Theropod from the North wrote:
Yes, Negan (and Negan's people) were the first aggressor, but a few of The Saviors were doing things even Negan never approved of, which puts another spin on things. Negan had that complicated, bizarre moral compass which you cannot pin down as totally evil or completely good. I love that - it's intriguing and a real thinker! He values lives (people are a resource!), but at the time, he kind of doesn't?
In the same way Rick was not responsible for Daryl's actions which led to Glenn being killed, Negan should not be completely responsible for the actions of every individual Savior. Simon was even crazier than Negan. Simon's actions were not Negan's.
And I wouldn't say Negan had no regrets, or will not have regrets. He later regrets what happened to Glenn in the comic book. He was upset when Carl died. And he certainly regretted sending Simon to deal with The Scavengers.
And I would never say every Savior was happy to be where they were, and every fighter should be killed. Many were oppressed too, and afraid and Negan offered them a bizarre kind of safety. Alden proves they cared, and that many wanted out. It's really never that simple - that every Savior was bad by name, and every Militia member were good by name.
And I would never say Rick and co have never treated people/their prisoners wrong or tortured people. And I mean, do you remember what Carol did to Karen? Bloody hell Carol.
But I think it's going off point of the thread a bit - Negan could be a good leader imo if he learned from those mistakes. But I don't want him to be the leader. I want the show to kind of end.
Theropod from the North wrote:
Theropod from the North wrote:
TweekBeak wrote:
I think Negan will go through a bit of guilt from now on, and begin to try and be sincerely apologetic. He's an interesting character for certain, and at the core he had good values, intentions and ideas. If he went about them the right way, he could be a very good leader. He kind of was a good leader before for The Saviors, he kind of took things a bit too far but he could learn from that.
Negan literally killed a pregnant woman's husband infront of her, and then thought about making her his wife. That should not be forgotten. He laughed and made jokes while doing so.
The only way he could really redeem himself would undo all the bad things he did. But this isn't Supernatural where reality warpping isn't a thing. So he can never truly redeem himself. I personally thought that issue 174 was atrocious to Glenn's and all of his other victim's legacies.
But then Rick was kind of in the wrong for what happened with The Saviors at the beginning too. He thought was invincible and went head first into a war with a group of people he knew nothing about - killing people in their sleep, who might not have loved Negan either and were afraid of him.
In Negan's eyes, however ignorant he was of the manipulative regime he had created, why would he be nice to Rick and co? They killed his people, however bad they could have been, rather brutally. Daryl technically nuked them. Rick should have thought through what he was about to lead everyone into. He's not to blame for Negan's actions, but he should be responsible for his own.
But then I thought, I don't have to technically forgive Negan. If he accepts everything he did was wrong, and he wants to do good - who better to learn from such bad mistakes and understand people like Alpha and Beta, than Negan? He could be valuable and he could therefore, be a good leader. He has the skills, he simply needs to dial back on the crazy. He will never completely be redeemed, but he doesn't have to be. And he's an intriguing enough character, with good core values which look good on paper, but he went the wrong way about them.
But with Rick / Maggie / Michonne no longer part of The Walking Dead, the people left who could be leaders are slim, and not very good choices. If the main will be Daryl, and the backup Carol, if written well - Negan will be everyone's best bet. Maybe they should end the show when Andrew goes, before it winds up being even badder than it became?
"Daryl technically nuked them."
They started the agression. The moment that group started threatening Daryl, Abe and Sasha, Negan had justified his downfall. If he had let the Hilltop, Kingdom and eventually Alexandria be, none of his people would have died. The moment you start a totalitarian state, you sign your own eventual downfall. It might take a few years or a few decades, but eventually it happens.
I would have hoped Rick's get some actual revenge, like in real wars, or at least hints. For example there could have been a scene with a couple minor Militia-soldiers harassing a female savior and maybe attempting something darker, and then one of the main characters had to intervine.Â
Yes, they approached Daryl in an aggressive way. But they were not threatening to kill the three of them on the spot, if they only simply went along with what they wanted for the time-being (they ended up having to do it anyway, but when Glenn and Abraham were dead). They should have thought about the bigger picture.
It should have been a very big clue to Daryl about the kind of people they are. He should have thought - who's Negan? Nuking them was not the smart, appropriate way to fight back. It justifies Negan's downfall, but it also helped bring about the death of Glenn, Abraham and later Sasha.
To use a real world example - yes, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour (a military base) and signed up for their own downfall. But dropping a nuclear bomb on two entire cities of thousands of people, wasn't the way to respond either.
Rick and co are completely justified in their war with Negan. But that doesn't mean they went the right away about it in the beginning. Many people in their group signed their own death sentences too. Daryl signed them up not once, but then signed Glenn up again. They had to be smart about what they were doing. They were not. It was a terrible situation but no-one was helping themselves.
That's the theme the writers were trying to portray rather badly - everyone had a dark side, everyone done the wrong thing at one point. From another perspective, like Jeffrey pointed out, Rick and co would look like the big bad evil guys.
Bit of advice - if a group of people show up with guns from what could be a totalitarian state and want your property, don't nuke them. They are part of a much bigger picture, and those people will come for you. And then your friends might be killed over it. If you want to create a revolution, actually create it before you begin shooting.
Theropod from the North wrote:
TweekBeak wrote:
Negan becoming leader of Alexandria or Hilltop would never work - too much bad blood and it would make no sense. But if the show took place in another setting, it could work. Negan was sent away from Alexandria by Rick in the comic book, perhaps the show could go with Negan from that point on, and a few other characters including Daryl and Carol?
I think Negan will go through a bit of guilt from now on, and begin to try and be sincerely apologetic. He's an interesting character for certain, and at the core he had good values, intentions and ideas. If he went about them the right way, he could be a very good leader. He kind of was a good leader before for The Saviors, he kind of took things a bit too far but he could learn from that.
He enjoyed it. You can differenciate a good person from bad one when they have to make bad choices. Rick never enjoyed killing anyone, he never made fun of them, not even the cannibals or the men who tried to rape his son.
Negan literally killed a pregnant woman's husband infront of her, and then thought about making her his wife. That should not be forgotten. He laughed and made jokes while doing so.
The only way he could really redeem himself would undo all the bad things he did. But this isn't Supernatural where reality warpping isn't a thing. So he can never truly redeem himself. I personally thought that issue 174 was atrocious to Glenn's and all of his other victim's legacies.
He enjoyed it yes, which makes everything harder to forgive. And a while ago, I was kind of in the same boat you were - Glenn was my favourite and I thought there's no way I would ever forgive Negan. I told people who loved Negan and compared him to Rick, the same thing you told me - he laughed and made jokes. Rick never did that.
But then Rick was kind of in the wrong for what happened with The Saviors at the beginning too. He thought was invincible and went head first into a war with a group of people he knew nothing about - killing people in their sleep, who might not have loved Negan either and were afraid of him.
In Negan's eyes, however ignorant he was of the manipulative regime he had created, why would he be nice to Rick and co? They killed his people, however bad they could have been, rather brutally. Daryl technically nuked them. Rick should have thought through what he was about to lead everyone into. He's not to blame for Negan's actions, but he should be responsible for his own.
But then I thought, I don't have to technically forgive Negan. If he accepts everything he did was wrong, and he wants to do good - who better to learn from such bad mistakes and understand people like Alpha and Beta, than Negan? He could be valuable and he could therefore, be a good leader. He has the skills, he simply needs to dial back on the crazy. He will never completely be redeemed, but he doesn't have to be. And he's an intriguing enough character, with good core values which look good on paper, but he went the wrong way about them.
But with Rick / Maggie / Michonne no longer part of The Walking Dead, the people left who could be leaders are slim, and not very good choices. If the main will be Daryl, and the backup Carol, if written well - Negan will be everyone's best bet. Maybe they should end the show when Andrew goes, before it winds up being even badder than it became?
TweekBeak wrote:
He's definetly a interesting enough character to lead, but I think it would be way too soon after we just spent two whole seasons of him being the main antagonist.
Negan becoming leader of Alexandria or Hilltop would never work - too much bad blood and it would make no sense. But if the show took place in another setting, it could work. Negan was sent away from Alexandria by Rick in the comic book, perhaps the show could go with Negan from that point on, and a few other characters including Daryl and Carol?
I think Negan will go through a bit of guilt from now on, and begin to try and be sincerely apologetic. He's an interesting character for certain, and at the core he had good values, intentions and ideas. If he went about them the right way, he could be a very good leader. He kind of was a good leader before for The Saviors, he kind of took things a bit too far but he could learn from that.
Narutorulez wrote: Either way maybe it's for the best, they could use a re-boot. fuck it even i'm starting to dislike the show. AMC are leeches and fuck gimple and fuck kirkmanÂ
Haha yeah! I bet Darabont wishes he tried pitching the show to a few other places before going with AMC. But Gimple's one big f-ing idiot who should be sacked and never write again. Kirkman's an idiot for letting him wreck the show. The other producers / writers are pathetic for what they have contributed towards Gimple's mess. And Darabont rules! (the only one who knew what he was actually doing!).
Nothing says he will definitely die. Hopefully he will be kept alive in Alexandria / Hilltop with Maggie and Michonne etc. The show should take Daryl/Carol and maybe Negan, with a few other characters and head out away from them. I know it's The Walking Dead, but I'm fed up of these lazy and rubbish character deaths. I think Norman put it better - they need to keep the popular, original fan-favourites alive, otherwise what was the point of the show and why did I watch these characters for nearly a decade.
Kenneth Tanner wrote:
You absolutely said a mouthful. You not only said almost the samething I had actually said in my comment and mind but as for the show TWD is already screwed up as it is so might as well make it worse than what it is.
As much as I really want the show to go on I serisously don't blame Andrew in the long run. Sometimes I feel like as for the show some of the characters that has been killed off in the show I feel like some of the actors had been cheated on. Yeah that's how TWD goes but still we had been rooting for these characters since day one and trust me I really feel as an audience like as if I had been cheated on. As for Andrew he had been doing this show for 8 years so far and almost a decade. He adapted to Rick for so long it's know wonder if he couldn't sleep after Carl's death and Chandler leaving the show for good. I mean that's like his child actually being killed off and he's just like "Fuck it I did all of this sacrificing for nothing now that my child is gone. So what's the point?". So you really can't blame Andrew Lincoln.
I wouldn't say the writers should think they "might well make the show badder than it became". They need to do a bit of damage control (near impossible I know), go with the spin-off, keep Rick / Maggie / Michonne alive in the background (and come back to them in the finale), and make the best out of a very bad situation.
I completely agree with everything you say about Andrew and the other actors feeling cheated. If characters die, it needs to be written well. Carl's death was another thing entirely, because it could never be written well - it was a bad idea. But the actors over the previous 2/3 years were very cheated. It could not be very fun for them to film the utter rubbish they were being asked to act from the script. No wonder they have had enough.
Chandler was very cheated. They told him they needed him for years, then sacked him. Andrew knew and loved Chandler, and put everything into the idea Carl would one day take over from Rick. It would make Andrew feel cheated.
Then the other actors felt cheated by Carl's death. Probably made them wonder about the safety of their own job. Jeffrey told people he took the part of Negan because he loved and wanted to act out the eventual friendship between Negan and Carl. Now he never will.
Other actors were upset by the way their character deaths were written. Steven Yeun felt Glenn's story / death and therefore his work for seven years never had the pay-off it deserved. I imagine Abraham's actor felt the character was very overshadowed by Glenn.
When you mentioned Andrew probably thinking "what's the point?", that was precisely what I thought when they showed Carl would die. It's obvious even the actors are beginning to think "I'm done with the show". But Norman will keep going apparently. Yay?
TweekBeak wrote: Supposely rumor has it Daryl's supposed to be the new lead, but I can't see that at all. He's too static of a character to be the lead in my opinion. Also he's not the most expressional actor and he's not really the leader type. Rick jells with everyone pretty well, but I can't see Daryl doing the same. Killing Carl seems like even more of a big mistake now. I wish Morgan was still on the show, I feel like he could lead, or maybe if he could bring Madison over from Fear I'd like to see her lead. I had wanted Dwight to take over as protag in the comic before, he's a pretty dynamic character that could maybe make for an interesting lead, hell Maggie would be great if she wasn't already leaving. Just please don't make it Daryl or Carol, they would both be terrible leads.Â
Unfortunately, it will be Daryl. He will be the new main lead. Norman signed one mega contract. Daryl and Carol will be the only originals left. Now, do you want him to lead Alexandria, which will make no sense, or send him out on the road where he works better and do a spin-off with a new beginning for the show? Imagine a show where Jesus, Enid or Tara or whatever, became leader of Hilltop and Daryl taking Rick's place - because that's where the show's headed and it will be pathetic.
Andrew and the show are yet to confirm it, but it's looking that way. I'm not very surprised tbh and Carl's death was certainly a major factor in the decision for Andrew. He made it clear he was very shocked when he found out Carl was dying, and was very unhappy about it. Many people were - Norman was very vocal about it.
For me, the only way and the only logical way to save the show, would be to do a kind of a spin-off where Daryl and a small group of tight-knit survivors head out on the road and deal with The Whisperers properly there, and eventually make their way to The Commonwealth. Otherwise RIP The Walking Dead.
Killing Rick will hurt the show. In the long term, Lauren's obviously looking for a way out. Then they will lose Maggie. Both Alexandria and Hilltop will need new leaders, and no-one will be able to fill their shoes because it's not in their character. Danai will probably be next.
Daryl will be the new lead, and the character works better when he's out on the road, hunting and scavenging. The show worked better when they going from place to place too. Killing Rick, then in the long term, Maggie and later Michonne will hurt the show. Alexandria and Hilltop will feel hollow if even one of them goes. They will never be able to be replaced properly.
They need to learn from the mistakes of killing popular, well-loved (and the very best) characters off. Enough with that boring rubbish. It's overdone. Everything they have built over eight years will be worthless without these characters being where they are.
Keeping Rick, Maggie and Michonne alive, their story arc of eight years, and Alexandria and Hilltop intact will save the show. And then later fans will able to come back to them towards the end, which people will look forward to.
They need to do fresh, new spin on show and The Whisperer arc. I agree with you when you say they need to make a show with the feeling of A New Beginning. If they are smart enough, it will work, but I worry they are not very smart given the things they have done that probably led to this point.
They should not begin A New Beginning by doing the same old things, and killing major characters off. And there's no character bigger and better than Rick "who do you think your talking to" Grimes. The Whisperers should not be able to take him down. If you think Carl's pathetic death of tripping over and throwing himself into a zombie horde was idiotic, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Daryl doesn't fit the role of main character, his character is a mess himself. He hasn't had a good character development since like season 3. Besides, leaving Michonne, Rick etc. out of it would only be even worse and unlogical. They either abandon the show as a whole, or they continue, with it being a brand new show, Rick and Maggie (and possibly Michonne) dying.Â
I wasn't saying Daryl would be the main character. I was saying he would be one of them. The problem with Daryl - they don't know what to do with him in the setting they placed him in. He's not receiving character development because of it. Daryl was better, less of a mess and very popular when he was out hunting / scavenging and kind of going from place to place, and he kind of grew in that environment.
Besides, whether you want it or not, whether they are in Alexandria or not, whether Maggie/Michonne are around or not, he will be your main character. Norman's signed one big amazing contract. You think he's a mess? Well, buckle up. He's about to takeover the show.
Unfortunately, you are facing a show where Daryl will be the main character. Andrew's leaving. Lauren's looking to do the same. Danai probably won't be around much longer. It would make no sense to kill them, simply because they are leaving. It's lazy. It's done the show no favours.
Occasionally, fans say "oh kill them then", and when it happens, they know it was the wrong idea. People were saying it about Carl for years, and now look. And then what? Who would take over as leader of Alexandria and Hilltop? Daryl? Ugh.
It would be better to leave Alexandria and Hilltop intact, with these popular characters living there and who the show could come back to one day. They kill Michonne, people will be even more upset than when Carl died anyway.
And well, that's what I'm saying. If they don't end the show, it's needs to be "brand new". The show was at it's height of popularity when they were out on the road in a tight-knit smaller group. It needs to head that way again and be far away from the days of Alexandria and Hilltop, if it wants to be saved.
I mean, Maggie dying and leaving her child without any family? Rick/Michonne dying and leaving Judith? Daryl and Carol will be the only ones left, raising orphaned children with people of which very few fans even like? Think of Tara taking Michonne's place and Carol taking Maggie's place. No thank you. Because that kind of thing will happen, if they keep the show the same. It won't be good. Think about what a mess that will be when they have to shuffle everyone around.
No-one wants to watch a show where another major, fan-favourite character dies, never mind three. And any fan of the show who wants it to continue, should not be advocating for that because more fans will give up, and then you won't have any show to watch. Have you not learned from the Carl fall-out?
HanataSanchou wrote: The badassery that Rick delivered in those seasons will never be matched by anyone in a way that is as convincing....sorry, not even by Daryl.Â
I agree. I love Daryl but he not a leader on his own. In a spin-off, out on the road with perhaps Negan and Carol, he could do okay. Daryl works better in that environment, hunting, scavenging and fighting. Daryl will not do well in the one place acting kind of like a mayor or whatever, in the way Rick / Maggie are. He's not level-headed enough and he never communicates very well with other people. And they shouldn't change Daryl's character to suit that kind of role, forcing him to play the role they need him to play. It wouldn't be good "character development", if you could call it that. Perhaps in the spin-off, Daryl and co could eventually find the Commonwealth?
And they have no chance of making the show feel the same way the earlier years felt, and that's with or without Rick (but it certainly won't help now he's not part of it either). But Rick was the heart of the show. Carl was the future. Now they are both no longer part of the show, what's the point of even trying? Time to end the original show, and find a new focal point elsewhere in the Walking Dead world, before people let it end with a whisper and not a bang.
I think the show would do better if the original Walking Dead show was ended, with Rick, Maggie and Michonne being kept alive in Alexandria and Hilltop. They should then do a spin-off which should be the "new main show", with Daryl and a team of survivors going out on the road and encountering The Whisperers.
I think Danai and Lauren will want out in the next two years, owing to other jobs being offered to them (Avengers etc.) and the changed show. Lauren obviously tried to jumped ship before, signing a limited contract. There's no point keeping their characters around, and the story, in Alexandria and Hilltop without them either. The show will create new problems when they make it to that inevitable point.
The show messed up big time when Carl was killed, which probably contributed towards Andrew's choice to depart the show before Rick's time was actually over. Andrew obviously was shocked and very unhappy. Same for the others. I think Rick would have died eventually, but the death of Rick works better when there's an ending in view.
Daryl's spin-off would be popular and fresh. The original Walking Dead became a mess it will never truly come back from. I think it's time to bring closure to it, now it's beginning to feel a bit dragged out and Andrew's departure won't be good for it either.
Maybe Daryl, Carol and a few other characters (maybe even Negan joining them, since he's sent away from Alexandria in the comic eventually anyway) go out on the road, encounter the new dangers. The Whisperer arc won't be the same now anyway, and it will do better in a new setting original to the show. It would be fun, and then everything comes full circle in the final ever episode, when Daryl and co come back to Alexandria.
For me, I was kind of done when Carl was killed. Now nothing will keep me tethered to the original Walking Dead and the Alexandria / Hilltop arc without Rick, and if I'm right about Lauren and Danai and it's obvious I am, eventually there will be nothing going for Alexandria and Hilltop. It will do better if they are around in the world of the Walking Dead, but in the background and having no actual part in it again until the end. People would look forward to that, otherwise the setting and people will be boring and without a focal point, a shadow of what it could be.
I told people years ago, if Rick no longer part of the Walking Dead, the show will be over for me and I won't even keep up to date with it. I no longer watch the show properly anyway because of the things they have done, but only a spin-off will keep me watching anything they make. It would probably bring me back properly, and they will gain viewers if they do it right.
JCB95 wrote:
Theropod from the North wrote:
Just by the name whiskey cavalier the show sounds bad, but I will probably check it out. They might have filmed there but you don't know how long or how expensive the set could have been. It could have been a really cheap set or they could have filmed the pilot there blown the budget and the rest of the season could be trash.
I'm really not sure how I feel about Lauren right now. When she took the role she should have known how important she would be to the show. Going into the next arc killing her off would be like killing Rick. If she just took this role to bust her career and now she wants to bail I will never support Lauren again cause she turned her back on the walking dead fans. Honestly right now I'd prefer she go into film cause that would give her a bit of a more flexible film schedule.
We still should have seen some existental pain with Maggie. Show us the pain of the fact the she's going to wake up every morning from now on without the love of her life etc. They had 32 episodes and we never felt the pain of what was lost. And Maggie probably had only 2 to 3 hours of screen time during those 32 episodes, while she really should have become the female lead of the show and we should have some brilliant character-progression.
I personally wish we would have gott ensome dark side of her, like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QeZQ6cmRMU
Again I strongly disagree we shouldn't have gotten a dark side of Maggie. TV Maggie is stronger than Comic Maggie, suicide just wouldn't fit her character. We don't need scenes of her in pain due to losing Glenn. We the audience already know she's grieving and in pain the writers don't need to spoon feed it to us.
I do agree she should have be the female lead but because of Daryl she probably wouldn't be a lead. Again I will still say Danai and Lauren knew what they were getting into and shouldn't leave now and turn their backs on us the devoted fans. If it wasn't for us they wouldn't have the careers they have today. Their first priority should be to the Walking Dead and us the fans. I don't have a problem with them taking supporting roles in shows and movies but whatever they do it should still allow them to be on TWD first.
I agree Maggie shouldn't go completely dark, and they shouldn't have her grieving take up a lot of time because the show was dire enough without Maggie crying every five seconds. But I think they should have explored her grief a bit better and bring a better sense of closure and focus on the future of their child. People were confused about whether Maggie was even pregnant anymore, because it was never brought up. Where's the character development?
Maggie's role was far too reduced these previous two years. And there's no denying the show's on a bit of a downward slope. It needs to save face beginning this October.
It's a job for the actors, not a show they need to be loyal towards if they are not being utilised properly. AMC need to negotiate better and realise what it needs to keep going, instead of playing a game of greed with the wages and time of it's actors. Lauren nearly jumped ship because it's her career on the line, and even actors were demanding AMC pay her what she wants.
I mean, the show wasn't loyal to Chandler was it? "Hey Chandler, set down your roots in Atlanta. Set up your education for home study. Have you brought a house yet? You have? Great! Now your sacked. We don't want Carl anymore. Oh btw, Happy Birthday".
Danai and Lauren never agreed to be part of a show with terrible writing and therefore a lack of care for them and their job (their declining job right now), when their characters are lazily shoved to the side for no good reason.
If they think their careers are better off elsewhere, they have no obligation to continue to be part of a show that does not value them, even if the fans do. Their first priority is the progression of their career, not to be trapped in a job out of loyalty.
Theropod from the North wrote:
I don't have confidence in it either anymore. The death of Carl was the final nail in the coffin. I think it could manage to "kind of" be good again if it tried, but it will be forever overshadowed by the potential it threw away. It will never be what it could have. The writers have an uncanny way of manipulating viewers and then making the same old mistakes again. They never should have outed Darabont. He knew what he was talking about when he criticised AMC and the writers years ago. He knew this would happen.
To be fair, the comic book hasn't reached any hints of end-game either. Kirkman says he has one in mind, but when it happens will be anyone's guess. TV shows can be successful enough to continue for years. The Walking Dead won't be one of them at this rate.
I think the actors know it. Andy, Danai, Lauren appear to be looking elsewhere or talking about it. They will jump ship when they can! It's a shame. Perhaps The Walking Dead from this point in the show will be adapted better in film version one day in the future, and do right by this arc.
I'm not okay if they kill Maggie. I would rather Maggie walked off into the sunset in search of a better life, with her child. Fans often say "they should kill them" or "I'm okay with it", and then when it happens they realise it was a bad idea. Look at Carl. Enough with the lazy "let's kill them off then" concept.
And I'm not a fan of Dante/Alden in both mediums either. But as per usual these days, the show will adapt it in a way that makes you hate it even more. Why can they not do one thing right these days?
I didn't give a flying f**k about Carl really, so it didn't really impact with me. Danai starred in two big Marvel movies and got even nominated for a saturn award for black panther, so yeah, she has good chance, plus she's an Tony-award winning playwright.
Lauren has also a big movie role coming up, Mile 22, directed by Peter Berg and starring Mark Wahlberg. Good chance it might give her some more box office mojo and maybe even acclaim, as she plays an "cold CIA-oprative, who's also a mother"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZepU2ARP58).
The show went downhill since Terminus in my opinion. The moment they were together in that train-cart, all together was epic, and then they just blew past it and split up again!
It's fair if you didn't care about Carl. You are very entitled to your opinion. But his comic book storyline in The Whisperer arc was well worth doing, far better than the lazy reason for killing him off in a way that puts writing to shame to be frank. I loathe that kind of writing, but then that's the writer part of me!
Yeah, I will be surprised if Danai makes it through The Whisperer arc. She's very popular right now. I think Michonne will die in the same way Andrea (the comic book character arc she took over) died. It will be the way out. Then again, it will be very, very unpopular with fans. She's pretty much the favourite character on the show and important for the Commonwealth arc.
I agree. Terminus was when Gimple began diggin his claws into the show. Then followed the Glenn/Nicholas/who died saga which was a disaster. Then The Saviors turned up and it went insane.
Theropod from the North wrote:
Theropod from the North wrote:
Anyway, I'm very happy that Whiskey Cavalier was picked up, since Lauren will be the lead over there, meaning we will get a regular dosis of that woman! (:
I completely agree. Maggie should have hit rock-bottom in the same way Rick had. It's a very under-developed plotline which will continue to impact the show in the future, in the same way Carl's death will impact The Whisperer arc and Lydia. The show's not very smart about it changes and keeps anymore.
Maggie's grief had proper development in the comic book and the connection with Alden was believable because of it. But on the TV show, it will be out of the ordinary. I love the definition "it wouldn't feel earned". I will certainly be saying that a lot in the future!
And yes! Lauren should have the recognition she deserves. It's a shame the writers of The Walking Dead haven't realised it yet. I hope it won't lead towards Maggie being written off the show in the near future. Norman Reedus put it best when he said certain characters need to be off-limits to keep people invested. Enough major characters were written off/died in terrible ways/before their time without adding Maggie.
I don't have much faith in the show anymore. Walking Dead is a show that struggles between being a prestige drama and popcorn entertainment, but fail at both. If a "prestige drama" hasn't figured out an endgame by season 8/9, why should it still air?
Whiskey Cavalier might become a generic, but stil enjoyable show with charismatic leads. I'm expecting them to get any awards, but there's good chance it could be fun to watch. Like Castle or Chuck or The Good Fight.
As for Maggie, I'm fine if they kil her off. They could have made something these past two seasons, but no they didn't. I'm not personally a fan of the Dante/Alden-story in both mediums, but I can see that TV-show version will stink. I
I don't have confidence in it either anymore. The death of Carl was the final nail in the coffin. I think it could manage to "kind of" be good again if it tried, but it will be forever overshadowed by the potential it threw away. It will never be what it could have. The writers have an uncanny way of manipulating viewers and then making the same old mistakes again. They never should have outed Darabont. He knew what he was talking about when he criticised AMC and the writers years ago. He knew this would happen.
To be fair, the comic book hasn't reached any hints of end-game either. Kirkman says he has one in mind, but when it happens will be anyone's guess. TV shows can be successful enough to continue for years. The Walking Dead won't be one of them at this rate.
I think the actors know it. Andy, Danai, Lauren appear to be looking elsewhere or talking about it. They will jump ship when they can! It's a shame.
I'm not okay if they kill Maggie. I would rather Maggie walked off into the sunset in search of a better life, with her child. Fans often say "they should kill them" or "I'm okay with it", and then when it happens they realise it was a bad idea. Look at Carl. Enough with the lazy "let's kill them off then" concept.
And I'm not a fan of Dante/Alden in both mediums either. But as per usual these days, the show will adapt it in a way that makes you hate it even more. Why can they not do one thing right these days?
Theropod from the North wrote:
I think we should seen her on the bottom, since her and Glenn were star-crossed lovers and all. The TV-Show anyway can never make her and Alden belivable. We didn't see the much of the griefe and the pain, so it wouldn't feel earned.
Anyway, I'm very happy that Whiskey Cavalier was picked up, since Lauren will be the lead over there, meaning we will get a regular dosis of that woman! (:
I completely agree. Maggie should have hit rock-bottom in the same way Rick had. It's a very under-developed plotline which will continue to impact the show in the future, in the same way Carl's death will impact The Whisperer arc and Lydia. The show's not very smart about it changes and keeps anymore.
Maggie's grief had proper development in the comic book and the connection with Alden was believable because of it. But on the TV show, it will be out of the ordinary. I love the definition "it wouldn't feel earned". I will certainly be saying that a lot in the future!
And yes! Lauren should have the recognition she deserves. It's a shame the writers of The Walking Dead haven't realised it yet. I hope it won't lead towards Maggie being written off the show in the near future. Norman Reedus put it best when he said certain characters need to be off-limits to keep people invested. Enough major characters were written off/died in terrible ways/before their time without adding Maggie.
I wouldn't go over-the-top and say Maggie should have wanted to die and then decide to live for the baby. I don't think she was ever the kind of character who would decide enough was enough, when she has a baby and people depending on her. But I would have loved the writers to have fleshed out her grieving a bit. Then again, they messed up a lot of potential and plotlines in 7-8. They didn't know what to do with Maggie and never found find the balance between the many communities and the leaders of them. Maggie was kind of in the background for the main part. There was not enough time, when they should have made time. Cutting out unimportant communities (Oceanside) and eliminating The Scavengers earlier would have been the smart move to free time for important character development.
If they follow the comics, it will be Hershel Rhee. That way she preserves two family names. But I have a feeling the show might change it to Glenn Rhee Jr. which I actually think would be better. It would be very poignant. People love and remember Glenn a lot better and Hershel's kind of an old name anyway. I think it should be the middle name if the show wants to bring it up. Glenn Hershel Rhee Jr. should be the name.
Do you really think the writers would needlessly kill off both of Rick's children, and within eps of each other too? A lot of you have insane ideas - even crazier than Scott Gimple at times and that's saying things.
Seriously? Your final line in the above post just proves the kind of approach you have brought to this discussion.
The idea that I started to argue you down is insane. When you post on here, your comment has everything to do with the other people looking for a nice discussion. I only personally addressed you nicely on that one line and you took it as a personal slight against you.
I mean, you were highlighting every part of my post and responding in a way that might have well been put in capitals (which you have now started to do) which is not the way to approach a discussion. And then arguing with other people who pointed that out too?
Yes, it is possible she might die. I never said it wasn’t. I just shared my thoughts on why I would prefer that not to happen. You also decided to argue against my personal thoughts on the ratings and reviews of the show of which the overwhelming majority of fans agree that the show is not the best it can be. That wasn’t addressed to you personally but you responded. You only need to look at the reviews and ratings to see that is right.
But this is getting stupid now. I was done with the argument and you were the one who continued to stir it up. How about we just agree that you think it is possible she could die, which is valid, and I would prefer that not to happen, which is also valid and call it a stalemate because now we are just arguing about arguing?
But I have to say, I love that theory about Carl being the one to die. It makes a lot of sense, would have a real kind of impact and would be what a lot of people really won’t think will happen. That would shake up the story and be worthwhile! But he is one of my favourites and a part of me would be devastated lol.