# The Arch is Broken: Why the Walking Dead fails (for me)



## Man From Mars (Mar 7, 2013)

So we all know what an arch is; it’s a set of stones stacked in such a way so that weight is transferred down into the structure. To remove one stone from an arch causes the whole thing to collapse because all the stones rely on the support of all the others. The stronger each stone is and the greater precision in stacking them together means a stronger arch.

                Building a story is a lot like building an arch. Each facet of storytelling – the characters, the plot, the scenes, dialogue, etc – is a stone is precisely placed and fine-tuned so that the story as a whole can stay together. When each facet successful, all the aspects of storytelling come together to form the illusion, the dream of the story, also known as the willful suspension of disbelief. The more successful the story’s parts, the easier to is to get lost in that dream.

                Arches can still stand even if some of their stones aren’t perfect, and similarly works of art can still be successful even if some aspects aren’t perfect. Maybe you overlook the bad acting in a scene of your favorite movie because everything else works. We allow ourselves to forgive the minor mistakes in books as long as they don’t add up to something greater. A single missed note doesn’t completely ruin a musical performance, as long as everything else works correctly. That is because even though one stone may be cracked, both in the sense of a story and in a real arch, it still functions to a degree and can still support everything else.

                However, if one part of the story utterly fails, if a stone is completely removed, then so does the rest of the story/arch. If a book has too many typos it is put down, no matter how well the plot or the characters are designed. If a romantic movie has characters that have absolutely no chemistry and if their interactions are that of emotionless robots, then the movie fails no matter how good the writing, scene composition, soundtrack or original premise. It doesn’t matter how good the singer’s voice is, or how in tune the instruments sound, or how well it is recorded if the drummer is off-beat. That is because the success of any story/arch can be shattered by the one completely broken stone.

                So for me, the arch that is the Walking Dead has fallen.

                Go to Netflix (I know you have it), go to the last episode of season 2, and simply watch the gunplay. A character riding passenger in a moving SUV, from a long distance, using a shotgun, is able to achieve 100% accuracy, 100% lethality. There are no misses, no grazed shots, no partial hits. Continue watching the episode and try to count how many times someone misses, or when a zombie gets shot and returns to their feet. It doesn’t happen. Characters drive by zombies, making headshots as they go, one shot, one kill. This rises to an apex at around the 11 minute mark when the character Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) jumps down from a Winnebago, and in under 2 seconds, kills 5 zombies, with all headshots, no misses, and taking no time to aim.

                You could say that he’s a really good shot, and I could tell you that you’ve never handled a gun before. But that is beyond the point. This isn’t about trying to justify how it could work or talking about probability. The point is that from a storytelling standpoint it makes the arch crumble.

                Having almost 100% accuracy and 100% lethality is not realistic, even for a fictional universe that has zombies in it. Your suspension of disbelief expects zombies in such a story because it’s a work of fiction. However your suspension of disbelief does NOT expect what are supposed to be regular, average humans to have superhuman reflexes and precision. The former is consistent with the universe in which the story takes place. The latter is not.

                And so a stone is broken, and the arch falls.

                But that isn’t the only stone.

                At a deeper level, killing zombies in such a clean and efficient manner destroys any suspense or fear that comes from the zombies themselves.

                Imagine yourself in a locked room with a zombie. You have no weapons except your hands and feet. Problem is, even if you kill the zombie you could still die by getting bitten in the fight. Heck, let’s say that one scratch from its bloody hands is enough. Imagining that scenario evokes strong feelings of fear and tension because the likelihood of dying is high and the force opposing you is relatively deadly. Any audience watching that scenario will be drawn in because the stakes and the danger are high. They are going to stare transfixed on your struggle because they want to know how you’re going to get out of there alive. Heck, you’d probably want to know that too, wouldn’t you? That’s called intrigue.

                Now imagine yourself locked in a room with the same zombie, only now that zombie has an explosive collar around its neck and you have the remote. At any time you push the button and kill it in an instant. Now ask yourself: how strong is the force against you? How likely are you to die? Where’s the tension/suspense/intrigue? Answers (in order) are: not strong at all, unlikely, and there is none.

                In the former, the opposing force poses a significant threat, and that threat draws audiences into the story. In the latter, killing the zombie takes almost no effort. There’s no challenge. There’s nothing significant to fight against.

                So what’s the difference between killing zombies with a remote-controlled explosive collars and 100% accurate, 100% lethal headshots? There is none.

               The characters in the Walking Dead, with their absolute precision, might as well be blowing the zombies up with explosive collars, psychic powers, or magic spells. Killing a zombie in that world takes about as much effort as pushing a button, and pushing buttons isn’t intense. It isn’t scary. It’s boring.

                What would’ve been truly scary, and thus interesting, would’ve been that, despite all their guns and ammo, the survivors were too tired, too scared, and too human to kill a single zombie. Yes, you read that correctly. I’m saying the season 2 finale would have been better if no zombies died.

                Imagine Rick jumping down from the Winnebago and being surrounded by five zombies. He picks one, fires, misses, fires again, misses again. Camera closes in on his terrified, sweating face. Fires, misses, fires, misses, fires, hits – but not on the head. Fires last bullet, gets the head, zombie falls, then proceeds to get up again. Rick merely grazed the head. Now his revolver is out of bullets and he has five zombies close to surrounding him. Now what does he do? If you’re asking the question then it means I’ve got you interested.

                (As an aside, everything I’ve just said is realistically possible because when humans are scared and high on adrenaline, they lose fine motor control. He wouldn’t have been able to keep the gun steady.)

                Reimagine the season finale with shotgun blasts knocking zombies to the ground, but not stopping them. Imagine people actually missing like normal people would. For every ten shots they fire they take out, at best, two zombies. Now imagine a whole horde of zombies coming. They’re not fighting back the horde to defend their territory. They’re fighting back the horde so they have just enough time to escape. Scary, right? Intense, right? Are you now immersed in the world? I would be, if that’s what the show had in it, but it doesn’t. Instead, what we get are zombies “surprising” people who don’t bother to turn around. I rank Sean of the Dead as scarier than this.

                Making the characters weak, i.e. actually human with physical limitations, makes the zombies more formidable, which creates a story with suspense and intrigue. You would see the characters as people just like you, rather than superheroes doing stuff that would be unrealistic even by videogame standards, which is not only boring, but it is inconsistent with the whole zombie apocalypse scenario. Zombies are not infected whack-a-moles, and they were never meant to be put down efficiently.

                The problem of making the characters rapid-fire, inhuman, headshot-machines might be just an oversight of production, or the limitations of TV runtime, but that little problem has far reaching consequences, since one misplaced stone can bring down an arch. In my view, the Walking Dead commits the cardinal sin of fiction and that is by being boring. It removes the survival aspect of surviving the zombie apocalypse. Personally, I don’t think the Walking Dead couldn’t make the zombies any _less_ threatening. They’re slow, they’re weak, they’re easily killed, and that’s a problem. I mean, seasons 3’s main antagonists aren’t even the zombies anymore; they’re other humans.

                I remember laughing in season 3 when the Governor and his troops attacked the prison by first sending a truck full of zombies crashing through the gates (if you've seen the show you know what I'm talking about). Given how easily zombies are killed, that decision had to be the most tactically unproductive thing I’ve ever seen. Filling the truck with poisonous snakes would have been far more dangerous. And why is it that everyone has ultra-accurate zombie slaying abilities but can’t seem to do any better than a storm trooper when they’re trying to kill humans? If those questions pop up then it means the dream has shattered, the arch has crumbled.

                I understand that the Walking Dead has good parts– stones that still function properly, maybe even expertly – but one essential element is lacking. The Walking Dead is like a romantic movie without chemistry, because the chemistry of zombies – the tension, the suspense, the danger of a survival scenario – simply isn’t there.


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 27, 2013)

Excellent point, I fear the writers chose to demonstrate the opposite, that even WITH perfect aim, the zombie horde could not be defeated.  I agree that it would have been much more realistic if they occasionally missed, and your scene with five zombies and the primary character being unable to kill even one is much more scary. You should become a writer for the show


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 27, 2013)

One assumes these proffessional writers are not fools, the question then arises why did they write it like that? What criteria were being met, and who posed them?


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 27, 2013)

My guess would be that the head writer and/or director wanted to promote the whole impossible zombie scenario regardless of skill. Specifically, if the heros had been a worse shot, they might have worried that the viewer would be more dismissive of the scenario, but by showing even a group of unrealistic ally good shots must flee, they highlight just how overwhelming the zombie horde is. Just my guess. I prefer your realistic version...


----------



## Kevin (Mar 27, 2013)

How about the _28 days later_ version?  They were much more frightening.

The 'headstomping' is very unrealistic. Also some of the beheadings. Too easy. I see  a lot of fighting action that is ..unreasonable in many film works.


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 27, 2013)

Indeed, those were like über-zombies. Anyone could change from a single drop of blood to the eye into a screaming hate-filled killing machine in seconds, little to no warning, including your closest friends and family, and then they would literally sprint as fast as they could until they caught you, then fight as hard as they could until they killed you.  I'm not sure you could make a more frightening existential threat. Although, perhaps a smart version could be even more scary.  They have the same hate filled killing urges, but hide it and pretend to be normal until the situation is in their favor... on second thoughts that is probably not as scary because any degree of intelligence suggests that these creatures could, theoretically be reasoned with... although the hidden homicidal threat angle... I don't know. I'm on the fence!


----------



## Kevin (Mar 27, 2013)

Peter Dyr said:


> Indeed, those were like über-zombies. Anyone could change from a single drop of blood to the eye into a screaming hate-filled killing machine in seconds, little to no warning, including your closest friends and family, and then they would literally sprint as fast as they could until they caught you, then fight as hard as they could until they killed you.  I'm not sure you could make a more frightening existential threat. Although, perhaps a smart version could be even more scary.  They have the same hate filled killing urges, but hide it and pretend to be normal until the situation is in their favor... on second thoughts that is probably not as scary because any degree of intelligence suggests that these creatures could, theoretically be reasoned with... although the hidden homicidal threat angle... I don't know. I'm on the fence!


 You would be crossing over into 'vampire' I think, with the intelligence factor.  The WD zombies are more primitive. They bite but they don't fight well. A shovel swung at their head and they don't try to block it or get out of the way. With enough open area (like the prison lawns) you could clear a whole field of them with a skull cracker. If Michonne cut their achillies could they still walk? There's some cool stuff that could be portrayed. And that whole 'can't see you if roll in their juice' thing. It would make sleeping out in the wild more possible.


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 28, 2013)

I actually really like certain elements of slow zombies, as portrayed in The Walking Dead. There is a greater emphasis on longer term survivalism. Ok, you can outrun the slow moving horde, but for how long? They don't get tired, they don't stop, and the world is full of them. Where do you go? How do you survive? It is these types of questions that fascinate me. 

Fast or slow, I guess I am just a sucker for post-apocalyptic zombie infestations!


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 28, 2013)

Good write-up. I agree.

When it comes to engrossing fiction, I firmly believe that the antagonistic forces should be stronger than the hero. And the more lopsided and unfair it is against the hero, the better.

If the zombies are easy to kill, the story becomes boring and the viewer should look for something else more enthralling.

I don't know anything about the show, but I'm willing to bet, if the series has gone downhill, it means some of the original writers have gone on to bigger and greener pastures, and the show is now making due with newer, more inexperienced writers (I guess that because I've seen that happen to a lot of shows.)


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 28, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Good write-up. I agree.
> 
> When it comes to engrossing fiction, I firmly believe that the antagonistic forces should be stronger than the hero. And the more lopsided and unfair it is against the hero, the better.
> 
> ...



Yes, you are probably right that writers may have changed. Although I have noticed a drop-off in quality across so many shows that I think the problem may be correlated to a deeper issue, namely, that these shows are usually created and recorded based on a specific idea that is established and largely resolved in season 1.  The writers are then required to create new ideas for following seasons and these may not always be up to the same quality as those that made the initial season great. However, if those subpar ideas had been proposed for season 1, the season would never have been green lit, or would have died after the pilot.  The second season is pre commissioned, regardless of the quality of the ideas, and as the seasons continue, the writers must squeeze more and more varied ideas to keep the series going.  Rarely will a TV series improve as the seasons progress.


----------



## DPVP (Mar 28, 2013)

hear is what i know from the comics. most of the time the Zombies are not the real story, its the people, its surviving that first winter and finding food. personally the zombies felt like a side issue


----------



## Peter Dyr (Mar 28, 2013)

Yes, I agree, the story is always about the people and how they interact and survive. The zombies are the backdrop to the situation these people find themselves in.  However, the type of zombie, with the main two types being slow or fast, determine the type of survival story it is going to be.


----------



## ToddM. (Mar 28, 2013)

I found it just as disappointing. I watched the first few minutes hoping for an exciting zombie thriller and was disappointed by a soap opera like Peter Dyr said with a zombie backdrop.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 28, 2013)

soap opera? True, but when did Susan Lucci ever take a bite out of someone?  Oh there's action, otherwise it would be _Dark Shadows. _


----------



## moderan (Mar 28, 2013)

I tried to watch it. I wanted to like it. I went to sleep. Therefore I recommend it as a soporific, as I'm a chronic insomniac. These are Romero zombies, not the traditional Clairvius Narcisse type. I prefer the latter. Damballah over dumbella.


----------

