I thought it was a good direction, but the pace was a touch slow. However they are clearly trying to develop the character of the governor and to do that, I think one slower paced episode was required. I just hope things pick up next week.
I don't want them to "develop" his character. The guy's a sociopath villain, not a "sad bear loves too much" character. After the torture and death he has wrought, he doesn't get sympathy.
Plus, the writers just had Carol kicked out for killing two people who were fatally ill, and instead of her, we get a redemption arc for a man who guns down people in cold blood for just being a theoretical threat to his power structure? Really?
I am not amused. At all.
They were functioning pretty well on their own for 18 months in the zombie apocalypse.
Bedrockgames said:I disagree. They took him about as far as they could with being a sociopath.
Seems to me that the zombie apocalypse is becoming a pretty misogynistic place.
That's basically the problem. There's really nothing that he can do that I care about. If they try to pull a redemption story, I won't buy into it because of how far they took him as a villain. And if he turns around after this and attacks the main group again, nothing is gained by seeing this side story. Either way, I just don't care about the Governor's story. I care about the main group. And breaking the plot into two separate stories at this point, especially considering the speed at which plots sometimes move on this show, is a major downer for me.
This is part of my reason behind disliking spending time on this after booting out Carol. Carol was the last strong female on the show*. So, they have her make a series of bad decisions, boot her to the side, and instead focus on other things for several episodes - including how the villanous menfolk are doing! This is not a good writing choice, to me. What they plan for Carol has to be stunningly good storytelling to justify this..
That's basically the problem. There's really nothing that he can do that I care about. If they try to pull a redemption story, I won't buy into it because of how far they took him as a villain. And if he turns around after this and attacks the main group again, nothing is gained by seeing this side story. Either way, I just don't care about the Governor's story. I care about the main group. And breaking the plot into two separate stories at this point, especially considering the speed at which plots sometimes move on this show, is a major downer for me.
I think you are reading into it too much.
She is still on the show and they had rick do what he did because it is an interesting development that creates a lot of drama and instantly divides the audience into team carol and team rick.
But I really have trouble seeing it as an attempt by sexist writers to silence a strong female lead they deteloped themselves.
And lets not forget, the best warrior in the prison, and probably the most fearless is Michonne. She is like Rick and Daryl combined with her moral center and toughness.
I think I am reading it exactly as a number of my female friends who love the show are taking it. Call that "too much" if you will.
"Let us have the characters do these things that are seemingly out of character or stupid because it makes drama!" is not what I call good writing. Carol, having seen Rick's errors in autocracy, and having been a parent herself, and being arguably the most compassionate character since Dale, thinks teaching kids things she must hide from the parents a good idea? She thinks choosing life or death for others without talking to anyone about it is a good idea? That seems right?
Team Carol and Team Rick? Is this Walking Dead or Twilight? Do you not see the basic problem with dividing up into teams? You risk alienating a good chunk of your audience when you resolve in a way that satisfies one side or the other.
It'll be seen that way so long as it rests in the position of Rick having won. And, of course, if they turn around and say Carol was right, then Rick is degraded again as a leader-figure. They set it up as a pretty binary thing - one or the other of them is Wrong, and a middle-ground is going to be hard to find.
I don't actually care how badass they are in combat. Mearle was badass, but a weak person. Hershel, who probably has the show's lowest body count, is arguably one of the strongest people. Combat ability not the kind of strength I'm talking about - though admittedly, our language doesn't have a good word for what I'm talking about.
Michonne? Moral center? She spent most of last season silently pouting and being groundlessly angry at the Governor*. I don't see as she has been making statements on morality, or been a strong moral example, or been making difficult moral choices. She's merely been the McGuffin around which the moral debate was framed.
*Yes, Michonne was correct that the Governor was a bad egg, but she had no *evidence* when she decided it was so. She just guessed it, and "lucky guesser" isn't a sign of moral strength.