Red Mosquito

zeb wrote:

CopperTom wrote:The Walkind Dead deserves to be mentioned even if it isn't liked at RM. It's by far the best produced show on TV.

I'm not sure that I agree with that.

They don't use sets, they use towns. Wait until the second half of next season. Alexandria has already made national news.

CopperTom wrote: They don't use sets, they use towns.

lol @ this being any measure of quality

I mean, have you SEEN Waterworld?

Arrow probably deserves a mention. The first half of season 1 was poor, but it keeps on getting better. There will be 4 superhero shows next year, we'll see how many survive.

theplatypus wrote:

CopperTom wrote: They don't use sets, they use towns.

lol @ this being any measure of quality

Enlighten us on production, Mr. Knowitall.

CopperTom wrote:

theplatypus wrote:

CopperTom wrote: They don't use sets, they use towns.

lol @ this being any measure of quality

Enlighten us on production, Mr. Knowitall.

I've never even seen Walking Dead, so I'm neither defending nor trashing it. I just think to offer the argument "they don't use sets, they use towns" as evidence of a show being "by far the best-produced show on TV" is kinda dumb.

Furthermore, I think using production scope & logistic complexity as an overall measure of a TV show's quality is weird. There are plenty of grand productions with lush & meticulously tuned setpieces that turn out absolute garbage.

theplatypus wrote:Furthermore, I think using production scope & logistic complexity as an overall measure of a TV show's quality is weird. There are plenty of grand productions with lush & meticulously tuned setpieces that turn out absolute garbage.

Isn't that basically what you just said about the walking dead?

Strat wrote:

theplatypus wrote:Furthermore, I think using production scope & logistic complexity as an overall measure of a TV show's quality is weird. There are plenty of grand productions with lush & meticulously tuned setpieces that turn out absolute garbage.

Isn't that basically what you just said about the walking dead?

No, not at all.

I said that in terms of production, bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, and that good production is just one part of what can make a show great anyway.

It's a terrible show... irregardless...

the irregardless/regardless enigma continues to be a nuisance to the English language.

They are making an Evil Dead TV series with Bruce Campbell as Ash the golden age continues....lock er up.

I have a (what seems) fairly typical love/hate view on The Walking Dead. I keep watching but it rarely gives me what I want.

To take the position that TWD features better production values than something like Game of Thrones or True Detective seems a bit screwy though, CopperTom.

Plat is right in saying that production is only one aspect of what makes great television, too.

CopperTom wrote:Arrow probably deserves a mention. The first half of season 1 was poor, but it keeps on getting better. There will be 4 superhero shows next year, we'll see how many survive.

Yeah Arrow is good

Love arrow

I have this drunk history show on now and it's great

Season 2 of Arrow with Deathstroke was quite good for CW standards.

I'm not saying Walking Dead is great because of the production. I'm saying it's great and it has great production. Compare The Walking Dead's production to other post apocolyptic shows such as Revolution or Falling Skies and there is no comparison. Factor in Bear McCreary too. Even the WD RM hate squad has to give the show credit here.

zeb wrote: To take the position that TWD features better production values than something like Game of Thrones or True Detective seems a bit screwy though, CopperTom.

Game of Thrones per episode budget is 6 million. That's not a fair comparison. I haven't seen True Detective. Isn't it a cop show.

lowlight79 wrote:Season 2 of Arrow with Deathstroke was quite good for CW standards.

The second I heard deathstroke was on is what got me to start watching

Arrow is a fun show.