I love this. Don't suppose you have the concept art? Or a link. And to be honest. I always thought Kenny's disappointment with Mike was due to the fact he wasn't as urban as Lee. Kenny was hoping for a Lee 2.0.
I think a lot of what some people felt was missing from Season 2 was a main goal or objective beyond "survive." I remember various writers from Season 2 even saying this on Playing Dead, for that matter.
In Robert Kirkman's world, survival is more binary. As Chuck said in Season One, advising Lee for the sake of Clem's survival, "You gotta consider her a living person, that's it! You're either living or you're not." I think the team really latched onto Chuck's advice early on, and once we did, the rest of the path for the season became much clearer.
...However, in focusing in on Chuck's pragmatic attitude towards survival as the inspiration for Season 2, they seem to miss out on the fact that Chuck also encouraged Lee and Clementine to have a plan on what to do. Meanwhile, for Season 2, the writers chose to focus on nothing short of survival whereas Season 1 had more of an organized direction.
I suppose in part that this also comes from episodes in Season 2 relying more on shock value and not giving people a chance to breathe and get attached to the characters, but I feel that the lack of main direction is sometimes over looked.
A large part of what made Season 1 so crushing for people was the sense of defeat from trying and failing to reunite Clementine with her parents while they were alive. Since Season 2 had no clear end-goal as the writers stated, more of the emphasis was put on character relationships since the plot as a whole was focused on general survival. However, as I said shortly ago, I feel they didn't give people a lot of time to breathe and actually get to know the Season 2 characters since they wanted to up the ante through more shock value in Season 2.
I think the very basic direction of the season (as in: Clem ends up alone > Finds cabin group > Learns about Carver > Gets captured… more and taken to Howe's > Escapes > Tries to survive while moving North) largely stayed the same, with the roles of individual characters and sequences shifting around the most
I know for a fact that Carver wasn't originally as large of a presence in the season, which leads me to believe that he wasn't originally the leader and main antagonist of the Howe's arc, but rather a secondary antagonist of sorts, similar to Troy. When they got Michael Madsen in on it, they expanded Carver into a much more central role of the Howe's arc.
The rest I think is more or less the shifting of scenes and sequences around into different episodes. For example; Rebecca was most likely going to have the baby in episode 3, but at one point was changed and instead moved into episode 4, while the herd sequence (which is… [view original content]
Pardon me, I take it back, I think that amid the ruins the thumbnail actually had something to do with the episode. The shadows are dead peo… moreple and in the episode the deaths are similar to the thumbnail characters. Doug and Carly are representations for the shocking demise of sarita. Duck is a representation of Sarah. Someone who was a liability. Larry is a representation of Rebecca. Someone who was going through a traumatic time and was originally distrustful of clementine. The two other shadows are possibly metaphors for other people, I don't know but this is what I think.
EP 2: Carvers men looking for the Cabin group
EP 3: They get captured
EP 4: They escape using the walker blood method
EP 5: It's snowing
This was the only things I got from the slides.
Things i believed in the S2 slides
EP2 : Troy is the leader of group (But wasn't)
EP3: Rebecca giving birth to a baby (Didn't happen)
… more
EP4:Meeting Eddie and Clem is doing something crazy (Didn't happen)
EP5: A corpse of a unknown but didn't even get to know whose corpse it is when EP 5 was released
Agreed. I assume they have a broad idea of what's going to happen in the season and then write the specifics like dialogue and choices when … morethey are actually developing the episode. However, there is no indication or evidence that at any point S2 was rewritten.
I really have no idea. I suppose it's due to the fact of what Jane can offer Clementine. She is a survivalist, thinks logically, remains cal… morem in chaotic situations, etc. Basically she is the opposite of Kenny, who I love, but I think TT thought people would resonate more with Jane and her skills than Luke. Idk. Fuck that. If it came down to it I would have gone with Luke before any of them. In a heart beat, yo.
Things i believed in the S2 slides
EP2 : Troy is the leader of group (But wasn't)
EP3: Rebecca giving birth to a baby (Didn't happen)
… more
EP4:Meeting Eddie and Clem is doing something crazy (Didn't happen)
EP5: A corpse of a unknown but didn't even get to know whose corpse it is when EP 5 was released
Some of the moments in season 2 are really unexplained why could'nt they have walked around the ice. Why could'nt they have taken over carvers place, why could'nt Arvo be nice to Clem if she did not steal.
I just don't understand because they had the table scene in episode 2 that made me think it was Luke vs Kenny. What you knew vs what is now. Idk it just wouldve seemed better that way.. But I don really have a problem with his death. It wasn't badly written, it was just a heartbreaker.
Great points. From my perspective, it seemed like they noticed the weakness in their vision and thus tried to push the "#MyClementine" campaign near the end. Looking back, I can say Season 2 was missing a goal or objective. First it seemed like we were finding Wellington, then we were finding Christa, then escaping Carver, then escaping a heard, the back to finding Wellington. These points all seemed great, but if felt like we were questioning if these goals were really THE goal (if that made any sense). I think focusing more on finding Christa and getting to Wellington as a central mission could have bettered the season. Then again, I see weaknesses in that direction.
Random thought: what if Season 3 was about going against what Chuck said? What if you didn't want to be "just alive?" What if took a hold of Luke's perspective and wanted to learn how to live again? Season 3 can be a season regarding personal discovery; who are you? Using a primary goal or mission like in Season 1, you can have events lead to the discovery of one's self and how they see the world. I don't know. It's a cloudy idea but one nonetheless.
I think a lot of what some people felt was missing from Season 2 was a main goal or objective beyond "survive." I remember various writers f… morerom Season 2 even saying this on Playing Dead, for that matter.
In a later interview about Telltale in general shortly before GoT/TftB came out, an interviewer was asking questions about Season 2's plot and it was said that the writers looked toward's Chuck's pragmatic quote in Episode 103...
In Robert Kirkman's world, survival is more binary. As Chuck said in Season One, advising Lee for the sake of Clem's survival, "You gotta consider her a living person, that's it! You're either living or you're not." I think the team really latched onto Chuck's advice early on, and once we did, the rest of the path for the season became much clearer.
...However, in focusing in on Chuck's pragmatic attitude towards survival as the inspiration for Season 2, they seem to miss out on the fact that Chuck a… [view original content]
Comments
You can see all the concept art on this website http://www.jessemaccabe.com/walkingdead2.php
Amazing. Thanks.
I think a lot of what some people felt was missing from Season 2 was a main goal or objective beyond "survive." I remember various writers from Season 2 even saying this on Playing Dead, for that matter.
In a later interview about Telltale in general shortly before GoT/TftB came out, an interviewer was asking questions about Season 2's plot and it was said that the writers looked toward's Chuck's pragmatic quote in Episode 103...
...However, in focusing in on Chuck's pragmatic attitude towards survival as the inspiration for Season 2, they seem to miss out on the fact that Chuck also encouraged Lee and Clementine to have a plan on what to do. Meanwhile, for Season 2, the writers chose to focus on nothing short of survival whereas Season 1 had more of an organized direction.
I suppose in part that this also comes from episodes in Season 2 relying more on shock value and not giving people a chance to breathe and get attached to the characters, but I feel that the lack of main direction is sometimes over looked.
A large part of what made Season 1 so crushing for people was the sense of defeat from trying and failing to reunite Clementine with her parents while they were alive. Since Season 2 had no clear end-goal as the writers stated, more of the emphasis was put on character relationships since the plot as a whole was focused on general survival. However, as I said shortly ago, I feel they didn't give people a lot of time to breathe and actually get to know the Season 2 characters since they wanted to up the ante through more shock value in Season 2.
In all honestly they're just place holders. Nothing else. Disappointing I know.
EP 2: Carvers men looking for the Cabin group
EP 3: They get captured
EP 4: They escape using the walker blood method
EP 5: It's snowing
This was the only things I got from the slides.
You made it seem like you thought that they don't plan the season's plot, that's why I doubted you.
I highly agree, Jane pretending the bay was dead is stupid because she expects clementine to shoot somebody she has known for a long time
EP 2: Matthew with his group when confronting said group.
Mike - the original supposed thief during episode 1 on Christa - pointed it out after Luke drowned.
I just don't understand because they had the table scene in episode 2 that made me think it was Luke vs Kenny. What you knew vs what is now. Idk it just wouldve seemed better that way.. But I don really have a problem with his death. It wasn't badly written, it was just a heartbreaker.
Great points. From my perspective, it seemed like they noticed the weakness in their vision and thus tried to push the "#MyClementine" campaign near the end. Looking back, I can say Season 2 was missing a goal or objective. First it seemed like we were finding Wellington, then we were finding Christa, then escaping Carver, then escaping a heard, the back to finding Wellington. These points all seemed great, but if felt like we were questioning if these goals were really THE goal (if that made any sense). I think focusing more on finding Christa and getting to Wellington as a central mission could have bettered the season. Then again, I see weaknesses in that direction.
Random thought: what if Season 3 was about going against what Chuck said? What if you didn't want to be "just alive?" What if took a hold of Luke's perspective and wanted to learn how to live again? Season 3 can be a season regarding personal discovery; who are you? Using a primary goal or mission like in Season 1, you can have events lead to the discovery of one's self and how they see the world. I don't know. It's a cloudy idea but one nonetheless.