AMC's “The Walking Dead” ended its second season with a great cliffhanger.
     “The Walking Dead” follows a group of survivors trying to live in a post-apocalyptic zombie- ridden wasteland. “The Walking Dead” not only offers the blood and gore of a zombie apocalypse but also the drama and moral dilemmas that compel the viewer to tune in Sunday nights.

     After Season 1, politics in the studio resulted the termination of several key staff writers, which was prevalent in the beginning of the new season where the action, as well as drama, waned. The show then did a “mid-season finale” before a two-month break.

    The last seven episodes spun 180 degrees from the first six. Every episode brought new problems and moral conflicts to the table. These were not simply “yes or no” problems. Each one had multiple paths and consequences that would affect the group as a whole.

     Not only do these problems split the characters, but “The Walking Dead” makes the viewer choose a side and feel as if they're another survivor in the group. This connection between viewer and character makes “The Walking Dead” more than blood and gore. The “everyday problems” found in the normal world are multiplied ten-fold in the zombie-ridden world of “The Walking Dead.

     The characters in the “The Walking” Dead are as dynamic as the show itself. For example, Shane Walsh (Bill Smith) can be a viewer's best friend one minute, and within three minutes, he might gutlessly kill someone. The dynamism of each character forces a level of analysis not found in “The Jersey Shore”.

     At its core, the show creates debate among viewers. “The Walking Dead” will continue to spur these debates and amass followers when it returns to AMC in October.