Quiet and reserved were the only adjectives to describe her. Nothing came about of her most likely boyfriend zombie pets. She contributes nothing from the story besides the action scenes. The only time she showed a bit of emotion was holding Judith and even that come out of nowhere never to be further explored. And seriously, try that challenge for each of Rick's group, you can't
i like michonne because she keeps the show grounded in what it is. a lot of the praise you hear for zombie movies comes down to "it's, like, a metaphor for life, man." that's true to an extent, but it's also it's own fantasy. michonne makes sure the story doesn't move away from the inherent weirdness of the situation because she has adapted perfectly to survival in the zombie apocalypse. she never runs out of ammo, she has harmless pets to help go unseen by zombies, she can readily cut social ties that bind her, and she is willing to neutralize all potential threats. she's like the shark of the zombie apocalypse.
at the same time, she doesn't break the themes of the show while she's in the group. the katana is an obvious nod to samurai and there are other references to knights like when she rides through the medieval battlements of the prison on horseback. both samurai and knight stories share similar places in their respective cultures to the american western (which gets plenty of attention from rick when he dons his sheriff hat) in that they are all about establishing civilization. in the group, michonne takes on the role of the warrior class that is necessary for protecting communities.
michonne isn't the deepest character on television, but she brings more to the series than action.
marketing this game is both a cakewalk and an impossible task. one the one hand, all you have to tell the people who already like dark souls is that this is more dark souls. on the hand other, you can't really convince anybody else because so much of the reward you get from the game is uncovering secrets. so really, all you get for pre-release material are assurances that DSII is indeed more DS and little bits of information that don't really tell you anything.
Hershel dieing was sad, but I knew he'd die if anyone was going to. Great character, dunno why the Governor HAD to chop off his head though.
walker hershel would have been unstoppable. it was a prudent decision :P
Looking forward to this... just hope it's a true SP experience like they are promising.
i'm looking forward to it too, but i wouldn't expect much from a single player experience with this game. you'll probably be able to play solo if you actively avoid other players, but i think it will be kinda bare bones that way.
Yeah I felt the first season was just way too boring and the only episode out of that entire season I really liked was the pilot. Going back and watching those early episodes I am shocked that I still decided to keep up with the show, granted I am, happy with how good it has gotten.
I actually really liked the Rick/Shane conflict and one of my fav moments of the entire show is still when Rick kills Shane. I DO think that the show really started to pick up with the mid-season finale in season 2. That barn opening scene was just so damn good. I really like how Shane and Ricks conflicting views collided there and Sophia walking out of the barn was just a huge jaw-dropper.
I definitely noticed that with season 3 they started to fix the character situation. They killed off the crappy characters like Lori and Andrea and went and made Carl actually start to develop to become a likeable character. Season 4 made Carol interesting before booting her out anyways....
The new characters have been very welcomed with the only one I don't really care for being Tyreese. Man is just dumb and bull-headed IMO and he irritates me....
i liked the conflict between rick and shane. that conflict between simply surviving and actually living (while not depicting the the survivalist as a twirly mustached villain) was great and all. it's just that they focused on it for SO LONG and there was so little going on elsewhere. like the other characters were so underdeveloped that the lone conflict drew a line in the sand and made everybody either a survivalist or a communicator.
for me, t-dog dieing was a good move to cut away the slack. i know i missed a few episodes in the first half of season 2 where he could have potentially been developed a little bit, but he seemed like the epitome of the token black guy. he went along with everybody and i never felt like i knew much of anything about him. before he saved carol, he shouted something religious (i forget what exactly) and all i could think was "oh, he's religious?" then he got eaten :P
i actually like tyreese as a character because he feels like an individual. he's generally a good guy and he wants to help, but he doesn't mindlessly go along with everything the group says. assuming he survives for a little while, i don't think he's going to be much of a hothead once this girlfriend thing is settled. he had been in a bunker for so long that this is really the first personal tragedy he's faced. before that, he had been humble and even keeled.
i just like that now the characters that are dieing/leaving are well developed so it actually means something.
there's been a perceived conflict between theater and home theater for decades and decades. real theaters have been trying to sell that one obvious feature that makes them better than home viewing and TV technology has been getting closer anyway. the renewal of 3D has been the latest attempt and then 3D TV's came out. it can be a silly cycle.
some movies are just better to watch at home (i like the quiet and controlled environment of home to watch a bergman), but real theaters offer a different overall experience that's better for other movies. i mean, there's nothing quite like sitting down in a theater that smells like heaps of cheap butter and watching an exploitative tarantino movie while also watching people being exploited.
that's not to say that real theaters shouldn't focus on the quality of delivery (on the contrary, simple things like not skimping on projection bulbs would be nice. theater owners are just cheap). however, studios shouldn't be surprised if they spend hundreds of millions to dispassionately assemble what marketing tells them and then audiences receive it dispassionately.
@LostProphetFLCL: yeah, i think the show is continuing to improve. the first season was really uneven, with some really powerful moments (that pilot) and too many stinkers (episodes built around slaying zombies rather than developing characters and others that build up to deaths of characters we don't know). the second season got a little steadier but still meandered too long around the rick/shane conflict (i stopped watching for a bit here). the third season is where i think the writers found their stride, eliminated some of the crappier characters (replacing them with better ones too), and added just a tiny bit of much needed hope via the prison. with the 4th season, it seems like they have a healthy supply of well developed characters and some good situations to put them in.
i knew hershel was a goner (he represented peace in a situation where peace just wasn't going to happen), but it was sad to see him go and nice to see rick step up. so much of the story is about whether carl can be the man rick is, but we often forget that rick is eventually going to have to be the man hershel was. younger people will have to eventually be the warriors.
as somebody who hasn't read the comics, i was surprised to see the governor die. he's been the antagonist for so long and this really changes the direction of the show. it mostly goes to show what a bullshit distinction there is between season finale and midseason finale. these are two separate seasons. anyway, i hope the group splitting up everywhere doesn't mean they'll retread the same material of needing to find community structure they've done before.
also, i hope somebody runs into carol.
i think we live in a society that glorifies violence. that can manifest itself in violent video games, movies, music, or whatever but i don't believe that any particular medium is the cause. they are all side effects. you can try to shut up society (or one of it's reflections such as video gaming) but that doesn't solve anything.
still, 2 qualifications:
1) while i don't think it's correct to label video games as murder simulators, direct causes of violence, or that sort of thing, individual video games can and should be criticized.
2) other video games should likewise be praised for eliciting positive responses and discussing ideas that are worthwhile.
actually, i like FFXI the most. you don't really appreciate the FF staples like chocobos and airships until they become near necessities rather than keys and minor conveniences. plus parties and battle have never really been better. NPC's are fine and all, but i've never had the same companionship in FF game as i have in XI. you play as one member of the party, but there's as much or more to it as controlling an entire party in other FF games. seeing a whole party work together well is pretty cool.
of the single player games, i like FFXII the most. it has some of the same qualities as XI in that you can see creatures as you explore and there's no battle screen to take you out of the moment. it also goes a little further as creatures will fight each other too, making it seem less like nobody would have anything to do if you weren't there. the scale is pretty cool too and think it's more impressive than the narrow set pieces of FFXIII even though it was made for weaker hardware. that scale translates to battle too. minutia like minor attacks are automated and you control the overall flow of combat instead.
that's exactly how i remember the movie.
@LoG-Sacrament: I don't think any of them do much besides retell the movies and, in the case of War in the North) follow the same format of Good Guys are Good, Bad Guys are Bad, and When Good Guys Go Bad it's Because of Super EEEEvil.
And what they're talking about here isn't a (cue Captial Letters:)Morality System, but rather a hero who brutalizes the piss out of his enemies, coupled with a vengeance story.
@Metamania: A Punchin' Stuff game with swords? How can you possibly pass that up?
the movie-based games are mostly crap because they have to fit their systems into the framework of movie plots, places, and all that while not being told by good storytellers with any intention of offering more of a fantasy than all the other games about slaying orcs. however, the movies themselves are great examples of the themes that tolkien based his books around being done in a different medium. yeah, the plotting is mostly still tolkien, but there are expert touches in there like how the timing of a musical motif can express the power of faith.
anyway, i wasn't talking about RPG morality systems to say that this game will have one. i was using it as a widespread example of how it isn't the case that most games only attempt clearly defined good and bad guys. there are lots of games with edgy antiheroes and situations that aren't black and white so a LotR game with those features wouldn't be some breath of fresh air just for that.
@LoG-Sacrament: from the article: "With it's focus on brutal combat and a conflicted and violent character at it's head, some may balk at the liberties being taken to tell a new story at the expense of some of the heroic ideals present in The Lord of the Rings. However, in the past, that unwavering need to retread familiar ground has made many previous games set in Middle-Earth suffer."
It's a good point. Whatever games have come out in the previous gen either retold the story(or the movies) or also focussed on a straight GOOD vs EEEEEEVIL! concept and they've been pretty evenly panned by critics(a couple of those are favorites of mine this gen, but that's beside the point). So maybe it is time for a little moral ambiguity in Middle-Earth.
i'm curious which LotR games you're talking about that earnestly attempt to portray morality and fate the way tolkien does. there's a big difference between just having a good guy and a bad guy and tolkien's orchestrated and deliberate eucatastrophe. one is lazy and the other is a statement about the power of storytelling.
anyway, i'm not sure that moral ambiguity is any more rare than clearly defined good and evil. it seems that most games with morality systems nowadays want a healthy dose of ambiguity. "shades of grey" has become the buzz phrase for RPG's. even outside that genre, most action games love to tout how gritty they are.
well, i'm not really convinced that romantic movies are more popular than action movies. if we use gross sales as a measure of popularity, here are the most popular movies each year since 2000 ( link ).
2013) iron man
2012) the avengers
2011) harry potter
2010) toy story 3
2008) the dark knight
2007) pirates of the caribbean
2006) pirates of the caribbean
2005) harry potter
2003) lord of the rings
2002) lord of the rings
2001) harry potter
2000) mission: impossible
it seems like the majority of movies on that list can be better described as action rather than romance, including avatar which had the highest gross.