The Walking Dead [SPOILERS]

[jrdrylie]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

I have seen zombies get shot in the head with a shotgun from a football field away (maybe a slight exaggeration but not by much), zombies shot in the head from far away from someone in a moving car, other insane shots that would never happen. The show is not at all realistic when it comes to things getting shot but really that is not even a huge gripe about the show because I find it pretty funny.

The zombies they hit while drviing in the cars were actually very close to them. They weren't from a distance really. This was done by Glenn, who is one of the better fighters in the group. Had it been Beth or Carol doing this, it might have been unrealistic.

And once again, hitting stationary zombies or zombies moving in a straight line at a very slow speed is not very difficult. When you add in a stream of bullets coming at you from every direction is when it starts getting complicated.

[jrdrylie]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

Then there is the problem of how the governor was able to get the first shot to begin with.

First off, it should be mentioned that anyone who knows how to use a gun knows that if you lose use of your eye you aim down the sights with (the governor's right handed and lost his right eye) the opposite eye you hold your gun in, you ain't hitting **** unless you have had serious training using both eyes to aim down the sight. Considering the governor had lost that eye not so long before that scene, that's entirely implausible. Unless you want to subscribe to beginner's luck getting him that headshot as the reason he made that shot then missed all the others, that scene is completely implausible. Anyone with knowledge on firearms will tell you the various things that make no sense about that scene. But I understand you must suspend your disbelief to an extent with this show, but like Gonzo says, you should have some roots based off of reality, it seems that they bend the rules of this show to ease the load on the writers. Whether that is by design or not, I don't know, but that's just how it seems to me.

We don't know that the Governor shot Axel. It may have been Martinez. The only time we see the Governor shooting he is basically shooting randomly with a machine gun. Not a rifle which is what Axel was shot with. You don't need two good eyes to shoot randomly in the air.

[eaglesalltheway]

It should be said that, though it I've been doing lots of complaining, I do find enough of this show that has value, a few "diamond in the rough" moments that I find it worthwhile for me. With every really big gripe I have about the show, I notice little gems in the dialogue (even if poorly delivered/acted), or beautiful settings/scenery that I appreciate, and expect out of a show as critically acclaimed as TWD is, but when you have a show as critically acclaimed as TWD is, you will find people will gripe when there are things that fall short of what you expect or just don't make sense. I watch the show because I choose to see the potential it has. Not only can it be a wildly entertaining zombie show, but it can be a wildly entertaining, coherent, cohesive zombie show that offers poignant social commentary, and that just isn't happening right now.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

We don't know that the Governor shot Axel. It may have been Martinez. The only time we see the Governor shooting he is basically shooting randomly with a machine gun. Not a rifle which is what Axel was shot with. You don't need two good eyes to shoot randomly in the air.

Technically the governor was using a semi-automatic rifle, not a machine gun, if I'm being real picky (annoying, sorry) with the description. The show certainly makes it seem like they want us to think the Governor made that shot. Right after Axel was shot they cut right to the governor looking down the barrel of his weapon. Who else are we to believe took the shot? Knowing how the writers have set up his character, why would they lead us to believe he took the shot if anyone (regardless of who) else did?

If what you are saying is the case though, why not show the governor instructing Martinez (or whoever) to shoot? It's just a poorly explained scene that could have easily been avoided by giving us some clue that he has someone else taking the shot. Hell, if I was a writer and I had Martinez taking the shot in that episode, I would've taken full advantage of it and had Martinez seem apprehensive until you get some further indication of the governor's character (calling for the shot to be taken). IF Martinez took the shot, its another example of missed opportunity and poor writing. I put next to no thought into that and it has the potential to be a better scene than (if) Martinez took the shot (off camera) that killed Axel.

[jrdrylie]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

Technically the governor was using a semi-automatic rifle, not a machine gun, if I'm being real picky (annoying, sorry) with the description. The show certainly makes it seem like they want us to think the Governor made that shot. Right after Axel was shot they cut right to the governor looking down the barrel of his weapon. Who else are we to believe took the shot? Knowing how the writers have set up his character, why would they lead us to believe he took the shot if anyone (regardless of who) else did?

If what you are saying is the case though, why not show the governor instructing Martinez (or whoever) to shoot? It's just a poorly explained scene that could have easily been avoided by giving us some clue that he has someone else taking the shot. Hell, if I was a writer and I had Martinez taking the shot in that episode, I would've taken full advantage of it and had Martinez seem apprehensive until you get some further indication of the governor's character (calling for the shot to be taken). IF Martinez took the shot, its another example of missed opportunity and poor writing. I put next to no thought into that and it has the potential to be a better scene than (if) Martinez took the shot (off camera) that killed Axel.

I disagree with that last part. Axel getting shot out of nowhere mid conversation is much more interesting than seeing the Governor telling someone else to shoot. The pure surprise of it was what made it great.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

I disagree with that last part. Axel getting shot out of nowhere mid conversation is much more interesting than seeing the Governor telling someone else to shoot. The pure surprise of it was what made it great.

There is that, but it leaves us with this plot hole where we don't know what happened. Now its not like Axel was a pivotal character so its not like I'm upset his death wasn't explained exactly, but it put us in this situation where you are saying we don't know who shot, which leaves the plot hole of the rest of the shots missing right where this part of the conversation started. And there are always more ways you could manipulate a scene like the one I was talking about. For example, the governor looking through his scope at Rick while (unbeknownst to the viewer) Martinez is lining up his shot, and you hear the Governor say something like "Take the shot" Leave that as a cliffhanger over an episode or commercial break or something instead of a 5 minute shootout where we don't know who exactly took the first shot that only results in one side character dying and plenty of plot holes being left open. That way when you get back from the commercial, or new episode you are still having that suspense, and you still get the similar shock of Axel getting domepieced, and relief that our main dude Rick has been spared. Not that this matters, but I'm just trying to figure out why that scene, of all scenes, is being defended so much.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

There is that, but it leaves us with this plot hole where we don't know what happened. Now its not like Axel was a pivotal character so its not like I'm upset his death wasn't explained exactly, but it put us in this situation where you are saying we don't know who shot, which leaves the plot hole of the rest of the shots missing right where this part of the conversation started. And there are always more ways you could manipulate a scene like the one I was talking about. For example, the governor looking through his scope at Rick while (unbeknownst to the viewer) Martinez is lining up his shot, and you hear the Governor say something like "Take the shot" Leave that as a cliffhanger over an episode or commercial break or something instead of a 5 minute shootout where we don't know who exactly took the first shot that only results in one side character dying and plenty of plot holes being left open. That way when you get back from the commercial, or new episode you are still having that suspense, and you still get the similar shock of Axel getting domepieced, and relief that our main dude Rick has been spared. Not that this matters, but I'm just trying to figure out why that scene, of all scenes, is being defended so much.

It isn't really a plot hole because it has no consequence to the plot. If they were going to come back to who shot Axel and it were going to change anything then it would be significant but all we need to know is that one of the Governor's men shot him or the gov himself. There is no reason to care exactly who did it.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Like I have said before, show is all about those nonsensical 'oh ****' moments and not about properly developing characters or making any kind of sense.

I will use another example of why I think the show is bad. Last episode the whole kid having asthma thing. Instead of spending maybe 5 minutes on the guy, explaining how he got to where he is, his fight for survival, his shortcomings, instead of making us actually care about the character the whole plot point is just done half assed to show Andrea doesn't agree with some things the Governor does. Shocker! Maybe I should have faith in the writers to actually create a compelling character though. Every time a 'badass' character according to fans of the graphic novel is introduced they fall flat. The Governor is a bland villain and Cuddy so far is terrible. Daryl used to be the only character I liked (which for a show with a large cast to have one good character is insane) but now I am not even really liking his character that much. Tough guy Glen is so poorly done in my opinion it is funny. Carl is wooden and awful. All the women in the show suck. Rick going crazy should be a powerful moment in the series but it is the opposite of that. Old Man Rivers is just annoying. Now I do kind of like Michonne so I will give fans of the show that though she was raved about so much that I can't help but feel her character could be much better.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

It isn't really a plot hole because it has no consequence to the plot. If they were going to come back to who shot Axel and it were going to change anything then it would be significant but all we need to know is that one of the Governor's men shot him or the gov himself. There is no reason to care exactly who did it.

There is no reason to care about pretty much everything that happens in the show.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

It isn't really a plot hole because it has no consequence to the plot. If they were going to come back to who shot Axel and it were going to change anything then it would be significant but all we need to know is that one of the Governor's men shot him or the gov himself. There is no reason to care exactly who did it.

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot.

Either way you look at it, that scene is a plot hole. If Martinez shot Axel, why omit him as the shooter? If its the governor, him making that shot follows no line of logic within the plot of the story.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gonzo

There is no reason to care about pretty much everything that happens in the show.

[jrdrylie]

Are you kidding me Gonzo? You want the writers to spend time on a kid with asthma? That would be completely pointless. And you missed the point of even showing that kid. Yes, it was part to show Andrea disagreeing with him. But it was more to tell us about the Governor. The fact that he doesn't care about anything but power. The fact that he'll use a young kid who can't even run more than ten feet as basically a human shield so he can get more power. Nobody cares about that kid's backstory because he is nothing more than a pawn of the Governor.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

A plot hole, or plothole, is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot, or constitutes a blatant omission of relevant information regarding the plot.

Either way you look at it, that scene is a plot hole. If Martinez shot Axel, why omit him as the shooter? If its the governor, him making that shot follows no line of logic within the plot of the story.

Does the plot change regardless of who is the shooter? No. Thus there is no hole in the plot. I am saying that the information of who shot Axel outside of the fact it was one of the governor's men is not relevant.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Are you kidding me Gonzo? You want the writers to spend time on a kid with asthma? That would be completely pointless. And you missed the point of even showing that kid. Yes, it was part to show Andrea disagreeing with him. But it was more to tell us about the Governor. The fact that he doesn't care about anything but power. The fact that he'll use a young kid who can't even run more than ten feet as basically a human shield so he can get more power. Nobody cares about that kid's backstory because he is nothing more than a pawn of the Governor.

I want the show to actually do something that makes me care about anybody. Just because he is a kid with asthma doesn't mean he doesn't have an interesting story to tell. There is nobody in the compound that I care about so I don't care about The Governor using them as pawns. Now you are right in that I am sure the writers would have made him just a kid with asthma and done a horrible job with that idea. The thing is though I already know the Governor is power hungry and mad and yet I don't even care but the show has not even made an effort to make me care. Lazy writing. Give me something I can latch on to, at least one emotional moment that doesn't make me laugh. I mean Carl had to shoot his own mother and they did such a poor job with the lead up to the scene and the scene itself that I did not care at all.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Are you kidding me Gonzo? You want the writers to spend time on a kid with asthma? That would be completely pointless. And you missed the point of even showing that kid. Yes, it was part to show Andrea disagreeing with him. But it was more to tell us about the Governor. The fact that he doesn't care about anything but power. The fact that he'll use a young kid who can't even run more than ten feet as basically a human shield so he can get more power. Nobody cares about that kid's backstory because he is nothing more than a pawn of the Governor.

And what Gonzo and I are talking about is how the writers could use this part of the story to give you a social commentary (or SOMETHING) on the idea of drafting people for war, or advertising people to sign up as tools of war in the real world. Instead, that gets ignored, until eventually the kid will be dead. You don't even need to have the kid on screen that much, you can have a scene that actually offers character development for the governor, or Andrea, or the governor's men. Or maybe ******* MILTON!?!? You are passing up some serious opportunity for some strong dialogue between the governor and Milton with significant social relevance by glazing over the idea of drafting 12-13 year old people to fight in the war against Rick and his people.

[TitanHope]

This is why you guys don't get invited to mine and McGee's movie nights.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

Does the plot change regardless of who is the shooter? No. Thus there is no hole in the plot. I am saying that the information of who shot Axel outside of the fact it was one of the governor's men is not relevant.

Except for the continuity of that scene, just because something doesn't affect the plot in the future, doesn't mean it isn't a plot hole. We spent all this time debating on who shot Axel because it just doesn't make sense with the rest of the scene and you are saying its irrelevant? It doesn't affect the plot, but it affects the viewer's understanding of the plot, which is just as important or more.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

And what Gonzo and I are talking about is how the writers could use this part of the story to give you a social commentary (or SOMETHING) on the idea of drafting people for war, or advertising people to sign up as tools of war in the real world. Instead, that gets ignored, until eventually the kid will be dead. You don't even need to have the kid on screen that much, you can have a scene that actually offers character development for the governor, or Andrea, or the governor's men. Or maybe ******* MILTON!?!? You are passing up some serious opportunity for some strong dialogue between the governor and Milton with significant social relevance by glazing over the idea of drafting 12-13 year old people to fight in the war against Rick and his people.

Milton is actually a pretty interesting character but is so completely wasted in the show. I would not even care that much about developing new characters if the other characters were at all compelling. I do see the potential in the show and I wish there would be something done to actually made me care about any of the characters but every episode seems to feature more wasted opportunities.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

Except for the continuity of that scene, just because something doesn't affect the plot in the future, doesn't mean it isn't a plot hole. We spent all this time debating on who shot Axel because it just doesn't make sense with the rest of the scene and you are saying its irrelevant? It doesn't affect the plot, but it affects the viewer's understanding of the plot, which is just as important or more.

How? What does the viewer do with the knowledge that Martinez or the Governor shot Axel? What does it have to do with the continuity of the scene. The only people who are going to care are people who trifle over small details ie "oh there is no way he makes that shot from that angle" or "That bullet hole shouldn't look like that." It isn't inconsistent with character and it doesn't alter any of the events before during or after the event.

[eaglesalltheway]

Originally Posted by Brothgar

How? What does the viewer do with the knowledge that Martinez or the Governor shot Axel? What does it have to do with the continuity of the scene. The only people who are going to care are people who trifle over small details ie "oh there is no way he makes that shot from that angle" or "That bullet hole shouldn't look like that." It isn't inconsistent with character and it doesn't alter any of the events before during or after the event.

If we know who shot Axel we'd understand why not one single shot hit anyone else throughout that whole scene. If it was the governor, it brings up completely different flaws in the writing than if it was Martinez, which JR is referring to as a possibility, but the point is that the writers did a very poor job setting up that scene and writing it out, and left themselves in a vulnerable position, from a writing standpoint, no matter which way they tried to resolve it. When you look at it, that scene was absolutely useless except for killing off Axel, and made even the biggest fans of the show doubt the legitimacy of it and get turned off by it. Because these writers seem to be going on the fly they left themselves a plot hole no matter which you want to believe in that scene, even if it is trivial. You would hope a scene like that would hold some importance, but really, it hasn't.

It could've been done so you get a much better idea of the psyche of the governor (not just that he's a power hungry a-hole) and his people (the ones left who are loyal to him, the ones questioning him, etc), instead, you have an ambiguous kill and then 5 minutes of pointless gunfire, only to have Andrea come back the next episode and do what amounts to nothing. You can have these badass fighting scenes work, even if people miss for 5 minutes, as long as you are strengthening the product in other aspects, but when you have entire episodes where nothing happens, you better hope the acting/writing/dialogue/setting is top notch, or it will be seen as mediocre. When you really think about what has actually happened in the last three episodes... Very little. Both groups met Tyrese and his crew, and Axel died. That is it, nothing else changed in two hours of broadcast, that doesn't fly for movies, either.

I don't have problem with that as much as some because I am able to find some valuable dialogue, at times, though very sparse, but those tiny glimmers of dialogue I get don't mean I'm not going to be honest and criticize it for its shortcomings. And if I'm looking at it honestly, the writing of the storylines needs improvement. Maybe if this show can get storylines down pat, they will be able to shift focus on actual character development, which is another weakness to the show.

[eaglesalltheway]

Keep in mind, sir Broth, I am only talking about how the show could be improved. I do enjoy the show and find entertainment out of it. I just also find fault in some of the more poorly done aspects in the show as well.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

If we know who shot Axel we'd understand why not one single shot hit anyone else throughout that whole scene. If it was the governor, it brings up completely different flaws in the writing than if it was Martinez, which JR is referring to as a possibility, but the point is that the writers did a very poor job setting up that scene and writing it out, and left themselves in a vulnerable position, from a writing standpoint, no matter which way they tried to resolve it. When you look at it, that scene was absolutely useless except for killing off Axel, and made even the biggest fans of the show doubt the legitimacy of it and get turned off by it. Because these writers seem to be going on the fly they left themselves a plot hole no matter which you want to believe in that scene, even if it is trivial. You would hope a scene like that would hold some importance, but really, it hasn't.

It could've been done so you get a much better idea of the psyche of the governor (not just that he's a power hungry a-hole) and his people (the ones left who are loyal to him, the ones questioning him, etc), instead, you have an ambiguous kill and then 5 minutes of pointless gunfire, only to have Andrea come back the next episode and do what amounts to nothing. You can have these badass fighting scenes work, even if people miss for 5 minutes, as long as you are strengthening the product in other aspects, but when you have entire episodes where nothing happens, you better hope the acting/writing/dialogue/setting is top notch, or it will be seen as mediocre. When you really think about what has actually happened in the last three episodes... Very little. Both groups met Tyrese and his crew, and Axel died. That is it, nothing else changed in two hours of broadcast, that doesn't fly for movies, either.

I don't have problem with that as much as some because I am able to find some valuable dialogue, at times, though very sparse, but those tiny glimmers of dialogue I get don't mean I'm not going to be honest and criticize it for its shortcomings. And if I'm looking at it honestly, the writing of the storylines needs improvement. Maybe if this show can get storylines down pat, they will be able to shift focus on actual character development, which is another weakness to the show.

Its easily explained why no other person was shot. Axel was in the open not in cover and there was no returning fire. The fact that we don't see it coming gives the viewer a real time look into the state of mind of the main characters in the story. You get the initial shock and the on edge feeling that comes with the possibility of an attack all of that is conveyed without a second of dialogue and that is lost once you give the audience an idea that the attack is coming. You still haven't said how the PLOT changes or is enhanced if you know Martinez is the shooter or if the governor is the shooter. Everything you've said has nothing to do with the characters their story or how either develop this is a very minor detail that ultimately doesn't matter.

[Brothgar]

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

Keep in mind, sir Broth, I am only talking about how the show could be improved. I do enjoy the show and find entertainment out of it. I just also find fault in some of the more poorly done aspects in the show as well.

I don't mind you nearly as much as some of the others in the thread. Because you occasionally talk about what the show does well.

[eaglesalltheway]

We just disagree on what we each consider a "plot hole", really. I tend to look for more concrete continuity, and what is unexplained and can't be explained for certain classifies in my book, regardless of it mattering in the grand scheme or not, my issue is that because of it, that whole scene didn't make sense. Its just the way I look at it, if they don't explain what exactly happened, and what they show or say happened doesn't follow some sort of logic, that to me is a plot hole, regardless of it being out of character or necessary to the story's continuity. Regardless I'll still be watching, I'll have moments where I snicker and joke about things not making sense, but I'll also appreciate some of the more strong dialogue that I come across, regardless of the acting quality.

[Brodeur]

Am I not supposed to cheer for The Governor?