joepinetree

I don't get the absolute hate for this show. It is by no means the best show on tv, which is why I watch it so late into the week. But it is still entertaining. Are the characters idiots? Yes, but they get a pass in my book since it's still early on. I like to think that our main group from TWD were complete bozos when everything first took a turn for the worst. There is not a single thing these guys could do that would live up to what we expect them to do. I mean if I can watch TWD where the group lets the towns ONLY doctor go on a supply run, then I can live with this girl flirting with the man on the radio. 

Again, a capsized boat surrounded by floating zombies sneaked up on the main cast in the middle of a calm ocean during the day. If that is not contrived, I don't know what is.

As for the fact that it is still early on, that makes it even worse. Because these are terrible people who all deserve to die. At the end of season 1, when they are leaving the quarantine area they see a bunch of families and their neighbors and decide to just go "fuck 'em, let them all die" even as telling them of what was about to happen would have done nothing to alter their plans (and they leave the gate open after they leave). Same with leading the horde to the hospital where they left most people in cages. Like, we are supposed to think the governor was an evil guy in TWD and even he wasn't this bad.

Finally, the hate comes from the fact that they skipped precisely the part they claimed they wanted to show. It was supposed to be a show about society falling apart, and they did a time skip over the most interesting part.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it is a stretch to claim they clearly say Glenn.

But more than that, the producers have made it clear that they are not bound by what is shown from one scene to the next. People went frame by frame to show that Glenn HAD to be dead after the dumpster fiasco, and yet he lived.

If the producers want to kill, say, Daryl instead of Glenn, they are not going to stop because of this.

@Hatorian, do you think that might be due in part to the fact that we are in an era of "I want what I want, and I want it now"? Instant gratification is so accessible that it's almost expected. We are a very spoiled people in that everything we want in any given moment, within reason, is at our fingertips (I say "within reason" 'cause I want a million dollars, but I can't just make that happen right now). So when we *don't* get what we want or expect, we get pissed.  Do I agree with the rage quitters?  No, because there is a good chance the majority of them will be watching the S7 premiere to see who died.  Sorry, hate me all you want everyone, but it's true.  It happens all the time with so many shows.

I think you are right in that the advent of the Internet changed television viewing habits, but I don't think that changes how writers *should* end a season. With a show of this caliber, in the genre that it is in, you need a good cliffhanger. I will amend my earlier statement to include that it is not true for ALL shows - GoT is an exception - but I think when you're The Walking Dead, and you're the kind of show that TWD *is*, you need a more suspenseful ending.  You need that cliffhanger that has people on the edge of their seat or wondering "what the fuck just happened?????" (and not in an angry ranty way).   Saying that no one enjoys them but the studios isn't actually true.  There are quite a lot of people who enjoy them.

Here's a question - if they had shown who was beaten and killed, would the viewers be more pissed off, less pissed off, or about the same?  Would the viewer feel more satisfaction seeing who died and having the episode end with Rick and group grieving and terrified, or would they feel less satisfaction because their beloved/favorite character was just killed?    You can't do one thing that will make everyone universally satisfied, so they were bound to be vilified no matter which direction they chose.  I personally feel that they went the right way with this.   But that's my own opinion, despite knowing that it pretty much ensures that a lot of people will hate-reply to me and put me in a very unpopular minority of people here.   But I would be lying to myself and everyone else if I just jumped on the bandwagon, so that's a chance I'll take.

I don't think this is true. If we had known who died, we'd still have a cliffhanger. Rick's group would still be kneeling in front of a much larger force, Maggie would still have health issues, the entire series would still have changed. In fact, we'd have a better cliffhanger than "whoisit?"

And they are not bound to be vilified. Is there anyone who would be upset if they showed who died?

As for your claim that people will be back, the data doesn't actually bear that out. This midseason debut had already lost 15% of the audience when compared to last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:The_Walking_Dead_ratings

In fact, viewership has been on a steady decline. Hell, yesterday's preliminary numbers puts viewership at 11.2 million, which puts it as the lowest rating for a season finale since they went to the 16 episode format, and the first time the finale did not get a bump, but instead further declined.

Yeah. King said that casting Nicholson was a mistake because you could tell right away that he was on the verge of going nuts, and felt that Michael Caine would have been a better choice.

This is bizarro walking dead season. Instead of 4 bad mid season episodes leading up to 2 good ones to end the season, it is the reverse.

The writers are really bad if they can't come up with a way to put the protagonists in danger that doesn't involve them being complete and utter idiots.