“The Walking Dead” wrapped up its mostly great second season on Sunday with the epic farmstead battle we expected, plus a couple new elements — a hooded figure hauling two tamed zombies on chains (!) and a prison that looks like it would be nicely fortified against walkers.
The most impressive part of this show is that after 19 episodes, the zombies still seem like a legitimate threat. A lot of TV and movie battles nowadays are just so much chaos, but “Beside the Dying Fire” is wonderfully staged as we follow Rick and Carl’s barn exploits, everyone else scrambling to leave the farm, the mowing-down of zombies from the cars and trucks, the narrow escapes, and Andrea getting separated from the group.
We find out why side characters like Patricia and Jimmy existed — to get gruesomely devoured by walkers, thus buying time for the main characters. It’s easy to say that they were just underdeveloped zombie bait all along, but it’s still a better use of extraneous characters than we saw on “Lost,” which had 40-plus crash survivors for no logical reason.
The walkers are slow enough that we get the typical scenes of Herschel and others picking them off with shotguns; I always find these scenes entertaining, even though it’s kind of like watching someone else play a video game, largely because the extras’ performances and the makeup and sound effects are so good. But the undead also swarm the farm in such numbers that it’s scary. “The Walking Dead” earns the scene of the relieved survivors meeting back at the highway.
But then the episode moves into something it’s not as good at: Character stuff. Rick tells Lori the truth: He killed Shane mostly in self-defense, but kind of in preemptive defense of the group. She hates him for it (at least for now). Also, he tells the group that he knew for quite some time that they are all infected (as I mentioned in a previous post, I’m not sure why it’s logistically a big deal that everyone becomes a zombie upon dying, although I guess it would be emotionally disturbing to think about), and the group hates him for hoarding that information. And then Rick chews out the whole group, yelling that he didn’t ask for this (Andrew Lincoln reaches a new level of overacting here). Yet he basically says that their little democracy hasn’t worked, so it’s his way or the highway from now on.
I don’t think the show earns this moment. The group’s democratic — but not overly bureaucratic — approach actually has worked pretty well. It’s a shame that the group didn’t vote to spare Randall, but at least they were right to talk about it. Rick may or may not have been right to kill Shane, but Lori and Carl and everyone deserves time to be shocked by this information for a while.
At any rate, Season 3 could potentially be a parallel to how the earliest human civilizations developed. Without a broader government structure, I think it’s natural that the group should continue to operate like a communal democracy, with everyone contributing what skills they can, and maybe overthrowing Rick if he continues to overact … I mean, act unhinged. Of course, the two new elements (the hooded figure and the prison setting), not to mention future walker swarms, will test that structure.
What are your thoughts on the Season 2 finale? What themes will “The Walking Dead” explore in Season 3?
Comments
Good summary and you bring up many good points..As I have mentioned to you in the past, Season 2 initially really bored me. It was so drastically different than the first season I nearly gave up on the show. Each episode had just enough to keep me coming back.
As I sit here and think about the show, I am confused. My main complaint about the show would normally be something that I would applaud, but for some reason (maybe the acting is bad) it just annoys me… and that is.. I don’t really like any of the characters! I mentioned this to you before but I feel like all the characters are a-holes. Everyone is crabby, mad at the group, mad at their husband, mad because they lost a child, etc… however, as I write this and think about it, that should in fact be a positive because it is realistic. Their life sucks! Why would anyone be happy? There is little to be positive about at all.
I am the guy that likes an unhappy ending once in a while just to switch things up but for some reason.. something is holding me back here.
Some random thoughts:
I agree with you, I feel like their ‘democracy’ was working fine, I don’t know why there is a need to change. Rick is just crabby.
Lori obviously liked Shane a lot more than she led on. I am guessing that everything will not be ‘hunky dory’ now that Shane is out of the picture.
When will the guy and the kid from the first season come back into the story? How about the brother left for dead?
Why did they waste the Randal plot like that? I think that should have went on a bit more.. we will never know if he was a good kid or not.# Posted By Shaune | 3/20/12 10:57 AM
Although character arcs are not the strength of the show, I do like several of the characters: Daryl, Andrea and Glenn would be my top three, and then there are enough under-explored characters that they could become interesting in Season 3: Herschel, Maggie’s sister, T-Dog, Carol. It’s mainly the whole Rick-and-Lori thing that is annoying, partly because of the bad acting and partly because they monopolize the screen time.
Although they wouldn’t necessarily be happy in a zombie apocalypse, I would think there could be a little more positivity in the group just because they’ve survived this long. Also, by now they would’ve picked up many skills that will help them in this world, even something as simple as living without electricity.
There is a huge plus to this world: There should be tons of abandoned farmsteads available to move into. Find one near a lake and woods for fishing and hunting and they could be set. The prison could also be a good place to move into, albeit somewhat depressing; and I have a feeling some bad guys already occupy it. That seems to be a running theme of the show: The survivors’ real problem is other human beings, not the zombies.
The hooded figure with the tame walkers should give some hope to the survivors as well, since this person has apparently made inroads toward solving the science of zombification. Also, apparently this character is a huge fan favorite from the comics, so that is exciting.
Out of the three characters you mentioned (the father and son, plus Merle), at least one will return next season, according executive producer Robert Kirkman on “Talking Dead.” My guess would be Merle, since he’ll have an impact on both Daryl (his beloved brother) and T-Dog (who dropped the key and left him for dead). If Daryl and T-Dog start becoming good pals early next season, count on Merle returning.# Posted By John Hansen | 3/20/12 1:54 PM
Good point about Rick and Lori simply monopolizing the screen. Funny thing, I actually liked Sarah Callies in Pirson Break and the few episodes I saw her in House.. so it must be the character I don’t like there..
I agree that the Prison will be occupied already, it would be too simple if it wasn’t. Maybe the whole next season is them locked up in cells fighting the people already there? In thinking about that being a good place for survival, that might not be the case depending on electricity/running water. How will they find food from inside the walls?
The hooded figure seemed a bit gimicky to me but I’m interested. Who seriously walks around in a hooded cloak using a samurai sword.. with armless zombies chained to them?
I dread Merle coming back actually. I feel like he is portrayed almost as a stereo type. Maybe it is just because I live in ND but.. is anyone really that mean and racist anymore? Especially during a zombie apocalypse. Seems like there are bigger worries than a black person.I’m glad the show picked up and got me talking about it. Now I just have to wait until Fall. Guess I’ll have to find something else to occupy my time since ‘Once Upon a Time’ got boring, and ‘The River’ fizzled quickly (and is over after tonight).# Posted By Shaune | 3/20/12 2:16 PM
Yes, there are people who are that bigoted, it’s just that they wear nice suits now. Just look at some of the people running for president. Hey-o! But yeah, Merle is a stereotype so far. I’m thinking if they brought him back it would be to show his growth as a character, or at least Daryl’s growth (perhaps Daryl would be forced to kill Merle to save T-Dog or something).
Ha ha. “Once Upon a Time” was boring about two minutes into the first episode. I bailed on “The River” sooner than I thought I would. Their claim that it was based on found footage, combined with impossible overhead crane shots, just finally ate away at me. Plus, talk about a show with no likeable characters!
I can’t remember if you dumped “The Killing” after the weak first-season finale. I know a lot of people did, but I am excited about Season 2 starting in a couple weeks. I actually like it slightly more than “Walking Dead.”# Posted By John Hansen | 3/20/12 3:34 PM
Just had to throw one comment in here about the River cameras. You mention there are high overhead shots that are impossible. This is ‘believable’ in two ways:
1) They show them hanging cameras in trees during one episode. This is believable to a point.
2) In the finale they use the ‘eye in the sky’ which is a remote drone with a camera attached to fly high and see the river. This explains your complaint about the high shot from the first episode.
The show still let me down, but the cameras ‘could’ be believable.# Posted By Shaune | 3/22/12 4:14 PM
Yeah, maybe, at the extreme outer limits of plausibility. Remember the episode where the camera guy runs off and leaves the other two blind characters? Why were we able to see the blind characters if there was no camera there? I guess there was a camera there, but for what purpose? Did the camera guy have a second camera with him that he dropped and left recording? But mainly, I don’t understand why they bothered to push the idea that this footage comes from dozens or hundreds of handheld cameras and mounted cameras all over the ship and all over the Amazon for that matter. Also, if you listen to the sound design, it doesn’t fit. If this is truly cobbled-together footage, then every time the video jumps to a new shot, the sound should shift as well. But it doesn’t; the sound design is the same as a regular show. So I maintain that they should’ve just told the story with normal camerawork without the unnecessary “hook.”# Posted By John Hansen | 3/22/12 5:10 PM
Let me start this by telling you this is all for the sake of the argument and that I generally agree with you but…
The sound doesn’t follow because the footage has been edited together. Many times in the show, the camera angles switch, or there is ‘B-roll’ of the character over the top of the person while they are talking, the voice continues but the camera changes.. obviously edited.
Regarding the multiple cameras.. the boat is outfitted with a hundred cameras because it was originally used for the TV show. A popular show running for 20 years so I’m sure there was no expense spared to be sure to capture all the angles and rooms. Finally, have you ever watched ‘Survivor Man’ on the Discover channel? It is a reality show about a man surviving in the wild with no help. There is no camera crew, just him. He needs to walk ahead.. place a camera, walk back and walk by that camera etc, just to get the shot. He actually talks about this in the episodes sometimes as it is a pain in his ass. I have to assume that the River uses the same ‘technique’. I would assume that the camera man had a camera set up before he decided to take off.
Yes it is all very convenient, and probably unnecessary but they made an effort to do something different. My qualms with the show are much more than just the camera.# Posted By Shaune | 3/22/12 10:11 PM
I agree, the problems with The River run much deeper than the style. I do like all of the Paranormal Activity films and find them scary, but I didn’t find The River scary. Maybe it’s a case of the found-footage format working better in film than TV? I’m not sure why that would be, though, because each episode could be thought of as a mini-movie. Maybe the movies hold single shots longer whereas the TV show jumps around too much, thus killing its mood and just making the viewer jittery. Like you say, an interesting experiment that just didn’t work.# Posted By John Hansen | 3/23/12 4:34 AM