0
Mixed feelings. I agree that this episode was a nice step forward, but that's relatively speaking, because I thought the third episode was pretty bad -- almost nothing of lasting consequence happened in it, and given that the entire first season is just six episodes, you'd think every episode would be fairly eventful.
That's kind of my problem with the whole series so far, really: after episode three, it became apparent that the entire first season arc was going to be a lot smaller than I'd anticipated. Perhaps this isn't the fault of the show, and my own expectations are to blame, but I'm finding the scope a little disappointing.
Mind you, this isn't one of those instances where I'm just curious about the rest of the world (though I am). I don't think scattered news reports from across the globe would help the show. I think focusing on one or two bands of survivors is a good idea, but something about the way it's being done just feels...small. I realize this isn't a very articulate critique, but I can't shake it.
Part of it is the lack of newness. One thing I expect out of any new entry is a genre with its own set of conventions is that it introduce some new ideas into the mix, or else execute the existing ones flawlessly, but I prefer the latter. I feel the execution here is pretty good, but I feel like we're just watching a generic zombie story 90% of the time. Merle's storyline is a bit fresher, but everything else feels very conventional and well-tread. Nothing in the show's really surprised me, and I wonder why talented people would take the time to do something as substantial as launch a television show about zombies if they didn't have some very new ideas to bring to the table.
One thing I did dig about this last episode: the idea of going back for the guns. Too often in movies or shows like this, you just sort of lose them, but the idea of forming a plan to correct the mistake in episode one rang true, and I liked it.