Season 6 | Mid Season Finale | Start to Finish [AMC] [SPOILERS]

sabhail

9

crisco10 wrote: »

The camouflage with guts technique annoys me. I can suspend disbelief and accept it as a tactic but then why not use it all the time? Like when they were literally herding zombies, it would have helped if they had camouflaged themselves. Except for the "bait" like daryl.

It annoys me that it is only used "in case of real emergency " as a get out of jail free card. It's almost like a power up in a computer game that you can only use every so often.

Episode was ok. But makes you wish that you don't have moody kids come the zombie apocalypse!

Yeah, on talking dead it was said that they'd dry out too quickly to use regularly.... So michonnes technique clearly the way to go...

Whatever about Sam, how do they ensure Judith stays quiet? Can see their stroll to armoury descending into chaos fairly quickly... Roll on February

I think the moody teens r well done, its v teenagery I think, no matter what else is happening, my immediate concerns r the only important thing... Even Carl had his moments in season 4 I think

The Talking Bread

8

alchemist33 wrote: »

I never understood why everyone was so excited for Morgan to come back this season. He'd a very minor character -- maybe he was better in the comics.
But as annoying as he was, Carols decision to have a go during a crisis was the stupidest thing ever. I fully expected the doc to scream out "Will you two just cop the f*** on?" But she didn't. And now look at where she is.

because the actor is brilliant and he stole every scene he had been in before returning. That episode "Clear" was one of the best ever episodes. The character is very complex as well given all the emotional stuff he had been through so he had great potential. He still has but they need to alter his personality and outlook again.

smash

5

The Talking Bread wrote: »

because the actor is brilliant and he stole every scene he had been in before returning. That episode "Clear" was one of the best ever episodes. The character is very complex as well given all the emotional stuff he had been through so he had great potential. He still has but they need to alter his personality and outlook again.

I agree. He needs to drop that stick and start losing the plot again. You can see glimpses of the original Morgan coming back as he struggles to fit in.

forumuser

Can someone tell me if the walkers have always been able to climb stairs? I don't remember them doing it before.

Tony EH

4

The Talking Bread wrote: »

because the actor is brilliant and he stole every scene he had been in before returning. That episode "Clear" was one of the best ever episodes. The character is very complex as well given all the emotional stuff he had been through so he had great potential. He still has but they need to alter his personality and outlook again.

I was delighted when they had Morgan reappear. The actor added a lot to the character, least of all a very convincing accent, in a sea of dodgy ones (I'm looking at you Rick Grimes).

But, again, poor writing has buggered him. So much so, that I wouldn't care if he was zombie offal in episode 7.

Sometimes the writers of this show get it so wrong, it beggars belief.

Paddy Cow

forumuser wrote: »

Can someone tell me if the walkers have always been able to climb stairs? I don't remember them doing it before.

They did in the first season when they climbed up to the roof. It's why Meryl cut his hand off.

Collie D

smash wrote: »

I agree. He needs to drop that stick and start losing the plot again. You can see glimpses of the original Morgan coming back as he struggles to fit in.

For his sake he had better hope he wakes up before Carol does

cathalj

The Talking Bread wrote:

You mean Dave Grohl.....?

Yep, I'll give you that !!

Lone Stone

6

I prefer to call him Russel brand

Paddy Cow

alchemist33 wrote: »

Does this annoy anyone else? It's two and a half months away. It's a separate season in all but name and there's nothing to be gained by having a split.

The Talking Bread wrote: »

they are still filming the season. Filming commences in May & is almost eight months and then the producers and editors come into it. Its not a conventional show that can just be filmed in the space of a few months. That is why they also take a break mid season. Same with GOT. That is why the latter only has a few months airing time

All the US shows I watch finished up last week and won't be back until early February - Criminal Minds, Modern Family, Law and order SVU etc. It's standard practice. It just feels more planned with the Walking Dead because there's 8 episodes each side of Christmas.

16 episodes is too many to do in one block so they could reduce it to 13 like Z Nation or 10 like GOT. They could increase the entire season to 24 episodes but imagine the amount of filler shyte there'd be :eek:

Liamalone

Mid series breaks only appeared in the last decade, purely created just to annoy me I think, not in respect to this show but it grates when good shows do it.

Liam McPoyle

Liamalone wrote: »

Mid series breaks only appeared in the last decade, purely created just to annoy me I think, not in respect to this show but it grates when good shows do it.

Was it not because of the screen writers guild going on strike and it snookered a few shows at the time?

stronglikebull

7

Business Cat wrote: »

Was it not because of the screen writers guild going on strike and it snookered a few shows at the time?

Some shows were forced into a hiatus during the strike, but that's not the reason they do them. Mainly it's about money. A break in production saves money, and also allows them to catch up with the post-filming production of the next episodes. It would simply cost too much to go for a full 16-24 episodes week on week, so they put in a break.

The Talking Bread

8

you cant win though! People would complain that the seasons are too short and the break between seasons is too long if they clumped ten episodes together. I much prefer the way they do it. Its not as if its that long, just nine weeks or so. And because of it you get more content. It just seems TWD cant win theses days on any front!

topmanamillion

5

The Talking Bread wrote: »

you cant win though! People would complain that the seasons are too short and the break between seasons is too long if they clumped ten episodes together. I much prefer the way they do it. Its not as if its that long, just nine weeks or so. And because of it you get more content. It just seems TWD cant win theses days on any front!

Is that content of a consistently high level? I would have to say no. There are a number of episodes where you finish and think "ya that's why I watch TWD" and others where you think you've been watching a soap opera.
I look at GOT's and it only has 10 episodes a season. I'm certain they could stretch that into 16 with a mid season break. They don't and they are the better for it.
There's are no soppy scenes or filler and it's all action. TWD is guilty of being aimless at times.

Sand

5

stronglikebull wrote: »

Some shows were forced into a hiatus during the strike, but that's not the reason they do them. Mainly it's about money. A break in production saves money, and also allows them to catch up with the post-filming production of the next episodes. It would simply cost too much to go for a full 16-24 episodes week on week, so they put in a break.

Is that actually the case though? I would have thought that once the actors, equipment and crew are on site and the sets are in place its more cost effective - and easier on all involved - to film as much content as you can in one sitting than to dismiss everyone and then recall them to re-complete the season.

Has anyone done the maths to show its cheaper to do two separate sets of filming? I could only think the mid season break makes sense if the writers have X number of episodes ready to go and need 2-3 more months to finish the rest, or if your cast have other commitments and you need to work around them.

EDIT - NM, google answered my question. Its not about controlling costs, its about making advertising revenue by concentrating your big series at certain times of the year. US TV series go into breaks so the networks can have more "finales" and "return of..." episodes when Nielsen is running "sweeps" in November (Walking Dead mid season finale), February (Walking Dead returns!) and May and August. More people therefore watch when Nielsen is checking who is watching what channels. The better they do in the sweeps, they more broadcasters can make from advertising because they can point to higher audiences.

The Talking Bread

8

Sand wrote: »

Is that actually the case though? I would have thought that once the actors, equipment and crew are on site and the sets are in place its more cost effective - and easier on all involved - to film as much content as you can in one sitting than to dismiss everyone and then recall them to re-complete the season.

Has anyone done the maths to show its cheaper to do two separate sets of filming? I could only think the mid season break makes sense if the writers have X number of episodes ready to go and need 2-3 more months to finish the rest, or if your cast have other commitments and you need to work around them.

EDIT - NM, google answered my question. Its not about controlling costs, its about making advertising revenue by concentrating your big series at certain times of the year. US TV series go into breaks so the networks can have more "finales" and "return of..." episodes when Nielsen is running "sweeps" in November (Walking Dead mid season finale), February (Walking Dead returns!) and May and August. More people therefore watch when Nielsen is checking who is watching what chagnnels. The better they do in the sweeps, they more broadcasters can make from advertising because they can point to higher audiences.

it's also about the fact that the production of the show is almost a year round project, the actors DO film in one consecutive block but filming takes place over 9 months. Then they have post production, editing, getting trailer footage out. Its different to shows like, say Mad Men when the set is so confined. Some days they may only get a couple of scenes shot, owing to the huge amount of work that goes into some of the scenes. Take, for example, the herd scenes. It also allows spoilers to be minimalised and leaks of cast departures to be kept secret. If the filming of say, a season finale, wraps up 7 months before it goes out on screen, the chances are that spoilers of cast still filming for the next season (whilst the previous season is still airing) would be leaked more easily, thus ruining stories.

Promotion work before seasons commence (whether Season Pt A or Season Pt also comes into the equation.

But yes, late Sept, early October to late November and early Spring are high viewer pulling periods for these kind of shows. Christmas time and Summer time never really seem to be considered.

So many factors come into the equation. AMC and the other big financial teams/advertisers behind TWD (and other shows) want their viewers to watch the shows LIVE, not recorded etc and these periods have been proven to attract the most live viewers.

So yes it does, of course, mainly involve financial decisions but there are so many other factors involved.

Also, I dont think it would be possible to squeeze a season into ten episodes like GOT. Its a different kind of show and it would just seem far too rushed just to have action...action....action. There needs to be what seems at the time to be pointless filler material.

Fourteen to Sixteen episodes is just about right. Especially when the episodes are so damn short.

Tony EH

4

Sand wrote: »

EDIT - NM, google answered my question. Its not about controlling costs, its about making advertising revenue by concentrating your big series at certain times of the year. US TV series go into breaks so the networks can have more "finales" and "return of..." episodes when Nielsen is running "sweeps" in November (Walking Dead mid season finale), February (Walking Dead returns!) and May and August. More people therefore watch when Nielsen is checking who is watching what channels. The better they do in the sweeps, they more broadcasters can make from advertising because they can point to higher audiences.

Yeh. It's 99% this.

The "seasonal" approach to American TV is revenue driven primarily and designed to maximise ratings opportunities. There's little else to it.

But, it's not always the case. If a show spans around 20 episodes, that means more than 20 weeks just on filming, over 52 weeks in the year. It makes sense to split the series across the year and stretch production.

The likes of 'The Walking Dead' or other shows that span 10 - 14 episodes don't really need to have a break. But from a money / interest perspective they do it to keep the audience interested. Frankly, given all the problems that 'The Walking Dead' has (and I am a fan), the show would have been cancelled by now, if they didn't take the break. I think a lot of people would simply have been fatigued by it.

Sometimes it makes more sense to keep the show running across one burst though. I remember when they started to break up these high concept TV shows and it was disastrous for some. 'V' was killed stone dead because of it. The show came back after its so called "mid season" break, but the audience didn't.

Paddy Cow

Tony EH wrote: »

The likes of 'The Walking Dead' or other shows that span 10 - 14 episodes don't really need to have a break. But from a money / interest perspective they do it to keep the audience interested. Frankly, given all the problems that 'The Walking Dead' has (and I am a fan), the show would have been cancelled by now, if they didn't take the break. I think a lot of people would simply have been fatigued by it.

I disagree. I was introduced to the show and binge watched the first three seasons and thought it was the best show ever. The drawn out farm saga didn't bother me because I was watching episode after episode. I found that from season 4 onwards, where I had to watch it like a normal person, some parts of it dragged to the point where if I wasn't already invested in the show, I'd probably have given up on it.

The first season was excellent and I can rewatch it and enjoy it (I cannot say the same for Fear the Walking Dead). The pilot is the best I have ever seen from a show. After that it seemed like they came up with a formula to fit the 8 episode/break/another 8 episode format that the show took. The first three episodes are awesome and keep you interested, followed by some filler episodes disguised as "character development" and then the "finale" is suspense filled.

Some people like the character episodes. While I think it is important, I remember nearly going out of my mind when the road to Terminus was filled with these episodes. By the time they actually got there, I was hoping for something big to happen but what we got was one episode of Carol being like Arnold Schwarzenegger in Commando where she took down a whole compound and suffered no loss. They had three very good episodes but again it went back to filler and the priest (who showed no character growth until the last episode).

This season, we got off to a fine start with the first three episodes but again we went into filler mode. The 90 min episode with Morgan was a joke to the overall series. I was one who welcomed the return of Morgan but now I can't wait to see him die, hopefully by the hand of the wolf he refused to kill in numerous occasions. I really hope the writers have something better in store for him in the coming episodes to justify the time dedicated to his character.

This show perplexes me. Sometimes it's amazing and others it is simply awful but I continue to watch. I think next season I will wait to the end and then binge watch it.

Tony EH

4

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I disagree. I was introduced to the show and binge watched the first three seasons and thought it was the best show ever...

I've been watching since the beginning and I can tell you by the second series, there were a lot of people who were complaining of boredom and moaning about "the farm" and "Sophia's in the bloody barn".

Personally, I liked the slow pace of season 2 (and it upped the game in the second half), but there were plenty of people who were turned right off by it.

It's largely considered the worst of the show so far.

Paddy Cow

Tony EH wrote: »

I've been watching since the beginning and I can tell you by the second series, there were a lot of people who were complaining of boredom and moaning about "the farm" and "Sophia's in the bloody barn".

Personally, I liked the slow pace of season 2 (and it upped the game in the second half), but there were plenty of people who were turned right off by it.

It's largely considered the worst of the show so far.

That was my point. I binge watched the second series so for me, it was fine. I'm sure if I was watching it from week to week, with a two month break it would have done my head in.

I have to admit though, it never tweaked with me that Sophia was in the barn

Tony EH

4

Yeh, but they were complaining before the mid season break even happened.

I agree with binge watching. It's the best way to do most shows. The wife and I usually set up a three or four eps and watch them on a night in.

My point is that there is a lot of filler going on in a lot of shows that the mid season break kind of skirts around and eliminates to a large degree. The cliff hangers (even though the latest one was silly) get people interested in watching in Feb.

People who were complaining about the weak episodes this year probably would give up on the show if it continued for another 6 weeks straight, but are more likely to return after they've had a break and forgot about their criticism.

intheclouds

I didn't see the post credits scene - what happened?

Sand

5

The Talking Bread wrote: »

it's also about the fact that the production of the show is almost a year round project, the actors DO film in one consecutive block but filming takes place over 9 months.

I don't know about that - my understanding is filming typically begins in May of any given year, each episode is shot over roughly 8 days and the usually finish filming by October/November. The episodes shot in May, June, July and August are ready for October/November. Its almost certain they could keep broadcasting episodes shot in August/September without a hitch over the next few weeks, but they choose not to.

Its a money making decision, not a quality control one, and I don't begrudge them it at all. It is not a crime to try make money from something people want to buy.

If the filming of say, a season finale, wraps up 7 months before it goes out on screen, the chances are that spoilers of cast still filming for the next season (whilst the previous season is still airing) would be leaked more easily, thus ruining stories.

The comics exist - its a massive spoiler right there. As it is, the scripts are drawn up in February - months before filming even starts, let alone before it ends. I don't think breaks are to prevent spoilers. The season 6 finale is already scripted, shot and more than likely production is finished on it too. All that is left is to broadcast it.

Also, I dont think it would be possible to squeeze a season into ten episodes like GOT. Its a different kind of show and it would just seem far too rushed just to have action...action....action. There needs to be what seems at the time to be pointless filler material.

Fourteen to Sixteen episodes is just about right. Especially when the episodes are so damn short.

Honestly, I think a season could be squeezed into 10 episodes if it was more coherent and better written. GoT manages it with a cast of dozens scattered across a half dozen major and many more minor locations. George Orwell offered some rules for writing in English. One rule was never to use a long word where short one would do. Another was that if you could remove a word from a sentence while retaining its meaning, always remove the word. Get the message across with the minimum of verbiage. I am not sure it is a lesson TWD has actually learnt. Look at the character of Morgan - a 90 minute episode was dedicated to his backstory and his actions are *still* incomprehensible to viewers. Its a good sign the character is poorly written, and giving him his own episode doesn't change that. A better written character would not require 90 minutes to ineffectively describe their motivation.

It doesn't necessarily require action, action action either. One of the best sequences in TWD is the 301 intro where the characters sweep through a house communicating to the audience all their feelings and desperation without uttering a single word. There are no explosions and no one dies. Its well written, shot and acted. Keeping that consistent quality has been a challenge though.

Paddy Cow

intheclouds wrote: »

I didn't see the post credits scene - what happened?

There's a link on the first page.

intheclouds

Paddy Cow wrote: »

There's a link on the first page.

Thank you

sonofenoch

Just only watching a second time now on Fox.....that Deanna or whatever her name is didn't get bit, she fell on the teeth of a rusty ol sprocket of some sort.....or am I missing something

Gwynplaine

How can I take Negan seriously, when he was in P.S I Love You?

Sofiztikated

Gwynplaine wrote: »

How can I take Negan seriously, when he was in P.S I Love You?

John Winchester was in PS I Love You!?!

Guffy

5

sonofenoch wrote: »

Just only watching a second time now on Fox.....that Deanna or whatever her name is didn't get bit, she fell on the teeth of a rusty ol sprocket of some sort.....or am I missing something

She did. She fell on the saw, i think it was, but also got bit. They assumed the wound was from this but when they went to clean it they saw the bite marks.

So in essance there were two wounds in the one spot.