Is There a Doctor in the House?

Netflix is a terrible thing. Why would this service want to ruin someone’s social life by allowing them to view entire seasons of a show at the click of a button? Because it’s an amazing idea, of course. It’s just impractical when I need to study for finals. It doesn’t help that I began watching one of the UK’s most popular shows Doctor Who. After a few seasons, I can totally see why this show is so well received. Allow me to elaborate.

                Doctor Who is a science fiction television show which follows the adventures of the doctor. I’m going to avoid the whole “who’s on second?” reference here and tell you that he’s just called the doctor. The doctor is a “timelord,” an alien species closely resembling a human, who has the ability to travel through time and space. He’s basically the protector of the Human population.

                So why is this show good? Well, originally, the show was created as an educational program. It would be able to teach history and science simultaneously. Historic aspects are bought about by being able to travel through time, and scientific aspects by, well, being able to travel through time. Although it still has a semblance of these themes, the show has taken a definitively fictitious turn at the corner of science. Its educational properties, however, are still present and are probably the only reason this show can be called good.

                I’m just kidding, I don’t base a shows worth on its educational value. (What does that say about society?) However, the fact that it incorporates slightly historic and scientific facets does give the show a mature and generally smart feel to it. These features make you think about the possibilities within the universe and truly allow your mind to wander. To help it wander, it creates completely fictional futuristic possibilities. This allows the incorporation of a common theme, which I believe really draws me into the show. The potential of humans.

The doctor’s constant acclimation of the human race further allows our minds to wander. If you look back on the world, we’ve come a long way since horse-drawn wagons. If you were to take a smart phone to the 1800’s, people would probably burn you at the stake for witchcraft. Applying this idea and thinking about all the possibilities available to us in the future, truly makes the human race seem astounding. With this general idea in mind, it shows all the future possibilities for humanity, deviating from frequent displays of dystopian or apocalyptic futures. Thus, the show is quite unique in its outlook on the human race.

It also incorporates amorously ambiguous love plots, where true feelings are only implied and never fully elaborated on, and exciting bouts against nefarious aliens. These allow for the inclusion of suspenseful endings – often harking on the destruction of humans if failure is met. They also allow for the possibility of sympathizing with the feelings of both the doctor and his companions.

In general, this show integrates many different aspects to make an amazing and unique plot line. It appeals to the masses and teaches lessons without coming of as pompously intelligent. Its most important feature, however, is its ability to make your mind wander.

Christmas Specials

It’s that time of year again. Whether or not you are of certain religion, in my opinion, is irrelevant at this point. You don’t need to be a Christian to enjoy the heartfelt transformation of the previously grouchy Grinch. Similarly, you don’t need to be Jewish to appreciate the adorable misunderstandings of the Rugrats in “A Rugrats Chanukah.”  Yet, I can’t help but feel there’s an abundance of specials revolving around a specific holiday during this time of year. Perhaps it’s just the channels I’m watching, but with specials such as ABC’s “The 25 Days of Christmas,” I can’t help but feel like Christmas has a superfluous amount of holiday specials.

Now, I don’t mean to attack Christmas here. Truthfully, I was born and raised a Catholic, so I grew up on these specials. However, I can’t help but ponder, “Why is Christmas so targeted for holiday specials? What makes this religious holiday so special for specials?” Let me try and break down why I believe it’s so well received on television.

The first thing you may notice after watching any Christmas show or movie is the childish nature present in most of them. A snowman magically coming to life and travelling to the North Pole with Santa doesn’t exactly seem plausible. This would be because the companies are, not so surprisingly, attempting to target children. Many children simply love the idea of Santa. Growing up, I can remember staying up as late as I could on Christmas Eve, just to get a glimpse of the myth. After falling asleep, I’d only to wake up to a tray of eaten cookies and mixed feelings about not seeing the man, but having a room full of presents.

It makes sense, too. Santa is a jolly old man who gives children free things. I honestly can’t think of an adult that a child would both idolize and fear more. With such a jolly and omnipresent mascot, Christmas is probably the best holiday to capitalize on. After all, regardless of its roots in religion, Christmas is celebrated in a very capitalistic way. So why let retail stores have all the fun?

If we take this fact alone into consideration, what better reason to have a bunch of Christmas specials? If children love this being, what better way to get them to watch a show than to include him in it? On top of that, if you give the specials a general family-like feel through lessons of love, friendship, and selflessness, you’re more likely to get entire families to watch. So by targeting the children, television stations have the possibility of including entire families in their viewer count.

I honestly can’t think of any other reason Christmas would be so well received on television. How many Christmas specials have you seen without Santa in them? Christmas specials that really dig into the religion behind it? Go ahead. Find a popular one. I’ll wait…

Couldn’t find one? Neither could I. On the other hand, Hanukkah has the special “A Rugrats Chanukah” to delve into the religious details of the holiday. It’s done in a tasteful, yet informative way which also appeals to children, being a popular kids show back in the day. So although Christmas is more televised, who’s the real winner here?

                Though Christmas specials may revolve around a specific religion, it doesn’t mean it’s doing a lot of good for that religion. In fact, if you think about the celebration of Christmas in today’s society, it’ extremely loosely based on religion. Giving presents was meant as a reminder that the three wise men bought the baby Jesus presents. Bringing Santa into the picture pretty much pushes out any religious underlying altogether, teaching children they get presents because they were good.

                Am I opposed to this? No. It universalizes the holiday. I think that by doing this it gives more people a reason to celebrate the holiday and bring families together. It’s a beautiful thing to me, really. For more religious fanatics though, it’s a bit of a downer.

                So if you happen to be one of those religious people who can’t stand Christmas specials because you’re not Christian, attempt to enjoy it for its lessons and familial undertones. Attempt to enjoy it because it’s fun to watch. And since you obviously care about your own religion a lot, attempt to enjoy it because it’s not deterring the attention from your holiday’s religious background.

A Good Ending

So “The Walking Dead” has recently aired its mid-season finale. I know I seem to post about “The Walking Dead” a lot, but I love the show. All I can say on the subject is, the mid-season finale was amazing. What makes it so amazing? I really don’t want to give away spoilers. However, I do want to discuss what makes a great ending in general! Which means that I will have to do so in a way that doesn’t give away spoilers, which means this post is going to be EXTREMELY vague...

Wish me luck!

There are so many different factors that can go into making an ending great. Not to mention the fact that an ending oftentimes is the "make or break" factor in a movie. From the characters that live or die, to the idea behind the ending, to the symbolism present, anything can make an ending great. Like a delicious pie however, it’s the perfect mixture of the right ingredients that can produce an amazing finale.

Of course, everyone’s opinion on the loose definition of "great" is different. However, there are plenty of endings that are iconic due to their widespread acceptance of greatness. After reviewing plenty of opinions on seemingly great endings, I believe I’ve come up with two key components that make an ending "great": its ability to make you think, and its capacity to make you feel.

This is pretty vague, but allow me to provide some examples of what I, and many others, think are great endings. This is a topic that can go across platforms of the media, so I’ll try to incorporate as much as possible. My favorite ending to a movie, and the number one movie on IMDB is known as “The Shawshank Redemption.” In other words, I’m not the only person with this opinion. However, “The Shawshank Redemption” is one of those movies that seems to handle both of these ideas into a beautiful ending.

The movie follows Andy, a person imprisoned under the pretense of murdering his wife. The ending of this movie is so great because of the emotions you feel throughout the movie constantly build and swell but never quite resolve. Just thinking about the myriad of emotions a person in confinement can go through can emotionally wreck a person. However, the movie builds upon each emotion, constantly keeping them in the back of your mind.

To side track for a little- this is why I believe this episode of “The Walking Dead” had a great ending. It builds up so many emotions throughout its previous episodes, leaving the emotion unsatisfied and unresolved. In the end, it allows all of these to simultaneously culminate and when they’re finally resolved to coalesce. It makes you hinder on these emotions because of that buildup.

Back to “The Shawshank Redemption.” This ending also has the ability to make you think. It makes you think back on the mundane things that have happened throughout the movie and realize that although they seemed insignificant at the time, they played the most important role in the ending. I like to call this the twist ending.

Although not all twist endings are good, and not all twist endings have been hinted at throughout the lifespan of the media outlet, I believe that the twist endings that can make you think back are some of the best. For something a little more modern, think of the ending to Harry Potter. Throughout the books, Harry exhibits a special connection with the powers that are known to belong to Voldemort. However, you may not truly realize why until the very end. On the other hand, Darth Vader’s revelation that he is Luke’s father was a twist ending that wasn't even really hinted at. (I feel like it’s okay that I spoil that one)

The point is that both of these endings make you think. “Harry Potter” and “The Shawshank Redemption” make you think back to the beginnings and see how the ending was set up, to make sense of it all. Darth Vader’s reveal makes you wonder, “How is that possible? Where can this possibly go as a result?”

All these endings make both the feelings and thoughts of the viewer converge simultaneously. I honestly believe this convergence, how that piece of media combines the thoughts and feelings of the viewer/reader, is what makes an ending special.

Relationships

                On the most recent episode of “How I Met Your Mother,” Barney and Robin run through their rehearsal dinner before getting married. Marriage is something that brings families and total strangers together to see the union of two people. Through television shows, we can see complete strangers converging on a subject they find simply beautiful. In fact, relationships in the media, in general, seem to bring about empathetic feelings across its spectrum of viewers.

                From the most underrepresented and realistic relationships to the most popularly debated relationships in the media, love plots seem to grab viewers. In fact, for some reason, it appears relationships in television and movies can sometimes involve viewers more than the two people in the relationships themselves.

                Let’s take one of the most heavily debated relationships for example. Some relationship that has plowed its way across media from movies to commercials on television. A relationship that nobody wants to talk about, but it seems like everyone has. A relationship in a movie that the actors themselves have stated hatred for. I’m talking about “Twilight.”

                I can’t believe I’m actually going to talk about "Twilight" on my blog…

                “Twilight” fans, or “twihards”, or “fanpires”, whatever you want to call them, have somehow forced their debate of whether the main character, Bella Swan, should choose a relationship between the roughneck werewolf, Jacob, or the iconic pretty-boy vampire, Edward, into the unwarranted ears of millions. The movie series mostly consists of the portrayal of Bella’s struggle to make this decision. Now, how can a relationship that even the actors themselves hate to portray become so famous?  I have absolutely no idea. Yet somehow, this social debate has been emphasized so much that the movie has become popular to all ages and genders. I mean ALL ages and genders, check out this Burger King commercial to see what I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfGKgmDvcDg

                Elderly fan-girls. What could be better? The fact remains that this movie's relationship has somehow converged the hearts of millions on the simple topic of a relationship. Furthermore, this movie has ascended all forms of criticism because of its roots in relationship struggles, regardless of how bad anyone has thought the content of the movie is.

                Let’s move on to another iconic relationship, something a little more television related. Ross and Rachel on “Friends.” Honestly, “Friends” is one of my favorite sitcoms of all time. Yet, if you asked me to sum it up, I would tell you that it depicts the relationship between Ross and Rachel. This isn't’t, at all, what the show is about. It’s not even the only relationship present on the show. Yet this relationship takes the viewer through fields of emotions, some of these being happiness, regret, excitement, despair, and anger.

By definition, a sitcom is supposed to make the viewer laugh. However, relationships are one of the very few mechanisms writers use to deviate from the common jokes. When we look back on our lives, we’re likely to remember the things that stand out. Our first break up, our first love, the most fun times we've had with our friends, or the things that hurt us most. Anything that has made us feel a certain emotion very strongly probably sticks out to us the most.

If you think about it, these relationships present us with something that sticks out among the crowd. All the jokes conglomerate in our head so that all we truly remember is, “it was a funny show.” Meanwhile, these relationships have bought different emotions to us, and helped us to strongly feel them. The same goes for a platforms not based on comedy, like “Twilight.” The relationships make us mimic strong emotions, and thus we remember them well.

Can a Person Actually Change?

                In the recent episodes of “The Walking Dead,” the antagonist of season 3, the governor, has finally returned in season 4. We see him going through his journey after his safe-haven, Woodbury, had been overthrown and he had been exposed as a manipulative and cruel leader. The governor now goes through the sullied and lonely life he has brought upon himself.

                The governor seems to be broken shell of his former self. The ambitious and deceptive man has become an accepting and submissive person. He walks along the road until he finds a family which shows him love and aid. Almost any time this happens in a show, we can see a significant change in a person.

                The question then comes about; can someone’s nature actually change? Can the governor actually become a caring person, bent on helping? Is there actually such a thing as “a life changing event?”

                This is a topic that, in essence, is actually heavily debated in the field of psychology. The question is what makes a person who they are? Are someone’s actions and thoughts based on the compilation of the many events in life? Or is someone given a nature at birth? Does nature itself assign psyche or is it determined by how we grow and are nurtured. This is a debate popularly known as nature vs. nurture.

                There’s no true way to answer this question. The “nature” variable is too unpredictable and modern technology cannot determine if a baby is born with a certain nature. However, there is plenty of evidence to support that people are born with a specific nature.

On the other hand, there is also no true way to determine whether the events in a person’s life are the only thing to decide a person’s psyche. Therefore, it’s commonly accepted that both nature and nurture determine a person’s actions.

If the world’s best psychologists cannot determine this, I certainly don’t expect to attempt it. However, there’s something that I do know a little better than psychologists, and that’s how “The Walking Dead” writers have acted in the past. When a character has been portrayed as “evil” in previous episodes of this show, nothing seems to be able to change their disposition. Take Shane, for example. As soon as the character Shane wanted something, nothing could deter him from his motive. Thus, he died a “bad” person.

In general, I believe that characters on shows can change. Now the final question, do I believe that the governor has changed? I don’t think he has changed. I think he is still bent on taking down Rick and the main group. However, I think he has a different motive for what he wants, and will go about taking what he wants in a different way. Ultimately, my prediction for the show is that he will still be the antagonist. 

Comedy Throughout History - Part II

So there must have been a reason for me to present how history has changed throughout time? Well, you’re right! As I said in my last post social rifts are a bit of a touchy subject in today’s society. However, implementation in comedy has swayed from pointing out social differences in unlikely situations to putting characters in simply awkward, over-exaggerated, every-day situations. This change has probably occurred due to the sensitivity of such subjects. Of course, this sensitivity has come about due to a more coalesced society. Nobody wants to hurt any feelings, which is great! We’re all trying to get along! However, it seems that pointing out social insecurities has been extremely suppressed. This suppressed humor is finding a way out and it’s taking form in a previously unsought after form of comedy. It’s taking refuge in dark humor.

Well, that’s just my take on it, at least. You don’t see much dark humor in the past. Maybe it was all dark humor and we’re desensitized towards it. Either way, dark comedy, or black comedy, is a genre that hasn’t gained much televised popularity until recently. From a literary view, it’s an extremely heavy form of satire. Obviously, both satire and black humor have been around before. Perhaps one of the most well-known incarnations of black comedy in history can be found in Dr. Strangelove. Dr. Strangelove, however, doesn’t seem to hold a clichéd candle to the type of black comedy of today.

There are a couple of shows in particular which seems to point out exactly what I’m talking about. Family Guy, its spinoff, The Cleveland Show, and South Park are just a few. It’s as if the writers of these shows simply do not care who they offend and I believe by pushing social barriers, they create a well sought-after community.

“Family guy” follows the stories of the Griffin family. The family consists of the father Peter, his children, Meg, Stewie, and Chris, his wife Lois, and his talking dog Brian (or used to). It’s a pretty simple idea for a show. However, it gets into some pretty raunchy and touchy subjects. I just want to point out specific instances to explain the type of humor I’m talking about. Peter cracks his neck to kill himself after being asked to join a book-club. You don’t expect a round of laughter from that. Yet, that’s the exact reaction received. The family constantly degrades Meg, to the point where she’s treated as subhuman for no particular reason. Treating a child poorly is a taboo topic, and isn’t typically seen in comedy. Peter gets raped by a bull and his post-traumatic distress is used as a comedy outlet. That one speaks for itself.

Even though it’s hard to top rape, let’s get to possibly the most heavily debated social topic yet. The topic of racism. Family Guy’s spinoff show has a scene where a Spanish character is in a car accident, and is questioned by the police about where he is from. After telling the officers he is from Oakland, the officers respond with, “I heard Mexico,” and fling him away in their “deportation catapult.” This is supposed to be funny due to the satirical portrayal of ignorant officers who actually think like that. If any humor is to be found, please don’t start debating that a person would find it because he/she might think racism itself is funny. I don’t think that, I doubt anyone else thinks that. It’s supposed to be found in making fun of the ignorance.

Regardless, a couple of decades ago, most people couldn’t laugh at many of these topics, as they were labeled as insensitive.  These topics had been heavily guarded under strict social chains to the point where it was unacceptable to laugh at them, and barely acceptable to debate them. Yet in the past, differences between demographics have been pointed out time and time again (albeit, in a more tasteful sense) for the name of comedy. Dark humor has seemed to slip past these social chains and deliver the humor that was so heavily guarded in an even more insensitive way than ever conceived. Admittedly, the topics themselves aren’t funny. They’re extremely serious topics. The real satire is in what we view socially unacceptable to talk about. In all honesty, I feel that it brings differences together in a sense. The bond that laughter creates is unprecedented. When we can laugh at all of our problems together, we can move on as a community. Dark humor, in my opinion, has helped us in a time of need to the point where I can laugh at jokes about myself and others can do so about their selves. Boppity Boobidy, as Peter Griffin assumes the Italians would say.

So why did the Chicken cross the road? To get to the other side- that being the afterlife. It’s dark humorous take on an otherwise innocent joke.

References:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9camyVpG4Y

Comedy Throughout History - Part I

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Comedy is a very hard subject to touch on since humor has taken up many faces throughout history. It gains its laughter from the simplest fart jokes to complex and intrinsically woven stories with a surprise ending. Much like beauty, humor is in the eye of the beholder – or ear of the beholder, depending on the case. However, there are specific comedic values and routines that are followed by the masses, gaining the hearts and laughter of many. Lately, in many shows on television, there’s been a noticeable shift in the type of humor presented. At one point in time, social jokes and slapstick performances were the crutches comedy relied upon for its laughs. Although these still hold a role in today’s society, their implementation has significantly changed as they make room for new styles of comedy. Let’s take a look back at the comedy of media-past for examples of what I mean.

One of the earliest forms of comedy we can see in popular media can be found from silent films. The typical slap-stick silent comedy. Charlie Chaplin’s films were probably some of the more well known films from the era. In these films, Chaplin can be found doing insensible things such as eating his own shoe for a Thanksgiving meal. Hilarious, right? No? I didn’t think so either. To me, watching a man eat his own shoelace like spaghetti seems sad, really. Well, maybe that’s because it doesn’t make much sense to us now. In the 1920’s this would be relayed as a joke about how a lower class citizen could enjoy a meal in the same way an upper class person would. A simple idea, but its comedy is found in the fact that the need to literally eat one’s own shoe is not quite as exaggerated as it sounds. Furthermore, it pokes fun at the upper-class citizen’s way of life. The poor Chaplin eats a shoe like it deserves to be eaten in a sophisticated way. No food really deserves that honor, let alone a shoe. This type of comedy appeals to both upper class and lower class citizens - everyone at the time. The upper class citizens laugh at how the poor attempt to be like them while lower class citizens laugh at the truth and the ridicule of the upper class.

Further down the line of comedy, the sitcom, short for situation comedy, was produced. A classic sitcom portraying such a similar social rift would be the Beverly Hillbillies. This 1960’s sitcom follows the story of a southern family who struck oil and was able to move to the high society terrain of Beverly Hills. The first episode opens with the narrator saying, “How could a bunch of Hillbillies possibly buy a mansion like this?”  Rather than conforming to their new lifestyle, the ‘Hillbillies’ retain their southern ways. Thus, comedy is found in the high-society situations they innocently place their southern low-society background in.

Today, we might not find these specific pokes at social rifts particularly funny. It’s not targeted towards us and it would be hard for us to relate to, considering we are so detached from the lifestyle of the 1920’s and 1960’s. For a more relatable joke, the split between these social classes might be pointed out through the portrayal of races that are tried for a stereotyped attribute of poverty. However, such a stereotypical joke, in today’s society, would be rightfully frowned upon due to its lack of sensitivity. Put in the hands of the right comedian, however, and such jokes may be received extremely well. It really depends on the situation and how well its played. Hence, why I said humor is a hard subject to touch upon. Its changed so much throughout the decades as the target audience slowly expands in diversity.

Manifesto Post - Don't be Cool

          It was hard to think of a way to not be cool on this blog. Everything is based on television, and most of the posts don’t necessarily deal with my own life in a way that’s “cool” or “ not cool”. The only thing I can really delve into that would be considered not cool is anime. Anime is a Japanese-styled cartoon with a vast array of fictitious story lines that can ensnare pretty much anyone. The weird thing is that even though it has the opportunity for such a wide fan base, it’s extensively considered “uncool” to watch anime in America.

There are many reasons why people might consider it uncool. To start, the female characters are typically portrayed to have breasts that exceed the sizes of their heads. Drawing in this style isn’t part of the Japanese culture. In fact, there are plenty of characters who do not have extremely disproportionate breasts. Yet anime shows are stereotyped to include females with such a body ratio. Why would this be “uncool”? I would assume such a blatant design is meant to attract viewers rather than repel them. Maybe many people see it as the only reason for others to watch anime. Perhaps it’s just disgusting to look at for some people. It’s possibly even due to the fact that breasts in general are a mature concept, yet it’s enacted in quite an immature way.

To couple this notion, many anime shows are built upon childish themes, yet are backed by rather mature implementations. For example, take the anime, “Naruto”.  Naruto employs the idea of ninjas with abilities to summon inner their energy to accomplish pretty much anything. In other words, magic ninjas. It sounds pretty childish to me, and I watch the show. Yet it is backed by deep messages of sacrifice, acceptance, war, peace, and betrayal. Blood shed is not foreign to the show, and sexual undertones can be found hidden in many exchanges. Yet to many, it is seen as a silly show not even worth a second to glance at.

Why is it that the mere thought of what’s cool and isn’t can immediately turn a person away from something they haven’t even tried? I believe the reason is pressure. The pressure to be accepted in some type of way can be felt by any aged person. Like so many other human habits in life, maybe it can be traced as an evolutionary trait. Without fitting into a tribe or herd when humans first scoured the earth, a person would’ve been left behind so survive on his own.  These differences would’ve been a more physical aspect, such as a broken leg. It happens in every animal, if you can’t keep up, you can’t survive. Perhaps, on the other hand, the pressure to fit in is more of a mental state of compassion and mutual understanding. As humans, we each understand basic human concepts and tendencies. Perhaps this mutual understanding draws us to wish to learn more and from each other, and thus pressures are born within a society.

Regardless of its popularity, anime happens to be one of my favorite types of shows to watch. Although they have a set motif and genre, they usually include a variety of comedy, drama, action, horror, and mystery throughout a show’s runtime. In fact, they can cover almost all of these genres in the span of a single episode. This encompassing characteristic, along with its fantasy woven story lines, entrance viewers, like myself, worldwide.

Killing Characters

         This is just my own opinion that I feel needed to be addressed, but why do the writers of shows have to kill off main characters? You know the feeling regardless of what type of media you are into. Let me set the stage. You’re invested in a show, movie, or book for that matter. You've somehow become attached to a main character. He has resolve, he’s good looking, and he’s a man’s hero. Or perhaps she's outgoing, beautiful, calm and adjusted. You've officially decided that you want to model the rest of your life around this character, until you're done with that book/movie/show, of course. Just when you decide, “it’s okay to assume this character will make it to the end of this show/movie/book,” he gets about a million arrows shot through him before he utters his last breath.

          This is NOT okay. Specifically in any show, because this blogs about television. More specifically, in shows that kill off main characters like it’s nobody’s business. I’m talking about you, “The Walking Dead” and “The Game of Thrones.” I get the fact that writers want to make their story line dramatic, but does that mean they have to literally kill off the whole plot line they've just spent the past sixty minutes of my life developing.

Isn't that extremely counter-productive, though? I don’t spend hours painting a picture in which a newly-wed couple discovers their pregnancy, excited for their new life together, then set the canvas on fire! You've pretty much just destroyed everything you've been working so hard on. Why would you excite me with the idea of the couple visiting their child’s oblivious grandmother, to excite her with the news, and then as the care-free couple happily trudge along their quest, have the wife stabbed in the womb? I’ll repeat that, STABBED IN THE WOMB. That's just brutal. This turned out to be a lot more specific than it needed to be, but the point remains.

The worst part of all of this is that I keep coming back to the shows. It’s like that terrible relationship you have. You know, the one that no matter how many times you break up, it just doesn't seem to actually end. You've been with this person for so long, you were happy with them at one point, and you hold onto those memories. However, something changed along the line (maybe he became a psychopath who kills off everyone you care about) and you got into a big argument. But he’s kept calling you back to him. He seems changed with each new call. He acts like he used to be when you first started up your relationship, like he’s learned his lesson. There’s something about his voice that says “I won’t kill everyone you care about, I promise.”  So you take him back. THEN HE GOES AND KILLS EVERY NEW PERSON YOU STARTED CARING ABOUT. I guess there’s something about killing off these characters that draws the viewers in.

 If you’re going to kill a main character, at least let it be a villain. If you just HAVE to kill off a good guy, at least let it be at the end of the show, so we have sentimental feelings for that character that stay with us.“Breaking Bad” got it right; they only killed off villains while the show was running. That was a pretty successful show, too. I swear if Daryl Dixon, Jon Snow, or Jaime Lannister gets killed off, I’m done with television.

Sanity

It's always hard to hear about someone who is clinically insane who happened to hurt others in their state. I'm sure we all thought Casey Anthony had a few screws loose when she was a hot topic. I wont even talk about James Eagan Holmes during the Batman shooting. The morality of what these people may or may not have done is standard in the eyes of society: it's immoral to kill. However, we never really stop to think past that. I've only recently realized that during the times of their misdeeds, these people may have thought they were doing the right thing. That what they were doing was, indeed, moral. If they believed their actions were more, does that make them insane? What really defines insanity? Where and how easily is the line between sane and insane crossed ? Their reality, their thought process, during these times is something we can never fully understand.

                In the show, The Walking Dead, sanity is addressed pretty heavily.  The show opens with the main character and leader of the main group, Rick Grimes in the hospital during the beginning of the apocalypse, left there by his best friend at the time, Shane. While Rick is in a coma, Shane sleeps with Rick’s wife, Lori, and instills his own standards on Rick's son, effectively taking Rick's place in the family. By the time Rick returns, Shane's become quite comfortable with his situation, inflaming a constant struggle for leadership and for Lori’s affection. Rick is eventually forced to kill Shane, and Lori eventually has a baby and dies while giving labor- we just don’t know whose baby it is.  

                Regardless, when Lori dies, Rick seems to die too. Immediately, he hears the phone ring and speaks to all the characters who have previously died on the show. Just to emphasis this - he speaks to dead characters. Not in a zombie-like way, which would be completely understandable for the show. He talks to humanized versions of the dead characters. He hasn't traveled back in time, and its certainly not the twilight zone, he's just a little crazy. They tall him that they are in a safe-haven and that he should join them. Is this his way of coping with the idea of killing himself? He then constantly searches for random hallucinations of his lost love. Is he trying to find Lori? Is he trying to find his sanity? Is he just trying to find himself? Such a mental reaction wouldn't be considered uncommon in such a dystopia. In fact, its happened to other characters on the show as well. Shane has a similar loss of clarity when he is cast aside by Rick's family. 

                Rick’s sanity seems to be bought on by regret. Regret that he didn't say “I love you” to his wife before she died. Regret that he had to kill his best friend and couldn't save his wife. It's hard to say specifically what Rick was thinking, or why he actually went insane. This brings up a great question though, what causes insanity in general?

                I'm no psychiatrist, and even if I was I wouldn't be qualified to answer such a question. In actuality, sanity is just something we made up. It's a concept that more or less coincides with normality. It's a term defined by society to explain how a person views reality. If a person is sane, their reality is the same as everyone else's, and is thus considered reality for that purpose. However, reality, like beauty and sanity, is manipulated by the eyes of those who view it. Insanity IS reality for a clinically insane person. That reality is how an insane person copes with whatever harsh hits life has thrown at him. We're working with very abstract concepts here, so stay with me.

               The show seems to point towards an answer to this question of a cause. “A loss of something.” No, I don't mean a loss of sanity, that's too obvious. In the show, Rick loses his wife and, thus, loses touch with reality for his longing. Meanwhile, Shane lost what he considered to be a relationship with Lori. Although, I don't think that this completely drove him over the edge. He also lost his position in the group as the leader to Rick, which is what really seems to irk him. Together, Rick and Shane have lost their old lives as friends and partners. These are components that made up each individuals life and happiness. The loss of something so real to you, something that you hold so dear, your definition of your own life, is what causes insanity.

                  Just to further abstract the idea of insanity, there is no specified set of actions or predictable behavior that point out insanity. Insanity manifests itself in many different ways, both in and out of the show. Both Rick and Shane seem to react differently to losing their minds. Rick has hallucinations, while Shane dreams of vicious actions, plans to make the group dynamic implode and turns into an overall murderer (mind you, he was a police officer before the apocalypse, so he has a good sense of right and wrong). Rick seems images of Lori, the thing that would make him happy. Shane projects his happiness as being the leader and being with Lori. He loses his mind to achieve this happiness. Is reality and sanity just our own individual projections of happiness?

What may seem to refute this notion is that Rick comes back to sanity. However, maybe it’s because his idea of happiness has shifted to his son’s and daughter’s survival. It’s hard to prove or refute this idea because sanity is such an unknown and hard to understand topic. One would need to become clinically insane and actually return to sanity in order to truly understand what is going on. However, the idea of sanity within the show is something that has been bought up multiple times. I highly doubt this is the last we've seen of this topic.

Social Constructs in The Walking Dead

The Walking Dead happens to have a lot of hidden messages in it. You would think that a show with zombies would pretty much be about death, gore, and violence. Well it is. But there is a lot more to it. For example there are many political issues addressed on the show. The different types of governing tactics used by the miniscule communities that formed through a mutual bond of depression and oppression are vast.

                The first form of government is a very small established community and is therefore formed as a Democracy. This all goes quite swimmingly for a while, actually. They all get a say in what to do, there aren’t many problems amongst the group, and the leader only calls what to vote on. There are too many holes in this government, as when one person never gets his way, he takes matters into his own hands. He tries to kill the person who everyone has been following and believing in. To me, this sounds like a stab at our two-house democracy, where if one political party doesn’t get their way, they decide to protest the government itself. Is democracy flawed by the selfish nature of many humans?

                In the totalitarian government, as seen in Woodbury, “the governor”, as he calls himself, controls everyone’s thoughts, feelings, and emotions in order to do what he wants. If anyone in the establishment steps out of his self-defined line, he has no problem torturing them. When he wishes to assault Rick and his establishment, he lies and manipulates his town in order to get them to attack with him. Obviously this type of establishment has many downfalls. For example, each person has their own train of thought and curiosity for the truth. When the people start asking questions, he just kills a bunch of them off and runs away. Furthermore, can I just quickly address the inhumane treatment of… well, humans? The fact that the people are tortured or killed for their individual thought, simply for the government’s own desires, is just sickening.

                The most recent form of government displayed in the walking dead seems to have more of a socialist theory behind it. Everyone has been taking refuge in the prison. It seems work, food, and properties are distributed evenly throughout the community. This way old people, like one of the main characters, Herschel, can receive food and sustenance too. Although none of this is explicitly stated, this seems to be the general idea of the new community. Meanwhile Rick definitely has some control over the group as a whole. He establishes himself as the leader of their group and kicks people out if they horribly step out of line. Now I’m not saying this is the perfect government, but it seems to have the least amount of problems thus far.

The Walking Dead

“The Walking Dead” has become somewhat of an icon for zombies in America, and even all over the globe. The show is an AMC original depicting a post-apocalyptic world taken over by zombies. Like most zombies are depicted, the zombies portrayed in this series are members of the living dead. However the show gives a scientific spin on it, chalking the reanimation up to an infection that reactivates the brain stem, which controls simple functions such as breathing and eating. In other words, the zombies are humans without the human part. They are reanimated bodies turned animal.

            The reason I bring this up is to brag about how good the shows I watch are. No, I’m kidding, I just want to open you to all the different shows out there. It’s probably my favorite show on television. Each episode is filled with both short term and long term drama that constantly keeps you on the edge of your seat. After not watching the show for the first three seasons, I had decided that I was going to start watching it. This quickly turned into a poor decision, because I began watching it during finals of last semester. As a warning, if you begin to watch this show, do not begin to watch it during exam periods. Consider yourself warned.

            If you don’t want to take my opinion for how good “The Walking Dead” is, why not just see how it has affected popular culture today. The season opened with an approximate total of 16.1 million viewers. If you’re not familiar with television show views, that is indeed a lot of views. For comparison, the finale of “Breaking Bad” had a good 5 million less viewers. The finale of a show is probably the most exciting occurrence for a fan of that show. It will be an episode watched over and over, but will never have the same effect as it did on the first view. I’m not sure if I’m conveying just how important the finale of a television show can be to its viewers. The internet community for that show will go off like a nuclear bomb as soon as that first note in the opening song is played through each individual’s television speakers. However, the season opening of “The Walking Dead” – something nowhere near the effect of a show’s finale – had about 5 million more viewers than the finale of “Breaking Bad”. That’s about the population of Manhattan, four times over.

            In China, “The Walking Dead” is currently the most popular western culture show being played. It currently has more than 250. Allow me to explain how controversial that is for China. With very strict government, television and movie censorship, China gives a hard time towards releasing many highly approved Western television shows or movies. That being said, recently an American film was banned in China. I’m not sure if you heard of it, it’s called “World War Z.” “NO?! WHAT?! WHAT THE HELL, WHY?!” Hold on, I’m getting to that. Many shows and movies in China are banned for violence in general. The censors want to make sure no one gets hurt from the ideas of violent media. Well, World War Z happens to have the undead in it, and that’s considered too violent. Now I’m not sure if you can guess what “The Walking Dead” is about, but I can tell you it’s not about bunnies. The show is so popular that it hasn’t been banned when similar pieces of media have.

            This isn’t just a teenage phenomenon either. Some businesses have racked in the marketing ploys involving zombies after the release of “The Walking Dead”. This doesn’t mean much alone, so I’ll elaborate. An example of this would be the CDC (Center for Disease Control). After the release of the walking dead, the CDC’s blog released a post about zombie survival. What to do if there’s a zombie outbreak. Okay, so maybe zombies aren’t all hype. Maybe they’re possibly real. The CDC has contingency plans for viruses we haven’t been introduced to yet so they can prevent outbreak. Maybe they have a “zombie virus” there and want the word to get out. Well not exactly, the post is driven more towards natural disasters, stating that if you’re ready for a zombie apocalypse you’re prepared for any disaster. It constantly nods towards other natural disasters in its post to show their being facetious about zombies. However, the amount of publicity this post received is ridiculous. This 80 dollar marketing scheme was estimated to be an estimated worth of 3.4 million dollars. It reached an estimated 3.6 billion people, and crashed their blog site when it was first posted. While it makes references to “The Walking Dead” and appeals to zombie culture, the CDC had attained a great marketing value for such a simple idea because of it.