But Season 3’s ratings are even higher than Season 2’s (which were higher than Season 1’s)…

Oh I don’t know…I actually liked season 2 and I could see people that like more dialogue and the interaction between characters enjoying that season. I’m sure they gained some and lost some. I actually have more of a problem with the writing for season 3…sure the zombie kills are improved but the actual making sense of characters motivation and actions…not so much. I have a feeling Mazzara wanted to kill off certain characters in season 4 and the network said “uh but hey they are really popular and we want ratings.”

I think the fact that season 3 is so successful with the viewers is evidence that season 2 was probably a lot more popular than people like me think. I was very disappointed with s2, but still watch of course because it’s a zombie show. If s2 was received that poorly I think ratings would have dropped for s3 for the non diehard zombie fans. The people who watch the show for the gimmick of gory violence but get bored by the storylines- those people should have left in large numbers. Instead the show is more successful than ever.

Terrible news. I was disappointed when Darabont was forced out, but Mazzara definitely improved the show – he was NOT responsible for “season of farm” – it was Darabont who had the slow paced first half of Season 2 (which at least ended with the great payoff of Sophie in the barn).

Mazzara was responsible for the far quicker paced second half of season 2 (including the surprised death of Dale, and the resolution of the Shane triangle), and Season 3 (of which we’ve seen half).

AMC management are just ridiculously hard bargainers – they forced the premature end of Breaking Bad (and forced the final episodes to be split into 2 years of 8 episode “seasons”), forced out Darabont, and now apparently were unable to come to terms with Mazarra – incredibly short-sighted moves, which will make it a lot harder for them to attract comparable showrunners and quality shows in the future.

Walking Dead is not only doing better in the ratings this year – it’s ALWAYS done very well - it’s actually the most successful show in all of television this year, with ratings far, far beyond anything ever seen on AMC or any cable channel ever - it’s destroying mainstream network competition badly. It’s a huge phenomenon - and to pull the plug on the guy largely responsible for that? Crazy.

You guys really don’t seem to realize how big this news is - it’s a really crappy development.

I think I would be more worried if Kirkman wasn’t working with them and the fact it’s not an original story and they have the comics to work off of. I mean really how hard is it to take already established characters and have a wealth of already exisiting story lines and tweak it here and there to add different twists. I really don’t think it’s that huge of a deal.

…and that’s why Catwoman and Ghost Rider were outstanding!

The creative director is definitely a big deal. It’s the most important thing that matters, in any form of entertainment - and arguably the only thing that determines whether or not a movie/TV show/Comic, etc. is worthwhile.

What if Kirkman is really the creative director? What if all they need is a showrunner to do the hiring and supervision of production, the technical tv aspects, but not the creative choices?

At first maybe they needed a real showrunner. I bet Kirkman had no clue how to do tv. Now though, I figure he’s learned a thing or two. He has three years of training on how to convert his story into a tv series, it can’t be that hard.

bad examples…both movies and based on old style comics and not as adult themed as Walking Dead not to mention Nic Cage and Sharon Stone had a lot to do with the failure of both. I just feel everything is already in place here and established (characters, actors and plot over three seasons)…hard to screw it up really. I’m sure they will come up with a solid replacement as well. It’s not like Mazzara was fool proof…he made some head scratching scenes as well so let’s not make him out to be teflon. I’m more curious on the creative differences mentioned…was it money or was it that he wanted to do some things on the show that they didn’t like?

Spoilers below!

The show certainly couldn’t get any worse. I see this as positive because the show has been really turgid ever since season 1. They really showed their true colours when they took away scenes like Carl killing Shane, or the baby dying with Lori. These scenes are what made the walking dead so good, so why bother making a tv series if you’re going to pull all your punches? The answer, obviously, is to sell more hyundais.

Or, the answer could be, that they correctly judge that the hardcore ZA fanbase is not the median of the audience they’re targetting. And yes, ultimately attracting a bigger audience sells more Hyundais. Did we somehow lose sight that shows must make more money (more than comics, even!).

It’s not called Show Art.

As if art and business are polar opposites. Plenty of artists have made successful businesses without coming off like soulless commercials.

How pessimistic to think that we can’t balance making money with artistic integrity. Walking dead doesn’t balance at all, it’s more concerned with Lori driving a brand new 2013 Hyundai than having her express a human emotion

Um, okay. The issues with the Lori character seemed to be at least a little divorced from Hyundais, at least to my non-artist eyes. But hey, what do I know: care to explain how the later caused the former?

So far, your complaints have been that two specific plot elements didn’t mirror the comic. If those were the only differences, I’d get where you’re coming from. But, the show ain’t the comic. That ship sailed long ago. You may want to stop watching the show now, because I’m going to take a wild guess and say that theres going to be more differences. There’s certainly things that could have been done better with the show, but I don’t rank Rick killing Shane and the baby living anywhere near the top of that list.

Frankly, you sound like every other niche fan who laments his favorite indy going mainstream. It happens.

It would be difficult for me to disagree more strongly.

Carl killing Shane was a shocking moment in the comics because it was a notice that Things Had Changed and that Rick had to come to terms with it in the same way his kid had. But in the comics, Shane was the most minor of minor characters; he got very few lines and his entire existence was in the service of having Carl shoot him. In the end, Shane was just mysteriously, irrationally, jealously nuts and no one really knew until they knew.

The TV show’s Shane was very different – a major character with a deep back-story and fairly complex motivations that, yes, included jealousy. More than just a placeholder for an eventual epiphany by Rick, the show’s Shane was a worthwhile philosophical and behavioral counterpoint to Rick’s way of doing things. When he eventually died, it served a far better purpose, and with more weight, than just showing Rick that humans were as dangerous as the undead.

And as for an “innocence lost” moment for Carl, I’ll take watching his mother being disemboweled in front of him and having to finish the job himself over shooting a barely-there foster father any day. Rick’s having to look into Carl’s eyes and know that he had mercy-killed his mother was better than the comic equivalent too. By a long shot.

Lori and the baby dying in one frame… eh, I’ll grant that that panel was a powerful way for Kirkman to show that no character was safe from an arbitrary and meaningless death. But again, I’ll take Lori’s meaningful and consequential death in the show over the “oh, I guess she’s dead now” shot in the comics.

I’d also point out that there is plenty of opportunity to kill off the newborn without straying from the comic’s timeline. Although I can’t imagine that they’ll waste the baby like that: we haven’t gotten the requisite scene where someone (probably Maggie) has to choose between smothering the baby to keep it quiet or taking the chance at alerting wandering zombies to her hiding place. That almost MUST happen.

But back to the subject at hand. There are only two scenes from the comic that I think are so very graphic that the alternative TV show scene was tame by comparison:

The scenes

Michonne being raped by the Governor and his cronies while Glenn had to listen. Maggie’s “fake rape” alternative was tension-filled, but it wasn’t nearly as brutal or shocking, and it took away the impetus for Michonne’s deep-set hatred for the Governor.

Dale’s legs being eaten by cannibals. I guess there is still time for this to happen to some other random character, but it obviously won’t be Dale. [though as an aside, I would not weep if they decided to forgo that little story, which I thought was pretty brain-dead]

Personally, I find the show’s characters to be far, far more interesting that Kirkman’s graphic novel creations. I liked TWD comic for quite a while, but after they left the prison it took a dramatic fall, in all senses of the term.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuCSGd4EZRk

— Alan

4 days to go!!!

2 days!!!1!!!11!!!ossdjjs!!!sma,nsf!!!..

I have the Walking Dead marathon on in the background, and I was watching a commercial for the upcoming return. The Governator is showed with his left eye graphically slashed, but the following scenes all show his right eye patched or bandaged. Is migrating eye disease an indicator of incipient zombiefication?

45 minutes to go!!!

He’s looking at himself in a mirror in the first picture.