In Defense of ... The Walking Dead Season 7

The viewing figures would have you believe that The Walking Dead is on a downward spiral, as would the negative Tweets and Facebook posts which seem to be on the increase. Yes, it's sure to say that season seven of The Walking Dead hasn't been to everyone's taste. The 'seeming' lack of walker action, Negan and the scattered group have all been given as reasons for switching off. In this post I'm going to, hopefully, provide a reason to keep on watching. Sure there are bad things but there's a whole host of good things to say about the show and in my opinion, humble as it is, most of those negatives can actually be seen as positives from the right angle.

The introduction of Negan brought a more sympathetic
side out of Rick 

First I'm going to deal with Negan. Prior to Negan and his menacing Saviors, The Walking Dead had lacked a real bad guy. The Governor was good but was dispatched too quickly in my opinion. Since then, we've had Gareth and his band of cannibals, the hospital in Atlanta and the Wolves. None of those provided a prolonged obstacle to our main group of survivors. With Negan we perhaps have the greatest threat our group has ever faced. Let's be honest, Rick needed bringing to his knees and Negan did just that. The effect has been, from my point of view at least, a new found sympathy for Rick. He's changed as a character and he's now someone I can get on board with again. Gone is the arrogance of the man who waltzed into Alexandria like he owned the place. As for Negan, for all of his pantomime villainy, he's actually a multi-layered character. Sure, some of his morals seem slightly off (he doesn't allow rape yet essentially has a harem of slave women of his own) but underneath his bluster, there's a man who once upon a time just wanted to do the right thing.

The lack of Walker action is something that I've seen suggested by a few people as a negative. The thing is that there are still lots of Walkers featured in the show. It's just that they are no longer the threat they once were. Remember, in The Walking Dead time, we are perhaps 2-3 years into the apocalypse. It's not that Walkers are suddenly no longer dangerous, it's just that our survivors are bloody good at dispatching them. Regardless of this fact, to suggest that the show has gone Walker lite is just plain wrong. What about the highway in the mid season premiere? What about the Ocean side walkers in episode 15? What about Rick and Michone at the fair? What about the Alexandrian Walkers on the fence? What about the lake walkers in the mid season finale? Walkers are featured in pretty much every episode. The truth of the matter is that after 7 years, they just no longer add shock value.

Would've been great to have seen more of the King and his
tiger in the first half of the season.

The scattered group is a problem, I completely agree with that. However, it becomes less of a problem if the show handles it correctly. When we get stand alone episodes featuring one group of characters as happened at the start of this season, then it becomes a problem. Tara's first visit to Ocean side was great but that fact that it happened in one episode meant that we actually didn't care for the newly introduced characters. The same can be said of the kingdom, which featured twice in that first 8 episode run. Now though, with recent episodes splitting time between different characters things are looking better. It allows for better story lining in my opinion as each strand connects.

My final point is that this season has an endgame in sight and I guess will probably be viewed better as part of a marathon in years to come. In the comics, these events we're witnessing on screen are part of the famed 'All Out War' arc which sees our coalition of settlements take on the Saviors. Most of that war will encompass season 8, I'm sure, with what we're seeing now being the build up. If next season is going to be the 'All Out War' season, then this season is the 'Rise Up' season. Let's not forget where this season started! With Rick and his group on their knees in the dirt as Negan bashed in the skulls of two of their friends! That's not something you get over easily. Trust me, in the wider context this season makes total sense.

What do you think about this season? What do you love or hate about it? What would you change? Feel free to leave a comment below and thank you for reading.

Is Coronation Street the right place?

Coronation Street has recently come under fire for a plot involving 16 year old teenager Bethany Platt (Lucy Fallon). Centered around the subject of grooming, the plot has already seen naive Bethany fall prey to an older man called Nathan Curtis (Chris Harper) with recent scenes seeing her lose her virginity to him after having her drink spiked. The story line is set to gather pace in the coming weeks as Nathan tries to pimp the vulnerable schoolgirl out to his friends. While the controversial story line has been praised by some children's charities, it is still receiving its fair share of backlash with many believing the ITV soap has gone too far this time. Has Coronation Street gone too far? Or do these stories need to be told and if so, are pre-watershed soap operas the place to tell them?

The controversial 'grooming' plot has horrified some people

The world is a messed up place. Screwy things happen all the time. That's not to say that we would still know how to react were something like that happening to us. Nor, it's fair to say, would we know the signs of something messed up however obvious they may be. In many ways, the soaps give us lessons in what things we should look out for. In the case of Bethany Platt, she's suddenly started talking about this mysterious friend called Mel, a character Bethany's mother has never met. She's also started acting strange at home and disappearing suddenly. As a character, Bethany is also portrayed as naive and vulnerable having recently been involved in a bullying story line which then led onto her becoming addicted to diet pills. Add onto that, her recent crush on older man Gary Windass (Mikey North) and the signs are all there.

Sarah Platt controversially gave birth
to Bethany at just 13! 

In terms of how Coronation Street is servicing this extremely sensitive story line, they seem to be doing it justice. It would be so easy to sensationalize the subject, so easy to go wrong and I guess that it's probably a good thing that our oldest soap is the one covering it. They have over fifty years of experience after all and while Coronation Street is often seen as the more gentler of our soaps, they have shown in the past that they aren't afraid to tackle hard hitting stuff, the most famous story line also concerning Bethany Platt. In 2000, at the age of 13, Sarah Platt gave birth to Bethany which was the culmination in their controversial teenage pregnancy plot.

While controversy is all well and good, it is still important to tell the story well. These stories do NEED to be told, that much I'm sure we can all agree on. But is a pre-watershed soap opera the right place to do it? What do you think? Please, comment below and thank you for reading.