New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

I was more excited about the debut of AMC’s The Walking Dead than pretty much any other new or returning show this season. I predicted, if you’ll recall, that it would get glowing reviews and a loyal following, but tiny ratings. I was correct on two out of three. It’s proven to be AMC’s first real breakout hit. Mad Men may win the Emmys, but Walking Dead gets the viewers.

I couldn’t be more thrilled at this development. I think we’ll be treated to a nice, solid run, the threat of cancellation unlikely. The thing is, after the first season finale, I’m a little hesitant on the show so far.

The first observation I have about the season - and this one isn’t a complaint - is that there’s more of a focus on apocalypse survival than on zombie killing action. It’s not that there aren’t zombies, it’s that there’s more a sense of an ever-present zombie threat than there are persistent zombie attacks, as one might have expected.

The thing is that zombie mythology is familiar and pretty basic. To sum it up, the dead rise, they eat survivors, headshots kill them, don’t let them bite you. That’s pretty much it. To dwell on the rules, or to have zombie battles all the time would grow very tired very quickly. The show takes a different approach. It’s a survivor tale about the characters trying to keep alive in this new, dangerous world.

Much has been written about The Walking Dead over its six-week run, comparing it to, of all things, Lost. Lost is another show where the writers purport it to be a character-based survival show more than a mythology show. While I still maintain that they’re only half correct, their point is well taken. Had Lost ended on a mythology defining climax rather than a cathartic character resolution, it would have lacked an emotional resonance that elevates it from really good show to classic. (Yes, Lost is a future classic. Don’t argue with me.)

Here’s the difference, though. Lost has a structure - at one point criticized, in retrospect brilliant - wherein every episode focuses on a single character. Over time, we get to learn more and more about them, layers revealed, new depths discovered. At first, this seemed to bog down the pace, and there is little doubt that the writers were stalling a bit until they got their fixed end date.

The end result, however, is that character-based emotional catharsis I speak of. I know I sound like a broken record, but it bears repeating, the most important thing in any story, ANY story, is characters. Lost gets that. The Walking Dead doesn’t. Yet.

I was talking to a fellow Walking Dead fan who posited that what’s missing from the show is a Sawyer. I countered that Shane is the show’s Sawyer. She replied that Sawyer is far more complex a character. Thinking this over, I realized that, even six episodes in as Dead is at this point, Lost had already revealed character details which serves to make them multi-dimensional, giving their plights more weight.

I stand by my statement that Shane is the most interesting character, but the others are pretty much just dull. Two of the biggest offenders are Merle, who fills the jerk role that every zombie tale must have, and the lead Rick.

Perhaps in the second season we’ll start to see layers to Merle that will transform him into a Sawyer-style loveable rogue. Perhaps Rick will start to develop some, you know, flaws, which would make him engaging. Perhaps some of the other characters will actually show some character and make me see them as more than the roles the actors play in other projects. Trust me, the show needs it.

Thing is, as it stands, the show is about the constant threat of zombie attacks, and the ethical compromises one must make in order to survive. This is the right direction to take for the show’s longevity, I think. However, as with any story, in order for this to work, we need to start caring for these survivors. Case in point (spoiler), in the finale, some character chooses to die in an explosion rather than escaping to safety. The emotional impact of this is non-existent since we never get to know her as a character, nor do I even remember her name. I could look it up on IMDb, but the thing is, I shouldn’t have to. If the show had done its job, I would know it, I would know her, I would feel the impact of the loss.

I know that Frank Darabont and his (fired) writing staff only had a six episode first season for some reason, so there wasn’t much time to really explore these folks. Nevertheless, I repeat, Lost had already laid some character groundwork by this point in its run. I’m willing to give the show a second season chance, however. The details of the writing staff’s firing are murky, but this seems to be a creative choice rather than one of those infamous examples of network meddling, so I’m willing to give Darabont the benefit of the doubt. He gave us Shawshank Redemption, after all, they guy’s earned it. Perhaps an auteurist approach is just what the show needs.

My hopes are that he keeps the survivor focus, but takes his time to develop who these survivors are. If the show goes in such a direction, we could be looking at one for the ages. This isn’t to say that I don’t want a little zombie action thrown in there for fun too. Zombies are pretty cool.