TV Talk: Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead

I don't usually cover television here at the Blogorium. From time to time, particularly over the summer, I toyed with the idea, but in the end I always seem to focus on cinema instead. This is not to say I don't watch TV - I still dabble with episodic series, although my faith in the medium dropped off sharply after the final episode of Lost. Trusted friends have been nudging me in the direction of Justified, Mad Men, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, Breaking Bad, and The Walking Dead in varying degrees, and I feel caught up enough on the final two to weigh in on what will indubitably be a rare excursion into TV Talk.

(Warning: There will be spoilers ahead)

Let's start with AMC's Breaking Bad, of which the first two seasons are available on DVD and Blu-Ray (and how I saw seasons two, and one, respectively). While I am a fan of the mis-adventures of Walter White (aka "Heisenberg") (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), and the inversion of Weeds' "suburbanite has life changing event that leads them to make / sell drugs" plot, I haven't fallen in love with the show as others seem to.

I appreciate the use of science as more than just the "hook" to bring Walter into the world of cooking crystal meth, and the plot twists and turns surrounding the supporting characters - in particular, Hank Schrader (Dean Norris) - keep the show interesting, the series suffers from a repetitive pattern: Walter and Jesse bake some crystal meth, they meet a variation on psycho dealer/competitor/kingpin, said psychopath dies, Jesse and Walter argue, separate for three or four episodes, then something happens that draws one or the other back in and they reluctantly decide to work together. Rinse, repeat.

That is, for better for worse, the first two seasons. Any secondary character introduced is almost certainly doomed to die or go to jail (Jesse's cohorts, Krysten Ritter's Jane Margolis, Tuco, Krazy 8, Danny Trejo's Tortuga), and with the exception of Saul Goodman (Bob Odenkirk) - who I've been assured lives through season Three - there's barely any point investing in new characters introduced on Breaking Bad. There is a great deal to enjoy in the writing of the show, and the execution is often striking, but I'm slightly hesitant about jumping into the third season - if and when it arrives on DVD / Blu-Ray - unless Breaking Bad achieves some sense of heretofore nonexistent stability.

---

I noticed that much of the enthusiasm for AMC's new series The Walking Dead waned halfway through the first season's six episode run, with a number of people who had expressed interest opting to sit out the series for the time being. For an ongoing series about a post-zombie-apocalyptic show to drop off that many hardcore horror fans seemed a bit disheartening. To be honest, I neglected to watch The Walking Dead as it aired, although for differing reasons than a lack of interest. Two years ago (or so), I sat down and read the first four volumes of Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore, and Charlie Adlard's ongoing series of the same name, and as a result, I worried I might be too far ahead of the show. When interviews with the show's creator / executive producer Frank Darabont (who also wrote several episodes and directed the pilot) indicated that Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) and company wouldn't reach the prison until the end of season Two, I decided to record, but not watch, season One while it aired.

Earlier this month, I sat down and (no pun intended) devoured the first few episodes, followed by the final two the next day, and I was pleasantly surprised. I understand why people are a little disappointed - The Walking Dead is, in comic form, a story of the effect of post-zombie infestation told in small doses over a long period of time, during which things happen slowly, and deliberately so. One might describe the issues as mundane, fixated on human drama with the periodic zombie attack. So far, the show has upped the zombie quotient a bit more (the Atlanta stuff is pretty close, actually), but the pace isn't radically different.

Accordingly, I can see why people are getting a little bored by all the interpersonal bickering, love triangles, and lack of gut munching. That said, the series managed to distinguish characters a bit more (one of the problems I had in the second and third volumes was telling who was who apart), and there have been a few curveballs introduced to keep fans of the comic interested in this adaptation - the CDC episodes that close out season one, including Noah Emmerich's Dr. Edwin Jenner, are nowhere to be found in the first few volumes, and I'm almost positive the episode "Vatos" isn't based on anything in the first six issues, nor are T-Dog and the Dixon brothers.

For audiences with waning interest, may I suggest you stick around for season two - without spoiling too much, and even in the event of further deviations from source material, I can say with certainty that The Walking Dead does have a number of things going for it. For one, nearly every major cast member is expendable, in a way that few other series have even considered to this point. New characters frequently enter the narrative, although The Walking Dead differs from Breaking Bad in that it is often difficult to surmise which ones will be around and which ones won't. The "walker" attack on the quarry shelter was an indicator of this, but if the show is in any way faithful to the comic, there's more mayhem and unpredictability to come if the series continues.


That does it for the inaugural edition of TV Talk. Tomorrow I'll be back with another edition of Retro Reviews, where the Cap'n is going to address a fallacy involving unnecessary sequels from 2010...