Don’t be naughty Lucille - Why people shouldn’t worry too much about the Walking Dead season 6 finale.

I always wanted to write one of these ‘I’m-right-you-are-wrong-and-when-you-prove-me-differently-I’ll-just-put-my-fingers-in-my-ears-while-stamping-around-singing:-“I’m-not-listening!”’. In short I’m going to be a bit elitist (or patriarch as the Internet would call it – I suddenly sound like my grandpa telling me he’s still: ‘hip’).

I want to talk a bit about why this cliffhanger of Negan’s killing blow at the end of the walking dead’s last season was to be expected and why you shouldn’t feel too bad about it. And I’m going to make my case by writing a bit about the walking dead in general. Putting it all into perspective as it were.

So what’s the situation: The villain Negan, after a lengthy speech in which he announces that he’s going to kill somebody, kills somebody. But the audience doesn’t get to see who.

Now, apart from the fact that I already knew this would happen several weeks in advance (thank you spoiling internet) there are two ways of looking at this scene.

From the dramatic/storytelling perspective that states this is the way the story of this season went. So from Rick becoming the ultimate leader of the Alexandrians to his downfall at the hands of Negan.

This is the story the showrunners have told the media. So next season, by showing the corpse, the one who died, the story of vengeance and Rick dealing with his ultimate foe can begin.

The other way of looking at this finale is from a more businesslike approach. What do the showrunners of the walking dead want? Simply to be able to continue their show. So how to do that? By using a cliffhanger to make sure people will tune in in six months time.  Moreover, making the casualty a mystery gives people a ‘good ol’ guessing game to toy around with.

Anyway, I argue that it was this businesslike approach that won it from the dramatic approach because, to be completely honest, The walking dead has never been the best dramatic show on television. It’s been the first true zombie show, which is a feat to be reckoned with. But basically It’s a soap opera with zombies and that’s (exactly) why it is so addictive.
But for years it has suffered from sloppy writing, too tight a budget for too many episodes and
unkillable characters. Let me explain:

1. Sloppy writing 

1.1 Weekly zombies.

Sloppy writing is an easy one. It’s a zombie show so per episode you’ll need two things: Living people and not-so-living-zombie-thingies. And preferably those two are in the same room together.

Now, If it’d be the real zombie apocalypse half of the American population wouldn’t leave their house (the other half would probably shack up in the playboy mansion). So -like season two of Lost- the show’s writers are constantly  tasked with finding new ways to get people out of the save environment of (e.g.) Alexandria into a zombie mess.

So that’s why Lori crashes her car on an empty road. That’s why Dale decides to go out walking for no reason. And –I honestly believe- the writes were thanking God on a daily basis for child-Carl and his inability to stay inside the house. More on him later.

Anyway, the point is, there are numerous eye-rolling examples in the show that are just there to make the quota of weekly zombie attacks. But what would have been the alternative? What if the show followed reality with (*shudder*) logical motivations? What would we’ve been watching? A zombie show without any zombie attack for weeks on end!

1.2 It’s no Shakespeare

But, of course, there are other elements of sloppy writing. It’s the walking dead. This is a show that has found the perfect formula to show televised gore on a weekly basis. You don’t expect Shakespearian-like monologues. No, in the walking dead “Alas poor Yorich I knew him Horatio” equals “Grmff, things and stuff.”. Desdemona’s handkerchief –in this sense- is a trampled chess piece (with an eye-patch to drive the point home, no less).

There is no real sense of subtlety and that’s fine, it’s entertainment.  And still, as I wrote in an earlier article, the show still manages to ‘get the audience to think’ about bigger themes. One of which is:

1.3 The fantasy aspect.

Thankfully the show is based on a comic book series  so a lot of story elements are already there. And those elements that didn’t really work in the book can be fixed in the TV-version. Having this ‘adaptive constraint’ works miracles because, if you think about it logically, everybody in this show should be practicing archery by now. There would probably even be a lively arrow production line going on in Alexandria

None of this is happening and that’s one of the charms of the show.
Because, lest remember, it is fun to fantasize about what you would do in a zombie apocalypse. The walking dead explores ideas and techniques on a snail’s pace fuelling the viewer’s imagination a breadcrumb at a time.

Talking about Zombie-fantasy: I for one would pleasantly place myself in a medieval castle. Now, according to the book World War Z that’s one of the worst places to be, but I don’t care. If I have to go out I’m definitely going out swinging a morning star and a broadsword.

2. Unkillable characters 

2.1 ‘Kill him/her and we riot’

The walking dead, however, does have one big problem concerning characters because some become unkillable. This is the soap element that bugs me. Not all the time, mind you, but sometimes. You see, when you have a TV-show you need to give the characters something to develop to. So Carol changed from a caring mother submissive to her abusive husband to the one-woman army we know and love today. But what to do with her character now? There’s nothing left for her to develop to. She is as strong as she could possible get. So the show decides to make her weaker once more (and, as such, hopefully more human).

You can do this once, you can do this twice, but after that it becomes ‘soapy’. Thankfully, though, the walking dead has a perfect solution for this. It is called a little thing called: death.

Like Shakespeare you simply kill off the character once he or she reached their full potential. But here lies the little problem. Carol –for instance- is far too loved by the fans to kill her. So is Daryl. So killing this character could result in people giving up on the show.

Now, to be honest, I don’t really believe this but it is a reasonable argument not to kill her. So we’ll just have to live with a whole lot of soapyness in the future.

2.2 ‘Not him you racist!’

Then there’s the –what I’d like to call- the ‘political correctness’ backlash. So when the show killed Denise Cloyd a few episodes ago a part of the internet voiced their protest by pointing out that a substantial lot of lesbian characters got killed in various shows over the years.

This could very well be true. However I –for one- never made the conscious connection here.

I did notice, however, that –during the third season of the walking dead-, for a short time, whenever a new African-American character appeared another African-American character would die in the very same episode. The point is: you can ‘read’ some discriminative currents in any show if you go looking. And the question is whether a show should listen to this backlash and stay political correct or not.

To side-track a bit, I suspect that one of the (many) reasons why the last season of Lost failed was because Sun and Jin (two Asian characters) were kept alive for far too long (including a silly ‘lost-my-voice’ sub-plot). Their character’s arch was complete. Keeping them alive (just to stay correct) just muddled the plot. 

But, who knows, if the walking dead goes on long enough eventually they will have killed all age, color or creed.

2.3 ‘The Carl problem’

To start this one off with a fun little quote I once read somewhere: 

“Season 2 Carl was hated.

Season 3 Carl is alpha as fuck, preserving the Ricktator Rickgime. Once Carl impregnates Beth, they may very well have a Grymnasty (Dynasty) on their hands.”

There’s an important point to take from this. The character Carl (still alive in the comics) is vital to the plot of the walking dead. So the show can’t kill him. Now, if the actor is bad they might be able to change the child actor. But the acting was fine. It was the writing that wasn’t up to scratch. So the show had a huge problem. All kind of people and websites ‘hating’ on that character and no way for you (the showrunners) to use the previously mentioned ‘handy tool called death’ to erase the problem. Thankfully they found a better solution: they fixed the character.

Moreover, the movie Mercy, came in between. I honestly believe that this movie made Chandler Riggs a better actor. I remember myself realizing -somewhere between the Walking Dead season 2 and 3- that this kid could suddenly act a bit better. Did he take classes or something? Later I learned he probably did this movie during that time.
But, again, his acting was never the problem; his character was.

3. Budget cuts. 

3.1 ‘How many episodes?’

One big hurdle, however, for the walking dead is the sixteen episode run for a tremendously expensive show. Zombie make-up and wasteland sets don’t come cheap. So there’s a balance needed. More episodes means more revenue for the station. But more episodes also means more screen time to fill on a limited budget. And, unfortunately, you can see the stretching in the series.  Every season of the walking dead has about five episodes that could easily be merged into one. Again this is a sacrifice we –the viewers- have to accept.

3.2 Two seasons without a new show runner…wow!

To sidetrack a bit with a short history lesson: The first showrunner, as some might remember, was Frank Darabont. Whilst he was planning season two of the walking dead AMC cut the budget in half (because their –then- most popular show Mad Men also required a lot of money). Moreover, they told Darabont that the entire run of the season would take place at the farm (the original intention was three or four episodes, like the amount of comic books set on the farm). These are two of the main reasons why the original Darabont and AMC had a falling out.

After the abysmal second season (with the Sophia reveal as the only memorable highlight. Oh, and Hershel’s infinite ammo shotgun) the replacing showrunner was replaced. And then, next season, again a replacement. It took years before the walking dead found its footing once again. Around season five they finally did and it shows. But that does not mean that the budget balance had gone away.

Now that the walking dead is the most watched show of the United States there is more money available but still this balance exists. Now I’m sure that one day the walking dead will figure this balance out (fewer episodes = more expensive stuff to show). But not anytime soon. So accepting this makes watching it a whole of a lot easier.

Conclusion

So knowing this. Let’s return to the finale. “Who has died?”.

So we got a show that isn’t the best written piece of fiction ever to grace the screen. A show that is forced to be political correct. A show that can’t kill every character it wants. And, above all, a show that is desperately reliant on revenue in hope of getting a (better) budget next year.

Not to mention TV-contracts and other issues I won’t bother you with here. Is it really that surprising that they didn’t show you who died?

It’s a sure way to get people to watch again in six months. It’s a sure way of using the online backlash to see who bites the cyanide capsule. Is it really that surprising that they did this cliffhanger? ‘Course not. But it is a tad annoying.