How to Kill Kids In Media

[The Crispy Tiger]

WALKING DEAD SEASON 4 SPOILERS


So if you didn't watch last nights episode of The Walking Dead titled "The Grove". GTFO. NOW. Trust me, I'm going to spoil the shit out of it. You're still here? Well, no need to keep the others waiting, you've been warned.

If you didn't watch last nights episode, A little girl named Lizzie (who they've been implying has been going off the deep end) loses her shit and kills Mica (Her little sister) to prove that zombies are people and that Mica will remember her when she comes back reanimated. Let me remind you, these are 10 - 8 year old little girls...

Since Lizzie has now become a danger to the well being of Rick's child, Judith (That's a long story that we're not going to get into), Carol, and Tyreese, Carol and Tyreese make the decision to execute Lizzie, Of Mice and Men style. It's one of the most traumatizing episodes of The Walking Dead since Clear from last season.

But it did get me thinking, I could totally stand them killing these two kids, I was still crying like a little *****, but that's because there was character development, buildup, suspense,and a horror as to what's about to happen in front of you. Sometimes when kids die in films and television, it can come off as cheap and exploitative. That obviously wasn't the case, and I thought the whole thing was handled really well. But even with all of that said, it did dawn on me that people really won't be able to stomach this episode.

This applies to almost every medium. When children die, some people just can't take it, it's probably better off for them watching the exploitative child killing scenes then the ones that build up to it, because at least there aren't strings attached to it all. That's where you guys come in, do you think kids are allowed to die in media, can you personally handle it, if you (obviously) can, then why do you think you're able to push through it all and other's aren't. I would love to read what all of you have to say.

 

[Mithcha]

In a show like that, yeah everybody, kids, adults, dogs whatever has to be expendable. Though I must admit in that instance I'd have kept her alive, muzzled and on a lead, then when the Zombies come or some random raiding group, shout "Unleash the lunatic!" and watch the ensuing mayhem.

Really though, kids don't have a protective bubble that makes immortal in real life, they shouldn't in film or TV, or games for that matter. Not that they should be killed off left and right, it's still a piece of fictional entertainment but this...I dunno fear of killing them (or animals for that matter) needs to go.

 

[Someone Depressing]

I don't view child characters are children, I view them as people who just happen to not be allowed to drink, have sex, or drive. Because that's basically what they are.

Yet if an adult character did this to another adult, it's probably be pretty narm-tastic.

So, while I dislike the tv show, at the least it's got balls.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't watch the show but it's good to hear they're not compromising.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A show like Walking Dead can't be afraid to kill children. Or anyone. My problem with the first two seasons was so many characters were just red shirts. They were just there to be killed so it would feel like there was some risk. Remember the CDC episode in S1? Where the building is going to self destruct and the black woman stays behind? It was meant to be this big deal but I didn't even know her name. I'm not even sure she had any lines before that. Then the season 2 finale? A bunch of Hershel's family who, again, had maybe one or two lines apiece died, but nobody who had become important died. If they really want to show that anything can happen they need to kill Glen, Rick or Daryl.

There are a few people with protagonist armor, but realistically you're always going to see this in any major work of fiction. You can't constantly be tearing down your cast and rolling in new people, the audience will have no one to attach to. Even the notorious Song of Ice and Fire has had a fairly consistent roster of POV characters through 5 novels.

I thought The Grove was a fairly effective episode, largely on the strength of the performances from Melissa McBride and Chad Coleman, although Brighton Sharbino also deserves some props for playing Lizzie as psychologically "off" without being cliche about it. Like many of the Walking Dead's actors, her performance was...limited...but watchable, reasonably convincing and "not terrible". Which might seem like a low bar to clear, but it's one Chandler Riggs, Laurie Holden, Jeffrey DeMunn and others routinely had trouble with.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I can accept it rather well, mostly because what some consider shock value, I take as a level of realism. Bad Guys aren't going to have codes of honor about killing kids leaving the kid safe / free to thwart their evil plan. Kids aren't granted plot armor and these types of disaster shows are full of dead kids in schools or hospitals they just never show. Moreover kids can be bad people themselves. It's only shocking because it's been off limits for so long that we tend to forget it's a bit far fetched.

Walking Dead as a show has a problem that expedites the need for this kind of thing. The show isn't in real time, and kind of jumps around with things, but the actors still age, creating a problem where it takes 3 years to get out a story covering 6 months, and while this is no problem for adults, it can be hard to hide the effects of puberty in younger actors. Being around age 10 -12 on a show like this is in the same vein as being a redshirt on Star Trek. Unless you are very vital to the show, you will be killed, written out, or simply stop appearing once you start showing signs you won't look like a preteen for much longer.

The Grove did a nice job. Certainly better than when they did Sophia in season 2.

 

[God'sFist]

I don't watch the show because I couldn't stand the first season of it so I wrote it off. But hearing this it actually sounds like it got better. The reason I can watch kids die in the media is mostly because I don't like children in media, they are usually not very good at being kids if you know what I mean. Real children is a tragedy, fake children in media comedy in my book, because I find their deaths to be amusing. Don't take me the wrong way I do enjoy children when they are written correctly like in the walking dead games by tale tale games but in TV or other games kill em and let me laugh.

 

[Laughing Man]

Then the season 2 finale? A bunch of Hershel's family who, again, had maybe one or two lines apiece died, but nobody who had become important died.

That statement would have had a tiny bit of meaning if the episode right before that one hadn't just killed off not one but TWO of the main cast.

Picture of the main cast at the start of season 2

There are 11 people in that image two seasons later and 6 of them are dead, 3 of them were dead by the end of season 2. Their are not many shows that lose more than maybe 1 or 2 main cast members over the run of 7 or more seasons, The Walking Dead has had a fair enough run through of characters and while it does have a fair amount of canon fodder characters that's really the nature of TV shows or for that matter any media.

We like familiar faces, we like to be able to associate with people and their circumstances and you can't do that with a character roster that keeps rolling new main characters every couple of episodes. I am quite happy with the rate at which TWD has introduced and then gone on to kill off main characters.

As for the most recent episode, yeah liked it a lot. I would have liked to have seen how Carol would have coped with one child who didn't understand the danger or threat posed by the walkers and one who did but could only shoot if their was no other option but the scene of a bloodied Lizzie standing over the body of Mica, well it was a pretty strong scene, followed almost right off the bat by the equally powerful 'look at the flowers' scene.

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

Then the season 2 finale? A bunch of Hershel's family who, again, had maybe one or two lines apiece died, but nobody who had become important died.

That statement would have had a tiny bit of meaning if the episode right before that one hadn't just killed off not one but TWO of the main cast.

Picture of the main cast at the start of season 2

There are 11 people in that image two seasons later and 6 of them are dead, 3 of them were dead by the end of season 2. Their are not many shows that lose more than maybe 1 or 2 main cast members over the run of 7 or more seasons, The Walking Dead has had a fair enough run through of characters and while it does have a fair amount of canon fodder characters that's really the nature of TV shows or for that matter any media.

We like familiar faces, we like to be able to associate with people and their circumstances and you can't do that with a character roster that keeps rolling new main characters every couple of episodes. I am quite happy with the rate at which TWD has introduced and then gone on to kill off main characters.

As for the most recent episode, yeah liked it a lot. I would have liked to have seen how Carol would have coped with one child who didn't understand the danger or threat posed by the walkers and one who did but could only shoot if their was no other option but the scene of a bloodied Lizzie standing over the body of Mica, well it was a pretty strong scene, followed almost right off the bat by the equally powerful 'look at the flowers' scene.

I think her not talking about the zombies makes the scenes all the more shocking, because then you know that there was no way this was going to be averted. These little girls were screwed from the start. It makes it all the more tragic. Yeah, this was a great episode...

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

A show like Walking Dead can't be afraid to kill children. Or anyone. My problem with the first two seasons was so many characters were just red shirts. They were just there to be killed so it would feel like there was some risk. Remember the CDC episode in S1? Where the building is going to self destruct and the black woman stays behind? It was meant to be this big deal but I didn't even know her name. I'm not even sure she had any lines before that. Then the season 2 finale? A bunch of Hershel's family who, again, had maybe one or two lines apiece died, but nobody who had become important died. If they really want to show that anything can happen they need to kill Glen, Rick or Daryl.

To be fair, as far as I'm aware in the comics

Spoiler

Glen does die

and Daryl doesn't exist at all.

Spoiler

Rick has been faced with death plenty of times and even has his hand cut off by the Governor

and lets not forget

Spoiler

Lori, Judith, Shane, Hershel, Tyreese, Allen, Amy, Dale, man almost everyone except Rick and Carl from the beginning of the comics is dead with Michonne, Maggie, Andrea and Sophia still living too.

The Walking Dead is a blood bath!

 

[Jacco]

So if you didn't watch last nights episode of The Walking Dead titled "The Grove". GTFO. NOW. Trust me, I'm going to spoil the shit out of it. You're still here? Well, no need to keep the others waiting, you've been warned.

Well just the very title of the thread spoils it for anyone who's been following the show. lol might want to rethink that.

The Walking Dead is a blood bath!

I really hate this "new" way of writing where "no one is safe." It's lazy. Writers like G.R.R. Martin and Robert Kirkman do it simply for shock value. It's the literary equivalent of using jump scares to make an otherwise mundane movie scary (I'm looking at you, Paranormal Activity). They don't have the skills (Martin) or otherwise don't care to write well enough to keep it suspenseful (Kirkman) without the constant threat of killing off your favorite character for no reason. It's lazy writing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to killing off main characters. But you shouldn't just waste them for shock value. Andrea's death last season was good. She was "used" and her death meant something to the story. Dale's and Lori's and any number of others were simply wasted and meant nothing.

 

[Veldt Falsetto]

So if you didn't watch last nights episode of The Walking Dead titled "The Grove". GTFO. NOW. Trust me, I'm going to spoil the shit out of it. You're still here? Well, no need to keep the others waiting, you've been warned.

Well just the very title of the thread spoils it for anyone who's been following the show. lol might want to rethink that.

The Walking Dead is a blood bath!

I really hate this "new" way of writing where "no one is safe." It's lazy. Writers like G.R.R. Martin and Robert Kirkman do it simply for shock value. It's the literary equivalent of using jump scares to make an otherwise mundane movie scary (I'm looking at you, Paranormal Activity). They don't have the skills (Martin) or otherwise don't care to write well enough to keep it suspenseful (Kirkman) without the constant threat of killing off your favorite character for no reason. It's lazy writing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to killing off main characters. But you shouldn't just waste them for shock value. Andrea's death last season was good. She was "used" and her death meant something to the story. Dale's and Lori's and any number of others were simply wasted and meant nothing.

"no one is safe" is a great way to write BUT you are right in that you can't just kill off random characters for shock sake, well not all the time anyway, then it just turns into the dullest kind of entertainment.

It has to be written effectively with characters you care about, the big kill off of Hershel's family was ok because it made you care about Hershel more, but his own death is just a part of a big shock value scene and wasted.

 

[Jacco]

"no one is safe" is a great way to write BUT you are right in that you can't just kill off random characters for shock sake, well not all the time anyway, then it just turns into the dullest kind of entertainment.

It has to be written effectively with characters you care about, the big kill off of Hershel's family was ok because it made you care about Hershel more, but his own death is just a part of a big shock value scene and wasted.

Yeah, if you do it all the time like Martin does, it just loses its meaning.

Hershel, I think was used in a good way. There was no reason to do it like they did, that was pure shock value. But his character's death served the story so I was okay with it, if not happy about it.

 

[Vivi22]

And not the almost complete lack of zombie children? Like 99.99% of zombies are adults somehow.

There are rules regarding how long children can actually work on set. I'd imagine that time spent in makeup alone would blow through most of it. Not to mention that the number of children who can actually take direction well is pretty low.

 

[Silvanus]

I really hate this "new" way of writing where "no one is safe." It's lazy. Writers like G.R.R. Martin and Robert Kirkman do it simply for shock value. It's the literary equivalent of using jump scares to make an otherwise mundane movie scary (I'm looking at you, Paranormal Activity). They don't have the skills (Martin) or otherwise don't care to write well enough to keep it suspenseful (Kirkman) without the constant threat of killing off your favorite character for no reason. It's lazy writing.

Really? Every major death in ASOIAF has major fallout, and their effects on the surrounding characters tends to be thought-out and long-lasting.

What deaths contributed nothing but shock value?

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

I don't watch the show because I couldn't stand the first season of it so I wrote it off. But hearing this it actually sounds like it got better. The reason I can watch kids die in the media is mostly because I don't like children in media, they are usually not very good at being kids if you know what I mean. Real children is a tragedy, fake children in media comedy in my book, because I find their deaths to be amusing. Don't take me the wrong way I do enjoy children when they are written correctly like in the walking dead games by tale tale games but in TV or other games kill em and let me laugh.

It's really not gotten better. Season 2 was the high point. The Walking Dead show always sounds like it's gotten deep and interesting. But the actual acting and plot progression in the show is fucking terrible.

Season 2 (in my opinion) is the worst of the series. It has the worst plot progression and the worst acting from supporting roles. Season 1 is best, and season 4 is going really great this year.