Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Walking dead season 3


nobody

Recommended Posts

I thought that was a weak episode. The plot didn't move much and there was hardly any character development. The hiding scene was suspenseful but overall meaningless. Reminded me a lot of season 2.

I thought the opposite. Character's developed. Milton, Andrea, Tyreese and his group. Governor showed more of what we already knew, but now Milton and Andrea see it. It's a set up episode for the next two.

To me, the hiding scene DID have a purpose. It was Andrea's moment. This has launched a pivotal point in her character. Her being able to sacrifice a warm bed and seemingly guaranteed safety due to the moral dilemma presented with the Governor's actions and the Woodbury/Prison conflict in general. And, just to add one more, it's her "cold blooded" moment. A couple episodes ago, she couldn't bring herself to murder the Governor in cold blood. Season 2, she sided with Dale on the Randall situation. This last episode, she released what seemed to be about 15 or so walkers on the Governor and no fugs were given. Comic Andrea is slowly coming forth....

It's also the episode where the Governor has completely become obsessed with killing outside survivors (namely Michonne, but also the rest of the group) and really asserting himself on people (ie, Milton), whereas before, he just sweet talked his away around people.

Plenty happened, with a bit more zombie killing just to keep the action going on so that these last two episodes, where action is guaranteed to get going, don't seem to have "forced" action in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like that all could have been expressed in a forth of an episode. And I strongly disagree about Andrea. She didn't make a moral decision, she was backed into a corner and did what she had to do. It was a turning point episode for her(and the governor, I agree) but since the 2nd season I have this skeptical part of my mind that is always critical of the pacing. Also, the governor popping back up right when Andrea was approaching the prison was a bit cliched to me.

It wasn't a bad episode by any means, just weak given how well the rest of the season has gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last episode was great for Andreas character - shes way better doing and not thinking which is odd since her character was a lawyer. Laurie Holden is not a very good actress, at least for this show, but she has a tough chick look.

The big character development in terms of the show last ep was the governor - I really do believe he's completely a bad guy now and he's completely sold himself to the idea that he deserves to have and hold power. "Show me, don't tell me" was never more shown on this show than this last ep. Nerdy assistant guy started making some sense, and Tyreese finally got some real attention. I've liked the past few shows that focus more on a smaller group of people than the back and forth with everyone getting moments type of show, but next week it will probably revert to that as things get heated up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you wanna explain what the pic has to do with things, that'd be good. Without any context though, a pic from a show I don't watch and a "this guy says hi" caption don't really say much to me.

He was hands down the main character, voice of reason, center of almost everything in the first season, yet he dies all of the sudden after a suspenseful buildup, when you expect someone to jump in and save him or something. I think what he was getting at is that nobody is safe in TV shows if the writing is done well and not forced down the safe route.

BTW, you should definitely give GoT a shot. I haven't heard of anyone who has tried it and not become hooked. Most people like it more than TWD too.

Very similar kind of stuff to TWD in terms of complicated relationships, badasses, crazy people, etc, except there is a lot of, for lack of a better word, "strategy" to the relationships and the things going on. And the acting is, IMO, much superior to TWD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

im with natty on the pacing. that might be my only gripe and that's saying something.

i still avoid the comic as i want to be surprised and remove any preconcieved notions. this also allows kirkman to do what he wants and not be bound by the pages of the very comic he created. creative license gets turned inside out if you will.

i think the prison theme gets wrapped up with a couple of loose ends. and just one main person getting offed.

and not seen one nano second of Game of Thrones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

walking dead is hands down the best comic series i've ever read, after the first 20 or so issues. they're pretty bad in comparison.

the show is only faithful to the comics as far as the basic backbone of the plot. there is a lot that's changed, and honestly the comic is way better at this point. not comparing issue 107 to the current point in the show, but the relative points in the series. issues 30-40ish i think. maybe the 50s. been a long time since i read them.

i like how they change some people's deaths. i'm especially glad they kept shane around through the farm instead of killing him off long before they got there. how they kill lori on the show goes a long way towards establishing carl's character in other ways, ways they probably can't pull off on the show.

who thinks carl will kill another kid on the show?

so they're both very rewarding experiences. i really do hope the show can manage the awesomeness that the comic has. if it does, it will be the best television ever.

as far as earlier comments about an "end game", it wouldn't surprise me if zombies are eventually all but wiped out and the plot turns into a mad max style apocalypse storyline. imo that's what kirkman ultimately envisioned for the series. the zombies are just the prologue to a much larger story about what happens when civilization collapses and groups start vying for power.

also yeah not happy with an entire episode about andrea and the guv'nah but at least it was well done. very hitchock in its execution, and i can dig that, even though it was too damn predictable. some of those tools laid out in the chamber were horrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with PSC... Zombies are just a plot device at this point... especially in the comics (see the newest character introduction in the comics)... It is more about life after the world the survivors knew ended...

It doesn't matter anymore who you were or what you were before... Right now, you're a survivor... and your every waking moment pretty much involves continuing to survive.

This has a strong parallel with other fiction I love... like GoT even... A tagline from that is "In the Game of Thrones you win or you die." Change "Game of Thrones" with "fight for survival" and you have a recipe for great storytelling just like TWD has. It beckons the inner fight/flight response in us all... even though it is a made up fictional world...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Super raw, not sure he is worth a top 10 pick.  Primary a pass rusher.  A bit like Burns, very fast athletic but doesnt always follow the play.  His highlights look good but when you watch him play you can see he is just raw and needs to develop
    • Personally, I am not sold on Bryce yet--and I do not think anyone is saying they are, but I don't think Ward is on table when we draft anyway.  Not even sure if I would rather have him than one of the later QBs.  I see a lot of potential in Allar, Nussmeire, Rourke, and even Hamilton from Ohio State--Milroe is intriguing, but I am not sure he is an NFL QB.  Ewers is that sleeper who falls and becomes a solid starter. I think that we sign a veteran who has played and we draft one of these project QBs. To your point:  With that in mind, I think you have to take QB off the table in round 1, and if Bryce can string 4-5 games like KC together, we still need to draft a QB in round three or so---I really think Rourke is a great fit for this offense--he is accurate and gets the ball out quickly---he impressed me vs OSU.   Reason?  I think we may have a tough decision to make about Bryce in 2 years--will he be worth $60m?  That decision is a lot easier if you have been grooming a backup for 2 years who can play. In round 1: I am hoping for PSU's edge Abdul Carter In round 2:  I would like to see us grab a DT who can rush the passer.  Walter Nolen of Ole Miss is versatile and a bit raw. I think he could be an excellent complement to Brown. In round 3:  I would love ILB Danny Stutsman from Oklahoma.  He is a beast. With 11 picks, I would package our 4th rounders to move up into the third round and take a QB.  At the moment, I think Rourke is trending upward and he has the skills Canales seems to want in a QB.  Quick processor, quick release. I would use the fifth rounders on OL.  I know that I left out WR--however, we are getting Thielen back, XL will be improved, Coker will be improved, and Moore has been surprisingly good.  Sanders (TE) has been more than expected in the passing game.  I think we need D more than WR, and maybe we can get a veteran WR to sign or find a hidden gem late.  
    • Wouldn't be surprised if he starts a couple Jets games this year with the way the Rodgers thing is going. Giants fans are pissed they didn't keep him lol. He might actually have a little bit of a market. 
×
×
  • Create New...