Film Festival

Review: 'The Walking Dead' - 'Triggerfinger': We need to talk about Shane

Some strong thriller scenes at the start, but when are the people going to become interesting?

'The Walking Dead' - 'Triggerfinger': We need to talk about Shane

Steven Yeun in "The Walking Dead."

Credit: AMC

Are you a fan of The Walking Dead?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

A review of tonight's "The Walking Dead" coming up just as soon as I go get some flowers and candy for my prisoner...

"I'm sure we've all lost enough people, done things we wish we didn't have to, but it's like that now. You know that!" -Rick

Often when I prepare to write a "Walking Dead" review, I begin to feel like a 14-year-old with ADD, barking, "I want more zombies! More action! Less time on boring things like dialogue and characterization!"

Of course, I've got no problem with shows that take things slowly. On AMC alone, you've got "Breaking Bad," which can be edited into a kick-ass highlight reel, but which on an episode-by-episode basis tends to move at an incredibly measured pace; and you've got "Mad Men," which has made slowness and silence into a virtue. And I still think the best episode of "The Walking Dead" was the pilot, which had a lot of zombies but also moved slowly and quietly throughout.

My issue is more that I think on a weekly basis, Team "Walking Dead" handles the action and suspense far more effectively than anything else, a trend emphasized by an episode like "Triggerfinger." From the quick teaser with the walker forcing its way through the windshield of Lori's wrecked car until the moment where a desperate Rick yanks the kid's leg free from the wrought iron fence, it's tense and exciting and pretty terrific all around. And then from the moment we get back to the farm and everyone starts talking about their situation, the air gradually flows out of the episode, up until a potentially interesting final scene.

I love dramas that take the time to focus on character at the expense of plot. I just don't think "The Walking Dead" is all that good at it right now, and I'm not sure what can be done about it.

On the one hand, you have a number of characters we're being asked to care about in some way that the show hasn't really put in the time on. I still feel like I barely know who Carol is(*) and therefore have trouble engaging when she stands there and lets Daryl unload on her. And though the show's done okay by Herschel and Maggie, the rest of the farm folk are such non-entities that I was startled when we started hearing names for some of them this week. (For all I know, names have come up in the past, but they're such wallpaper that I sat there asking, "Wait, who's Beth? What are we talking about?")

(*) In hindsight, the decision to not only have her stay on the sidelines of the search for Sophia, but to have no one bring it up until Daryl does it here, was a large mistake. There was a good, revealing scene to be done during that arc where Carol explains her reasons for cowering in Dale's camper — even if it was just a sense of uselessness she felt from years of being married to an abusive bully — but instead she suffered in silence, barely relevant to anything and seeming like an uninterested mom for long stretches. 

On the other, you have the characters the show has devoted a lot of time to, particularly the Rick/Lori/Shane triangle, and I don't know that I feel more invested in them than I do the background players. If anything, with someone like T-Dog I can at least hold out hope that he'll turn out to be interesting whenever the writers decide to give him his own storyline, just as Daryl turned out well earlier this season. I think Rick works well as a reluctant hero — the guy who keeps trying to live by the rules of pre-apocalyptic society (hence his naive-bordering-on-idiotic decision to alert Dave and Tony's buddies to their presence so he can attempt to reason with them) even though the world doesn't work that way anymore — but Shane too often comes across like a swaggering cartoon character, even though he should in theory be the most complex character of them all.(**)

(**) I think, for instance, that Andrea has a point when she says they were safer under Shane's leadership, as he kept a much larger group alive for a longer period of time. Her comment to him about his presentation almost applies to the show; this same character, taking these same actions, but toned down in screen persona, comes across as far more morally grey than Jon Bernthal and company have made him seem.


And I do not, to be frank, find Lori to be worth the fuss — and didn't even before her dumb move last week to drive into town on her own without telling anyone. Daryl jokingly called her "Olive Oyl" last week, and she reminds me of an old Franklyn Ajaye stand-up routine I saw as a kid where Bluto wonders why he and Popeye spend so much time fighting over her, and Popeye notes, "She's the only chick in the cartoon." That theory doesn't quite apply to "The Walking Dead" — Shane has, after all, slept with Andrea — but the show often acts like Lori is the only one who matters, the one who's special in some way, and I'm not seeing it. The writing has acknowledged that Rick and Lori's marriage wasn't perfect pre-apocalypse, and there's a sense that their bond right now is more out of survival and concern for Carl than True Love, but I really wish we could disconnect the philosophical rift between Rick and Shane from their fighting over the same dull, self-righteous, kinda stupid woman.

That said, I saw some potential in the final scene, with Lori going Lady Macbeth on Rick and whispering dark thoughts about Shane into his ear. If that's where all this is heading — the realization that while Rick has made many mistakes, and while Shane has murdered and attempted rape and other crimes, they've been doing these things in the name of someone far colder and more ruthless than they could imagine — than that could be interesting.

But we're 15 episodes into the series now. That's more than a full cable season, the point at which we should know and care enough about the main characters that time spent on letting them talk and argue should be as compelling as the moments when the walkers are coming and the guns have come out. And the people are still lagging badly behind the brief bursts of plot.

What did everybody else think?

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 136 Comments
  • Default-avatar

    Alex T.

    Yeah, I thought the first half of the episode was fantastic and very well-directed...but it did fall through towards the end.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:04PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Stuart

    I, for one, was chanting "kill her" as the zombies attacked Lori. That being said you are right I loved the Lady Macbeth thing going on. But once again I am afraid this will turn into a human vs human half season. I almost though The Others had kidnapped Lori and that was why they were in a hurry to get home.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      joel I'm a little shocked how easily folks assume she's a Lady Macbeth. Everything she said about Shane is 100% accurate. She has to tell Rick this because yes, Shane is incredibly dangerous. And she's never given a hint prior that she's intelligent or ruthless enough to manipulate anyone into murder.

      Geez, I don't like Lori either but let's stick to the show and not let the imaginations run wild.

      February 23, 2012 at 2:12AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JMS

    When I saw the final scene, I thought that Lori just went Gemma.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:08PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      jennyh If only.

      February 21, 2012 at 12:36AM EST
    • Puss_in_boots_320_talkback_profile

      JedyKnight I thought the same, but since Gemma is actually inspired by a Bard character as well.. Is basically saying the same as Alan. :)

      February 21, 2012 at 5:07PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    DonBoy

    I don't think we're supposed to be thinking that Lori's going Lady Macbeth here. The scene prior to that with Shane and Andrea is there to nail down that Lori's right about what Shane's likely to do. So it's just going to be bad Shane against good Rick, even as the show also acknowledges that on the bare facts of situation there's a good case to be made that Shane isn't wrong about a lot of things.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:10PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      alynch The way they staged the scene, as a private, tender moment with them both halfway undressed, is pretty much begging people to give it the Macbeth interpretation.

      February 20, 2012 at 12:21AM EST
    • Batfink_talkback_profile

      chuchundra And with her whispering in his ear? I was seriously expecting her to say "screw your courage to the sticking-place, And we'll not fail".

      February 20, 2012 at 10:20AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JoeInVegas

    The biggest difference between the shows is that when the credits roll for Mad Men and Breaking Bad I usually look at the clock in disbelief that the hour is over.

    I do not have that problem with the Walking Dead

    February 19, 2012 at 11:22PM EST Reply to Comment
    • So true. Mad Men is the Beatles to Breaking Bad's Rolling Stones and the Walking Dead is Herman's Fucking Hermits (only if HH somehow had outsold the Beatles by 5x as much). I have just severely over-thought this.
      But the fact that this show gets a bigger audience than those other far superior shows proves that people are pretty dumb sometimes.

      February 19, 2012 at 11:55PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      eddie willers Love your analogy, Angel, but you're being too hard on The Walking Dead.

      They're the Dave Clark Five.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:11AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Dasein Angel, Eddie, may I humbly suggest the Bee Gees.

      February 20, 2012 at 3:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      moveslikejagger Aren't we missing the obvious parallel? Walking Dead = The Zombies (lol)

      February 22, 2012 at 3:25PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Walker, Texas ranger

    Disturbing question from someone who hasn't read the comics. Supposed Lori eventually is bitten by a walker while pregnant. The virus will likely act quicker in her unborn baby and it will become a walker before she does. Given that they need flesh to survive, will the zombie baby eat it's way out of the womb?

    February 19, 2012 at 11:32PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Ray With no teeth?

      February 20, 2012 at 2:45AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Danny Your comments lend to mind the mid-70's schlock horror film, "It's Alive" where a nasty little baby does that at the beginning of the film and then continues to munch away like Pac-Man the rest of the movie. Disturbing at first, but then comical. Hmm, kind of like this series.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:16AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      kiki We don't know it's a virus.

      February 21, 2012 at 12:12AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      jennyh You become a zombie once you die. In the TWD universe, you die as a result of any zombie bite. If Lori were to be bitten, she would die, and when she dies, the fetus dies. Now, the since we don't know what causes zombification, we don't know if the fetus would become a zombie. If the fetus were close to term, presumably a zombified version could claw its way out of its dead mother? I don't know if this was covered in The Zombie Survival Guide.

      February 21, 2012 at 1:11AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      marcusg123 Not sure if I "bit" onto a purposeful plot ruse or not, but I thought for sure when Lori started stripping in front of Rick in the tent, I thought for sure he was going to notice a bite mark. I was so surprised it didn't happen and then of course thought I'd been set up to expect that. Anyone else expect that?

      February 21, 2012 at 1:04PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      zombifan i expected a scratch and for them to not know if it was caused by a walker or by her scraping around in the car and/or forest. and i wouldve liked lots of angst while they waited for her to live or die (preferably die)

      oh well, we can't have everything. maybe she'll die sometime soon anyway

      February 21, 2012 at 6:54PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    JMD

    I continue to believe that the program needs to showcase a few more moments of levity. Remember in the pilot, where Rick stumbles across Morgan Jones (Lennie James) and his son? When they trek to the police station and find something as simple as a hot shower, there was a light moment there, where we could relate to the characters, who have lived through so much but rediscover the wonderment of what was formerly a simple pleasure. Between all the action, existential dilemmas, and would-be love triangles, we haven't had much of that levity. (I'm not suggesting they pipe in some of that Shondra Rimes soundtrack music to let us know when we can relax and enjoy a light scene, mind you). I just think that the characters might be more human if we gave them a break every once in a while.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      finsbury But you can't have wonderment of simple pleasures when all the tension has been sucked out of the show. When I saw Darryl's camp near the woods with fire full blaze, I again shook my head at how far off course the fram story line took this show.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:49AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      zombifan i have issues with the tent and fire. how does he sleep at night? i get that he's a superhunter and supertracker supersurvivalist but, erm, camping out with a big ol' fire in a zombie-overrun wood?

      no daryl, no!! i want you to stay safe!

      February 21, 2012 at 6:56PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Major minority

    So Shane killing Otis to save Carl wasn't okay, but Rick killing Shane to save Carl et al is? Granted, Shane was acting nuttier than jockstrap, and Lori was visibly shaken, but that last scene seemed so ghoulish. Even the way she (finally) showed Rick some affection with the hug was manipulative. She's trying to make Rick do her bidding, the same way she tried to boss around Daryl, Glenn, and that road map. She should do her own dirty work.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • 5740_140244010504_505705504_3467212_3589155_n_talkback_profile

      Omagus "So Shane killing Otis to save Carl wasn't okay, but Rick killing Shane to save Carl et al is?"
      --

      Not that I (necessarily) agree with Lori but Shane didn't kill Otis to save Carl. He killed him to save himself. Lori wants Rick to kill Shane because she feels that Shane is a danger to the entire group.

      February 20, 2012 at 9:50AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      turretgunner First, I don't think for a minute that the only reason Shane killed Otis was to save Carl. I think he would have shot Otis no matter who had been needing the medical supplies, but if it had been say Carol, for example, no one would have thought for a second he was doing it to save her life. And Shane doesn't just represent a danger to Carl. He's a danger to anyone who he believes is standing in the way of his survival. Everyone in the group is in danger and Lori knows it. She can see it in his eyes. Although I think she is especially worried about Rick. She knows that given the opportunity, there is a good chance that Shane would kill Rick and even be able to justify it in his mind. Shane is evolving into a sociopath. If he is the last person standing on earth because he has killed everyone else to stay alive, he would find nothing wrng with that. And that's partly because he has worked so hard to justify Otis' murder to himself to keep from putting his gun to his head and pulling the trigger. I find it very ironic that some, such as Maggie, think Shane is the better leader/protector of the group. She can't see, or doesn't want to see, that Shane views everyone except himself as expendable, including her. I have a feeling that before this season ends, she will see Shane for what he really is and realize that he's a bigger threat to the group than the walkers.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:43PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      zombifan How about the double-standard of "Shane killing Otis wasn't ok" (yes, to save himself but in so doing, also saving Carl) but Rick killing two innocent people off the street was perfectly justified because they wanted to know about the farm?

      I'm not a massive Shane fan but this bothered me a lot

      February 21, 2012 at 7:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      pedro They didn't make it super obvious, but the guys in the bar drew first on Rick.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:46AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joel Even if they didn't draw on them first (and they did), those two obviously had bad intentions for the farm. If they weren't going to take no for an answer, what do you expect Rick to do? Give them a stern warning and leave?

      The civilized world is gone. It's not pretty, but that's how it is.

      February 23, 2012 at 2:16AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    jerron

    I am glad to see people are kinda waking up to Shane. However I don't think it's plausible from what they know on the show. The audience knows things but they are operating on Dale's words and theories.

    I somewhat believe Lori wants Shane gone because he is a constant reminder to her affair. She is going through great lengths to prove that she is a good wife. This logic works on a soap opera but not a drama with only 45 minutes to work with. Every week that they spend more time on her, I feel slighted that we are getting less Darryl and T-Bone time. Did she really believe Shane when he said Rick was already back? Wouldn't they have passed her on the road?

    How old is Carl? They haven't had the talk yet...seems like the child should have some ideal about babies.

    February 19, 2012 at 11:51PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Tyler She was knocked out for a period of time, it was daytime when she crashed and woke at night. But the men should have seen her on the way back. So she could have believed Shane

      February 20, 2012 at 1:56AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      anonymous Carl is like 10 or 11

      February 20, 2012 at 2:27AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JC Well, she had no problem believing that her husband (allegedly safe back at the farm) sent Shane out after her alone to look for his wife, but then again maybe she's too stupid to ask these questions.

      Also, I coulda sworn at the end of the last episode, it was earlier in the day, and Rick walked away after putting a bullet in Tweedledumbass's head, with the other two looking on in a bit of shock. Yet here, it's night outside, he's still standing over the body, and they gather round and have a chat? That was kinda sloppy.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:48AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      turretgunner I think that wanting Shane gone because of her guilt over her affair with him may play a small part in Lori's warning to Rick. But I also think she is truly afraid of the guy and what he is capable of doing. I think she is especially worried about what Shane might do to Rick. She knows how much he really believes she and Carl would be better off with him and that he is also convinced she is having his baby only strengthens Shane's resolve to remove Rick from the picture. I think there is little doubt that by the end of this season, there will be a showdown between Rick and Shane and I hope it ends with Shane's departure from the group - dead or alive.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:55PM EST
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r Otis' ghost told Dale what really happened. Fact.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:23PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Mark in Omaha The day into night thing. Yes, they went into town and Lori took off in full daylight. She flips the car, Rick kills two guys. Suddenly it's night, because it's easier showing zombies at night. Shane finds Lori and takes her back to the farm and the others have the shootout in town and pull the guy off the fence. Suddenly it's daylight and Rick and the others arrive back at the farm. They only do it because you don't have to show as much detail if you are filming at night.

      February 21, 2012 at 12:04PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jim The whole timing thing explains why Lori left the farm with the jacket on which was called out here in the comments last week.

      February 21, 2012 at 5:23PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Chris

    "SOME STRONG THRILLER SCENES AT THE START, BUT WHEN ARE THE PEOPLE GOING TO BECOME INTERESTING?"
    - a summary of every Walking Dead review you've written, Alan :)

    February 19, 2012 at 11:55PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      AshyWendell True, but that probably speaks more to the show than to him.

      February 19, 2012 at 11:59PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chris Absolutely, you're right. I wasn't picking on Alan - it just seems like the show is going round in circles (and the reviews do too, as a result)

      February 20, 2012 at 12:03AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Danny This show is just getting Alan ready for another season of "The Killing."(or maybe just us if he doesn't do reviews) Speaking of "The Killing" it was fun seeing Joel Kinnaman briefly in TGWTDT and Safe House.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:22AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      captainsnark Maybe AMC ought to save some money and merge WD with 'The Killing'. Linder and Holden can investigate why the walkers wanted it in for Rosie Larsen.

      February 22, 2012 at 3:32PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    kyle

    Yeah it was a good first half and then went slow and i think the first season was by far way better than the second I seems like the directors changed...

    February 19, 2012 at 11:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    kyle

    First half was good second half was slow....the first season was way better and the second has just been off and on the directing second season has not been good..

    February 20, 2012 at 12:02AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jim D.

    It's been very disappointing to see how horribly written Daryl's scenes have been these two episodes.  The writers don't seem to know where to go with his character - the scene with his critter skins hanging out to dry was such a 'Southern backwoods guy' stereotype that I wanted to laugh out loud.  It's frustrating to see them spinning their wheels with the character who was the MVP of the first half of the season.

    And yeah, I was rooting for the zombies going after Lori.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r Yea agreed. I couldn't help but think Daryl was regressing as a character these past two episodes.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:25PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jeremiah

    Spot on review, Alan. I'm beginning to think the show should fully embrace its affection for LOST and start focusing episodes on specific characters in order to develop them. As it is, there are just so many characters that the show is spinning plates; while the action is tense, exciting, and effective, the fact that so many characters are undeveloped makes the action scenes merely a surface pleasure.

    That said, I see some signs of life in the stories of Glen, Andrea, and Lori. Glensanity actually took a major leap forward in this episode when he explained himself to Maggie in the kitchen. Lori's Lady MacBeth (great call on that connection) turn almost made me feel bad that I wanted her to get eaten in the teaser, and Andrea's "Bull in a China Shop" speech to Shane seems like it might be the beginning of a more balanced Shane.

    Overall, a solid episode that gave me more hope than pretty much any in the season's first half.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:45AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JC Shane's absolutely right about a lot of things, but he's so unstable, that I don't think the writers are interested in a 'more balanced Shane'. I think it continues to get worse, and that we're headed towards a finale where Rick kills Shane (or he's forced to flee). Scenes like that are probably just to establish how solidly in Shane's corner Andrea is, and how deep the divisions will be in the group once he's out of the picture (not that I give a crap whose side Andrea, Carol, or T-Dog are on).

      February 20, 2012 at 6:20AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Elliot Glensanity is the greatest thing I've read on Hitfix! Alan will love it too!

      February 20, 2012 at 4:25PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    BRETT

    If they don't turn down the cricket noise in every farm scene I'm gonna go nuts.

    February 20, 2012 at 12:54AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    kronicfatigue

    I'm more conservative with my bullets in video games than these guys are, and that doesn't even factor in the sound drawing the zombies. Where do they expect to get more ammo?

    February 20, 2012 at 12:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Brett Walmart! It might still be open at this hour.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:36AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Col Bat Guano This country is awash in guns and ammo. With 90% of the population zombies there would be no shortage of bullets. The thing I don't understand is why they don't load up, head into town and wipe the zombies out. It's a small town there can't be that many around and the sooner they are eliminated the safer they would be.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      KarenX And then... and then... barricade the town and they can all have their own houses and no more midnight runs for liquor. They can celebrate their birthdays at the bar if they want in perfect safety.

      February 20, 2012 at 2:00PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Paradox

    I will not be returning to watch this show again. Whatever goodwill it gained in last week's episode was taken right back here, and then some. Too many stupid plot developments and too much poor writing.

    ~"Hey, those people outside are shooting at us - I'm sure if I yell some words of reason, they'll leave." ~Why did that guy jump off the roof instead of going back down the way he got up there? ~Then we have Daryl, who takes a heel turn written worse than those in the WWE. ~And Carl didn't even notice when his mom left and was gone for several hours?

    And what is going on with the time of day? When we left them at the bar last episode, it was the middle of the day. Pick back up at the bar, and now it's the middle of night. Were they standing around doing nothing for 5 hours? Then I would assume they would get out of town right after they ripped the kid's leg off of the fence, which was in the middle of the night. But then they arrive back at the farm in the middle of the day? Is it a 6 hour drive back to the farm? Ridiculous.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:27AM EST Reply to Comment
    • E_bigger_talkback_profile

      Elevation I don't think it was intended to be comedy, but the guy trying to jump from the roof to the truck was one of the most hilarious things I've seen on TV in awhile.

      February 20, 2012 at 2:22AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Paradox "At least a two story drop and a pointed fence? That's no big deal. Is there a cactus patch or a group of hungry lions on the other side of the building that I can jump in to? No? Guess the spiked fence will do."

      February 20, 2012 at 2:33AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Danny At least the kid doesn't have to deal with Tommy Gavin or Sheila, although a wheel chair may still be in his future.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      kronicfatigue this was a good comment. I think so little of this show that I've been able to shut my brain off and not worry about these things. But it was nice to see someone else do the leg work and point out the nonsense. I complain a lot about little holes (in my opinion) in Breaking Bad, but that's b/c it's otherwise a great show. But this show, my god. More holes than substance.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:56AM EST
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r I've noticed that too about the time of day. More frustrating and lazy than anything. It happens a lot during this series. You see a shot filmed at dusk then two scenes later mid-day.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:28PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      zombifan At least a two story drop and a pointed fence? That's no big deal. Is there a cactus patch or a group of hungry lions on the other side of the building that I can jump in to? No? Guess the spiked fence will do

      LOL, LOL, LOL

      February 21, 2012 at 7:06PM EST
  • E_bigger_talkback_profile

    Elevation

    I don't know why the show is devoting to much energy to try and get us to hate Shane. To me he is by far the most reasonable person on the show.

    He at least understands they are living in a lawless zombie Apocalypse. Are we really supposed to be more sympathetic towards Dale (Excuse me as I go hide the guns in the swamp during said zombie apocalypse) or Lori (I am going to go take a drive into town for absolutely no intelligent reason to find Rick and the others.)?

    February 20, 2012 at 2:26AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      finsbury Shane is living in and viewing world I want the show to exist in.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:57AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Printin' Mike Shane is the most reasonable person?? Well, if your version of “reasonable” consists of a red-necked, delusional, jealous, semi-retarded, selfish, rapist/murderer, then yeah, he’s quite reasonable.

      Actually, I don’t think the show is trying to get us to hate Shane, but is bending over backwards trying to set up Shane as the “realist” vs. Rick as the “idealist”. But, the deadly combination of bad writing and bad acting just can’t get it done. There are brief moments when Shane appears to be a human being, but all too often the actor seems capable of only scowling with the look of a retarded animal. What is the most oft-cited example of Shane’s reasonableness? He wants to kill the dead people in the barn. Yeah, OK, big flippin’ deal - who besides Hershel doesn’t. There’s obviously very little danger in using diplomacy (Rick), but no, we have to have a “conflict”, so we trot out the scowling semi-retard to introduce “reasonableness”. Whatever. And, then, let’s all pretend that we cared greatly about a character that we only saw for a few episodes (the little girl, what’s her name), whose death completely blows everyone away! Whatever, indeed.

      The writing just isn’t good. Nor is the acting. I liked that what’s her name at the end of the episode tried to grow a brain and out Shane as the delusional nut job that he is, but, why was it necessary? Why didn’t Rick already see that? Andrea seems like a normal human, but she apparently also has a blind-spot when it comes to scowling retards. Perhaps it’s a virus that’s going around. We can only hope that a few of the characters are immune.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:35AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Major minority Yep. Shane is the most reasonable kid there. Hershel squirts thinks he can own private property and that the AIDS is a cleansing disease, Rick risks everyone's lives to be noble, Dale doesn't trim his eyebrows, and Daryl uses a necklace as a hearing aide.

      And can we stop saying Shane attempted rape? He sexually assaulted Lori. Not to be callous, but If he was attempting to rape her, he'd rape her. I dont think she'd be able to stop him.

      And if Lori wants Shane dead to protect her family (which is as sinister as Shane killing Otis,) why get Rick? So he can carry that burden? How selfish is she? She should do it or convince Dale.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      turretgunner Ha! And if you were a member of Shane's group, how long would it be before he "reasonably" decided you were expendable as well. Shane is only interested in preserving Shane. He looks upon hismself in the same way the Nazis did in WWII. They were the master race and everyone else was inferior and subject to sacrifice.

      February 20, 2012 at 1:59PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Printin' Mike Thanks for the clarification: Shane only committed sexual battery, not rape. Therefore, he is the most reasonable character. Come on, man.

      Look, none of the characters are well-written – that’s just a sad fact we’re going to have to endure if we want to keep watching this show. But, even in TWD universe of simply drawn characters, there are still pretty steep gradations of stupidity: I dare anyone to look into Shane’s eyes and see anything other than a semi-retarded brute. And, that just ain’t smart TV-makin’. If you want to set up a contrast/conflict between idealism and realism, fine. Have at it, sir. I’d like to watch that show. But, this show isn’t it. Instead, we have the scowling retard who’s irrationally in love with the married idiot woman, and who thinks they should’ve killed the dead people in the barn sooner than the idealistic guy thought they should’ve killed the dead people in the barn. Some conflict.

      February 20, 2012 at 2:17PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      finsbury The problem is while it would be hard to accept if Shane came out and admitted he killed Otis, particularly since at the time Rick and Hershal's groups were far apart, the act of Shane killing Otis under the circumstances is perfectly logical BUT the writers keep avoiding these conversations. It seems to me people in this situation would be having these thoughts and conversations all the time.

      February 20, 2012 at 2:22PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Printin' Mike Logical doesn’t mean “right” or “just”. Sacrificing someone else’s life for your own benefit is another way of saying “murder”.

      I would cite the only intelligent piece of dialog I can recall from the entire series. In last week’s episode, Rick, in defending “hope”, made the point to the drunken, depressed Hershell that for all the craziness happening, nothing has really fundamentally changed: death isn’t a new invention, it’s always been here. I would add that the struggle for survival isn’t new either – it’s always been here. Life and death choices aren’t new either. The introduction of death at the hand of zombies shouldn’t fundamentally change anything – moral codes needn’t be adjusted; “murder” doesn’t suddenly become a logical, justified act.

      Substitute “grizzly bears” for “zombies”: is Shane’s act of killing Otis still viewed the same way? If not, why not?

      February 20, 2012 at 3:05PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Major minority @Printin' Mike

      Morals are culturally and personally subjective. There are shades of gray everywhere where morals are concerned, and everyone's concept of acceptable behavior is malleable. . So in an apocalypse, your moral code SHOULD change.

      The Grizzly Bear analogy is so dense. There's no comparison. Why would bears be at a high school, in those numbers, and without a society around them? That's not comparable at all. A better scenario would be a war like setting, where "good" soldiers follow orders but may end up killing innocent people. If your brother in arms needed medical supplies, and you were with someone who caused that necessity, you'd Pat Tillman them.

      February 20, 2012 at 3:47PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      anon.Z.moose @Maj Min- Ah, the infinitely malleable morality riposte lands yet again. I remember Richard Rorty once being asked what, if he truly believes that morality is so completely a function of cultural constraints, was the foundation for his pride in his parents' involvement in the civil rights movement? If there's no foundation for morality what's the scale he used to weigh as preferable his parents’ involvement in the civil rights movement as nobler than some segregationist's firm conviction in opposition? His response I unfortunately don't recall (I think it was an appeal to the American pragmatist tradition) other than that it was withering and not very convincing to even those among us who were on his team. Yes, there's a level of plasticity to human inclinations as John Finnis once put it. But certain patterns of empathy seem to have evolved and helped us as a species survive over thousands of years. These seem solidly embedded in our psyche, whether they’re from a deity or mere natural selection.

      So I don't think there is an instant revolution of thought and abandonment of morality even under conditions where a pandemic afflicts humanity. Specifically, if we take a middle position balanced in favor of accepting some change based on a different set of incentives and narrowed choices, you would still wonder whether someone who was willing to sacrifice others and rationalize that decision might not be the optimal person to trust as having your group's interests in mind. So it would erode that person's claim to leadership, a claim that has a moral component to it. Yes, Thucydides observes that morality deteriorates with societal collapse and Max Weber connects morality as embedded in one's role in society. These are things to keep in mind when considering a subject like this dystopia but that doesn't mean we have to always accept taking these positions to their logical extreme. We can work out a middle position and I propose that's a more practical way to approach the "Team Rick" v. "Team Shane" issue. Cheers.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:11PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Printin' Mike Why would a pack of grizzlies be at a high school? Maybe they were attending a cheerleading camp.

      Dude, it’s a show about zombies. You know, dead people who come back to life and try to eat living people. Any analogy you want to make is perfectly serviceable.

      The larger point (let’s try to focus here) is that the introduction of a new way to die isn’t a fundamentally new development necessitating a change in morality (or, hopefulness, or hopelessness, or much of anything else, save a new step for funeral homes and hospitals to attend to: making sure the brain of a corpse is destroyed immediately after death). Death exists and comes to us all, whether in the form of a heart attack, flu pandemic, or zombie attack.

      At its best, I would hope that is the show that TWD will turn into: an examination of why some people freak out, thinking that “ev’ry thing done changed” and go into full nut-job, rioting, immoral, survivalist mode; and why some people remain calm under fire and are able to still rely upon the eternal verities.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:20PM EST
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r In regards to Shanes "rape." It clearly couldn't have been that traumatizing for Lori if she was mad at Shane for acting distant towards her and Karl they very next day.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:31PM EST
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r Also, using the term "retard" over and over is a sure way to prove your intelligence and support your argument.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Printin' Mike @BBQ_: If there is a more descriptive and accurate way to describe Shane’s limited mental capacity that doesn’t offend, I’m open to using it. “Dunce” “imbecile” “sub-optimal ingrate” – which do you prefer, Mr. BBQ?

      February 20, 2012 at 5:41PM EST
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r You're smart enough to figure that out! I am partial to dunderpate though myself!

      I agree Shane is being written as more and more deranged. However, if the other characters were more intelligent you'd have less people agreeing with some of the actions of Shane. Morality aside. It's almost like you have to extremes those willing to go to far and those not willing to go far enough.

      I think some of your arguments fall apart regarding morality. Rules are what separate us from the barbarians. Without rules many humans would denigrate as would society. The world becomes a more survivalist mentality because survival is not exactly a threat in the modern, civilized, structured world. There is no recourse or punishment for doing wrong in a zombie-apoc. If there is danger and you act to protect your group, that is easily justified. Who cares if its murder, theft, rape, or copyright infringement! If I could steal something extremely valuable and only have to justify to myself and my group, what is stopping me? Nothing, especially if I do it for the betterment of the group.

      (And technically it's Mr. HaX0R... BBQ is my given name!)

      February 20, 2012 at 5:57PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      zombifan sorry, but the thing at the CDC with shane and lori was not an attempted rape, ive seen plenty of louds and hurtful arguments like that between spurned lovers and guiltridden tramps (oh hai lori)

      February 21, 2012 at 7:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    jan

    I think it's interesting that Frank Darabont was let go (I read a comment about him to that effect--it wasn't his idea). He might have been able to salvage this show, but right now, I just don't know. I'm still watching it, but not really with enthusiasm, and I'm wondering when it will just be too stupid in plot lines for me to continue.

    February 20, 2012 at 3:19AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Col Bat Guano My understanding was that Darabont was responsible for most of the first half of this season so I'm not sure he would be much of a savior.

      February 20, 2012 at 5:26AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      jan Well, that's just depressing then. I wasn't aware of that, but I was surprised to read that it wasn't his idea to leave the show. Somehow I had gotten the impression that it was his choice. Maybe the material is just too thin for an extended run and a miniseries would have been a better idea. Just a thought.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:31AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Mark in Omaha It also wasn't Frank's idea to slash the budget, have less special effects (zombies) more interior scenes, and not have a good writing staff.

      It seems Kirkman is in charge now and it trying to steer the show back to the plot of his comic book. Hence the regression of Daryl as a character and pushing Shane further into the crazy zone.

      February 21, 2012 at 12:19PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Randy

    Honestly, I think the show's biggest problem is its inspiration: Robert Kirkman, the creator of The Walking Dead comic (who is also a writer on the show).

    The problem with TWD on TV is Kirkman's thin characterizations just don't hold up over prolonged storytelling. In the comic book, he can cover it up by constantly killing off characters and introducing new ones, but in the show, he's forced to keep the entire cast alive, since they are getting paid and not being drawn.

    Kirkman (at least in TWD, I haven't read much else from him) doesn't bother with characterization, and instead tries to frame his characters simply by their reactions in high-pressure situations. This works in a 20-page monthly comic, not in a 43-minute television drama.

    February 20, 2012 at 7:51AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Blake It's true. The show pointed out for me weaknesses in the comic I never noticed before.

      That said, characters that Kirkman wrote as likable -- particularly Andrea, to a lesser extent Dale -- were made obnoxious by the show runners.

      I'm done with this show. I still have enough connection to the comic that I'm grateful for these summaries. They save me from having to watch.

      February 20, 2012 at 10:25AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      finsbury So the writers need to keep the show rolling forward like a comic book. The worst parts of the show are the result of the writers trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

      I don't see the show working with a "cast" of characters. It would be better if Rick and two or three others survived each new situation. Let the action and those characters reactions/emotions carry the show.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:01AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Solid Muldoon

    The scenes of Lori on the road were so dark I literally had no clue what was going on. I thought Shane showed up and got eaten. Who was that? Anybody we knew?

    February 20, 2012 at 10:49AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Ellen M.

    Love the Lori/Olive Oyl comment. I completely agree about the Rick/Lori/Shane triangle. Even if they make Lori all-Lady Macbeth-ish, it would seem like an after thought and not convincing to me because we have not seen this in her up to this point. It certainly has been a mystery why these two men are hung up on her. If Shane had shown more envy for Rick's entire life (as opposed to being a guilty pal), that might have worked better. Sadly, what this show could use is some twisted Benjamin Linus-like character for everyone to get the pitch forks out for. Hard to focus main characters with slo-mo, mindless, human munching machines all around as their foes. But this should have given them much more leeway to make these characters more interesting but it hasn't happened. Instead, we are supposed to be happy with the cheap thrills of all the gory special effects (a bit cartoonish now). Momentarily amusing but compelling story-telling.

    February 20, 2012 at 10:52AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Batfink_talkback_profile

    chuchundra

    I find it harder and harder to believe that, out of the tens of millions of people who have been turned into or eaten by zombies, this band of idiots are somehow one of the small handfuls of people that managed to survive.

    The zombie action is interesting, but the characters are all so weak and uninteresting. The only ones I really care about are Glenn and Maggie. The rest could all get eaten by walkers next episode and I'd have a hard time giving a rodent sphincter about it.

    February 20, 2012 at 11:07AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    finsbury

    Getting better.

    The introduction of other human survivors who may be just as dangerous as walkers is a step in the right direction. More danger. More tension.

    While some of the scenes seem forced, I'm OK with it to get the show and some characters moving in the right direction (away from the farm mentality).

    The writing continues to be poor.
    1) I understand why the writers had Shane say he was worried about the baby, but why not tell Lori and the others he was worried because she was in a roll over car accident?
    2) Rick, Dale, and Hershel come back (after the odd day/night/day timing) after being away all night and no one asks "what happened"? The conversation doesn't have to take place by the cars or need to be shown to the viewers, but wouldn't one of the characters blurt out "what happened" before we side step to Lori's and Maggie's story line.

    3) LESS CARL. We get it. We get the issues having a kid may present. But if Carl is taking away from any other character being developed, he taking away from the show.

    Dale is the only really well written character. His emotional evolution is great show to show.



    February 20, 2012 at 11:14AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      finsbury I have Dale and Glenn backward here. Glenn is the best character to date.

      And Dale is similar to Shane, written like a blunt object. Dale was, at one time, smart enough to realize Shane may have sacraficed Otis so someone survive and Carl (sadly) be saved. But the writers have Dale just pounding away and no other character even has this discussion with him. Andrea somewhat presents the alternate (and rational in this world) view, but I don't think anyone has asked Dale to consider the circumstances and conversation like that, which seem perfectly natural are avoided by the writers.

      February 20, 2012 at 11:20AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Nick

    But, you know, even the thriller scenes aren't working for me because the show has mostly been lacking any kind of consequences. Not even mentioning the continued stay at the cushy farm, in this episode alone we have Lori getting into an accident with the car flipping over and both herself and her baby being completely fine.

    Then oh so noble Rick feels the need to tell the guys outside the bar they killed their friends and on top of that wants to stick around to save a stranger whose leg is impaled on a post - and, again, nothing comes of it. All good. You combine that with characters that range from dull to irritating and I question why I'm still watching.

    February 20, 2012 at 11:59AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    marsh14

    buddy's step-mother made $12584 past month. she is making money on the computer and moved in a $427600 condo. All she did was get fortunate and put into action the steps revealed on this site NuttyRich.com

    February 20, 2012 at 1:26PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    turretgunner

    The reason that Rick wants Lori is fairly basic. Havingh a family gives him something to live for in a world gone mad. Plus, I think he really does love her and believes she is a good mother to his son. I also think Lori really loves her husband now, even though she wasn't sure before. Sometimes you have to think you've lost someone before you truly realize how much they mean to you.

    Shane's desire for Lori is more complicated. He, Rick and Lori go back a long way. Shane has always been more of the bad boy type but he has always been jealous of what Rick had - marriage and fatherhood. He thought he had inherited all of that when Rick "died" (and I still think he knew Rick wasn't really dead when he left him im the hospital). I don't think Shane is really in love with Lori. He loves what she and Carl represent and he has convinced himself that both of them would be better off with him than Rick, given the current state of affairs. But Lori sees the danger Shane represents and that he is a man who will stop at nothing to get what he thinks should be his, including killing Rick or anyone else who stand in his way of getting what he wants. Killing Otis pushed him over the edge.

    Thinking Lori is pregnant with his child (which it may be) is a sign of destiny to Shane. It just reinforces his belief that he and Lori are meant to be together. All of this means that there will be a day of reckoning involving Rick and Shane, which may end with one of them dead. One of them has to go and go for good. And I hope it will be Shane.

    While Shane may appear to be the better protector of the group, I think in reality he is its biggest threat. Besides Lori and Carly (maybe) is their anyone he wouldn't sacrifice to stay alive. He doesn't give a damn about the others, ultimately, not even Maggie. All he cares about is himself and fullfilling his needs, which includse having Lori and Carl as his family. So if the others want to look to him to lead and protect them, they better not turn their back on him and avoid being around him unarmed.

    Being eaten by walkers is probably the least of their problems. Just ask Otis. And no, I don't think Shane killed Otis for purely unselfish reasons. First, could have sacrificed himself to the walkers and let Otis go back with the medical supplies for Carl. Second, even if Shane was at least partially motivated by saving Carl, would he have done the same if it were anyone else in the group, except for paerhaps Lori? Hardly. Yet if say carol had been laying on that bed, dying he still would have shot Otis to save himself. Because it was Carl, it's supposed to cast doubt on how self-serving his actions were in killing Otis. Not to me. The guy can justify anyone dying, as long as it will mean he stays alive.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:30PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      John I completely agree with this comment. I don't think Lori is the problem. I'm not saying she's a great character, but this show is entirely devoid of great characters, so she's hardly alone. She's not the problem. Shane is the problem. He has to go. And it wasn't really a Lady MacBeth thing. You can't be Lady MacBeth if you're just pointing out that someone is a real danger to everyone involved. Lori isn't doing this because she wants to control everyone. She's doing it because she's living in fear of Shane. If anything, Andrea was the Lady Macbeth of this analogy, as she's trying to convince Shane to take power by eliminating Rick.

      February 20, 2012 at 7:15PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DougMac Shane knew Rick wasn't dead, but he realistically igured there was no way he was going to survive. The guy was in a coma in a zombie infested hospital and town. Yes, Shane "locked" the door, but the chances o him even waking up were slim, nevermind waking up and fighting his way out in that condition.

      I agree that Shane is all about self preservation though. I think he wants to be good, but will always fall back on that instinct.

      February 20, 2012 at 7:45PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    RamiusTrailDog

    Alan, one thing I truly enjoy about your reviews is the way you detect a central theme examined in an episode and the subsequent analysis. It seems like TWD hasn't gotten that treatment. This episode, for example, touched on the ways that love and attachment affects the characters' actions in a post-apocalyptic world. Between Glen's freeze up to prevent Maggie pain, Shane lying to Lori to get her out of harm's way, Rick's actions of the first half of the episode relating back to his need to be there for Lori, Carl, and the baby, and even Carol's desire to somehow help Daryl due to (what I assume are) her feelings of love.

    Are your expectations about this show somehow different than others? I like and value everything you posted about this and other episodes, but why not comment on the character building that IS happening rather than the character building that isn't?

    February 20, 2012 at 2:34PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    mm

    Doesn't anyone but me think it's a bit morally dubious to first save a fence-punctured kid from being eaten alive and at the same time plan to leave him to survive on his own first thing when being able to stand on his feet again? I mean how much of a threat or consuming of supplies does one extra person bring? Plus if there is another group of survivors nearby wouldn't they be more angered of these people leaving one of them deserted (after killing several of them already) than letting him stay at their camp, or is all based on protecting Hershels farm as their base?

    February 20, 2012 at 3:02PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Machoman_talkback_profile

      bbq_hax0r I agree. The other group clearly values this kid as they left him on the fence and didn't make even an attempt to save him. I can see taking precautions, but why not let him stay with you. If you cast him out it provides motivation to get back at you. It all seemed a little rush. Why save the kid if you don't intend on saving the kid. They showed no mercy for the other guy who shot at them (and ended up being eaten).

      February 20, 2012 at 5:47PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      chelsea Reply to comment...I think what Rick did was incredibly brave....thats what I love about his character....even though this kid was attempting to kill them Rick saw the good in him and risked his life to try and redeem the kid...he isn't shane...where he would sacrafice anyone for bus own benefit but would risk his life for others....I don't think Rick put anyone in danger at all I think he rejuvenated everyone's morals and is trying to make them less hardened and that's hard and scary for the group because they become human and vulnerable but Rick sees that as the difference b/w walkers and people...humanity....what Rick did to the kid was humane...what Rick did to Sophia was humane....Rick not going after shame is humane...rick trying to talk reason with the guys in the bar....humane....he doesn't want to kill needlessly....those are arguing that there is no character development but characters are developed by their actions as well as inactions....I think the writers and the cast are doing a marvelous job....I love this show...and Rick...to me he is what a hero and leader are...strong but morally vulnerable

      February 21, 2012 at 5:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      mm Chelsea I definitely agree with you on Ricks character as being the most humane and moral spine of them all. But I couldn't help but thinking that after saving someone you kind of have a responsibility for that person not only to them but for yourself. Why risk several lives to save someone just to leave them to pretty certain death soon after. The boy is now dependent on this group since his own people deserted him, so I don't see a big difference between leaving him to zombies then or now. Have to say that one thing I love about this show is that it makes me ponder over these king of questions of humanity and compassion every week.

      February 21, 2012 at 6:08AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Grant

    i dont think its a spoiler to say this, but I apologize if it is and please delete this. One of the reasons the books were so compelling and almost always intense was the fact that the humans always posed a far greater threat than the dead when it comes to personal safety. The series has lightly gone there, but for the most part it is dancing around it and taking way too long to move the story forward. There are over 80 issues and at least 14 arcs for them to cull from, yet we are still at Hershel's farm after 15 episodes and will probably be there until the third season? Yeah, it's time for the writers (Robert Kirkman included) to kick this into gear and make the crazy, fun show they should be making.

    February 20, 2012 at 3:24PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      anon.Z.moose I don't think it's specific enough to be a spoiler and it's an interesting observation. Of course it costs a lot to build a set whereas drawing the same thing over and over in a comic gets boring. So incentives differ. Semi-snark aside, the story hasn't yet given the characters a compelling reason to want to leave the farm's relative safety (though I still don't fully understand why it's so much safer than neighboring farms apart from part of it - and not all of it - having quicksand on the periphery). Perhaps the build-up of zombies in the town and on the highway will increase and make the farm no longer viable? Or perhaps the "others" will discover the farm?

      Overall, I don't really have a big problem with the way the season's developing and tend to think viewers at this site have expectations that a little higher than average. That's not a bad thing, mind you, just that I don't think the judgments here are representative of whether the writers will feel compelled to shift gears. According to last week's "Talking Dead" the larger crowd sourced criticism was "not enough zombies" and the new show-runner says he's addressing that issue. That seems to be starting and may well ring in the changes you are hoping for.

      February 20, 2012 at 4:36PM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 136 Comments
Alan Sepinwall

About This Blog

All through his childhood, Alan Sepinwall's relatives told his parents, "All that boy does is watch television! How's he going to make a living doing that?" His career as a TV critic has been 15 years and counting of his attempt to answer their concerns. "What's Alan Watching" is a blog whose title is self-explanatory: Alan watches TV shows, then writes about what he watched. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

HitFix Poll

Will you still watch Community without Dan Harmon behind it?

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook