S2: A story of flawed characters making flawed decisions.
Let me preface this by saying that the title of this thread isn't negative. Flawed characters are the best characters.
Everyone is flawed. No one is perfect. No one can make good decisions all the time and sometimes in life, you may find yourself in a situation where a negative outcome is inevitable, no matter what you do.
Powerlessness has been an overarching theme of this season and personally, I'm loving it. In every single episode, Clem is thrust into a situation where you aren't in control and that's a problem for gamers at large. It's my observation that many people are having a hard time coming to grips with this because they're stuck in a video game mentality. Gamers want to be in control. They want their decisions to matter at all times. I understand though. It's depressing to work so hard to save these people you have come to love, to think you've made all the "right" decisions, only to see them die a mundane death.
Unfortunately, people die unavoidable mundane deaths everyday. Death is disappointing. That is the point. Telltale wants us to feel this way and this is made apparent by the conversation that Clem and Jane have. I believe much of the disappointment comes from the reflection this game has upon our own mortality. We all want to be super zombie apocalypse survivors but many of us are nothing more than NPCs who will die inconsequential deaths.
Life just isn't fair in a dog eat dog world. You don't always get to redeem yourself. You don't always get to achieve all that you set out to do in life. Death comes swifter than you could possibly imagine and many of us won't be prepared for the inevitable.
Kirkman wrote it best in the comic:
Comments
to those mad about the death of Nick and Sarah read this ^
I admit when I clicked on the title I was like oh hell no not another hate post lol but i was surprised this is actually a well thought out and interesting post and I agree with you.walking dead is full of flawed characters making flawed decisions but that makes them more realistic and relatable.
That's all well and good. The problem is that that makes for shitty storytelling, and that's my number one issue. I think we all understand and see the value behind shocking, unfair deaths... up to a certain point. Eventually, however, we just stop caring if it keeps on happening and we have to keep justifying shitty sendoffs with "it's realistic" or "nobody is safe". As I said elsewhere, all that's left in a story that's basically mangled at the moment (the Carver story after In Harm's Way) is the characters and their compelling stories. But if there are no compelling stories to begin with because we're just going to go for shock deaths, then what's the point in ever being invested?
It's a simple reality of writing death: Shock value only ever works the first time it's used, by virtue of trying to be shocking. But meaningful storytelling is the stuff that stays with you forever and makes you look back on something fondly.
I did, and it kind of missed the point as to why I and other people are still pissed. We aren't angry about feeling powerless in the game. We're angry that the storytelling is subpar and lazy because TellTale just flat out didn't want to bother. See, if Nick and Sarah had deaths that were unfair and brutal, but fulfilling from a character standpoint, people wouldn't be nearly as pissed. I'd still be pissed about Sarah dying, but I'd be glad that TellTale went the extra mile in making her ending memorable. That's not what we got.
Not every death is going to be fulfilling. Sorry man. Death sucks.
good thread, It summed up all my feelings. I am loving it also.
No, flawed characters make for the best story telling. People were up in arms about Luke being perfect until this episode and now everyone hates him because he made a "bad" choice that got someone killed.
You're talking about a world where a simple bite or scratch from a zombie (which outnumbers living humans 1,000,000:1) is a death sentence. It's very easy for this to happen to anyone.
This is the Walking Dead. Nobody has plot armor. Nobody is safe. Not everyone gets to be a hero. If that makes you feel hopeless and numb, then the writers have succeeded in making you feel a fraction of what these characters are feeling.
I thought this was going to be another hate post, but I'm happy it's not. I feel the same way
I realize that, and I don't expect every death to be. Carley/Doug's deaths were utterly shocking and I could certainly make the argument that their stories had more places to go, but I don't consider them rage-worthy because their deaths had the appropriate impact and occurred at an appropriate time in the story, and they clearly affected the group.
The problem with Nick and Sarah's deaths are that they just weren't at a point yet where a death was logical in their stories. There was so much build up and potential for both of them and so much time invested in them, and then they died for nothing and their deaths were treated like nothing, which was an extra slap in the face. It feels like a waste of time, and yet Carley/Doug's deaths don't make you feel like your interactions with them were a waste of time despite how sudden and cruel their deaths were. That's the difference between pure shock and good storytelling.
I love season 2 so far would honestly rate it better than season 1 some deaths are sub par but its the same in the tv show not ever death should be a spectical its more realistic if people do die when clem aint around she cant be with everyone all the time the characters are more believable more human and there is more action gets better all the time im really glad i still enjoy it as much as i do because it would be a huge let down for me to be as disappointed as some people are with the latest season but every episode has me gripped start to finish and long may it continue
Agreed, every death is not going to be some glorious outro. Death in real life is seamingly pointless and sometimes even random, unfair and without meaning.
Nick was SHOT and still attempted to go get help. He went out a hero. We as a viewer didn't need to see his death as it would lessen the sad feeling of discovering your friend already turned and beyond help. We needed to feel that disappointment. He died a good man
Sarah was broken. She survived only because her father carried her, as Jane carried her sister. Sarah serves as a lesson to Clem that some people cannot be saved and attempting to do so will only prolong their suffering and may get you killed in the end (as Carlos did).
Each death had the impact it needed.
That is correct. However, that also doesn't really have anything to do with my point. Sure, Luke's idiocy has gotten attention, but why does that have to come at the expense of characters far more interesting than him? Characters killed off with no real build up or fulfillment? Yes, yes, I get it, "death is harsh" and all that crap, but that's irrelevant as to how to tell a story. Yes, more flawed characters can certainly make for more interesting storytelling. However, tossing in a flawed character doesn't automatically mean "oh wow, how compelling!". It has to make sense and not feel totally contrived. I would argue that Luke screwing around on the job, literally, was ultra-contrived, but I do appreciate that Luke isn't being seen as a boy scout anymore, so there's that, I guess.
The fact that people think Luke's character was flat-out changed is a problem, not a result.
And again, the problem is not that I don't understand the concept of "no one is safe" or "not everyone dies a hero". If it was, I'd have much more problems with the season 1 deaths too, but I don't. I don't feel numb with worry or sadness like I used to. I feel numb with apathy.
That's all well and good for Nick, but still doesn't change the fact that the off-screen, shock value death it makes saving him in episode 2 completely meaningless. With the way it's set up, he either dies, or he dies. Ain't that feckin' riveting? Whereas if we saved Ben, just as one example, we got whole new content you couldn't get otherwise. Hell, even Pete had something new. Nick? Nothing. If you have to make it sound like a fitting end by talking about how great a guy he was off-screen... well, that says it all right there.
Also, Sarah doesn't serve as a lesson for jack shit, because she didn't die because of the strain she was suffering or because it was made clear that she was beyond help. She died because of an accident that just came about suddenly just to get her out of the picture. There is no message or lesson to be gained from that, and again, the fact that the group just didn't care at all about her death because "omg, new baby!" shows that there was no impact her death served to the story itself. Oh, sure, it had an impact on us, by pissing off those who rightfully expected decent storytelling. But as for the story itself? Sorry, but there was no impact and no purpose. Just a waste.
Agreed with OP. I really liked how things turned out with Sarah since I don't see it as important that she only lived a little while longer, I see it as important that Clem tried to help her. Something as meaningless as falling under some rubble could have happened to anyone, it just so happens that Sarah was the unlucky one. The same thing happened to Ben. We finally get him on a path where he can move on from what he had done, only to have him fall to his death anyway.
Really? Luke and Jane having sex was "ultra-contrived"? Sex is awesome. If I hadn't had it as long as Luke had and saw an opportunity, I would take it too. Being able to forget about the zombies for a second and just enjoy the company of another person in that way would be heavenly.
The moment Clem found Luke and Jane sitting holding hands made me laugh. It was one of the most human moments in the season. It was made even better by Kenny reaming them out two seconds later. I fail to see how that's contrived.
I hear your opinions but I respectfully disagree with them. Your negativity bias is painfully apparent.
Yes, very true realistically anyone can die. Even before we get to know the person well enough or try to stop them from dying.. sad stuff.
Yes, very true realistically anyone can die. Even before we get to know the person well enough or try to stop them from dying.. sad stuff.
Her death may not have served as a lesson but her plight sure does. Her death was inevitable. It didn't need to be consequential.
Haven't you ever had someone die in your life who, invariably, was better off dead? It's hard to feel sadness for these people as their life was far more depressing than their death.
Kirkman's a terrible writer. I only enjoy the game because of its characters, who are far more likeable, IMO. I've avoided the comic book since issue six.
Yeah, no. This is a story. It's basically an interactive movie. The story should be good. Movies don't show actual real life day to day reality because reality doesn't make for very good storytelling. Oh, it works fine for games where you make your own cool story as you play, but that's not how TWD works. You're being told a story, so it had better be interesting and fulfilling.
Noone is complaining about flawed characters,the main complaints are that the characters are not explored enough and that their deaths were unsatisfying.
Chuck's death wasn't fulfilling, Brie's death wasn't fulfilling, Ben's death wasn't fulfilling, Carley's and Doug's deaths weren't fulfilling, and yet why do I feel like Nick's death was both lazy and rushed, maybe because once you save him, he literally is a nobody in episode 3 and barely says anything and in episode 4, he dies off screen, there is ZERO pay off if we save him in S2 episode 2. Sarah's death was a bit more dramatic, but still didn't feel completely satisfying, because like Nick, you get ZERO pay off if you save her.
Sarah's death was premature. She needed more character development. The problem isn't the way she died so much (although clem not even trying to help was kind of contrived), it's when she died and her story prior to it.
Death isn't fulfilling. Your desire for it to be fulfilling is understandable but it doesn't fit with the theme of The Walking Dead.
Okay how was it rushed?
Brie's death was rushed she just dies. Nick's was shot in the shoulder and then screamed for help and probably attracted them, then im guessing got stuck in the fence in the panic and was eaten. So it wasnt a rushed death. He doesnt have a huge role in episode 3 but if you save Ben he isnt a major character in episode 5 and the rest of episode 4.
I didn't mind that Luke had sex, it just comes out of nowhere since there was really no proper build up to it and it feels contrived in that its sort of just throwing in a character flaw just to even out with the flaws Kenny has.
Her death was inevitable, but give SOME kind of pay off while she's still alive.
Cut the bullcrap. I had no problem with any deaths in season 1. Some of them were senseless and unheroic, as they should be, but they were appropriate, always, and the STORIES (not the deaths) of the characters were fulfilling. Season 2 has been severely lacking in character development and the deaths simply don't carry across the appropriate weight they should for a given character with the way they're executed.
You're just straight up defending bad writing, if an argument can be used to defend bad writing as easily as good writing then it isn't a good argument.
If you do save Ben, he at least acts like he's there with you in the group, and he gets some kind of pay off with standing up to Kenny. You didn't have much of a relationship with Brie, so of course she was expendable. Nick is a character that you did have a relationship with in S2 episode 2 and you can actually save him, but that turns out to be meaningless, as he's literally a nobody in episode 3 and doesn't get anything to do and then episode 4, he dies off screen and you have to finish him off, you don't see him die, you just see him as a walker. Rushed and wasted potential.
Random sex is random. It happens. One minute you're just chilling talking to your friends and the next there's a woman licking your face and dragging you into a bedroom. No build up, just pure randomness.
This a story about characters I should care about, not real life. In real life, Clem would die in the first couple of days or weeks.
Why? Why must there be a payoff for everything?
Tomorrow you could be walking merrily along, twist your ankle, stumble into traffic and die.
Death happens without meaning far more often than it happens for good reason. You're not supposed to be okay with people dying. You're supposed to feel robbed. Giving a "pay off" which makes it easier for you to accept a death is actually somewhat disturbing.
Did they kill negan at last?
When I mean pay off, I mean a satisfying ending arc. Lee's death was both sad, but satisfying as he died saving Clementine and made a noble sacrifice. Kat and Duck's death was sad but a satisfying ending for those characters as Kat couldn't live without Duck and it was too late to save Duck, Ben's death in episode 5 and 4 was sad, but satisfying as it was clear he didn't want live anymore and there was no way he was going to get out of that pole.
The biggest problem is that there really is no good character development, there was good build up for Sarah's character, but that development gets lost in episode 4.
So people want realism only when it suits their tastes. Gotcha.
Writing is art. Art is subjective. I enjoyed it. You did not. Opinions, we have them.
The only problem I had with the writing in this episode was not being able to say to Arvo "We didn't rob you! I gave the medicine back!". The rest I was perfectly okay with.
Here's the problem, we don't see a scene where Jane lick's Luke's face and there literally was no indication that the two would have a relationship together, so yeah it comes out of nowhere character wise for Jane and Luke.
I like this topic, to sum it up nicely "Shit happens... deal with it".
Carlos said she was special. He knew his daughter well enough to understand that she was not built for the apocalypse. He shielded her not because he was foolish but because she couldn't handle it. In episode 4, that comes to fruition she breaks down.
Is that not development?
This is similar to game of throne series, when you start liking a character is when he/she dies of a unexpected way, I have to admit that I enjoy this episode because you could take a lot of difficult decision, the character development was realistic and I have to agree that nick and sarah death´s were cruel but if you analize this.... soon or later they would have dead and we could not prevent their deats, and walking dead is showing this to us like happen with the first volumen when rick´s best friend was killed at the end. I only hope last episode would be great and is normal complaining about the deaths.