Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon The State of "The Walking Dead"


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

The State of "The Walking Dead"

Feb 12, 2013

Share on Reddit
It's hard to believe that there's only been 28 episodes of "The Walking Dead", for how much of an impact it has had.  In just two-and-a-half seasons, it's spawned a rabid fan base, become the highest-rated cable show of all time, and fought through far more than its share of behind-the-scenes controversy.  With the second half of the third season having just premiered, and with the recent news of showrunner Glen Mazzara's departure, it's a good time to reflect on the series and how it's changed, for better or for worse, since that acclaimed pilot premiered on Halloween, 2010.

There's an easy narrative that's gained traction over the past few months or so:  that Frank Darabont truly was not cut out for TV, that his departure was good, and that the quality of the series has gone up dramatically since he was replaced by Glenn Mazzara.  There was, to be sure, an obvious shift in the show's approach to the material beginning with the second half of Season 2, when Mazzara began to have more influence over the story (though, since Darabont was involved in outlining the season as a whole, its hard to tell what was Mazzara and what was Darabont in that span) and carrying through even more drastically with Season 3.  However, I happen to be one of the few who believe that shift was a negative one, and at the half-season mark, Season 3 stands as a weaker season overall than Season 2.

Now hold on a minute, before you rush to the comments section to argue, allow me to elaborate.  The main complaints about Darabont's reign as show runner of The Walking Dead is that it was slow and tedious, built mostly on set up and long story arcs (to be fair, Sophia was a very difficult child to find).  Mazzara's tenure, on the other hand, has been characterized by fast-moving story lines, lots of zombie-killing, and increased amounts of comics-following fan service (introducing Michonne, Tyreese, The Governor, the Prison, etc).  This change has meant more action and a more exciting show, but it's come at the cost of the characters.

Almost everybody can agree on the Pilot being one of the best -- if not the best outright -- episodes of the series.  Ironically, though, the show's celebrated third season bares almost no resemblance to the acclaimed pilot.  The pilot was slow and methodical, shot in the style of an independent film.  Outside of the cliffhanger in Atlanta, only a handful of zombies were encountered, let alone killed in video-game-esque "cool" ways.  The priority in the pilot was character and emotion -- trying to humanize the idea of a zombie apocalypse.  It was an adaptation of the comic in the true sense of the word, rather than a translation from one medium to the other.

The scene that proved how different from normal Zombie fare "The Walking Dead" was going to be -- and got me hooked -- was the montage intercutting Morgan's attempt to shoot his zombified wife with Rick putting the "bicycle zombie" out of its misery in a field.  This entire scene features exactly one zombie death, used as punctuation for the human emotion and not as the focus of the scene itself.  This exemplified Frank Darabont's approach to the material: characters before action.  Long build-up rather than instant-gratification payoff.

Last summer, Glen Mazzara commented that Darabont "had a feature approach of: Just wait for it, just wait for it, then you'll be satisfied."  Many viewers can attest that, in Season 2, waiting became the show's central problem, during the drawn-out search for Sophia.  The common argument was that nothing was happening; the plot stopped dead at Hershel's farm.  It is true, to an extent, that the plot slowed to crawl for a few episodes ("Cherokee Rose" to "Secrets" -- three episodes), but that slowed pace allowed for some more character development that the previous six-episode season didn't truly allow: Shane's increasingly erratic and violent behavior, Glenn and Maggie's relationship, Hershel's stubborn belief that the walkers are still people.  It's true that it was slow, but when walker Sophia stepped out of the barn in the final scene of the mid-season finale, "Pretty Much Dead Already", the build-up was justified and, to me at least, the entire Sophia storyline was made worth it.  As in the Pilot, the emphasis of the story wasn't on action or plot, it was on showing how the characters would realistically react to the zombiepocalypse, and both the buildup of and the soul-crushing payoff to Sophia's disappearance were crucial character moments to all involved.

Mazzara, in contrast, noted that "people, again, are watching the show in sort of an id fashion: 'We have an expectation, we need it, we need it now".  Indeed, the back half of Season 2 is when things started changing -- ultimately, for the worse.  The shift moved from the characters to the action.  Individually, each episode had bursts of intense action that ultimately meant nothing.  The first four episodes focused on a mysterious other group of violent survivors, and there was plenty of conflict wrung from Rick's group taking one of them captive and deciding what to do with him.  While on the surface, this added plenty of  excitement, the story itself went nowhere.  In the penultimate episode, Randall is casually discarded and his group -- considered a major threat -- is never brought up again.  The show essentially traded one problem for another: it went from a show where little happened, but everything was important, to a show where so much happened that nothing much mattered.

"18 Miles Out" is the episode most guilty of this:  discarding the Beth-suicide subplot for now (just as the writers have), the episode begins and ends at the exact same point, character wise and story wise.  Rick and Shane leave the farm in order to desert Randall, but end up arguing, fighting, and then being attacked by zombies.  After fighting their way out, they get Randall, tie him up again, and bring him back to the farm.  There's still huge amounts of tension between Rick and Shane (that would climax two episodes later), Randall still needs to be dealt with, and Randall's group is still a threat.  There was literally zero development from any perspective -- but there was a zombie battle.

The finale, "Beside the Dying Fire", was also disappointing, because instead of paying off the Randall's-group storyline that had been the focus of the half-season, the storyline was forgotten and instead a herd of zombies sort of randomly appeared for a final battle.  While the mid-season ending's 'Barnageddon' was as a result of many episodes of buildup and thus meant something for the characters, the zombie invasion in the finale had no meaning. Suddenly, there were just zombies to kill.  The back half of Season 2, though, still had a decent grasp on its characters, even if it was becoming increasingly disconnected from its story.

Season 3 has lost it entirely.  It's completed its transition, and is no longer, in any sense, a character-driven show.  It's an entirely plot-driven one, and though the plot has been very well paced, the characters are no more than pawns on a board to be tossed around and killed whenever some "surprise" death is necessary (see: Dog, T-).  In the first and second seasons, character death, even amongst the more background characters like Otis, Jacqui, or Jim, was given importance and the characters grieved in a relatively realistic fashion.  In Season 3, character death is used as cheap instant drama, or as a way to clear the clutter (hey, entirety of Tomas's group!).  Daryl, the undisputed king of fan favorites, has had all rough edges and nuance stripped from his character, in order to simply become the badass Mr. Fanservice.  The heavily-hyped Michonne simply doesn't have any character beyond killing zombies with katanas.

To be fair, it's very possible that these changes aren't entirely because of the shift in priorities started by Glen Mazzara.  It's possible that, though the pilot was well-received, AMC (or, perhaps, audiences) realized they didn't really want the quieter, more meditative show that the pilot promised, but rather wanted what the advertisements promised: an action-packed, gory zombie romp.

And who knows -- perhaps Scott Gimple, the new show runner of The Walking Dead (promoted after Glen Mazzara was canned for "creative differences") will take the show in yet another unexpected direction.

19 comments:

  1. Seems like Rick has turned into a lunatic until the bullets and blood start to fly. Carl shows an eerie ability to compartmentalize what goes on and is playing a part well beyond his years. The women, except Michonne, are keeping the show together. Tyresse (Chad Coleman) I'm hoping is around long enough to lead the group with Herschel in his ear, until Rick fights off this round of stress-induced mental illness.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As disappointing as this season has been, I have to disagree about the lack of character development this season. Carol in particular has gone through an enormous transformation since the second season, and her scenes last night further emphasized this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I am in the camp of Season 3 is the best season this show has put out, I do agree that the pilot is the best episode the show has put out. It was well thought out, showing the true horror of the zombie world, and introducing us to the rules of this new world. It truly felt like a movie. But Rick (and Morgan/Duane) was at the center of it, we saw it through his eyes and we almost felt like him in the situation.


    However, I do disagree about the character development. I don't think the show has given up character development, just didn't put it as the main priority of what's to be shown. I don't hate Season 2 (first half) as much as other people and character development is fine, but when you have your characters sitting around and talking about pretty much the same thing for 7 episodes it becomes rather tedious and extremely dull to watch.


    So, yes, the show has become plot-driven and has a lot more action to satisfy our 'id' and is just plain fun to watch. Character development is important, but it was never (past the pilot) anything special and was therefore compartmentalized to just a small portion of what the show is.


    I respect your opinion as it is yours to have and no one can take that from you, but I disagree. And thank you for explaining your reasons (unlike many people on the internet who simply say "this show sucks, talking is boring" and leave it at that).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am much more a fan of the characters than the zombie killing gore. Gore is something I stay away from, I cringe and have to look away each time a zombie is killed...which is most of the show now. Wether intended or not, I think that the more heartless characters and elevated number of zombie deaths is a natural progression showing how hardened the characters have become and shows the increasing number of zombies in the world (country? I don't know.) But, I think this progression could have been showed in a more tasteful, character developing manner. Hopefully the new show runner thinks this way as well and the next season takes a better direction and goes back to character development.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All of Carol's character development happened off-screen, between seasons. The writers get the opposite of credit for that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Um, no it hasn't. The writers put in plenty of things to explain and justify Carol's off-screen progession - her increased proficiency with weapons, the deeper bond she has with everyone including Daryl (and which helped boost her self-confidence).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with the article. Problem with the audiences of the show is this. There's two types of viewers. The ones who like character development and the ones who like blood, guts and gore. While there's been a lack of character development this season, fans are often satisfied with the zombie killing.


    I think no episode can surpass the Pilot episode, which focused more on the stakes and emotions of the characters, such as Rick debating himself on whether kill that zombie.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought the show really lost it when they killed off Shane. They had a real perfect opportunity for this to have been a buddy bromance with Rick and Shane and it would have worked.



    As far as this season goes, I don't like how we're not really connected to Rick anymore. I think they should have stayed focused on him more. And I'm kind of tired of watching him deteriorate.



    The zombies are just becoming background and don't even seem scary now. That's too much like why the Resident Evil movies fail so badly to be zombie movies. The zombies are nothing more than background noise and only used occasionally.


    If they don't do more with Michonne, that will be a very sad waste. Shoving her to the background and keeping her doing nothing sux.



    I also think a huge problem is keeping them all in one place too long. Staying at that farm turned into Little Zombie on the Prairie. And alot of us kept praying they would leave that farm. The show loses excitement without anyone moving to new locations and exploring new areas where danger can lurk. Like, already Woodbury has overstayed its welcome with me. And the prison, too. Let's move on. The world is a big place, they are going to need supplies and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It breaks the cardinal rule of writing: "Show, don't tell". Explaining things in hindsight is very easy but it is also a cop-out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I gues you're right, but I think that this seasonmroe and more are focussing on characters again, btu then see it like this, right now stuff is happening, there has ben things leading up to it, and yeah, the first half of the second season was way better to doing that, building it up, but still, there are consequenses, and that's what still makes the show great, you still feel a kind of realistic consiquence-driven scenario here, where people reacting in a believable way, but maybe we can hope for it to slow down a bit after the battle is over, and I really hope they will dive deeper into soem characters before they die, like the governor, even if I like the fact that he's mysterious, you kinda wanna know who he is, as well as the others in woodbury..
    But I like how Rick is losing his mind, and I really hope they will follow on that storyline and not abandon it...cause that's what mostly kill shows, when they lose the consequenses..

    ReplyDelete
  11. You make some good points, but I don't entirely agree. First of all, let me say that I love this show and that I've never disliked it. I agree that the Pilot was one of the best episodes, and that scene with Morgan was definitely one of the highlights of the show (he killed PLENTY of Walkers in that scene, btw!). I like season 2, but it is my least favourite; I think it could have been about three episodes shorter, and there were some character moments that felt really contrived, like the characters were just doing stupid things to move the plot forward - Sophia running away, Dale walking into an open field, Andrea shooting Daryl, Lori driving her car into a Walker... We also got some really lame stuff like the Hanging Walker, the Well Walker, and Daryl's super-stretched-out search for Sophia; a character none of us cared about. Some of the other characters were just pointless.

    You said it was a matter of preference, and I agree, but I also think season 3 does character development just as good or better than season 2 did. Carol, Beth, T-Dog, Carl and Lori all became stronger and more likeable characters.

    -Walkers being killed in "cool" ways is something that's been happening since the show started. I don't feel like it's any different this season, and even if it is, I like that they're being creative. It doesn't ruin the show for me in any way.

    -Sophia coming out of the barn was highlight number 2 of the show for me, but I don't think it really justifies that long search. In fact, it just makes those scenes more boring to watch because you know that everything they find is meaningless, as Sophia had been dead inside that barn all along. And yes, I do understand that that's part of why the climax of that arc is so much more emotional for the characters. For me as a viewer, it just doesn't work the same way. It could have if Sophia had had more than three lines.

    -I think Randall's group - I would consider that a S2 weakness and not a S3 weakness btw :p - was not what that arc was about. It was about the conflict of keeping Randall alive. Either way, we're getting the same thing now with Tyrese - Rick doesn't want them inside the prison because he believes he can't trust the other groups. I liked the S2 finale for what it was. The zombie herd was definitely contrived, but the execution of it was SO good. Highlight number 3.

    -I don't really agree about the deaths. They are just as meaningful as they've always been. It's a horror show, and Tomas' group was just not important for the story. Of course they would all die gruesome deaths - the same happened in season 2 with Randall's group members that we DID meet. T-Dog got a great death, considering what the character was (basically a walking drinking game). Lori's death was huge. It was unexpected, and even though pretty much everyone hated her, everyone was moved by her death. Rick completely losing it is a result of her death.

    I agree that the story has changed, but I think that's just natural. For example, the fact that the characters are not grieving as much as they used to is because they, and the viewers, have already been through it so many times. We don't need to keep seeing it. But overall, while I like S3's storyline a lot more than S2's, I don't think the show has actually changed that much in quality. It's just as much about the characters as it used to be, but with more things happening instead of people talking about it - which is not a bad thing at all, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I couldn´t agree more with you! You nailed every criticism I have had when Mazzara took over. I am so thankful that finally someone else has pointed the flat points out, especially the Randall-storyline. Really, really thank You!

    "The priority in the pilot was character and emotion -- trying to humanize the idea of a zombie apocalypse." - that´s actually the thing I found so intriguing about the concept. The thing that made Zombie-stories less cheesy.

    I hope Scott Gimple will turn the direction again more on character than plot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You make some good points (i forgot about the walkers Morgan killed in the Pilot, I was thinking more about Rick's side I guess). And yes, Randall's group is a Season 2 weakness, the back half of S2 is the transition point between less-plot-more-character of the first half and less-character-more-plot of S3.



    One thing I want to bring up, that I cut from the article for length, was this idea of characters like Daryl or Carol become more stronger or "likable" not by development, but by getting rid of their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. It's easy to like characters if they're badasses. Daryl used to be rash, angry, and slightly racist, but that's all gone now. They may be more fun to watch, but they're far less interesting and three-dimensional.

    ReplyDelete
  14. That's a good point too! With Daryl, I agree. I never thought he was as strong a character as everyone says, but he's definitely changed since the show started. Personally, I like it more when there's at least one character with an ''aggressive'' personality in the group, so I was not very happy with the fact that he became a nicer guy at first... Maybe he'll revert back to his old self now that he's hanging out with Merle again. It's the first time we're actually seeing them together, so I hope they'll do something interesting with it!

    When I said Carol was a stronger character, I didn't necessarily mean she was more ''badass''. I just think now that she's getting more screentime she gets to show more personality, and I like that. Anyway... There's very few characters that this show actually developed well. That's always been the case IMO (and unfortunately some of the actors in those roles wanted out).



    By the way... indy42 as in Lostpedia's indy42? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't really mean that Carol became a badass, more that she's become less sad/less of the abused-housewife persona. She's stronger in terms of now taking initiative and doing things, but that's not really because she's been developed, it's more because her character just abruptly changed between seasons.


    Yep, one and the same :D.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Firing Darabont was a huge mistake. And it later resulted in the death of Dale, a great character. I prefer a balance between Mazzara and Darabont. Good plot, good action, good characters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dont like it? Switch it off. Simples =)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Agreed. Dale's death was supposed to signal the death of old world thoughts of humanity and democracy and an ushering in of the harsh new reality that these characters were going to have to face for the rest of their lives... Rick showed that with his last words of the season "This isn't a democracy any more." But mere episodes later, they're still having the same debates that Dale was trying to have with everyone throughout season 2. I mean it's a good thing that the group is still clinging onto humanity, but it kind of ruins what Dale's death was supposed to symbolize.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Randall's group was a weakness, but you seem to have forgotten about the group who kidnapped Glen in Season 1. They turned from a gang of street thugs into a group of nice-boys looking after the elderly. That was one of the most pointless plots of the entire series so far, and absolutely no characterization at all.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.