Should The Flashbacks In The Walking Dead Continue?

Should The Flashbacks In The Walking Dead Continue?

I personally enjoy the flashbacks during The Walking Dead. But should they continue?

Editorial Opinion
By TheDon - Aug 08, 2012 01:08 PM EST
Filed Under: The Walking Dead

I feel spilt on an issue and I thought I would open it up for discussion. I personally enjoy the flashbacks during The Walking Dead. They fill in gaps in the story without having one large prequel episode. I wonder for season three if they will continue? Should they continue? Is it better to leave new characters like the Governor and Michonne more of a mystery to the TV audience? Do we know enough at this point and should look to the future rather then the past?

One part of me thinks they should continue, I like to see what drives our characters to do what they do. One of my favorite parts of The Walking Dead is examining the human behavior of the characters. The back story contributes to the examination of the characters actions.

The other part of me wants them to do less talking and more ZOMBIE BASHIN.

What do you think?

AMC Has Confirmed THE WALKING DEAD: DARYL DIXON Is Getting A Third Season
Related:

AMC Has Confirmed THE WALKING DEAD: DARYL DIXON Is Getting A Third Season
THE WALKING DEAD Star Andrew Lincoln Reveals The Moment He Thinks Zombie Series Over-Egged The Omelette
Recommended For You:

THE WALKING DEAD Star Andrew Lincoln Reveals The Moment He Thinks Zombie Series "Over-Egged The Omelette"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
jjk2814
jjk2814 - 8/8/2012, 3:08 PM
Honestly, thats a loaded question. I, personally, like Frank Darabont's original idea of having one FULL episode a season as a flashback. The rest of the season stays on track. I also think the show needs to pick up the pace. With a wealth of source material with apparently no end, I can't help but scream something an old director of mine used to say; "thats nice. thats a good choice but-GET ON WITH IT!"

As long as they are used sparingly, flashbacks can continue to be a good thing for this show.
MarsivNayr
MarsivNayr - 8/8/2012, 3:28 PM
Season 3 isn't going to exactly "pick up the pace", but the promises we're getting is that the feel and atmosphere of the 2nd half of season 2 will show through from here on out.

Frank Darabont's shadow is now gone entirely; whether that's good or bad isn't fully established yet, although I DID love season 2/part 2 as much as part 1.

I HOPE they keep the Flashbacks. Good drama.

But yeah, jjk2814, his idea of Full episode flashbacks (or "Zombie" flashbacks) was great. Too bad I guess.
jjk2814
jjk2814 - 8/8/2012, 5:31 PM
Honestly, I'm just impatient. I started reading the comics after season one. A big part of me regrets it now.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 8/8/2012, 9:33 PM
On a completely unrelated note...
What the hell is going on with True Blood, season 5?

That show has me worried about this one, because Frank Darabont has left the show. Alan Ball left True Blood after season 4, and the show HAS GONE TO SHIT. This is coming from a True Blood fan who has read every single book in the series.

(Just wanted to get that out of my system)

ANYWAYS!!!

Season 3 is going to be showing quite a bit of flashbacks, considering all the new characters... but also with the pretty much promised character death (which may or may not take place this season). It would feel incomplete without it.
tazmaniak
tazmaniak - 8/8/2012, 11:12 PM
^Actually, Alan Ball doesn't leave until the end of this season. From what I hear, most people are happy about this. He is blamed for the show losing it's direction somewhere towards the end of season 2. This has also been said about Six Feet Under. I think Ball tends to burn out after 2 seasons. So maybe the show will improve once he leaves.

As for The Walking Dead, I honestly think it's better off without Darabont. One of the biggest complaints about the start of season 2 was the slower than warranted pace and how nothing ever happened. There wasn't any progress.

Remember how quickly the pace was picked up right before the midseason break and continued throughout the rest of the season? Those first 5 episodes (the ones people complained about) were written when Darabont was still in charge, while the next 2 were the first to be written under Darabont's successor, Glen Mazzara.

Under Darabont's direction, the show was moving at a snail's pace, but was quickly accelerated once Mazzara was in charge.

I'm not sure about you, but I feel the second half of season 2 was probably the best of the series (save for the pilot), so far. I think the show will be fine. I think it will be even better.
Tainted87
Tainted87 - 8/9/2012, 7:42 AM
@tazmaniak
You're definitely onto something there... BUT, the second half wouldn't have been as good had Darabont not left you longing for the culmination of those events. Build-up is extremely important.

@SotoJuiceMan
It's HORRIBLE, beyond BAD. I may seem like a comic book purist for some CBMs, but I really don't mind the deviations from the books for True Blood. A lot, and I mean, a LOT of changes were made for the better. The first season, however, was almost EXACTLY like the first book, and being able to visualize the actors pulling off their characters while you read helps a long way.

That said, season 4 had a lot of dumb shit going on with the sorcery - LaFayette is supposed to be dead by the beginning of Season 2, and obviously the character Jesus doesn't exist in the books. Terry and Arlene aren't even a couple, and in the later books (which they are somewhat mixing with 5th book's story, as they revolve around hate crimes) Arlene had what would have been the equivalent of Bud Dearborne's betrayal.

The whole crap with the Authority doesn't exist in the books, in fact the Authority doesn't exist period. The stupid vampire religion is just there for the show, and none of the new season 5 vampires are even in the book - which makes their ramblings all the more pointless and retarded.
megabatfan
megabatfan - 8/9/2012, 8:26 AM
@jjk2814
So did I... But don't feel too bummed about it. They way it's been going, you can never tell what the hell is really gonna happen next in comparison to the comics. Eg Dale's death... Was shocked as hell when that happened.
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder