How Walking Dead took notes about Lost

So Walking Dead is absolutely dominating the ratings, and dominating cable television. AMC’s reputation and image increased dramatically after this showed debuted back in 2010. It is an intense blend of action, drama, and mystery that has been intriguing viewers from the very beginning. Now, my personal opinion is that it stands as arguably the best drama in all of television, network, cable, satellite, you name it.

That being said, it is going down an eerily similar path to that of another show that had stolen the hearts of viewers everywhere back in the day.





Lost.





Calm down, let me explain.



Just like in Lost, the Walking Dead features a great cast of memorable characters ranging from heroes to villains to mysterious figures to the everyday secondary characters that are easy to root for.



Just like in Lost, the Walking Dead has not one but several intriguing storylines that interweave with each other every episode—with the latter seasons expanding much further since the cast of characters have also expanded.



Just like in Lost, Walking Dead features multitudes of mysteries that range throughout the season, and they usually enjoy ending episodes in cliffhangers. Oh the good ol' cliffhangers.


Just like in Lost, nobody, repeat, nobody is safe in Walking Dead.


Just like in Lost, the channel enjoys splitting entire seasons to stretch them out as far as possible…while frustrating fans as long as possible.


Just like in Lost, Walking Dead also had a subpar Season 2 that resulted in plenty of backlash, which resulted in an ever-improving Season 3. Not sure if you remember, but Season 3 of Lost in the latter half featured some of the greatest moments and biggest surprises in the history of television.



So, what makes Walking Dead more of a continuous success than Lost? What has allowed for Walking Dead to maintain its audience despite few stretches of frustration and weaker episodes? Lost had great ratings throughout its run despite the circumstances (ABC being run by idiots at the time, Writer’s Strike, shifting time slots, horrid time slots) but severely lost (pun not intended) viewers starting with Season 3. But Walking Dead is just as strong as ever 2 ½ years since its original debut.


The answer is very simple: AMC not only caters the show, but caters the fandom and caters the hype.


There’s the highly-acclaimed video game. There’s the television show that merely focuses on discussion of the show. There are the crazy online connections with the television show. There are the contests. There’s the brilliant marketing and abundance of commercials. Walking Dead is a phenomenon, AMC knows it, but ultimately likes to remind you of what it is. Walking Dead isn’t a show, it is THE show.


And this is where ABC dropped the ball with Lost. Lost was treated like just any old television show in the primetime lineup, when Lost was honestly one of the most unique, most intriguing, and most complex television shows ever concocted. ABC never catered to the complexity and the sheer depth of the program, which resulted in ABC having no problems giving it extended breaks mid-and-early season (which was stupid considering all the details one would forget) and never creating a way to allow for viewers to digest and analyze the events that had just taken place---alienating the crowd when the show timeline-wise started going out of control. I shift you not when I tell you we had a season that featured three different storylines in three different points of time. I would have LOVED for a Talking Lost program after each mindwarp episode took place.

Talking Dead is one of the major reasons for the success of Walking Dead---The Lost Experience debuted a full two years after the debut of Lost. It appears that AMC has learned from ABC’s shortcomings with Lost. A unique show should be advertised uniquely, it’s as simple as that. And while it isn’t the first show to have different advertising when compared to its sister and brother programs (Cartoon Network’s Toonami back in the day had a furiously different approach because of the cartoons involved) it is definitely the show getting the most success thanks to the marketing surrounding it.

Walking Dead is a rounding success not just because it’s a great show, but because the network treats it as such. Special attention, special marketing, consistent timeslot and consistent catering to the audience will continue enhancing the ratings for the Walking Dead for the entirety of its run.

Lost back in the day was THE show on television, it’s just that most of us didn’t know it.

Walking Dead is THE show, and the entire country knows this.

Identity Thief: 4/10

It is deliciously ironic that a movie called Identity Thief has a very tough time building an identity for itself to display to the audience. This movie is a total jumble and lacks enough structure to even attempt to become a decent movie. What saves this movie from being a total disaster are the lead actors which had been on a roll up to this point. For those expecting a deliciously dark follow-up to Horrible Bosses from that same director instead will walk away quite disenchanted and disappointed.

In a nutshell, stressed father and husband Sandy Patterson has his identity stolen resulting in him building up debt that's being accumulated by another person. Desperately in order to save his job and get his life back, he travels down to Florida to find the thief and convince her to return back to Colorado to get things straightened out. This plot is rather ridiculous, which is why it required a screwball or dark comedic taint to remove the absurdity of it all. Unfortunately, despite the trailers and television spots this barely is a dark comedy, and barely works as a comedy to be exact.

Identity Thief is sometimes funny, but never funny enough. It is sometimes dark and twisted, but never truly dark and twisted enough. It's even sometimes emotional and sentimental (very inconsistently I might add), but even that ship sails too soon far too often. Lastly it is sometimes interesting and suspenseful, but, well, you get the point. The intriguing and potentially hilarious premise of a disgruntled victim meeting his money-sucking predator was started by a Floridian teacher, but gets ruined by a bloated and underdeveloped script by Craig Mazin----whom doesn't really have a good repertoire. The mismatched directing of Seth Gordon didn't help either.

It is ultimately the cast that keeps it afloat, even when the script bogs them down. Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy work well together and did a great job despite the circumstances, particularly McCarthy. Then check out the rest of this underused staff: Eric Stonestreet, Robert Patrick, Amanda Peet, Genesis Rodriguez, Morris Chestnut, and John Cho. Plenty of good actors and each with the ability to breathe life into the project, but unfortunately just didn't have enough screen time to make an impact.

Bottom Line: Resembling a weak, watered-down useless version of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles instead of the likes of Horrible Bosses and the best of Danny DeVito, Identity Thief struggles to find the right focus and right footing and winds up becoming a movie that isn't funny enough, isn't dramatic enough, isn't wild enough, isn't likable enough, and generally isn't good enough to warrant a second viewing---or a first one. It's one thing to disappoint, but it's a totally different matter when you disappoint underneath so much potential and so much talent at the helm.

Zero Dark Thirty: 8/10

I walked out of Zero Dark Thirty with quite a headache. This is definitely what the film was aiming for, tension that racks up your nerves, increases your heart rate, and leaves you with your teeth continuously clenching. The movie will leave you breathless and numb, much like your better wartime movies like Saving Private Ryan. But all this comes with a catch---this movie is quite cold, and the timing of this movie gives it an emotionally manipulating tint.

It is manipulating because it's the premise and not the cast of characters that sells this movie or keeps it afloat. It is the story that truly drives the movie, not the interactions amongst everyone involved. There is no character development, there are no catharsis moments, and nothing changes except for the progress towards the ultimate goal of killing Bin Laden. It is indeed an entertaining and a thrilling ride, but one wonders just how much mainstream and critical investment would be placed in the movie if it had not been so soon since the actual event.

The plot is simple; a massive manhunt begins immediately after 9/11 for Bin Laden and the leaders of Al-Qaeda. The movie follows mostly the feisty and hardworking CIA officer Maya, as she scrambles, gambles, and fights her way through the government ranks into ensuring that the man behind the awful terrorist attacks gets his justice. Throughout the two-and-a-half hours we see major step after major step as well as setbacks delivered through misinformation, more attacks, and bad surprises. Written by Mark Boal, his script here is full of intensity, drama, and everlasting anxiety.

On a technical and mostly artistic standpoint, the movie fires and hits on all cylinders. The performances were amazing, the technical direction by Kathryn Bigelow was superb, and the cinematography is among the best from any movie in 2012. That being said, the entire movie is extremely one-sided to a point that it almost runs as American propaganda.

We know all about the whos and the whats and the wheres, but we never ever get a glimpse of the whys. In movies like The Kingdom and Three Kings we are presented with the motives, thoughts, and mannerisms of the Middle East enemy. But in Zero Dark Thirty it pulls a Hurt Locker and doesn't give us any insight whatsoever into the mind of the enemy of the Americans—they are faceless, nameless, and the audience is offered no chance whatsoever at sympathy. Which is borderline ironic because the movie itself offers minimal emotion, with the first hint of emotion coming from….a scene involving a suspect finally getting something to drink after nearly starving to death.

Zero Dark Thirty is a well-shot film with many curious decisions, ranging from the timing of the film (waiting a few more years could have given the third act more details), to the sheer bitter and cold mood of the entire production hampering it and preventing it from becoming a modern war classic. Much like The Hurt Locker, it lacks the heart required to add the necessary layer of substance and depth into the movie. Despite this, it is a very tense ride full of exhilarating performances and gritty realism that gives Zero Dark the edge over your average drama.

The Commissioner Elections

So this previous year has displayed quite prominently why our commissioners all need to disappear, and pave the way for fresh minds. Whether it’s the disaster that is the NHL, the mishandling of the NFL, the unmet potential of the MLB, or the pure sadness that is the NBA, the leaders of the major leagues in the United States have made some very questionable and ridiculous moves.

Let’s start with MLB. This league is the only one of the four that is actually on the upswing, but it can do so much better….if it stopped acting so old. The World Baseball Classic, a potentially epic worldwide event, is being reduced into a marketing blitz the size of the Little League World Series. He has not reduced the season to cater better to the baseball fans, he has not improved instant replay even though the solution is very simple (each team gets three challenges per nine innings, 5th umpire at the booth) and has done a miserable job improving the multi-media and the online functions of MLB on the internets. Good luck finding a baseball clip on YouTube for example, even though viral marketing is one of the easiest moneymaking habits in existence.

Let’s continue with the NFL. This league mishandled the BountyGate scandal so poorly it required another commissioner to clean up the mess. They want to play over in Europe for some stupid reason, while continuing to screw over the fans with Thursday football and crazy-arse blockout restrictions. They want to increase the season total to 18 games while continuously avoiding the issue of football games being more and more dangerous and less and less family-oriented. The NFL has not been as exciting as in previous years because of the increase in flags, the overprotection of quarterbacks, and just the nullification of tough defense. This is football, it’s supposed to be rough and violent---wimping it too much reduces the quality of play altogether.

Oh, good ol’ NBA. We’ve watched franchise after franchise fall apart under the eyes of Stern (Grizzlies, Hornets, Sonics, and now Kings) while small markets continuously struggle to maintain an audience and maintain relevance. We watched two lockouts drain momentum, while see the playoffs expand into ridiculous proportions. It should never take three months to play the playoffs, regardless of sport. The season remains too long and although the quality of the league has improved in recent years, this sport can still be a tough pill to swallow.

And oh the NHL. Oh, geez. Three lockouts in 20 years. Teams have folded. Great franchises have been reduced to nothing. Marketing has been abysmal. They still won’t fix the fighting issue in the sport. Their playoffs, as fun as they can be, is still quite long. But worst of all, this league will not show signs of improvement if the labor issues continue to haunt the entire institution.

So with these leagues letting me down in my eyes and in the eyes of other fans, how can we solve this dilemma?

How can we prevent it from getting any worse?

Bill Simmons did bring this up months earlier, but my election idea was more inspired by the Obama-Romney war that was created last year. Ok, I may have blurted the solution before the grand introduction: Commissioner Elections.

That’s right, the commissioners should run on specific terms and on their final year we hold a worldwide election consisting of several candidates debating on which direction the sport should take. This way the list of Unions involved and connected with the league can see who they get to see run the organization and formulate deals with the new (or re-elected) leader. The commissioners are voted in with a mix of votes from the players, the owners, and ultimately the fans.

We can hold debates throughout the off-season amongst the candidates (airing this in prime time would keep interest in the sport even if there were no games on the horizon) so we can see their stance on all the major issues plaguing the sport. We can do it in the fashion of Pardon the Interruption, in which they get a time window to discuss the issues and reveal their opinions and ideas towards the topics. And after a couple weeks of debates, there will be one day in which all the votes can be casted. After a week of counting the new commissioner is revealed. All of America can vote American Idol style on who they believe should be the next commissioner.

The vote will be split into three parts: The Owner Vote, the Player Vote, and the Fan Vote. Whomever can win the most categories becomes the next commissioner for seven years---spanning the length of the contract with the Unions. This way, the commissioner can run on his or her specific terms with the groups involved with protecting the staffing of the league. With these elections, we never have to worry about someone overstaying their welcome, and we will see commissioners more willing to make decisions that can make fans happy as well as owners.

Forcing this election will guarantee that certain issues like drug use, instant replay, salaries, contractions/expansions/major moves are done more diligently. With a time limit and potentially losing the job in the long run, I can guarantee you more work will be done.

Baseball will stop being so old, hockey will stop having work stoppages, the NFL will stop being so ******g greedy, and the NBA will stop being so stupid.



Of course, there is only one way this can actually happen…………………………a commissioner must come up with this and approve it.







Good luck America.

:|