I'm with you. I've enjoyed this season so far, and I really look forward to what they come up with next. What will they do with Darryl and Merle? It'll be fun to find out.
Loved it. Still can't understand how unbelievable stupid and non-observant andrea is.
the ending was really exciting, until they showed the preview for february where you could see daryl alive. uber fail.
Oh God, Andrea. She used to just annoy me, but now I hope they bump her off. Michonne saves your life and takes care of you for eight months? Great. You bone the Governor a couple of days and now you're gonna side with him? What a crappy friend you are. Hope things go real well with that sweet new man of hers!
Daryl's going to die. Which is good. It'll let the public audience know that the writers do not care who they are killing off, even if they have an immense fan group. Kirkman does this all the time.
Daryl's going to die. Which is good. It'll let the public audience know that the writers do not care who they are killing off, even if they have an immense fan group. Kirkman does this all the time.
Even though I hated him, I cried when Michonne shoved a glass shard through his eye. I was in tears when he was pleading for "Penny's" life, but I lost it with the shard. I don't think even he deserves that. EVEN after what he did to Maggie.
I love this show but I hate ALL the women, yes that includes Michonne. They are all annoying and badly written. But I can't wait to see what happens with Rick, Daryl, and Merle.
Daryl's going to die. Which is good. It'll let the public audience know that the writers do not care who they are killing off, even if they have an immense fan group. Kirkman does this all the time.
Errr - nope?
You could see Daryl alive several times in the Season 3.5 preview (example 12). He will definitely survive the Woodbury incidents.
Daryl's going to die. Which is good. It'll let the public audience know that the writers do not care who they are killing off, even if they have an immense fan group. Kirkman does this all the time.
Didn't they already do that with Shane? I know a lot of people disliked the character on the show, but he did have a lot of fans and he was a huge part of the first two seasons.
Also with the Sophia situation and Carl killing Lori after she gave the birth the show has already proven they're not afraid of having dark moments or of killing off major characters.
Also with the Sophia situation and Carl killing Lori after she gave the birth the show has already proven they're not afraid of having dark moments or of killing off major characters.
Since when was Sophia ever a major character?
And Lori was probably the most hated character until then.
Shane is different. Sure he went absolutely crazy but at least he brought some spice and violence within the group which no other character really does.
Since when was Sophia ever a major character?
And Lori was probably the most hated character until then.
Shane is different. Sure he went absolutely crazy but at least he brought some spice and violence within the group which no other character really does.
Shane was the example of them killing off a major/popular character, Sophia and Lori were examples of the show going in a darker direction (although I guess Lori could be counted as a major character). It's rare for any show to kill a child especially like that and I don't think any show has had a child have to kill their own mother.
Instead, we get this sweet guy who really hasn't done a single bad thing.
It's easy to make a total psychopath asshole who we all want dead and that was pretty much comic Gov to a tee. Hiding that from the TV series audience was a good choice. Like Kirkman said, we get to see him in layers. You're slowly introduced to him and his depravity and that makes it more shocking.
And he's certainly getting on par with his comic version, I'm willing to bet he'll get even worse by the end of the season.
Actually, killing shane was...well following the comics...he just was around for much longer...as was Lori dying. Sophia dying marks a huge deviation from the comics.
Most people watching the show haven't read the comics so to them it was a huge moment when Shane was killed off. The post I quoted states that they should kill Daryl off to show that anyone can die no matter how popular the character is. I was saying that killing Shane has already proven to the TV viewers that the show is willing to go in that direction and the deaths of Lori & Sophia show the audience that their not afraid of going in a darker direction.
It's easy to make a total psychopath asshole who we all want dead and that was pretty much comic Gov to a tee. Hiding that from the TV series audience was a good choice. Like Kirkman said, we get to see him in layers. You're slowly introduced to him and his depravity and that makes it more shocking.
And he's certainly getting on par with his comic version, I'm willing to bet he'll get even worse by the end of the season.
Still, I don't think the almost-rape scene did anything but show that you can't show things on primetime. Now it looks like he was a halfway decent guy with an excuse to kill. The rape scene should have been axed entirely or given to Merle.
Most people watching the show haven't read the comics so to them it was a huge moment when Shane was killed off. The post I quoted states that they should kill Daryl off to show that anyone can die no matter how popular the character is. I was saying that killing Shane has already proven to the TV viewers that the show is willing to go in that direction and the deaths of Lori & Sophia show the audience that their not afraid of going in a darker direction.
Killing off major characters may hurt the show since people will stop watching if characters keep getting killed off.
err, wasn't really betrayal, he was killing 2 birds with 1 stone. first getting rid of merle because he was lying and couldn't be trusted and second explaining his folks that it really wasn't his fault, that they are secure but merle helped the terrorists get in.
err, wasn't really betrayal, he was killing 2 birds with 1 stone. first getting rid of merle because he was lying and couldn't be trusted and second explaining his folks that it really wasn't his fault, that they are secure but merle helped the terrorists get in.
I know, the 2nd part was. But still, the fact that Merle betrayed him majorly just before this made it seem like the governor was reasonable. they need to work on making the governor seem more like he is in the comics, more evil, less excuses.
poor guy lost his penny, poor guy keeps zombieheads to toughen against reality, yadayada. No, stop all this BS and show us the true comic governor
Some of you really need to start tuning into Talking Dead. Robert Kirkman addressed that very subject Sunday night. They made a conscious decision to start him out as a very nuanced, political-type individual and they would peel these layers back over time and eventually The Governor we all know from the comics will emerge and it will be glorious. People don't seem to take the formula that the showrunners have used since the beginning into account when they form their opinions.
Except, as I said, it implies that he was transformed by outside events and not actually a bad person to begin with. If they wanted to make that arc more convincing, it needed to have the rape played normally, or taken out. Glen Mazzara is playing the Walking Dead as standard television, and that's one of the biggest problems. It's too far adapted to TV.
Showrunners shouldn't stick to what they always do, they should be more focused on bringing the moments of the comic to life. To me those are Carl shooting [human] Shane, Tyreese in the prison (which still could happen), "We are the walking dead!", Lori's death, and Glenn meeting Lucille. So far, they haven't got a single PANEL right.
Comments
Maybe he truly believed Merle betrayed him?
Anyway I didn't suspect the end.
the ending was really exciting, until they showed the preview for february where you could see daryl alive. uber fail.
Who thinks Merle is suppose to be Martinez from the comics and is just being planted to help infiltrate the prison?
By the way,I am sorry about putting this in the wrong forum,I thought I was in the spoiler section when I posted this thread.
And the "black guy that got shot" Is Oscar.
Is it that hard to remember one name?
Given that he was really just irrelevant in the long run...yea, kind of is.
What about Merle?
Errr - nope?
You could see Daryl alive several times in the Season 3.5 preview (example 1 2). He will definitely survive the Woodbury incidents.
Didn't they already do that with Shane? I know a lot of people disliked the character on the show, but he did have a lot of fans and he was a huge part of the first two seasons.
Also with the Sophia situation and Carl killing Lori after she gave the birth the show has already proven they're not afraid of having dark moments or of killing off major characters.
Sure. He'll survive the next episode. I like Daryl, it's just the undeniable fact that "The dead always win".
Since when was Sophia ever a major character?
And Lori was probably the most hated character until then.
Shane is different. Sure he went absolutely crazy but at least he brought some spice and violence within the group which no other character really does.
I'm pretty sure if he kept them alive people would be yelling "Oh So-and-so has plot armour so they can't die."
You can't win :rolleyes:
Shane was the example of them killing off a major/popular character, Sophia and Lori were examples of the show going in a darker direction (although I guess Lori could be counted as a major character). It's rare for any show to kill a child especially like that and I don't think any show has had a child have to kill their own mother.
It's easy to make a total psychopath asshole who we all want dead and that was pretty much comic Gov to a tee. Hiding that from the TV series audience was a good choice. Like Kirkman said, we get to see him in layers. You're slowly introduced to him and his depravity and that makes it more shocking.
And he's certainly getting on par with his comic version, I'm willing to bet he'll get even worse by the end of the season.
Most people watching the show haven't read the comics so to them it was a huge moment when Shane was killed off. The post I quoted states that they should kill Daryl off to show that anyone can die no matter how popular the character is. I was saying that killing Shane has already proven to the TV viewers that the show is willing to go in that direction and the deaths of Lori & Sophia show the audience that their not afraid of going in a darker direction.
Still, I don't think the almost-rape scene did anything but show that you can't show things on primetime. Now it looks like he was a halfway decent guy with an excuse to kill. The rape scene should have been axed entirely or given to Merle.
Thanks,I never realised you could do that.
It's more like stupid people let the dead win.
Killing off major characters may hurt the show since people will stop watching if characters keep getting killed off.
Merle already betrayed the Governor. Merle lied about Michonne being dead. That's why the Governor betrayed him back.
Except that it was a lie.
poor guy lost his penny, poor guy keeps zombieheads to toughen against reality, yadayada. No, stop all this BS and show us the true comic governor
Showrunners shouldn't stick to what they always do, they should be more focused on bringing the moments of the comic to life. To me those are Carl shooting [human] Shane, Tyreese in the prison (which still could happen), "We are the walking dead!", Lori's death, and Glenn meeting Lucille. So far, they haven't got a single PANEL right.