keyword highlighted)




Gahars said:


> What are these *reviews* going to prove anyway? That some people liked it? Well, sure, no doubt, I never disputed that. You're the person who claimed I couldn't have watched it at the time because everyone else liked it.


 



Tiffani said:


> Again, I NEVER said that everyone else liked it. You act as if the season sucked from the get-go, I was proving you wrong.


 
See above quotes. Also, what's with this idea that you can prove taste wrong with reviews, no less? "No, you didn't dislike Season 8 at the time. Look at these reviewers who disagree with you?" Oh dang, you got me, pardner. 

I mean, you could point to a review ("This reviewer makes good points in defense of X") and have the person read and respond to that; there's room for disagreement and discussion, and the person may still come up with equally valid criticisms. That's a very, very different thing, however. 



Tiffani said:


> No, what you don't grasp is that there's a big difference between not liking a show and saying the show is garbage. Just because you don't like a show doesn't make it shit, or poorly written, constructed, etc. Your original words about TWD were that the show was poorly-written, had poor characters, etc. There's no other way to read that than to see it as you saying that the show is shit, the implication being that anyone who watches it has no taste. I find it irritating as hell when someone thinks they're better than others. Everyone could throw out obscure references about stuff, even if they had to do so in the same tortured way you do (ie not in the flow of the conversation) but they don't.





Tiffani said:


> Here's the deal, I don't give a damn if you don't like what I do. Just as you don't give a damn if I don't like what you do. But when you start saying a show is poorly written and poorly made, that's a different thing. *When you make snarky comments and call the show shit, you're insulting the viewers.* And considering that every show ever made has plenty of moments that you could categorize as dumb, it's wrong to do that.


No there isn't. If you don't like something, you may very well think it's garbage. These are all subjective qualities that are judged and evaluated differently by everyone. You're of the opinion that the show's characters, writers, etc. are fine or great. I'm of the opinion that they're not, and when you asked me why I didn't like the show, I was honest and explained my perspective. You don't seem to understand, or are forgetting, that disliking something doesn't mean disliking or dismissing the people who enjoy it; maybe that's why you've taken this all so personally. You might just be projecting a bit too much here.

To go back to the Dexter example, I think Season 8 (and the back half of Season 7, and... well, most of it after 4) of Dexter was absolute trash, so yeah, anyone who disagrees is going to have very, very different taste than me. That doesn't mean I don't respect that person or their own tastes, we all like what we like, but I'm just mindful of the fact that, hey, we judge things differently so we're naturally going to reach an impasse at some point. Our tastes aren't all aligned, and there's nothing negative in the slightest about agreeing to disagree. We're just talking about tv shows and movies here, after all.



Tiffani said:


> Of course you conveniently leave out that my "pretty radical, extreme endorsement" is exactly in line with pretty much everyone else. I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is just a Dexter superfan?


 
I think you're taking those lines a little too seriously... unless you're saying that pretty much everyone agrees that The Room is a pretty well-made drama with decent performances, in which case, then I'm worried.



Tiffani said:


> No, I called you a dumbass because you're acting like a dumbass. You fail to grasp the simplest of concepts. I know you're not a stupid man so you must be purposefully ignoring the facts I lay out before you. And care to point out my "petty, childish tantrums"?


 
Throwing out "dumbass" and "hipster" like t-shirts at a sports game, for one. Shit, not two posts ago...



Spoiler






Tiffani said:


> And do you even know what a hipster is? It's a guy who thinks he's more knowledgeable than he is, shits on anything that's mainstream, thinks he's better than everyone else, watches obscure stuff because he thinks it makes him look cultured, and is so arrogant about things that you want to kick his ass. That perfectly describes you, all the way from how you talk to others, throw out obscure references for no reason, and basically act like a know-it-all. There's not a lot worse than a know-it-all who doesn't know shit. And that's you. Hell, look at your avatar. And btw, GBATemp is full of hipsters, several of which commented in those threads you linked.





 
Maybe that's not the tone you intend to convey, but you seem to be getting platinum mad here. I'll admit that this is a tango and I've fanned the flames, but you insult people, presume they don't like the show because they're impatient for zombie action, dismiss them as hipster contrarians for disagreeing with you, call them arrogant douches, etc. and then when you get an inevitably ticked-off response, you double down. You fuck with the bull, you're bound to get an earful from the rancher.

If you want to end this, that's fine. We've probably talked at each other more than to each other at this point and, as I've said, there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2014)

All right, let you address you guys separately. 



FAST6191 said:


> Gahars did not say he did not like the show and therefore it was shit, more that the show was shit and therefore he (and I for that matter) did not like it,
> 
> That's the same thing, just worded differently. It's like saying, "I don't like being stabbed, therefore it's painful." which is the same as saying "Stabbing is painful, therefore I don't like it."
> 
> ...


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 4, 2014)

Gahars said:


> Ah, "pretty much everyone else," gotcha.
> 
> This was in reference to you saying that my defense of Dexter being "pretty decent" was shared by pretty much everyone else and not, as you phrased it, a "pretty radical, extreme endorsement" A pretty radical, extreme endorsement would not be shared by the vast majority of viewers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gahars (Dec 4, 2014)

Tiffani said:


> This was in reference to you saying that my defense of Dexter being "pretty decent" was shared by pretty much everyone else and not, as you phrased it, a "pretty radical, extreme endorsement" A pretty radical, extreme endorsement would not be shared by the vast majority of viewers.


 
Except my "radical, extreme endoresement" had nothing to do with what anyone else thought. As I joked with The Room comparison, I personally feel that the season was so poor that even "pretty good" was way too charitable.



Tiffani said:


> No, I called you a dumbass because you keep acting as if everyone else shares your viewpoint that the 8th season sucked from the get-go. My original point was that the finale stained the season for most everyone, which I have backed up with data that supports my claim.


 
Except I never did. I said that I hated it and that we likely had very different standards. When you said I couldn't have watched the show because everyone else liked it at the time, I pointed to two threads showing I watched along the broadcast and provided a link to some negative reviews to show that the opinion wasn't as unanimous among critics as you were making it out to be.

Not once did I claim everyone else shared my viewpoint, you did.



Tiffani said:


> I pushed the point because you failed to acknowledge the truth, even in the face of more evidence.


 
Facts? Evidence? You posted a definition, I said that it had a prominent enough release and airtime that I considered "obscure" to be excessive (because, again, words have connotations beyond their strict dictionary definitions) and then conceded that it didn't matter because whether or not it was obscure was irrelevant to the original point.



Tiffani said:


> Again, allow me to explain to your obstinate ass what a hipster is, again. A hipster is someone who tries to make themselves appear more cultured by naming obscure things. Your Chinese cartoons, for example. Or putting together a mishmash of words when you insult something "If you want to watch a bunch of guys with straggly beards try to adapt to a decaying, dangerous world, just watch Breaking Amish." I admit, that's not nearly as bad as Seanbaby, but even being mentioned in the same sentence with that douche is bad enough. I can cite other examples of your attempts to be flip "I was hoping that The Walking Dead would be closer to something like World War Z (the book, not the Pepsi commercial)" but the overall point is that I can deal with you doing that so long as you don't get too arrogant about it.


 
So joking about watching anime is hipster now? Admitting to wanting to watch some more anime shows that people recommended is an attempt to appear cultured? People who watch anime get called many things, but I don't think "cultured" is one of them (unless it's some weab ranting about his superior otaku culture, i guess).

A mishmash of words... you mean a sentence?

Also, am I not allowed to make jokes now or something? Are jokes hipster now? Don't tell me puns are hipster, too, or I'm going to have nothing less.



Tiffani said:


> I never said that.





> Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it.





Tiffani said:


> Here's what I said "The difference with Dexter is that the finale sucked, but up until then the final season wasn't bad at all. It wasn't all that great, but it was pretty decent" I said the final season wasn't bad at all. That's a far cry from saying that only the finale was bad. If you're going to quote, please try to do so correctly and not attribute words to me I never said.


 
"Up until [the ending] the final season wasn't bad at all" and "the final season wasn't bad at all" (with the exception of the finale) aren't significantly different here. Maybe that's not what you meant, but you can't fault others for assuming "not bad at all" and "It was pretty decent" means "not bad."



Tiffani said:


> Ok, you've gone off the rails here. I said early season 8 episode reviews. Are the first 3 episodes of a season not "early season"? Also, IGN is not a laughingstock. Maybe to you and your hipster buddies, but to the rest of us they're a really good site. I'm sorry they're too mainstream for you.


 
"Early" as in "before the finale," or at least, that's what you implied when you said:


Tiffani said:


> *Then the shit finale hit and everyone soured on it*.


Unless you meant that people had soured on it well before the finale.

Also, on IGN, I mean, you're free to like what you like, but IGN is the Daily Mail of video game/media sites and the forums are even worse. They've been acting better than Kotaku, Gamasutra, etc. certainly, but there's still better sites out there.



Tiffani said:


> See, this is why I've called you a dumbass.* I never said you could prove tastes wrong with reviews.* If anything you've tried to do that with your AVClub link. Let me lay this out for you. You say that Dexter Season 8 sucked. I respond by saying that the finale sucked, but the rest was "not bad". You respond to that by posting a link to AVClub's season 8 review, in an attempt to prove me wrong. I counter with IGN's and Metacritic's collection of season 8 reviews, which shoot your argument to shit.


 
Except you are, still. Shit...



Tiffani said:


> You say that Dexter Season 8 sucked. I respond by saying that the finale sucked, but the rest was "not bad". You respond to that by posting a link to AVClub's season 8 review, in an attempt to prove me wrong. I counter with IGN's and Metacritic's collection of season 8 reviews, which shoot your argument to shit.


 
For the umpteenth time, the AC Club link was not to "prove" your tastes wrong, it was to show that there will still some negative reviews even at the time of airing after you asserted, directly or indirectly, that had I searched for Season 8 reviews made before the finale, I would've seen nothing but positive reviews. You posted to prove that people liked it, which I had never even disputed in the first place.

You can't shoot an argument to shit if it was never made in the first place, no matter how much you keep asserting otherwise.



Tiffani said:


> There's a big difference between saying you don't like the show and insulting those who do.


 
Certainly, criticism of a show is not insulting those that like it. Saying you don't like a show is not the same as saying you don't like those who do. Saying you think something is shit is not saying you think anyone who likes that thing is shit. There's a world of difference between saying "This is shit" and "Anyone who likes it is shit." My parents love Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory, I hate those shows, but that doesn't magically make me hate my parents now. I just, you know, disagree. That's it.
In this case, it seems more like you've taking offense on the show's behalf than anything else. Don't, that's pointless.



Tiffani said:


> Me calling you on on being a hipster is a "petty, childish tantrum"?


 
When you have to resort to repeating it endlessly and rave about it for an entire paragraph... yeah, doesn't look too calm and collected.



Tiffani said:


> Me presuming you didn't like the show because you're impatient for zombie action is in no way an insult. I even said I can agree with that, for the most part.


 
Sure it is. It's a baseless assumption that implies we're too impatient to "get" the show, that we couldn't handle not getting instant gratification. It'd be like saying, "If I had to guess, you like Transformers because it's so simple anyone can understand it," or "If I had to guess, you like The Walking Dead just because zombies are in right now," or something to that effect. I mean, it's not the harshest insult in the world, but it's still dismissive and presumptuous. That's naturally going to tick people off.



Tiffani said:


> And yeah, I called you guys arrogant douches, because you were acting like arrogant douches. You guys have to admit that.


 
I'll meet you at the middle and take "Grognard."


----------



## Tiffani (Dec 5, 2014)

I just want to quickly respond to one thing, and then I promise to let things lie. I don't know how you took me presuming you didn't like TWD because of lack of action as being dismissive and presumptuous, especially when I included myself in said assumption. My husband's best friend is the same way, he's always complaining about not enough action in things. I don't consider that an insult, but I guess you never know.


----------



## chavosaur (Dec 7, 2014)

The whole thing is a crock of shit, read the comics, dont sully yourself with this god awful show.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Dec 7, 2014)

What chavo said. The comics do the story telling way better. Way, way better. There is only one good character in the TV show, and he isn't even in the comics. It is really sad when you manage to make every character from the comics less interesting than the guy you made up for the series. The story progression in terms of pace is far better in the comics too. You never feel like they spend too long doing one thing in one place. The characters even have depth, which is awesome. The Walking Dead is a truly great comic series.

I know they tried to make the TV show its own thing, but that has backfired really, really badly. I would have rather seen a visual representation of the comics than what has been spit out as a show. The sad thing is, it stays popular because it's the only zombie show on television. Thus people can somehow ignore the slow seasons, the two dimensional characters, and the exceptionally slow progression of events.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 2, 2015)

Being 2am as I write this means I get to be the thing that bumps it in the night
Saw the following breakdowns of the show earlier today, I would say it accurately sums up my thoughts on the matter but it is actually more coherent and better researched.


----------



## cracker (May 2, 2015)

Yeah that little known military project played out well on the small screen.


----------



## XDel (May 2, 2015)

Season one of this show, despite poor ending, was a delight. I didn't totally resent season 2 either, but beginning in season three, things began to fall apart, then season four and five were of the nature of being a rough and boring ride till the very last few episodes where it almost makes you feel like there might be hope.
In the end though, I feel my time is better spent watching George Romero's original zombie trilogy, and calling it a day.


Also as a side note, the whole "community" episode has to be the worst yet. Cliche, and utterly trite.


----------



## cracker (May 2, 2015)

I was just talking to my nephew they other day that the episode where 



Spoiler



Rick finally kills Shane


 was so good because he was such a dick.


----------



## ExplodingJesus (Aug 27, 2015)

Yumi said:


> I hear its a good show, never watched it but I guess I  will watch a few soon.
> 
> P.S. I can see your point in that scene.


I also missed this episode. But my told me that episode was damn good.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 28, 2015)

cracker said:


> I was just talking to my nephew they other day that the episode where
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The best season was definitely the first and the second's pretty good too. It's during the third and up that it started derailing in quality.


----------

