The Walking Dead Season 3 - Welcome to Prison

Lucid said:
Carl owns now, Monkey... you are WRONG.
Click to expand...
If they had bothered to find a good actor for the role, that transformation might have made me like him. Unfortunately they didn't, so he will always suck. Take Game of Thrones as a good example. If they hadn't put the effort in to find phenomenal child actors for the roles Bran, Arya, Joffrey and Sansa, the whole show would have suffered from it, regardless if how well-written the characters are. Fortunately HBO knows their business when it comes to casting, can't say the same thing for AMC.
 
Um... There had to be some suspense for you when you got the the helicopter crash. There is almost always something suspenseful in this comic... Keep reading, I didn't tell the whole Woodbury story...
 
Krynn72 said:
Stop talking about the comic you ****s. Make another thread for it.
Click to expand...
This times a god damn million.

One is a comic, and one is a TV show LOOSELY based on the comic.

I can't emphasize that word enough.

LOOSELY LOOSELY BASED FFS.
 
i wish the producers, directors and writers had been emphasizing that word from the start. wouldn't of got my hopes up so much.
 
I don't recall ever hearing that it even was based on the comics at all from the producers.
 
the fact it's called ''the walking dead'' and that it says in the beginning credits ''based on the series of graphic novels by robert kirkman and tony moore and charlie adlard'' are a clear indicator of that.
 
I never saw the credits thing (I take your word it's there, though), so my bad.

But I'm still willing to argue about the name. Grand Theft Auto isn't based on the movie of the same name. That's one example, but there are a ton others. Name dont meen notting
 
grand theft auto as game/film isn't a good example, because the term grand theft auto is actual police terminology for vehicular theft. you can argue the semantics of the name all you want and it won't change anything: the walking dead television show is based upon the walking dead comic. that's fact.
 
no, that is a word you made up to describe it, not something they used when they promoted the show. my expectations of the show would of been very, very different had they gone into it using the term ''loosely''
 
Marketing department misrepresented their product to hype it and get better ratings, call the PR police!
 
yes, lock those lying slimeballs away. awful people being awful at awful jobs.
 
Cool, they made Michonne into a boring unlikable **** with the direction that they took the governor arc in.
 
She was a horrible character to begin with, who cares if she gets worse? Idgaf about her anyways.

The governor was done well, imo.
 
I didn't really get why they killed the soldiers. I took from it that the soldiers were on the run and that they were looking for a safe place to hole up. They could have had the gear AND trained soldiers to help fortify their town. Why slaughter them when they would certainly have gladly joined up hardware and all?

Michonne is a pretty boring character so far and it was kind of weird to see an episode with none of the usual gang.
 
Destructo-Bot said:
I didn't really get why they killed the soldiers. I took from it that the soldiers were on the run and that they were looking for a safe place to hole up. They could have had the gear AND trained soldiers to help fortify their town. Why slaughter them when they would certainly have gladly joined up hardware and all?

Michonne is a pretty boring character so far and it was kind of weird to see an episode with none of the usual gang.
Click to expand...
I haven't read the comics, but I assume that the Governor had the soldiers killed because they would be an alternative source of power at the camp, who could threaten his authority. They probably outnumber his armed gang, and in any case were better trained, so they could probably launch a coup if they didn't like his rule. I thought the scene was poorly executed though, with none of the soldiers even bothering to try to shoot the Governor, even though he was just a few metres away from them when the shooting broke out.
 
Yeah, the ambush scene was BS. But it seems pretty clear that he wanted to use them as an example to scare his people into thinking he's doing a good job. Thats what the whole speech was about.

Also, I don't get the end scene...
 
the ambush was absolutely a political power play to keep the people of woodbury under his thumb: ''they didn't have walls, fences'' so they got killed, was how he described it.

the scene at the end doesn't need rationalizing: the governor is a pyscho through and through, and that was actually pretty true to the comic which i really liked. they kind of spoiled the heads in jar reveal of him being an absolute mentalist when they showed him taking on those soldiers, though.

woodbury is a bit too disney for my liking (aesthetically and in the manner of which people are going about their business), but otherwise it was alright. i didn't really feel as much despair watching that episode as i usually do, which is a first!
 
I read all the comics... and I can understand why it's a bit annoying at the divergence the show takes from them.

But that's okay.

This latest episode was the first one I've seen since reading the comics.
 
knut said:
the fact it's called ''the walking dead'' and that it says in the beginning credits ''based on the series of graphic novels by robert kirkman and tony moore and charlie adlard'' are a clear indicator of that.
Click to expand...


just like how when a movie is "based on a true story" it's actually true ...even when it's not:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16478_7-movies-based-true-story-that-are-complete-bullshit.html

we're in the middle of season 3. get over it. it will never be the comics

your unwillingness to let it exist in it's own terms speaks volumes. has there ever been an adaptation that's 100% faithful to the source material? I mean Conan the barbarian was NOTHING like the source material yet I enjoyed it for what it was. the fact that you cant let this go speaks of how entitled you feel. I mean the ****ing comicbook's creators are involved in the show. if that's not a ringing endorsement I dont know what is
 
that link doesn't make me want to say 'welp if something like this has already been done then i guess thats okay!' - it makes me want to add the walking dead to number 8 of that list and then talk in distaste about all of them. proving that something shitty has been done before doesn't make a shitty act any less shitty. anyway, regardless: me and dog were talking about a factual term that he made up for the show which i told him was never actually used: never once was it called 'loosely' based upon the book. it name was the same and the creators were attached to: my mistake for thinking it was going to be faithful in the same way that... oh, how about stephen ambrose's book translation of band of brothers to the HBO was. (outside of some historical inaccuracies, mind)

but look: i long, long LONG ago accepted this wasn't like the comic. way into season two - way before our last two or three arguments, probably, but you never did seem to back down from that. i have a whole host of things outside of it's inaccuracies that bother me. how about the laughable andrew lincoln breakdown at the end of the last episode, huh? am i allowed to critic bad acting?

but you know what? i'm actually enjoying season three, though i still find flaws with it. it's leagues ahead of the first two seasons so far. you know what i said about still continuing to watch the show in the hope that i might enjoy it later on down the line, something that you scoffed at a few times? yep, this is the point i was talking about.
 
Tell me: What do you think of the Walking Dead game, then? You must be pretty pissed that, aside from zombies, it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the comics, eh?

And I don't even need to say "loosely based". I could just say that it was based on the book, and judging from this definition of the word, I'm still totally right, and you're totally wrong.

Based: Have as the foundation for (something); use as a point from which (something) can develop: "the film is based on a novel"

Have as the foundation, or use as a point from which something can develop. Basically all the need is ONE aspect from the show. A character, a setting, a plot.. Or hey, how about zombies?!

It's it's own thing, deal with it.


Now..

Who's happy that Lori is finally dead? And who didn't care about T-Dogg? I mean the guy never really did anything at all of note. He died and I was just thinking "meh". He got replaced with a new black guy anyways. So it's all good, I guess?
 
Dog-- said:
Tell me: What do you think of the Walking Dead game, then? You must be pretty pissed that, aside from zombies, it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the comics, eh?
Click to expand...

haven't played it.

And I don't even need to say "loosely based". I could just say that it was based on the book, and judging from this definition of the word, I'm still totally right, and you're totally wrong.

Based: Have as the foundation for (something); use as a point from which (something) can develop: "the film is based on a novel"

Have as the foundation, or use as a point from which something can develop. Basically all the need is ONE aspect from the show. A character, a setting, a plot.. Or hey, how about zombies?!
Click to expand...

right, let's get one thing clear. i have never, ever, ever said that my justification for my disliking of the show is the 'right' opinion - my stance has always (ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS) been that the changes they have made have - personally - been pretty ****ing terrible in my own opinion, and in place of where the show has derailed from the comic it has 9 times out of 10, in my opinion, personally, been a bad move. with that comes for me to question their logic of making terrible, nonsensical decisions when it was just fine in the comic. then comes the onslaught of people saying 'NAM NAM NAM WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE LIKE THE COMIC IN THE FIRST PLACE HUH?????' and then i have to answer to them (for example) ''because in the comic rick doesn't kill shane in plain ****ing view of the ranch everyone is staying in and also doesn't have this bizarre problem of not hearing the zombie shane walk up behind him just in time for his only-recently trained son to become an expert marksman who isn't afraid to fire over his dads shoulder even though his dad is a cop and would ****ing DISPISE anyone that ever did something so dumb**** reckless'' because it doesn't ****ing happen like that in the comic and the change is downright nonsensical when in the comic it was just fine. but then that isn't ragging on it purely because they messed with the story of the comic, it's being objective because what they have replaced parts of the comic with are really, really bad.

it isn't hating that show because it differs, it's hating that they're running amuck with the source material and trampling all over it. it's disliking the new choice of direction because it stinks, and not just simply because it's a new direction for the sake of hating on a new direction. contrary to what people seem to think, i have no problem with change if it's handled right. i don't find some of the changes in this right, so of course i'm going to pine for some things to just be left right on alone.

on the other hand there have been some things that i do like as of recent. the casting of david morrisey as the governor is pretty good, way better than the quite overtly villainous governor from the comics, though i'll wait to see if he does become like that in the next few episodes.

the bottom line for both you and stern to reference from now on: i don't dislike that they are making changes. i dislike a lot of the changes for how they are handled, and a lot of that is simply down to 'is the dialogue here any good', 'is that a sensible decision', 'how well designed is this', etc. the majority of that distaste comes from behind the scenes stuff that i find bad: bad writing, bad design, bad pacing. if a show like breaking bad can have some of the most engaging interactions between characters, with some of the most pressing, nerve biting tension wedged into so many of it's scenes, then i want to see that in a show about people at the edge of existence surrounded by the dead. but i don't get that, and it really just comes down to execution from the directors and the writers. that is where most of my distaste lies.

the truth is that if i prefer the way the comic handled things and that i wish and presumed the show would follow in a similar fashion then that's all there is to it. it didn't, i presumed wrong, was a victim of poor advertisement (and misdirection by how faithful, in comparison, the first episode was compared to the rest ever since) but that doesn't mean i can't have a bit of a rant about how i think some things in the comic are just better. that's just that.

It's it's own thing, deal with it.
Click to expand...

have done a while ago. now i just dislike things like this...

He got replaced with a new black guy anyways. So it's all good, I guess?
Click to expand...

no, it's not alright. how would that be alright? how is this even an 'alright' chain of thought to be thinking about? oh it's okay they got rid of one black guy because now there is another black guy the balance is just right again lol.

****ing hell.
 
I don't understand, shouldn't you be happy it's different? Why bother watching a total remake of the comics when you could just.. You know, read the comics? It seems like it'd really suck for someone like you who has read the comics already, because you would know every single little thing that would happen (if it was a complete remake). Complete and total remakes don't really make sense to me, I'm glad they changed it. Maybe one day I'll read the comics and I'll enjoy them because I already watched the series and it won't be the exact same thing scene for scene.

@the black guy thing - Dude I was just joking, relax. I was poking fun at the fact that there has to be racial diversity for TV just to make people watching feel good or something. It's stupid how there always has to be one of every race so all demographics don't get mad. The one and only black guy dies, but of course, there is another to take his place! Don't you find that funny?

EDIT: You seem really mad about this, and my post kind of sounded asshole-like. Just want to be clear, I didn't mean it like that, just debating the show is all.
 
Dog-- said:
I don't understand, shouldn't you be happy it's different? Why bother watching a total remake of the comics when you could just.. You know, read the comics? It seems like it'd really suck for someone like you who has read the comics already, because you would know every single little thing that would happen (if it was a complete remake). Complete and total remakes don't really make sense to me, I'm glad they changed it. Maybe one day I'll read the comics and I'll enjoy them because I already watched the series and it won't be the exact same thing scene for scene.
Click to expand...

you aren't reading my posts right. i don't mind change, but i do mind when the change is done really, really badly. if the things they are changing make the original writing look like shakespeare then that is just plain bad craftsmanship. but again, that is obviously very subjective, but i will be vocal in how i think some of the stuff in the television show is just plain batshit crazy when it was pretty logical or sensible writing in the comic. that's going backwards, and i don't want that to let that just go without comment, regardless of that fact no one in the proper channels is going to see it.

if it was the other way round, and the writers and directors made the show better than the comic then i would be incredibly happy. and some people will probably think that is what they are doing and that's just taste pure and simple. but it isn't that way for me. so be it.
 
knut said:
that link doesn't make me want to say 'welp if something like this has already been done then i guess thats okay!' - it makes me want to add the walking dead to number 8 of that list and then talk in distaste about all of them. proving that something shitty has been done before doesn't make a shitty act any less shitty. anyway, regardless: me and dog were talking about a factual term that he made up for the show which i told him was never actually used: never once was it called 'loosely' based upon the book. it name was the same and the creators were attached to: my mistake for thinking it was going to be faithful in the same way that... oh, how about stephen ambrose's book translation of band of brothers to the HBO was. (outside of some historical inaccuracies, mind)
Click to expand...

you're wrong here. it doesnt say "adapted from the comic book" it says "based on the comic book" which is a world of difference. it's NOT an adaptation

knut said:
but look: i long, long LONG ago accepted this wasn't like the comic. way into season two - way before our last two or three arguments, probably, but you never did seem to back down from that.
Click to expand...

and here we are mid season 3 and you're still complaining that it's not faithful to the comic.

knut said:
i have a whole host of things outside of it's inaccuracies that bother me. how about the laughable andrew lincoln breakdown at the end of the last episode, huh? am i allowed to critic bad acting?
Click to expand...

you are alone here. the overwelming reaction from the interwebs after sunday's episode was that it was good acting. the problem as I see it is that you have pre-existing baggage around the show and it affects your judgement. while it wasnt Brando's "STELLLLLA" level of overacting it's certainly not Bill Shatner level of overacting. it was fine

knut said:
but you know what? i'm actually enjoying season three, though i still find flaws with it. it's leagues ahead of the first two seasons so far. you know what i said about still continuing to watch the show in the hope that i might enjoy it later on down the line, something that you scoffed at a few times? yep, this is the point i was talking about.
Click to expand...

and yet still complain that it's not faithful to the show. look it's no M.A.S.H or even Barney Miller but it's entertaining enough that I keep watching each week. you want zombie shakesphere when the show is actually zombie gilligan's island. methinks thou dost protest too much
 
CptStern said:
you're wrong here. it doesnt say "adapted from the comic book" it says "based on the comic book" which is a world of difference. it's NOT an adaptation
Click to expand...

sorry for getting my 'based on' and 'adapted from' muddled up lol

...

you are alone here. the overwelming reaction from the interwebs after sunday's episode was that it was good acting. the problem as I see it is that you have pre-existing baggage around the show and it affects your judgement. while it wasnt Brando's "STELLLLLA" level of overacting it's certainly not Bill Shatner level of overacting. it was fine
Click to expand...

why do you do this? why do you bring 'other people' into an argument about subjective taste? i thought it was ****ing atrocious, why can't you let me have that has a an actual thing to dislike when it's based upon my taste? do you watch boardwalk empire? because in this weeks episode val alden had a meltdown and it was one of the finest pieces of acting i've seen on the entire show, and that's a pretty high bar to get to on that show. you'll have to excuse me for being disappointed that i didn't see anything close to that caliber of acting in the walking dead, but it's subjective, so i get that you don't agree with me and perhaps even all the interwebs you browse don't either but **** it, what can we do about that, eh? nothing.

it's nothing to do with pre-existing baggage about the walking dead: it's do with what i think is good acting and bad acting. perhaps the only pre-existing baggage here is the fact that i've seen a lot of andrew lincolns work and that was by far him at his worst. perhaps that has something to do with it, i don't know.

but why sink to the level of having to make sweeping generalizations about what other people think. why should it matter? because i've seen a whole shit ton of posts mocking it in the last two days, but why should i reference them? it's irrelevant. it doesn't change anything, whether the entire world likes something i don't or vice versa. don't use it as an argument, because i'm not going to change my mind based upon reviewer forums a through z, or reviewer no. 0029392, or critic website 035. it doesn't change shit.

and yet still complain that it's not faithful to the show. look it's no M.A.S.H or even Barney Miller but it's entertaining enough that I keep watching each week. you want zombie shakesphere when the show is actually zombie gilligan's island. methinks thou dost protest too much
Click to expand...

did you just pluck the word shakespeare out my post and then not read the rest? i said the shows writing makes the comic look massively stupendously intelligent, that's just how bad it is. the comic isn't even near such gratuitous claims. i was just making a lazy example of the crazily different standards. but I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT'S FAITHFULNESS TO THE COMIC. i'm complaining when things from the comic are changed and the changes are bad. did you see the part where i said one of the changes was good? re: the governor? yes, it is entertaining enough - that is why i watch it. i also watch it because i don't mind spending the hour to watch it, i enjoy the universe, big fan of it's creation, have faith/hope that it might get better, and on and on and on... and guess what? if you hadn't of glossed over the part where i DID say i was enjoying it more, IT'S WORKING OUT PRETTY WELL. i am enjoying things... but it isn't without it's flaws.

if we had a boardwalk empire thread i'd be in there right now gushing over how much i love the show, but i'd still be taking the time out to comment upon the character of billie, or the fact that gyp rosetti is like an italian mobster cartoon character. nothing is perfect, nothing is free from criticism, it just so happens that the walking dead has a lot more to say negative things about than some of the other things on my routine monday morning watch list. haven't we been over this? just block me, if you want.
 
So this whole thing boils down to personal opinion.

So stop the arguing. It's over, it's done now. (not directed at you in particular knut)
 
that's kind of been my point through each thread. this is the third now. beyond ridiculous.
 
Takes more than one person to argue, man.

Unless you're a crazed hobo.
 
idiot ****s shut up, it's based on the god damned comics.
it shares some of the events, characters, and locales of the comics but it's pretty god damned obvious now that the writers are doing their own thing... whether that's for better or worse i'm undecided, i mean it's worse in A LOT of ways but............ yeah no it's just worse but it's still entertaining in a guilty pleasure sort of way.

now the group has a ****ing baby to deal with, that shit would've been amazing had the baby not survived.
instead you get lori doing a five second character redemption and then having carl see her vagoo and then getting her belly gutted and then rick almost bursts into a fit of laughter but then cries instead

man i don't even know about this show anymore

oh yeah t-dog finally died hooray
 
Finally got rid of one annoying character. But yeah, that must have been pretty traumatizing for Carl, seeing his mom nekkid like that. I mean, gut cut open, hole blown in her head, yeah fine whatever. But standing up squirting blood out her vagina right in front of his eyes? A kid can only take so much!

Also lost a character who could have been good. T-Dog never got a chance. Michonne's (sp?) solitary facial expression (supremely pissed off look) is getting quite tiresome already. We finally get some decent acting out of the rest of the cast and now she's here keeping it shitty.
 
knut said:
...why do you do this? why do you bring 'other people' into an argument about subjective taste? i thought it was ****ing atrocious, why can't you let me have that has a an actual thing to dislike when it's based upon my taste? do you watch boardwalk empire? because in this weeks episode val alden had a meltdown and it was one of the finest pieces of acting i've seen on the entire show, and that's a pretty high bar to get to on that show. you'll have to excuse me for being disappointed that i didn't see anything close to that caliber of acting in the walking dead, but it's subjective, so i get that you don't agree with me and perhaps even all the interwebs you browse don't either but **** it, what can we do about that, eh? nothing.
Click to expand...

you implied people should agree with you when you said this:

how about the laughable andrew lincoln breakdown at the end of the last episode
Click to expand...

you didnt say "I think that scene .." you asked us to agree with you

knut said:
it's nothing to do with pre-existing baggage about the walking dead: it's do with what i think is good acting and bad acting. perhaps the only pre-existing baggage here is the fact that i've seen a lot of andrew lincolns work and that was by far him at his worst. perhaps that has something to do with it, i don't know.

but why sink to the level of having to make sweeping generalizations about what other people think. why should it matter? because i've seen a whole shit ton of posts mocking it in the last two days, but why should i reference them? it's irrelevant. it doesn't change anything, whether the entire world likes something i don't or vice versa. don't use it as an argument, because i'm not going to change my mind based upon reviewer forums a through z, or reviewer no. 0029392, or critic website 035. it doesn't change shit.
Click to expand...

all I said was that your opinion was in the minority. I dont think it's lawrence olivier caliber of acting but it certainly wasnt as "laughably bad" as you make it out to be. HEY DONT HARSH ON MY OPINION!!!


knut said:
did you just pluck the word shakespeare out my post and then not read the rest?
Click to expand...

no and yes. I read only your reply to my post and not the rest of your replies to other members. the shakespeare thing was said to dog not to me. you tend to be somewhat verbose so I "gloss" over some of your posts to other people

knut said:
i said the shows writing makes the comic look massively stupendously intelligent, that's just how bad it is.
Click to expand...

never in the history of mankind has there been a book as good as it's movie counterpart. never

knut said:
the comic isn't even near such gratuitous claims. i was just making a lazy example of the crazily different standards. but I'M NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT IT'S FAITHFULNESS TO THE COMIC. i'm complaining when things from the comic are changed and the changes are bad.
Click to expand...

you mean the changes that were unfaithful to the comic?

knut said:
did you see the part where i said one of the changes was good? re: the governor? yes, it is entertaining enough - that is why i watch it. i also watch it because i don't mind spending the hour to watch it, i enjoy the universe, big fan of it's creation, have faith/hope that it might get better, and on and on and on... and guess what? if you hadn't of glossed over the part where i DID say i was enjoying it more, IT'S WORKING OUT PRETTY WELL. i am enjoying things... but it isn't without it's flaws.
Click to expand...

really, am I supposed to keep track of everything you've said in this thread?

knut said:
if we had a boardwalk empire thread i'd be in there right now gushing over how much i love the show, but i'd still be taking the time out to comment upon the character of billie, or the fact that gyp rosetti is like an italian mobster cartoon character. nothing is perfect, nothing is free from criticism, it just so happens that the walking dead has a lot more to say negative things about than some of the other things on my routine monday morning watch list. haven't we been over this? just block me, if you want.
Click to expand...

you are entitled to your opinion however you've pretty much established in this thread over and over again that your main concern is how much it deviates from the comicbook. stop waffling and stick to your guns: it's either shit because it's not faithful to the comic or it's shit on it's own merits
 
rick's break down was heart breaking cause it reminded me of when my dad passed away and how i reacted
so fuck you knut
 
CptStern said:
you implied people should agree with you when you said this:

you didnt say "I think that scene .." you asked us to agree with you
Click to expand...

i used 'how about' as if i was citing it off as an example. i guess i can see how it might seem otherwise, but that wasn't my intention.


you mean the changes that were unfaithful to the comic?
Click to expand...

but is isn't about that, it isn't hating on it simply because it's unfaithful. it's disliking the changes because more times than none i've thought the changes have been bad. i don't know what's so hard to understand here.

really, am I supposed to keep track of everything you've said in this thread?
Click to expand...

again, if you gloss over things, or don't take things i say in properly, then you are basically just trying to put words in my mouth. i have admitted that there has been a change - a deviation from the comic - that i have enjoyed. there has been a couple this last season. what more do you need for me to convince you that i don't dislike the changes purely because they are changes? i'm really not that petty.

you are entitled to your opinion however you've pretty much established in this thread over and over again that your main concern is how much it deviates from the comicbook. stop waffling and stick to your guns: it's either shit because it's not faithful to the comic or it's shit on it's own merits
Click to expand...

... and all the time i have been saying that it's been (largely) shit on it's own merits. bad acting, bad pacing, terrible arcs, absolutely non-sensical decisions... i don't think i have ever once said ''this is shit because it's not the comic''. there have been times when i have been concerned because of it's deviation because of how bizarre some of the writing is when you compare it to that of the comics, and that is coming from the viewpoint of ''this in the comic makes sense, what they have done here in the television show is bonkers and completely batshit. no one would do this. i think the comic writing for this scene is better, therefore i am going to wish it had been implemented in similar fashion and post a criticism of it on the internet.''

the thing is, i'm still led to believe that you haven't read the comic, making this argument still irrelevant as you don't really have any basis of reference for what i am talking about. i IMPLORE you to sit down with it, if just so we can have a civil conversation about it. i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you like or dislike about it considering that you enjoy the show quite a fair bit.

Lucid said:
rick's break down was heart breaking cause it reminded me of when my dad passed away and how i reacted
so **** you knut
Click to expand...

great, i'm glad that you could share a connection with it. that's the magic of film, television and sharing a moment with an actor on screen who fully emotes in a way that you can relate to. i'm happy that that is the type of thing that can make you really appreciate a show or character.

however, i didn't feel the same way. is that so deserved of a '**** you', because of a difference in opinion? just seems overly hostile and quite immature, if i'm honest. you are still allowed to enjoy his performance even if i didn't, you know? my word is gospel. if i didn't enjoy it that's on my own head.
 
knut said:
i used 'how about' as if i was citing it off as an example. i guess i can see how it might seem otherwise, but that wasn't my intention.
Click to expand...

but then you go on how it's supposed to be "based" on the comic yet it's not "faithful"

knut said:
but is isn't about that, it isn't hating on it simply because it's unfaithful. it's disliking the changes because more times than none i've thought the changes have been bad. i don't know what's so hard to understand here.
Click to expand...

what changes? there's no Darrell in the comic, or t-dog or Merle. there's no Tyreese in tv show nor is there is a Donna or a Chris or julie etc. it's not an adaptation. those are not changes they are deviations from the comic it's based on



knut said:
again, if you gloss over things, or don't take things i say in properly, then you are basically just trying to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...

not at all. I shouldnt have to follow your conversations with other people to make sure you are clear on what you are saying. that's your responsibility not mine


knut said:
i have admitted that there has been a change - a deviation from the comic - that i have enjoyed. there has been a couple this last season. what more do you need for me to convince you that i don't dislike the changes purely because they are changes? i'm really not that petty.
Click to expand...

so you admit you're constantly comparing to the comic it's based on? you really should clarify between based on and adaptation. you'd probably enjoy it more



knut said:
... and all the time i have been saying that it's been (largely) shit on it's own merits. bad acting, bad pacing, terrible arcs, absolutely non-sensical decisions... i don't think i have ever once said ''this is shit because it's not the comic''.
Click to expand...

but you constantly compare it to the comic which is the same as saying "this is shit because of the comic"

knut said:
there have been times when i have been concerned because of it's deviation because of how bizarre some of the writing is when you compare it to that of the comics, and that is coming from the viewpoint of ''this in the comic makes sense, what they have done here in the television show is bonkers and completely batshit. no one would do this. i think the comic writing for this scene is better, therefore i am going to wish it had been implemented in similar fashion and post a criticism of it on the internet.''
Click to expand...

you constantly contradict yourself. are you comparing it to the comic or not? this reply says you are but earlier you said you're not

knut said:
the thing is, i'm still led to believe that you haven't read the comic, making this argument still irrelevant as you don't really have any basis of reference for what i am talking about. i IMPLORE you to sit down with it, if just so we can have a civil conversation about it. i would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what you like or dislike about it considering that you enjoy the show quite a fair bit.
Click to expand...

I've read a few issues but that in no way makes me unqualified to comment on the TV SHOW it's based on because it's not an adaptation. that being said it's obvious to me that you watch it solely to compare it to the comic book. you've already stated numerous times that in many ways it's shit and you find it inferior which makes me wonder why you would watch it in the first place?
 
literally can't be bothered to go back and forth with you anymore, trying to explain my thoughts on the show to someone who still asks questions like 'why do you watch it then?' after i've answered it about four or five times. utter tedium.

ignored. gonna save myself some bandwidth and just not bother having your posts show up. if you don't want to read mine properly, why should i read yours. cya on the flipside, old man.
 
I thought this whole argument was finished by way of opinion. You can't argue opinion, so just stop guys. Jesus.
 
knut said:
literally can't be bothered to go back and forth with you anymore, trying to explain my thoughts on the show to someone who still asks questions like 'why do you watch it then?' after i've answered it about four or five times. utter tedium.

ignored. gonna save myself some bandwidth and just not bother having your posts show up. if you don't want to read mine properly, why should i read yours. cya on the flipside, old man.
Click to expand...


you should drop the "k" from your name
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top