Wow, that's quite idiotic. Laying aside the commercial qualms most TV stations have about b&w content (it'll be a busy few weeks for TV technicians across America!), this is really a pointless thing to do unless the episodes were originally conceived for b&w presentation. Indeed, I take issue with the idea of converting video footage to b&w period - CCD sensors weren't designed for it and it invariably looks shit, even with someone as talented as, say, Francis Ford Coppola in the director's chair. Oh and, of course, the splatter of bright red blood is half the appeal of The Walking Dead series in the first place!

It's a fun cross reference to the 100% B&W comic books, I see nothing wrong with doing it as some fun off-season filler. I watched the pilot in B&W earlier this year and it was enjoyable enough.

http://io9.com/5970547/showrunner-glen- ... lking-dead

seriously, wtf is going on with this show behind the scenes?

I suspect it continues to be AMC's cheapskate intransigence. But I guess we'll see what trickles out.

caveat: chuck norris not included.

Ack, too many shows to keep up with at the moment. Poor little overloaded DVR.

Comic book vague but big spoilers:

Rick loses something significant at the hand of The Governor in the source material, will be curious to see how they incorporate it into the show. I don't think it can be what they do in the comic, but this poster indicates it may be something fairly significant too.

So the parody poster going around Facebook says of The Walking Dead: "people argue… and sometimes zombies show up." And it's been mostly true since the show came back from hiatus. Two episodes in a row of tedious melodrama and labored tension between bickering, unlikable characters. The themes seem well played out and it's clear the writers have no clue where to take the series at this point. Each "new" subplot feels warmed over from what we already sat through previously. I can't imagine how they'll fill up a fourth season with this. I seriously may bail unless things perk up in the next episode or two.

Plowing through the comics I can tell you that there is an inherent redundancy to the whole affair after a while.

I was always on the fence with The Walking Dead, things perked up sporadically during season two, but I have to say I'm loving this third season, best thing on TV at the moment. Or in other words, I disagree with you guys yet again

klimov wrote:I'm loving this third season, best thing on TV at the moment.

Hardly, I was getting more out of the most recent batch of Downton Abbey episodes.

klimov wrote:I was always on the fence with The Walking Dead, things perked up sporadically during season two, but I have to say I'm loving this third season, best thing on TV at the moment. Or in other words, I disagree with you guys yet again

Oh I agree, it's far from perfect but S3 has been highly entertaining for the most part. I tried Downton Abbey, I just don't have any patience for period pieces, never have. It did nothing for me.

"people argue… and sometimes zombies show up." An inane criticism, which could be used to describe the Romero films too (if you want wall-to-wall mindless action, Resident Evil is for you...) It's true that, in Season 3, the zombies are no longer the primary focus, rather it's about two groups of survivors fighting it out - but imho that's exactly what makes it interesting / different/ valid. There are problems, sure: first and foremost, the broad categorizing of one group as "good" and the other as "bad", the governor being a particularly over-the-top caricature - and yet when he has Maggie in his paws he shows uncharacteristic restraint, simply because THAT can't happen on the AMC Network (buckets of blood every episode perfectly okay...) and yet there have been some pretty uncompromising twists also -

Lori's death, Rick's descent into madness

... With a good few episodes of the season still to go, it would probably be unwise to draw final conclusions, but let's say there have been good points and bad points and the lack of mindless action isn't one of the latter.

Doesn't a television show about zombies qualify as "chadult"?

O-dot wrote:Doesn't a television show about zombies qualify as "chadult"?

If the term existed in any kind of widespread usage, I think it just might!

? Zombies are a horror trope, and Romero's original Night of the Living Dead wasn't aimed at children in any way. So no.

Chadult movies are movies for children that are too violent for children to see... This combination appealing to a certain adolescent mindset within the lucrative 15-25 y/o male demographic. The Batman movies from Burton through Nolan are archetypal Chadult movies. So too most every superhero movie made these days, from Superman Returns to The Avengers, taking in also stuff like Pan's Labyrinth, Hellboy and Dredd 3D. The movies which I like a lot, but which I concede could also be classified as chadult, are the Indiana Jones movies... There has to be an exception to every rule I suppose.

I probably already know the answer to this, but you didn't like Pan's Labyrinth? Why?

For the reason already stated - it's a kid's movie, a boring and shallow one, with a few seconds of Noe-esque ultra-violence thrown in to make it seem "cool" and "edgy" to adults who should know better. When it comes to Del Toro, I far prefer the unpretentiousness of Hellboy 2, although I still wouldn't classify that as a favourite.

So, as experts on all things TV-related, I wonder what's your take The Borgias? How is it going down in the States? Rating well? Is the 4th Season likely to be the last or can we expect a 5th (or too early to say?)

see HERE