Dear The Walking Dead, I'm Over You

Let’s talk about Sunday's season opener of The Walking Dead. I won’t give big spoilers, just in case you haven’t watched it. (But maybe stop now and go watch it and then come back and read? Up to you.)

Going into the episode after the sixth season finale — you know, the one that managed to piss off nearly EVERY person who watched The Walking Dead — my expectations were low.

The show had already done what I consider to be a lazy writing trick to try and keep viewers in ultimate suspense until the next season: We all knew the newly introduced character Negan was going to kill a character — probably one we liked, most definitely in a gruesome manner. But the finale ended before anybody knew who it was. From April until now, diehard fans have been trying to figure out exactly who the show would off and how.

But after all that waiting, if you watched last night’s season opener and thought, “WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?” you’re not alone. I won’t get too much into the details, but let’s just say it wasn’t THAT a couple characters died, it was HOW the show wrote the scene and the way it was carried out.

Yes, it's always been a gory show. Yes, I know children have been killed on the show, and that fans regularly see guts and blood and violence. Yes, I saw the episode where the guy was torn apart in a revolving door. But as the producers of the show have said, this last week's episode was a new beginning for the the zombie series.

And I’m not sure I like it.

The before and after is like the difference between watching a John Carpenter film (the before) and a Rob Zombie movie (the after). The latter director seems hell bent on depicting sadism (which is, no doubt, terrifying) while the other tells frightening stories with story lines that tug at the things we’re all fearful of. Take Carpenter’s Halloween for example: His character Michael Myers is a representation of evil, a masked murderous villain that allows the viewer to fill in the blanks. He’s scary because he can be anyone or anything you’re afraid of. There is plenty of blood and plenty of death that makes your heart race, but there are no cheap shots that make your stomach turn.

Compare that to Zombie’s version of the film, which tries to psychoanalyze Michael and puts more of a premium on social-emotional development of his character. Which, you know, fine. But Zombie’s version also makes Myers’ mother a stripper, his sister a slut and his stepdad the kind of guy who looks at his stepdaughter’s ass and says he’ll “skull fuck” somebody. While cut from the final version, Zombie also added a rape scene to the movie.

Sure, it’s gruesome. Sure, people will watch it and recoil in horror. But is it good writing? Do we need to see every second of someone getting their head bashed in to know they got their head bashed in?

Maybe upcoming episodes of The Walking Dead will be lighter, less overtly and unnecessarily gruesome. Maybe they’ll even be, as spelled out by head writer for the show Scott M. Gimple last night on The Talking Dead, funny. (Funny? Really?)

Admittedly, I haven’t read the graphic novels. I’m sure that Negan’s character was horrible. I’m sure the show is only going the way of the graphic novel. That’s fine. I’m not necessarily pissed off at the writers at The Walking Dead. I just don't think the show is for me anymore. Gore porn might be fine for some viewers, but it’s not what I consider good storytelling. TWD, I’m over you.