f13.net

f13.net General Forums => TV => Topic started by: sickrubik on June 02, 2010, 12:32:04 PM



Title: Walking Dead
Post by: sickrubik on June 02, 2010, 12:32:04 PM
Thought we had a thread for this, but I guess the only mention was about AMC picking up the rights in the Mad Men thread.

Anyway, production has started on AMC's six part Walking Dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead) series, based on Robert Kirkman's great zombie book by the same name.

io9 has a short behind the scenes production thing and some promotional photos.

http://io9.com/5553571/first-look-at-amcs-walking-dead

Can not wait for this.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raging Turtle on June 03, 2010, 08:01:35 PM
Even if it's terrible I'll probably still love it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on June 04, 2010, 08:24:24 AM
It's not a cartoon, though, right?  I love zombie shows and films, but I don't like cartoons.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: sickrubik on June 04, 2010, 11:17:43 AM
Did you click on the link? It shows photos of actors right there. :P


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on June 04, 2010, 01:48:40 PM
Just the first one.  The second one didn't load fast enough so I skipped it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Le0 on June 28, 2010, 07:07:27 AM
I'm currently reading the comic and I'm pretty sure I'll love this even if it is terrible!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on June 28, 2010, 09:07:22 AM
Ah, it has that actor what is the son of the Jethro Tull guy, Ian Anderson!  He's much cuter.  Thank God.  He was also in that show "Teachers" which I haven't seen but I'd like to.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on June 29, 2010, 02:05:50 AM
I'm still not sure why you'd do THIS instead of World War Z.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triax on June 29, 2010, 02:40:40 AM
Brad Pitt's Plan 9 Production company optioned the rights to that a while back, as I recall.

I'm glad is production company got it and not Leonardo DiCaprio's, as they were in a bidding war for it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on June 29, 2010, 07:03:14 AM
Yeah, they're screwing off with the WW-Z movie. It was supposed to start shooting last year. They had a director and apparently the script (by JMS of B5 fame) was fantastic, everyone was raving about how great it was. Currently the script is in rewrite and they're looking for a new director.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on June 29, 2010, 10:35:16 AM
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio should wrestle for it.  I'd watch THAT!  Yum.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: sickrubik on July 26, 2010, 08:10:55 AM
Catch the trailer while you can. Great stuff.

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/26/comic-con-trailer-amcs-the-walking-dead/


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on August 02, 2010, 04:01:38 PM
Looks much better than the comic, but I'd like to see a weekly WWZ series just as much. There were so many different characters in WWZ I'd be disappointed to see so much cut for a movie.

edit: The Walker Brothers track from the trailer will never be the same for me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Le0 on August 23, 2010, 01:25:40 AM
Yeah, they're screwing off with the WW-Z movie. It was supposed to start shooting last year. They had a director and apparently the script (by JMS of B5 fame) was fantastic, everyone was raving about how great it was. Currently the script is in rewrite and they're looking for a new director.

Just read this on a blog
Quote
Lastly, the studio loves Matt Carnahan's World War Z draft, so it looks like Marc Forster could be directing pretty soon. Brad Pitt stars.

Source (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21344)

I like Marc Forster and he's Swiss, nothing can go wrong  :why_so_serious:

Also content:

The same blog could go to the shooting of the Pilot of The Walking Dead : http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21186 (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21186)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on August 25, 2010, 04:35:40 PM
480p version of the Comicon trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=319knAYrTRE)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tairnyn on September 26, 2010, 08:51:52 PM
The first I heard of this was this fan made opening credit sequence (http://vimeo.com/15266890) and now my interest is piqued.

Premiers on October 31st.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 31, 2010, 08:50:23 AM
Let us know how it goes.  UK chaps have a further wait till Friday.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 31, 2010, 01:36:32 PM
Already up on torrent sites apparently.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on October 31, 2010, 02:04:17 PM
Already up on torrent sites apparently.

Almost watched it last week, but waited due to terrible quality of the rips.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 31, 2010, 02:49:43 PM
I'd rather not.

I'll wait till it's on in HD on my 50 inch tellybox.  Only a few days away.  Some vague pointers as to if it's worth it would be welcome though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 31, 2010, 03:14:49 PM
Hard to say yet.  The first episode covers about the first issue and a half of the comic, ending more or less with the tank scenes they show in the commercials (so before he gets to the camp), so you don't really get to meet a lot of the cast yet.  You get some extended stuff with Morgan and Duane which I thought was pretty good, a bit of Shane, a little of Lori and Carl, and I think Dale maybe gets 1 or 2 lines, and someone who I assume is either Carol, Amy, or Andrea gets a few lines as well.  Until we get a better look at the rest of the cast, it's hard to get a feel for how this is going to turn out.  I'm not convinced with the casting of Rick or Shane yet.  The opening conversation between them feels a bit wooden and awkward, although I think Rick gets a bit better further into the episode.  The zombie makeup and effects are pretty good, and the stuff at the end when he gets to Atlanta I thought was pretty well done also.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on October 31, 2010, 03:20:15 PM
Slow. Like the comic. Did you like the comic? You'll like this. My opinion anyways. Actors do a good job, even if we don't get to see many yet. Visual style and pacing is thus far as expected. Not disappointed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on October 31, 2010, 08:13:47 PM
I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I'm a fan of Darabont, and, to a lesser degree, the comic.  It won't blow you away, but as long as you know how to set your expectations you'll probably not be disappointed.  The effects and lighting were nice.  I'll definitely continue to watch.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 31, 2010, 08:24:23 PM
Liked it. Will continue to watch. Dug the comic though, so that's not surprising. And well, zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: WindupAtheist on October 31, 2010, 08:32:09 PM
Never read the comic. Liked the show. Will watch again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Margalis on October 31, 2010, 11:30:46 PM
The lack of logic in this really frustrated me. When they leave the house to kill a zombie they leave the door wide open. Really? And the people on the CB live outdoors in tents? Again really? You could hole up forever in a sturdy building with a few entrances and instead you're living in tents in a trailer park? What exactly prevent zombies from walking in at any time and eating you?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Abagadro on October 31, 2010, 11:45:04 PM
The lack of logic in this really frustrated me. When they leave the house to kill a zombie they leave the door wide open. Really? And the people on the CB live outdoors in tents? Again really? You could hole up forever in a sturdy building with a few entrances and instead you're living in tents in a trailer park? What exactly prevent zombies from walking in at any time and eating you?

(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y222/Abagadro/comicbookguy_300x566.gif)

I keed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 01, 2010, 12:00:33 AM
Meh. That is going to be pretty much ANY Zombie franchise you could ever possibly think of. The Walking Dead isn't quiet what you're thinking of when you think of a typical zombie story. It focuses alot more on the actual survivors and the torment they go through being the survivors. The zombies are pretty much the slowest of the slow movie zombies. Which has been portrayed thus far pretty well I think. I doubt they will follow the comics religiously, but there were large stretches in those where you didn't see a single zombie for many issues. Basically the zombie apocalypse itself just becomes a backdrop to tell the story of these characters. I get the feeling the show itself is aiming to capture that part of the comics. Actual good drama, rather than the campy stuff you typically get in a Zombie film to fill in time between zombie action scenes.
I'll spoiler this bit:

Just think of it this way, you can't keep your guard up 100% of the time in a highly stressful emotional situation like that. They know the limits of the 'Walkers' and their behavior patterns. So they are willing to take small risks here and there so as to live some small semblance of an actual life without having to walk on eggshells all the time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 01, 2010, 01:30:40 AM
The lack of logic in this really frustrated me. When they leave the house to kill a zombie they leave the door wide open. Really? And the people on the CB live outdoors in tents? Again really? You could hole up forever in a sturdy building with a few entrances and instead you're living in tents in a trailer park? What exactly prevent zombies from walking in at any time and eating you?

If you keep watching, you might just get an answer to some of your questions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 01, 2010, 02:42:06 AM
I thought it was great but mood wise, it's as depressing as watching East Enders.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 01, 2010, 04:36:41 AM
But with less zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 01, 2010, 05:22:21 AM
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 01, 2010, 07:22:28 AM
I loved it... it beat my expectations.  VERY good job with acting, effects, and plot.

I could see where being mobile would be an advantage.  Like they said, Zombies one on one are weaksauce - but when they mass in a group you are pretty fucked.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 01, 2010, 07:53:14 AM
Enjoyed it, really liked the atmosphere in the whole hospital scene. It really will come down to whether or not I give a crap about the characters in the long run, but I'll give it a chance.

Never read the comic, but I like that its going with zombies that still show some faint hint of memory (trying to go home, picking up a toy, etc). Also, I much prefer the classic slow shambling zombie - leads to more of a building sense of dread as they slowly close in.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 01, 2010, 09:28:19 AM
I like that its going with zombies that still show some faint hint of memory (trying to go home, picking up a toy, etc).

I think you're right, and that's something that the series seems to be doing that is sorely lacking in a lot of modern zombie fare; that is, the walking dead aren't just monsters, they're actually quite tragic.  I think the principle zombies were depicted with more humanity than I've seen in any film since the original Dawn or Day of the Dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NowhereMan on November 01, 2010, 12:53:15 PM
I am somewhat torn in discussing this stuff because I've read the comics and don't want to spoil stuff that hasn't happened yet :nda:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NiX on November 01, 2010, 04:47:18 PM
I am somewhat torn in discussing this stuff because I've read the comics and don't want to spoil stuff that hasn't happened yet :nda:


Jerk.

Liked the show and I haven't read the comics.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 01, 2010, 04:50:06 PM
Is this available online anywhere?  (Legally, I mean -- obviously there are always torrents.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 01, 2010, 04:59:52 PM
Is this available online anywhere?  (Legally, I mean -- obviously there are always torrents.)

If I recall I do believe AMC is jumping on the online bandwagon.

http://www.amctv.com/originals/The-Walking-Dead/

I don't see it uploaded; I imagine they will wait at least 3-4 days before hosting it.  Seriously - it is a great show so far.  Like... I am going to regret this... Firefly good.

So far.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 01, 2010, 05:01:38 PM
Thanks!  Be nice if they could have jumped on one of the existing bandwagons like Hulu or Netflix that will conveniently stream to my PS3.  :-P


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on November 01, 2010, 08:18:03 PM
Loved it.  Did not read the comic and won't look at the spoilers about what is going to happen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 01, 2010, 09:33:00 PM
In case NoWhereMan's  spoiler is putting people off the possible future of the show, it's semi-in joke for those who follow the comics. Basically the writer got the greenlight in the first place for doing the comic by pitching it as "There are zombies, but aliens did it" because trying to pitch YET ANOTHER zombie comic/book/movie didn't seem like the best idea to him to get a go ahead and backing to do what he wanted. So he pitched it that way, then just did his own thing and got away with it because the story was so damn good and getting rave reviews.  :grin:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rendakor on November 01, 2010, 11:33:43 PM
Well I was interested until Vaiti said the A word; fucking really?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 01, 2010, 11:49:55 PM
There are no aliens. I was referring to NowhereMan's spoiler in the post at the top of this page.

I am somewhat torn in discussing this stuff because I've read the comics and don't want to spoil stuff that hasn't happened yet :nda:


The spoiler isn't a spoiler. Or at least in 77 issues those aliens have yet to manifest themselves.

I only brought it up really because I thought the pitch that Robert Kirkman used to get his idea published was brilliant.
"Zombies too boring eh? Well then, how about zombies with ALIENS  :why_so_serious:"

Found the IGN interview where he talks about it to make things clearer. http://comics.ign.com/articles/819/819361p1.html (http://comics.ign.com/articles/819/819361p1.html)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 02, 2010, 01:10:56 AM
There are no aliens. I was referring to NowhereMan's spoiler in the post at the top of this page.

I am somewhat torn in discussing this stuff because I've read the comics and don't want to spoil stuff that hasn't happened yet :nda:


The spoiler isn't a spoiler. Or at least in 77 issues those aliens have yet to manifest themselves.

Well, there was that fake bit they did at the end of #75.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rendakor on November 02, 2010, 07:59:28 AM
Oh, ok. You really scared me there; so many movies have gone from mediocre to awful with the sudden introduction of aliens as a plot device.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on November 02, 2010, 08:00:11 AM
Never read the comic. Liked the show. Will watch again.

Same here.

Edit:
I'd like to call for this thread to be spoiler free from anything with the comics.  I already made the mistake in another forum reading a spoiler that talked about something that happens in the comics that we haven't seen yet on TV.

I think that's fair.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on November 02, 2010, 09:12:12 AM
I've never read the comics either, but this is my premonition



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 02, 2010, 09:29:08 AM
Never read the comic. Liked the show. Will watch again.
I'd like to call for this thread to be spoiler free from anything with the comics.  I already made the mistake in another forum reading a spoiler that talked about something that happens in the comics that we haven't seen yet on TV.

I think that's fair.

Yes plz.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on November 02, 2010, 11:07:32 AM
I've never read the comics either, but this is my premonition



Carl is the son's name.  Right?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: pxib on November 02, 2010, 11:15:51 AM
Carl is the son's name.  Right?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on November 02, 2010, 11:50:03 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 02, 2010, 12:04:05 PM
I liked it. It looks like they are depending on the high standard of acting and dialogue to carry the show, rather than lots of action or zombie moments. That’s great and they achieved it in the pilot, but they need to keep up the quality or it will start to become very talky.

I like the way the zombies are just a tiny bit smarter than the average zombie. It makes them creepier.

Going back to the World War Z stuff (from months ago I know), they are very different stories even if they both involve zombies. World War Z is about how the world changes and copes with a zombie outbreak while The Walking Dead is basically a soap opera with zombies in it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 02, 2010, 12:14:37 PM
Changes ?  Yeah, partly that;  but for me World War Z was more about how unprepared our world is for disaster and how we are just now actually speeds up the apocalypse.

But hey, maybe I'm projecting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NowhereMan on November 02, 2010, 12:25:55 PM
There are no aliens. I was referring to NowhereMan's spoiler in the post at the top of this page.

I am somewhat torn in discussing this stuff because I've read the comics and don't want to spoil stuff that hasn't happened yet :nda:


The spoiler isn't a spoiler. Or at least in 77 issues those aliens have yet to manifest themselves.

Well, there was that fake bit they did at the end of #75.

That's exactly what I was thinking of. For anyone interested (this will not be a spoiler for the show in any way probably)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on November 03, 2010, 08:15:24 AM
Never read the comic. Liked the show. Will watch again.
My fiancee thinks I love anything with a zombie in it, but in reality I like very few zombie movies. The best by far is the original Night of the Living Dead (followed by the remake), and I think this series really seems to capture what made it great. It's not about zombies. It's about how people react to such a horrific event. If your movie is about fast zombie action, it can be a fun movie but totally miss the point. 28 Days Later is the exception to this, because they melded the action and human drama well.

For lighter zombie movies, Return of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead. I think that's about it, most zombie moves are awful.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 03, 2010, 08:37:51 AM
So far, episode one has pulled out all the standard (but effective) zombie gags. I hope two will start getting creative.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raging Turtle on November 03, 2010, 09:01:50 AM
Is there a place to view this online yet?  Couldn't seem to find it on AMC's site.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 03, 2010, 03:12:35 PM
Is there a place to view this online yet?  Couldn't seem to find it on AMC's site.

No.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 04, 2010, 08:51:03 AM
Is there a place to view this online yet?  Couldn't seem to find it on AMC's site.

Download from USENET. Several versions are available.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on November 04, 2010, 10:49:25 AM
They just posted the first episode (http://www.amctv.com/originals/The-Walking-Dead/video?bcpid=86227333001&bclid=648729362001&bctid=659216515001), but seem to be indicating the rest won't be online.

I thought it was fantastic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 04, 2010, 12:52:29 PM
What is a USENET?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: FatuousTwat on November 04, 2010, 02:54:00 PM
It's like SKYNET, but with less more murderous robots.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 04, 2010, 05:46:28 PM
What is a USENET?

Newsgroups. Back in the old days we used newsgroups and downloaded "binaries".

Not sure why anyone would do that today when they could torrent it instead, not that I'm suggesting a torrent, no sir.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 04, 2010, 09:21:36 PM
Newsgroups. Back in the old days we used newsgroups and downloaded "binaries".

Not sure why anyone would do that today when they could torrent it instead, not that I'm suggesting a torrent, no sir.

Because torrents suck giant bags of dick in comparison. There's not a single advantage that torrents offer, and a considerable number of drawbacks. My USENET provider has a two year retention and I regularly download 20-30 gigs in a day. There is nothing being offered via torrent that is not uploaded to USENET at the same time, and once it is it's there for a couple years. Also I've yet to find a torrent client that wasn't a giant bag of ass that required a ton of fiddling to get decent speed and still somehow managed to be a resource hog. Torrents are fine if you don't mind leaving the client running constantly while it shits up your performance with the understanding that it'll finish when it finishes, but I like the fact that when I want something I can have it in it's entirety within a half hour regardless of what it is, and with no performance hit.

Torrent isn't better in any sense, it's just newer and "cool".



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on November 04, 2010, 09:54:54 PM
Why must USENET be capitalized? 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on November 05, 2010, 01:47:35 AM
cause they hoped USENIX would take it over?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USENIX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USENIX)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 05, 2010, 05:26:05 AM
It was a joke.

But i like the skynet explanation better than the real thing. :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 05, 2010, 04:13:13 PM
Solid start.  More please.

I also liked the utter lack of Adverts throughout.  I can only hope that's going to continue (though I'm sure it's not).

Why is it people are dumbasses when confronted with Zombies ?  Seriously, watch a fucking film or two.  Read a book.  Then don't charge into a fucking million of them with a handgun.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NiX on November 05, 2010, 04:37:02 PM
Solid start.  More please.

I also liked the utter lack of Adverts throughout.  I can only hope that's going to continue (though I'm sure it's not).

Why is it people are dumbasses when confronted with Zombies ?  Seriously, watch a fucking film or two.  Read a book.  Then don't charge into a fucking million of them with a handgun.

It wouldn't be fun that way.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 05, 2010, 05:35:07 PM
Solid start.  More please.

I also liked the utter lack of Adverts throughout.  I can only hope that's going to continue (though I'm sure it's not).

Why is it people are dumbasses when confronted with Zombies ?  Seriously, watch a fucking film or two.  Read a book.  Then don't charge into a fucking million of them with a handgun.

There's a book about a world of zombies called Feed where the survivors have all named their children George or Georgia, because George Romero is credited with saving the human race by teaching us how to fight zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xuri on November 07, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
Just watched the first episode now (yeah, I'm lagging behind). Liked it.

I hope the real zombie apocalypse gets here soon, so all the stuff I've learned about surviving such events doesn't go to waste. Examples:
  • Before the apocalypse actually starts, invest in a solar-power-driven car. It will save you having to go into seemingly abandoned, but in reality zombie-infested gas-stations which will turn out to be empty of any spare gas anyway.
  • Do not play loud music, it will attract zombies.
  • Do not have lights on at night, it will attract zombies.
  • Do not fire your gun(s) unless absolutely necessary for survival. It will attract zombies.
  • Do not accidentally bump into any cars. The alarm will go off, and it will attract a lot of zombies.
  • Do not step on broken glass with bare feet - wounds slow you down, can get infected (a different sort of infection) and then kill you.
  • Do not hesitate to shoot your zombie-friends and/or family in the head, preferably with a shotgun. They're no longer people, only broken husks. Hesitating at this point will only give them a chance to attack you first, after which you'll still have to shoot them.
  • Do not go to any safe shelters announced on the radio and/or written on walls in blood. The shelters seldom stay safe for long. More likely than not, the infection will get there before you do.
  • Keep an eye out for any other survivors who start showing symptoms of being infected. If you don't know the symptoms, assume anything out of the ordinary is a symptom and unless they can prove they're not infected, shoot them in the head with a shotgun.
  • There's always a single can of coke left in any given soda vending machine even if the rest of the supermarket has been cleaned out. The can is just stuck, and you'll have to work to get at it.
  • Killing zombies with a katana is pretty cool. Until you get scratched/bitten. Just stick with the guns and kill them at a distance.
  • Set fire to the tank, then avoid him until he is dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mattemeo on November 07, 2010, 04:23:09 PM
Fleshed out the first couple of issues beautifully, and they've got some cast with actual acting chops; alive and dead. I'm loving the zombies. They're absolutely visually spot-on - straight off the pages with their lipless mouths and cold dead eyes - but the heart-wrenching pathos of watching them is oh so much more awful.
The existential dread of Rick's awaking into nightmare was really nicely shot and expertly paced, too. I've read the comics and even I was holding my breath during the stairwell in the dark sequence.

IF they can keep this up over the rest of the series, I think we'll be watching something very special indeed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on November 07, 2010, 06:45:20 PM
Well, look at what the director did with Shawshank, I've never seen a more true to the source than that movie from the novel.

Hell, he even had Morgan Freeman answer the same way the Irishman in the book did.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on November 07, 2010, 07:59:05 PM
I'm impressed that when fleeing the zombie apocalypse,


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 07, 2010, 08:13:13 PM
Man, you just know Michael Rooker is gonna be back with one hand sawed off or some shit, looking for revenge. If we're nitpicking, I'll suggest that 15 seconds worth of rain isn't going to have any real effect on the odor of someone covered in offal with HUMAN ENTRAILS LOOPED AROUND THEIR NECK. It could have rained bleach for a million years and I can't imagine it would make much difference.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 07, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
AMC is awesome


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tairnyn on November 07, 2010, 10:55:48 PM
Second episode did not disappoint. I was on the edge of my seat, nervous as hell through the whole thing. All of the characters feel like real people thanks to both the writing and the excellent acting. I avoided seeing scenes from next week just to keep the element of surprise. I particularly liked the part..



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on November 07, 2010, 11:32:31 PM
Well, look at what the director did with Shawshank, I've never seen a more true to the source than that movie from the novel.

Hell, he even had Morgan Freeman answer the same way the Irishman in the book did.

He even improved on King's The Mist. How often is the movie better than the book/short story with genre flicks? I'd say Kubrick with 2001 & Arthur C. Clarke's The Sentinel, but that's about all I can think of. Maybe the Slaughterhouse Five movie, but both versions are great.

Darabont is one of the best.

It's good to have shows like this without paying extra for HBO or Showtime.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 08, 2010, 02:24:46 AM
This episode deviated from the comic quite a bit, and from the looks of it so does the next episode.  Not complaining at all, as it makes it a bit more suspenseful for those of us who've read the books.  It also offers up some hope that maybe they'll be open to avoiding some of the less popular plot elements of the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 08, 2010, 03:44:39 AM
First two have been excellent, I've read a lot of comics so I'm not scared of spoilers and I really like the look of episode 3 from the preview.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on November 09, 2010, 08:48:49 PM
I would rate AMC's general cinematography for most of their shows as superior to anything I encounter on HBO, with the exception of maybe Deadwood.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 10, 2010, 03:40:44 AM
Enjoying this a lot, I like the pacing. Hope they maintain those production values throughout.

"Coming next week" needs to fuck right off from TV shows, or at the very least be moved right to the end of the credits. I now hit the off button the *instant* credits start on most shows and I hate not watching end credits. Credits and title sequences serve as a transition from the real world to the world of the show or film and back again, and not having that is jarring and annoying.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 10, 2010, 03:56:34 AM
What fucking fantasy world do you live in ?

Over here, end credits serve for something to be minimised to the side while some fuckwit drones on about 'COMING UP NEXT ON THE PENIS CHANNEL'.  Doesn't matter HOW MUCH you wanna know who that lassie was, or how much you like the theme music at the end, they've been getting fucking spoiled for about 10 years now.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 10, 2010, 04:09:01 AM
Ugh, yeah, that sucks too. 99% of the time I watch things on DVD rather than when they're broadcast for exactly this kind of reason. Plus no adverts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on November 10, 2010, 07:33:22 AM
We saw the end of Anchorman on cable and they split the screen for the (sped-up) credits....left hand of the screen was the credits for Anchorman. Right hand of the screen was the opening sequence....of Anchorman.  :uhrr:

I also hate the spoiler teasers, my fiancee loves them and gets upset that I stop them. I've now learned to pause it and leave the room so she can watch them (she forgets almost everything she watches on tv, it's kind of amazing kind of scary).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on November 10, 2010, 08:17:35 AM
She probably forgets all the annoying shit you do too.  So it balances out. I figure my wifes memory is the only reason she's with me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 10, 2010, 09:18:36 AM
Next Time On is a device I don't actually mind when it's done properly.  Spartacus, for example, was really well done with that.

What really bugs me is when they end on a possible fatality and then the 'next time on' shows the chap eating ice cream.  Way to miss the fucking point.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NiX on November 10, 2010, 10:11:38 AM
Other than the rain bit and knowing the hick is going to show up again, awesome second episode. Much like the first, it managed to keep me nervous all through out waiting for the moment someone gets jumped. It'll actually have to happen soon to keep that up because it's creating an atmosphere I haven't seen come out of any other show.

Next Time On is a device I don't actually mind when it's done properly.  Spartacus, for example, was really well done with that.

What really bugs me is when they end on a possible fatality and then the 'next time on' shows the chap eating ice cream.  Way to miss the fucking point.

Can't agree more. Spartacus nailed what it means to give a reason for the viewers to look forward to the next week.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 10, 2010, 02:18:55 PM
I also really hated BSG's preview thing, where they'd flash clips of the current episode you were watching during the last part of the opening credits.  Since they would often put some major spoiler in there somewhere, like a quick flash of an important ship blowing up or something.   :oh_i_see:

Loving the show so far.  Seems like a very good adaptation of the comics.  The specifics are different, but the scenes and plot are all exactly the same.

Though the tank thing reminds me of when I first saw that scene in the comics.  Seriously, wtf could even a horde of these zombies do against a tank?  Or a fortified military position?  How did the guys in the tank even die?  They wouldn't even need to shoot!  Just drive up and down the street like killdozer, killing thousands.  I love the genre and all, but it always does make me sort of laugh at these situations when your dealing with classic style zombies (and not the newer "fast zombies" we see more).

I thought the ending of Shaun of the Dead did a great job of making fun of this.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 10, 2010, 03:35:17 PM
I also really hated BSG's preview thing, where they'd flash clips of the current episode you were watching during the last part of the opening credits.  Since they would often put some major spoiler in there somewhere, like a quick flash of an important ship blowing up or something.   :oh_i_see:

Loving the show so far.  Seems like a very good adaptation of the comics.  The specifics are different, but the scenes and plot are all exactly the same.

Though the tank thing reminds me of when I first saw that scene in the comics.  Seriously, wtf could even a horde of these zombies do against a tank?  Or a fortified military position?  How did the guys in the tank even die?  They wouldn't even need to shoot!  Just drive up and down the street like killdozer, killing thousands.  I love the genre and all, but it always does make me sort of laugh at these situations when your dealing with classic style zombies (and not the newer "fast zombies" we see more).

I thought the ending of Shaun of the Dead did a great job of making fun of this.

Love the show, but I'm glad i wasn't the only thinking this. I mean it looked like the had plenty of time to set up a functioning barricade, how in the hell were they overrun?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 10, 2010, 03:47:08 PM
 :uhrr:

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 10, 2010, 03:58:25 PM
If you haven't read World War Z, you should.

Fantastic depiction of the scenario you're talking about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 11, 2010, 08:13:57 AM
Love the show, but I'm glad i wasn't the only thinking this. I mean it looked like the had plenty of time to set up a functioning barricade, how in the hell were they overrun?

Occam's razor says one of the tankers was hiding an infection and thinking he'd be alright... until he wasn't.

The halloween episode of Community did a great job of this. "I thought I'd be the one that was immune!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fordel on November 11, 2010, 10:34:23 AM
Well that's the reason why zombie movies always start AFTER the apparent apocalypse and collapse of everything. It really wouldn't be all that difficult to manage and contain.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 10:42:55 AM
Yes.  Yes it would.

We can't even contain a fucking flu virus.  And people with the flu don't get back up and chew on your fucking neck.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 11, 2010, 10:59:29 AM
Yes.  Yes it would.

We can't even contain a fucking flu virus.  And people with the flu don't get back up and chew on your fucking neck.

 :uhrr:

If we could go around blowing the heads off anybody who coughed, the flu would be gone forever.  You see zombie, you exterminate zombie, it's less like a disease outbreak than it is a pest infestation.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 11:03:12 AM
You're just making my point for me.  I think humans probably WOULD wander around blowing the heads of everyone who coughed.  Which leads to mass panic, confusion, paranoia, people left and right protecting relatives and friends, fleeing countries, spreading that cough.

Fucking Hell, just read World War Z.  It's plausible enough, I'm afraid.

Further, you add in an infection period over 24 hours and your whole world is fucked.

Anyway, here's my main point :

STOP FUCKING UP A ZOMBIE STORY THREAD WITH 'OMG THIS IS SO UNREALISTIC'.  FUCK OFF YOU HOSERS.

In other news, part 2 for Brits tomorrow.  Can't wait.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 11, 2010, 11:06:04 AM
:oh_i_see:

I'm sure no would hide being infected until it was too late to do anything about with that attitude going around.

Which reminds me of one of the standard Zombie problems I always think about that I can't think of a single film addressing off the top of my head. What happens when you just kick the bucket unexpectedly from natural causes in the middle of the night while sleeping with the rest of the survivors. PARTY TIME.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 11, 2010, 11:14:54 AM
Which reminds me of one of the standard Zombie problems I always think about that I can't think of a single film addressing off the top of my head. What happens when you just kick the bucket unexpectedly from natural causes in the middle of the night while sleeping with the rest of the survivors. PARTY TIME.

Only an issue in a world where anyone who dies becomes a zombie (e.g. the "cosmic space dust"/"act of God" scenario, like the Romero films), rather than requiring direct exposure to the "infection" (most other zombie movies I've seen).

I feel like in some Romero-type stories (but maybe not any of the Romero movies) there's been the idea of post-apocalyptic settlements having everyone sleeping behind zombie-proof doors to make sure that people who die in their sleep stay contained and don't eat everyone else.  Doesn't seem like it'd be that hard as long as your zombies can't handle doorknobs or ladders or whatever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 11:16:27 AM
There's two types of zombie story really :  Infection causing ambulation and death doing it.

The death doing it one is rarer because, frankly, it's pretty wank.  There have, however, been stories like you suggest and it pretty much works how you suggest.  Brooks wrote one about survivors holing up with the infected and being fucked from inside.

The infection thing is also a get out clause for 'What about the people in the ground already' cliche.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 11, 2010, 11:26:57 AM
The infection thing is also a get out clause for 'What about the people in the ground already' cliche.

On the other hand, if existing reasonably-fresh corpses do get up when the apocalypse starts... yeah, no fucking way that's being contained.  Nobody gets time to figure out what's going on before a zombie is chewing on their face because nobody lives that far from the nearest ground zero.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 11:38:38 AM
You and I know that containment won't work short-term anyway.

I have my retreat point all worked out.  Hell, Brooks even mentioned it in his account.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 11, 2010, 11:39:41 AM
I loved World War Z and I love this show, but if there were a real zombie outbreak it would be exterminated in short order. As soon as everyone is alarmed enough to lock themselves indoors and the local SWAT team is deployed to take out zombies, that's pretty much it. Biting is a pretty shitty and ineffective way to spread a disease.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Fordel on November 11, 2010, 11:42:56 AM
Yes.  Yes it would.

We can't even contain a fucking flu virus.  And people with the flu don't get back up and chew on your fucking neck.

 :uhrr:

The Flu is Airborne. If the zombie infection is too, then yea we be fucked, but it's usually biting or whatever, like Rabies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ard on November 11, 2010, 11:54:24 AM
Biting is a pretty shitty and ineffective way to spread a disease.

What if the zombies had mechs though?  I mean, mechs are clearly superiors to the tanks the army would be using to reign in this mess.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 11:57:06 AM
Hey, there's a Tron thread just down there somewhere.  Why not pop in and discuss the relative merits of Human Digitisation.

No, really, go.  I heard they have cake.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 11, 2010, 12:49:45 PM
You know, in the Black Company books (anybody else been reading those?), there are some fairly realistic portrayals of how a military company can hold out against supernatural enemies such as this.  Lets discuss.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on November 11, 2010, 01:25:04 PM
I live in Miami and a concern about living here is being in a potential zombie bottleneck. To the east is the Atlantic. West is the Everglades. South is the Keys and Cuba. North is densely populated cities and 'burbs for dozens of miles. Whenever I jump into a backyard pool, I find myself looking for escape routes in case zombies show up while I'm swimming.  :uhrr: (I actually wrote "chow up" the first time)

I did like the take on Cuba from Brooks, although I think the country would more easily fall into chaos rather than what he portryed.

It's been a while since I read the Walking Dead comics but


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 01:39:10 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 11, 2010, 02:20:31 PM

Don't read the following spoilers if you haven't read the comic:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2010, 02:26:50 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 11, 2010, 03:25:28 PM
Just a general question:

Has the show revealed how long it has been since the outbreak started? I feel like it was discussed in the first episode but I missed it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 11, 2010, 03:32:28 PM
Just a general question:

Has the show revealed how long it has been since the outbreak started? I feel like it was discussed in the first episode but I missed it.

Not that I can recall - it seemed to jump pretty directly from "cop got shot" to "cop wakes up from apparent coma in completely dilapidated hospital."  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 11, 2010, 03:37:39 PM
Just a general question:

Has the show revealed how long it has been since the outbreak started? I feel like it was discussed in the first episode but I missed it.

Not that I can recall - it seemed to jump pretty directly from "cop got shot" to "cop wakes up from apparent coma in completely dilapidated hospital."  :uhrr:

I thought maybe when we were camped in the house with the dude and his boy and they were relating to Rick? what was going on.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 11, 2010, 03:39:27 PM
We can assume it started directly after his buddies last visit.  The flowers end up all wilted when he wakes up; maybe one of the science types can give us an estimate on how long it takes them to wilt.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 11, 2010, 07:50:22 PM
Just a general question:

Has the show revealed how long it has been since the outbreak started? I feel like it was discussed in the first episode but I missed it.

He would have had to have woken up no more than a week to ten days after his last IV, or else he would have died from dehydration. Lots of stuff can change that - mostly shortening it, but three to ten days without water is pretty much the range that people die in.

As far as zombies and whatnot, virus/bacteria zombies are impossible physiologically. Muscles need ATP to work at all, and being dead - especially the not breathing part of it - means no ATP. That's why dead people get rigor mortis until they start to decay enough for the muscles to break down. But even then, they wouldn't be able to use any of their muscles without ATP, plus their muscles are all fucked up or they wouldn't have relaxed to begin with, so there you go. All you need to do to avoid dying in a zombie apocalypse is to not french kiss/fuck/do IV drugs with the completely immobile zombies for about a month until they all decay/get eaten by maggots/get tossed in zombie fires. The only sort of zombie that would actually work is a magically animated zombie.

TLDR: Zombies that don't breath are identical in every way to a corpse except for more moaning. Except they're not breathing so they're not moaning either. Fuck, for all we know, every person who's ever died has actually become a zombie...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 11, 2010, 08:48:20 PM
I loved World War Z and I love this show, but if there were a real zombie outbreak it would be exterminated in short order. As soon as everyone is alarmed enough to lock themselves indoors and the local SWAT team is deployed to take out zombies, that's pretty much it. Biting is a pretty shitty and ineffective way to spread a disease.

Agree. An infection based zombie appolocapse won't get very far. However if it was old school dead rising zombies than there is a good chance that everyone is fucked because even at most it make take 3 months to contain the initial outbreak. But once a year lapses...err yeah everyone's boned and less prepared. It will take another year before people realize that it isn't an infection and they need to cremate every corpse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Margalis on November 11, 2010, 08:52:34 PM
I really don't care about realism but I draw the line at characters doing retarded shit like not closing the front door of their house or living in a tent. That simply does not make any sense. I close my front door when I go outside and I don't have to worry about Zombies. Also I don't like sleeping in tents because of bugs - not Zombies, bugs.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 11, 2010, 09:51:36 PM
I really don't care about realism but I draw the line at characters doing retarded shit like not closing the front door of their house or living in a tent. That simply does not make any sense. I close my front door when I go outside and I don't have to worry about Zombies. Also I don't like sleeping in tents because of bugs - not Zombies, bugs.
:awesome_for_real: :heart: :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2010, 01:04:17 AM
Fuck me.

OK.

Ok, if we're going to do this, let's do it properly.

The realism in the show was totally fucked for me when Rick woke up a mere ten days or so later and then when he wandered around it was clearly shown that the apocalypse had the whole 'the bushes, shrubs, trees and flowers are all overgrown' look.  This isn't I am Legend (fucking be there) where things have been falling apart for years.  It's a mere ten days later.  The flora would be fine.

Oh, and you know what ?  I don't think the zombies in this show could possibly be real.  I mean, some of them are wearing clothes that just don't look right.  I wasn't sure, but in some of the footage I saw (50 inch HD set here) they just looked like, I dunno, actors in makeup.  I mean, wtf, right ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: NowhereMan on November 12, 2010, 03:21:05 AM
Sometimes people need a TV that will issue them with a timeout for things like this. "Muscles need ATP? That's 10 minutes of no zombies for you mister, go sit on the suspension of disbelief step." Kind of like supernanny for pricks :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2010, 03:33:15 AM
And yet we're drowning in vampire shows.  Fucking DROWNING in them.  And I'm not hearing a lot of 'but vampires couldn't exist.'  Cause, you know, Porphyric Anaemics, right ?  Oh, and you put a couple of sluts in Tron and it's ok too.  Hell, you want suspension of disbelief problems ?  Did you watch Dexter ?  Good God.

I sat as a kid and watched NotlD and I couldn't sleep for weeks.  I love zombies.  And you assholes are ruining it for me.

Adenosine Triphosphate.  Really.  You drag me back to Mr Kelly and my biology lessons when all I want to do is watch some guy say 'The Basements the place to stay !  We'll be safe there' as his daughter eats his fucking guts.

(Actually, was it Mr Kelly ?  I'm not sure he did Biology.  I remember his daughter though.  She was hawt.  I wonder what happened to her.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 12, 2010, 03:58:09 AM
Just a general question:

Has the show revealed how long it has been since the outbreak started? I feel like it was discussed in the first episode but I missed it.

Not that I can recall - it seemed to jump pretty directly from "cop got shot" to "cop wakes up from apparent coma in completely dilapidated hospital."  :uhrr:

28 days later...?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 12, 2010, 05:09:18 AM
28 Days Later was not a real zombie story precisely because only people who were infected became monsters. In a real zombie story, everyone who dies for whatever reason comes back as a zombie. Otherwise it's not a zombie story.

Furthermore


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 12, 2010, 06:40:57 AM
Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a shitty attempt at a joke.

That said, still a quasi-zombie story. And damn well told at that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 12, 2010, 06:57:12 AM
Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a shitty attempt at a joke.

That said, still a quasi-zombie story. And damn well told at that.


It was a fine joke. I was merely making a very important point about zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 12, 2010, 07:07:58 AM
I'm with Ironwood on this.

Zombies are awesome.  Zombie stories are awesome.  Creepy little zombie girls, even more awesome.

I think someone mentioned earlier in the thread that the zombie outbreak could've been going for a while and only just reached the quiet town, and I guess, within 7 days, all hell broke lose?

His 'friend' brought him those flowers on his way out of town?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 12, 2010, 09:51:03 AM
Lets be honest, there are usually a few things per episode that (even in a zombie scenario) don't much sense.

I can't even recall how many zombies movies have survivors in a zombie-filled city but yet, somehow, are able to drive cars/trucks/whatever around the streets and avoid EVERY SINGLE OTHER CAR and/or zombie. It seems once survivors get in their get-away vehicle, all the dilapidated cars and zombie hordes conveniently avoid the middle of the streets. We have asian-dude able to drive his shiny dodge challenger all over the downtown streets that are now empty of cars/zombies. Whatever.

Or how about the "lets chop this zombie into tiny bits" scene? Most of the 'choppers' didn't wear a mask or any protective clothing. I'm pretty sure chopping up a zombie corpse with an AXE is going to send blood and guts flying, yet people are standing around watching it with mouth agaped. Good idea. Or how about passing around a mask full of zombie guts? The guts were on the INSIDE because some dumbfuck took it off using gut-filled gloves. If one person takes a swing and the mask swings back and hits them in the mouth ITS OVER FOR THEM.


Thats the kind of "wait a second.... eh whatever" moment I go through in zombie movies/tv shows. I've moved past the "Hey, wait a second, if that zombie's leg is broken how can he walk?"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 12, 2010, 10:00:06 AM
I didn't even notice any of the things you people are complaining about until I read them here. 

Just relax and enjoy the show for what it is, good plot, acting, and effects.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 12, 2010, 10:32:31 AM
Lets be honest, there are usually a few things per episode that (even in a zombie scenario) don't much sense.

I can't even recall how many zombies movies have survivors in a zombie-filled city but yet, somehow, are able to drive cars/trucks/whatever around the streets and avoid EVERY SINGLE OTHER CAR and/or zombie. It seems once survivors get in their get-away vehicle, all the dilapidated cars and zombie hordes conveniently avoid the middle of the streets. We have asian-dude able to drive his shiny dodge challenger all over the downtown streets that are now empty of cars/zombies. Whatever.

Or how about the "lets chop this zombie into tiny bits" scene? Most of the 'choppers' didn't wear a mask or any protective clothing. I'm pretty sure chopping up a zombie corpse with an AXE is going to send blood and guts flying, yet people are standing around watching it with mouth agaped. Good idea. Or how about passing around a mask full of zombie guts? The guts were on the INSIDE because some dumbfuck took it off using gut-filled gloves. If one person takes a swing and the mask swings back and hits them in the mouth ITS OVER FOR THEM.


Thats the kind of "wait a second.... eh whatever" moment I go through in zombie movies/tv shows. I've moved past the "Hey, wait a second, if that zombie's leg is broken how can he walk?"

I was staring intently at Rick's hands the entire time he was chopping and doling out guts, and he definitely got some shit on his skin. Like, twice.

And hey, what about the klansman left on the roof? Why did anyone feel bad for him? He woulda just raped the women and killed the black dude and the Asian the first chance he got.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on November 12, 2010, 10:36:36 AM
It took me a while to understand that the black dude probably locked the roof access door to protect that asshole from the zombies ...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: WindupAtheist on November 12, 2010, 10:44:07 AM
And yet we're drowning in vampire shows.  Fucking DROWNING in them.  And I'm not hearing a lot of 'but vampires couldn't exist.'  Cause, you know, Porphyric Anaemics, right ?  Oh, and you put a couple of sluts in Tron and it's ok too.  Hell, you want suspension of disbelief problems ?  Did you watch Dexter ?  Good God.

It's not realism in terms of whether something could exist that anyone cares about. At all. Even a cursory knowledge of the sorts of things people around here like should tell you that. It's whether it could really kill you if it did in fact exist.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2010, 11:10:25 AM
That's what every good zombie story has told us EVER, back to Romero.

It's not the zombies you should be afraid of.  It's the humans.

Name a zombie story where the zombies were the bad guys.  Seriously.

That's what really freaked me the fuck out the first time I watched it, before I even knew America, before I even knew about Black people, before I even knew about history.  This black guy survives the zombie onslaught at this abandoned house and the next day he's shot by the rescue party.

The Zombies scared me.  The Posse Horrified me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2010, 11:16:25 AM
Also, protip chaps :  We're a week behind.  If you're going to talk about the black rapist dude that totally gets killed, can you at least wait another 4 hours ?

Ta.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 12, 2010, 12:18:52 PM
That's what every good zombie story has told us EVER, back to Romero.

It's not the zombies you should be afraid of.  It's the humans.

Name a zombie story where the zombies were the bad guys.  Seriously.

That's what really freaked me the fuck out the first time I watched it, before I even knew America, before I even knew about Black people, before I even knew about history.  This black guy survives the zombie onslaught at this abandoned house and the next day he's shot by the rescue party.

The Zombies scared me.  The Posse Horrified me.

Fucking. This.

Seriously, the people have always been the real horrors in any of these stories. Man's inhumanity to man doesn't take a breather just because the world's come to an end.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on November 12, 2010, 12:32:46 PM

And hey, what about the klansman left on the roof? Why did anyone feel bad for him? He woulda just raped the women and killed the black dude and the Asian the first chance he got.

The bit in NotLD when the rednecks shoot the hero is one of my favorite moments in cinema. The whole movie is one of my favorites, but that scene, in the time period it came out with a strong black hero, was just some great commentary. I can't even imagine having seen that in the theater in 1968.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 12, 2010, 12:45:56 PM
First, ok, sorry I even brought up the tank and started all this.  I'm actually with you Ironwood.  I love love love zombie movies.  I a huge fan of the genre.  I have no problem suspending my belief when watching these movies.  I was just pointing out something I thought was funny when I read the comics the first time.  It's a quirk of the genre that somehow zombies always overrun all armed resistance and I happily run with that.  I just sort of find it funny when a story directly throws the absurdity of it in your face by directly showing that slow zombies somehow took out a bunch of tanks.  Usually it happens off camera, and is just implied.  That's it!  I have no problem at all really!

Second, why are all of you assuming he was in a coma for only a week or two?  Its been a long time since I've read the comic, but I'm pretty sure he was in the coma for many months before waking up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 12, 2010, 12:51:01 PM
Second, why are all of you assuming he was in a coma for only a week or two?  Its been a long time since I've read the comic, but I'm pretty sure he was in the coma for many months before waking up.

I think everyone means a week since the zombie outbreak, not a week total. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on November 12, 2010, 01:50:45 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2010, 03:00:51 PM
Rick also mentioned at the start they'd been drifting apart.  One wonders why.

 :oh_i_see:

OK, I've seen episode two.  Apocalypse situation, some people need shot in the head.  It's really simple.  Stop having emotional angst about it.  Shoot bad men in the head.  Oh.  And Zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tarami on November 12, 2010, 03:14:31 PM
Her husband was shot, fell into a coma and supposedly got eaten by zombies. She moves on. Good for her.

If anyone's a dick, it's the police partner but I can't even get upset about that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 12, 2010, 03:21:01 PM
The guy on the roof will be ok, and will probably free himself.

When the clumsy black guy was running to unlock him, he kicked over a toolbox where one of the tools was a hacksaw. Who knows, it could have landed close enough to guy-on-the-roof (don't remember his name) for him to cut himself free.

or they could have just showed him kicking over the toolbox to show him fall. But I like my theory.


oh, and moving on = fucking your husbands best friend? In a zombie apocalypse? A week after your husband could probably be 'assumed' dead?

riiiiiiiight.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 12, 2010, 03:43:23 PM
We do not know if its been a week.  Or Two.  The hospital was pretty damn fucked up - as if they were under siege.  As far as we know someone was changing out his IV constantly, and once the group decided to move on they left him as a lost case. 

Our only hint of time is the flowers.  I am not a botonist, how long can your average flowers last assuming they have a source of water in the vase?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 12, 2010, 03:44:51 PM

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 12, 2010, 03:46:16 PM
We do not know if its been a week.  Or Two.  The hospital was pretty damn fucked up - as if they were under siege.  As far as we know someone was changing out his IV constantly, and once the group decided to move on they left him as a lost case.  

Our only hint of time is the flowers.  I am not a botonist, how long can your average flowers last assuming they have a source of water in the vase?

I AM a botanist! Flowers last about a week in water before they start looking like shit. Without water, they dry up. But once they're dry, they stay that way indefinitely, so flowers are an unreliable indicator of the passage of time. Rick's IV bag is, however, a very useful indicator.

Edit: my main beef with them not establishing the timeline is this: the hospital looked like something out of Silent Hill. After a week or two? The fuck? And why didn't any zombies smell the "vivre" on Rick and eat his guts out?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MuffinMan on November 12, 2010, 03:55:17 PM
I don't think their intent with the flowers was to accurately show how much time had passed just that time had passed. It's as good a metric as anything else you can find but I honestly don't think they were planning how wilted the flowers were.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 12, 2010, 03:58:21 PM
Yeah, me neither.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 12, 2010, 04:44:44 PM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 12, 2010, 04:46:10 PM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?

That is a good point.

TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when 28 days later did it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 12, 2010, 04:50:11 PM
We do not know if its been a week.  Or Two.  The hospital was pretty damn fucked up - as if they were under siege.  As far as we know someone was changing out his IV constantly, and once the group decided to move on they left him as a lost case.  

Our only hint of time is the flowers.  I am not a botonist, how long can your average flowers last assuming they have a source of water in the vase?

I AM a botanist! Flowers last about a week in water before they start looking like shit. Without water, they dry up. But once they're dry, they stay that way indefinitely, so flowers are an unreliable indicator of the passage of time. Rick's IV bag is, however, a very useful indicator.

Edit: my main beef with them not establishing the timeline is this: the hospital looked like something out of Silent Hill. After a week or two? The fuck? And why didn't any zombies smell the "vivre" on Rick and eat his guts out?

Someone was kind enough to barricaded his room with a bed(or desk). Which come to think of it wouldn't prevent a determined zombie from getting in but whatever...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 12, 2010, 06:13:53 PM
He probably smelt like shit too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 12, 2010, 07:02:48 PM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?

That is a good point.

TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when 28 days later did it.

And pointing that out was cool 6 or 7 years back, when the first issue of the comic came out. It's something Kirkman has addressed on a number of occasions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 12, 2010, 07:20:54 PM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?

That is a good point.

TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when 28 days later did it.

And pointing that out was cool 6 or 7 years back, when the first issue of the comic came out. It's something Kirkman has addressed on a number of occasions.
Didn't read the comic, so please spoil.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MuffinMan on November 12, 2010, 07:22:42 PM
I subtracted points at first too but they obviously want you to discover the full-fledged outbreak along with the main character. How else could they do it? Coming back from a mission in space?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 12, 2010, 11:48:02 PM
TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when 28 days later did it.

Ehrm, yeah it was cool then. Except seeing a guy's dick unnecessarily for a strangely long time. The theater I was in sure got a hoot out of, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 13, 2010, 02:20:22 AM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?

That is a good point.

TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when Day of the Triffids did it.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 13, 2010, 02:40:36 AM
The more I think on it, the less I like Whore Lori.  In the comics, she merely made one mistake and regretted it enormously.  I guess it's more dramatic to have her be a whore who likes it from behind while her wedding rings look on, but it bothers me a little.

Perhaps it's meant to.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on November 13, 2010, 03:39:42 AM
The more I think on it, the less I like Whore Lori.  In the comics, she merely made one mistake and regretted it enormously.  I guess it's more dramatic to have her be a whore who likes it from behind while her wedding rings look on, but it bothers me a little.

Perhaps it's meant to.

If there was ever a way to measure such a thing, I think that episode 2 is responsible for the most people screaming "whore" simultaneously at a single person/character in all of history. In fact, every time I see her in a commercial I can't help but mutter "slut" under my breath.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 13, 2010, 05:02:43 AM
Ask yourself how long will it take for the US army to roll a tank into the middle of Atlanta because the situation was that bad?

That is a good point.

TBH I detracted points for the opener. It was cool when 28 days later did it.

And pointing that out was cool 6 or 7 years back, when the first issue of the comic came out. It's something Kirkman has addressed on a number of occasions.
Didn't read the comic, so please spoil.

Not a spoiler.  Kirkman was asked about this again recently by Entertainment Weekly, so here's his response:

Quote
"Welcome to my life seven years ago. It was complete coincidence. I saw 28 Days Later shortly before the first issue of Walking Dead was released. That first issue came out in October of 2003 and 28 Days Later was released in the States in June of 2003. So we were working on our second issue by the time I saw it. It was going to be a matter of somehow trying to restage the entire first issue, because it was a very similar coma opening. I made a decision—which I pretty much regret at this point—I said, “You know what? It’s so different [from that point on], I will probably never hear anything about this.” And I was wrong. It was a little annoying. But great minds think alike, right?"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 13, 2010, 08:03:40 AM
Oh that's sad  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 14, 2010, 11:26:26 PM
The guy on the roof will be ok, and will probably free himself.

When the clumsy black guy was running to unlock him, he kicked over a toolbox where one of the tools was a hacksaw. Who knows, it could have landed close enough to guy-on-the-roof (don't remember his name) for him to cut himself free.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2010, 01:18:26 AM
Yes.  Almost certainly.  The foreshadowing was there.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 15, 2010, 05:39:18 AM
So good.

And rednecks are so dumb.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 15, 2010, 07:29:46 AM
I think enough details were dropped in the last episode to confirm that the outbreak had been going on for more than a week or so. They made it pretty clear that the hospital kept running after the outbreak started. Assumably, nurses were still around changing his IV, and there was a plan in place to medivac the patients. They had hundreds of bodies piled up at the hospital, so obviously there was some organized effort to control the outbreak for a while, until eventually it overran them. So assumably he woke up a few days to a week after the hospital fell.

Now that does bring in to question
Zombie impossiblities - fuck off - zombie disease obviously converts ADT or P or whatever out of the guts the zombies eat, thus why they are always hungry. Duh.

Wife may be a whore, but she tries to deal with it in episode three. Partner guy has anger issues.
Only one real nitpick -


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on November 15, 2010, 07:58:37 AM
In the third episode, how in the hell  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 15, 2010, 08:20:04 AM
Only one real nitpick -



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 15, 2010, 10:54:48 AM
In the third episode, how in the hell  

To be fair, they did show in the first episode that many of the streets were deserted if there was nothing to attract the zombies. Rick rode all the way in to downtown before he saw any. Thus why the people in the store got pissed off when he started shooting in the street and attracted so many of them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Typhon on November 15, 2010, 03:20:47 PM
And yet we're drowning in vampire shows.  Fucking DROWNING in them.  And I'm not hearing a lot of 'but vampires couldn't exist.'  Cause, you know, Porphyric Anaemics, right ?  Oh, and you put a couple of sluts in Tron and it's ok too.  Hell, you want suspension of disbelief problems ?  Did you watch Dexter ?  Good God.

I sat as a kid and watched NotlD and I couldn't sleep for weeks.  I love zombies.  And you assholes are ruining it for me.

Adenosine Triphosphate.  Really.  You drag me back to Mr Kelly and my biology lessons when all I want to do is watch some guy say 'The Basements the place to stay !  We'll be safe there' as his daughter eats his fucking guts.

(Actually, was it Mr Kelly ?  I'm not sure he did Biology.  I remember his daughter though.  She was hawt.  I wonder what happened to her.)

HELL YEAH!  Didn't read the rest of your usual "I'm Ironwood, hear me roar!" crap, but I can get onboard with that!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2010, 03:22:37 PM
It's a shame.  Your opinion means so very much to me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 15, 2010, 03:49:36 PM
I thought it was hilarious that they were afraid to eat the zombie chomped deer but boondock saints dude was hunting with arrows he pulled out of zombies and wiped on his pants.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 15, 2010, 11:10:17 PM
Well, he IS a redneck.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 16, 2010, 06:42:33 AM
If we had a zombie Apocalypse the rednecks will be the first to survive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 16, 2010, 08:52:06 AM
If we had a zombie Apocalypse the rednecks will be the first to survive.
Because zombies eat brains?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 16, 2010, 09:06:43 AM
If we had a zombie Apocalypse the rednecks will be the first to survive.
Because zombies eat brains?

Rednecks are less likely to live in the city.
Rednecks are more likely to own a gun.
Rednecks are probably more prepared for living outdoors.
Rednecks are more liking to have blue collar skills necessary for rebuilding post apocalyptic world.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on November 16, 2010, 09:11:47 AM
Nah... I'll go with the brains theory  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: voodoolily on November 16, 2010, 10:40:08 AM
I thought it was hilarious that they were afraid to eat the zombie chomped deer but boondock saints dude was hunting with arrows he pulled out of zombies and wiped on his pants.

I caught that too, but then I thought he was only reusing the arrows for zombies. It just makes good sense.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Roentgen on November 18, 2010, 02:50:05 PM
If we had a zombie Apocalypse the rednecks will be the first to survive.
Because zombies eat brains?

Rednecks are less likely to live in the city.
Rednecks are more likely to own a gun.
Rednecks are probably more prepared for living outdoors.
Rednecks are more liking to have blue collar skills necessary for rebuilding post apocalyptic world.



Because sitting in a trailer, slamming PBR, and collecting unemployment teaches you all the hunting/building/survival skills necessary to survive the zombie apocalypse.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 18, 2010, 07:08:56 PM
If we had a zombie Apocalypse the rednecks will be the first to survive.
Because zombies eat brains?

Rednecks are less likely to live in the city.
Rednecks are more likely to own a gun.
Rednecks are probably more prepared for living outdoors.
Rednecks are more liking to have blue collar skills necessary for rebuilding post apocalyptic world.



Because sitting in a trailer, slamming PBR, and collecting unemployment teaches you all the hunting/building/survival skills necessary to survive the zombie apocalypse.   :awesome_for_real:

The trailer is a defendable position  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 20, 2010, 01:53:55 AM
The good thing about watching this a week later than you chaps, is that I get to watch out for some of the stuff that bugged you.

Redneck chap was hunting the deer and plugged it.  Then he hit the zombie (which was specifically stated as the first one they've had up here) and then he's shown cleaning the arrows in order to rid them of zombie gunk.  So it's not as bad as all that.   :awesome_for_real:

A good episode and I'm glad they're making it more complicated than the original;  my earlier rant about Slut Lori was thrown into disarray given her fight with Shane.  That said, she's still an awful slut and I don't like her.  (She was hateful in the comic too.)

Is everyone else who's watching this just saying 'well, he/she wasn't in the comic, so they're marking time ?'

Wife-Beater scene was most excellent.  One wonders how long he'd have lasted with Michonne.  Milliseconds perhaps ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 20, 2010, 08:02:20 AM
Slut wife went from somewhat reasonable to intolerably bitchy. Her fight with Shane was so artificial with the only explanation being she is on her period.

"You said he was dead!"
"Well, he was 1. In an overrun hospital. 2. in a coma. 3. surrounded by zombies..."

If Shane slapped her I would have cheered.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 20, 2010, 08:43:26 AM
wah?  Fight seemed pretty realistic to me.  I'm pretty sure he probably told her he saw him die for certain, so that there was no way she could hold out any hope.  It was probably practical for the time, since they needed to move out but she wouldn't leave him, but that would piss just about anybody off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 20, 2010, 09:02:10 AM
Yeah, I sat through the fight thinking 'What ?  You're the one that took it like a bitch from behind, what are you so pissed off for ?  You SLUT'.  Then it all crystalised with her explanation.  Shane didn't just help her out, like the comics, Shane deliberately told her 'Yeah, I saw him expire' which brings it to an all new level of douchebaggery.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 20, 2010, 04:09:37 PM
Because this is in no way a spoiler now, in the comics she did Shane once and only once in a moment of weakness. Even then she still managed to come off as a horrible slut. mostly because she was balling Shane without knowing it Rick was dead. They up and left town with him the care of the hospital.

In the TV series things are being portrayed in a much different light. The hint that Shane , as Ironwood put it, outright told her that Rick had expired and he had seen it happen, bring a totally new twist to the story. One I'm appreciating.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 20, 2010, 07:05:19 PM
"You told me he died!"
"He should have   :oh_i_see: "
"You BASTARD!"
"Oh come on baby its the zombie apocalypse  :drill:"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on November 21, 2010, 08:02:26 PM
That was amazingly good.

I really didn't expect the gangers to be that deep of an enemy. That was not expected at all.

Of course, to hear there are only 2 episodes left this season made me :headscratch:.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 21, 2010, 08:45:59 PM
Well, they only set it up originally as a miniseries, so...there ya go.

That said, AMC has already paid for the 13 episodes for next season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on November 21, 2010, 10:34:36 PM
Is it just me, or where there a bunch of random people getting bit/eaten in the attack at the end that I never saw hanging around before?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: proudft on November 21, 2010, 11:07:58 PM
No, I was thinking that as well.   I thought Latino family-man guy got jumped on and eaten, then oh, there he is, and he has a different shirt on, so I guess that wasn't him getting munched on.  There were like at least 3-4 people I had no idea who they were.  Very confusing. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 21, 2010, 11:39:43 PM
Zombies, the biggest trolls in fiction  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on November 22, 2010, 12:02:12 AM
Yeah, the pulled a LOST with the sudden death of countless people I had never seen before.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on November 22, 2010, 09:58:11 AM
Only one of which anyone apparently gives a shit about. Of course, we had seen her before.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 22, 2010, 10:17:32 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 23, 2010, 12:21:29 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 23, 2010, 12:53:32 AM




I like the remaining Redneck Brother, by the way. He really is somebody to have around after the Zombie apocalypse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
This Show Rocks.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 28, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
Well, that seems to be a pretty big depaarture from the comic if I remember correctly. For those of you seeing this a week late you can just skip to the last 15 minutes. There's nothing of any note that happens in the first 45


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 29, 2010, 09:50:13 AM
angry.bob is a cynic, watch the whole damn episode, was good, and this is the largest departure from the comics yet, so especially watch the whole thing if you read the comics. From here on I expect some pretty cool shit. iirc, this got the flag for season 2 yeah?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 29, 2010, 10:35:51 AM
Yeah, they ordered another season three weeks ago.  Also, it'll have 13 episodes instead of the 6 we got this time around.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: trias_e on November 29, 2010, 04:45:59 PM
angry.bob is correct.  Nothing fucking happened. 

 

I find myself constantly agreeing with redneck brother and being constantly annoyed by almost every other character.  Does this make me a bad person?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 29, 2010, 04:56:06 PM
angry.bob is correct.  Nothing fucking happened.  

 

I find myself constantly agreeing with redneck brother and being constantly annoyed by almost every other character.  Does this make me a bad person?

Nope, just the shows target audience  :grin: I think most of those characters are annoying on purpose, you don't want them around during the zombie-end-of-the-world. You would want Glen and the redneck. Maybe rick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Brogarn on November 29, 2010, 05:20:25 PM
Another excellent episode from beginning to end. Some damn fine acting and some reminders of the horrors both physical and emotional that something like this would take out on someone. Decisions you'd have to make that would be just plain awful. Even worse if you've got a family. It's a pity some would have you fast forward to the end just to see what happens. You're missing out. Unless, of course, you're soulless. Then never mind. Go ahead and fast forward through all the human parts and get to the guns, zombies and stuff. *thumbs up*


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 29, 2010, 05:24:52 PM
Viscerally it was a weaker episode, but if you ask me, character development is still "stuff happening."


I loved it, and can't wait to see where it goes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on November 29, 2010, 05:33:18 PM
Brogarn nailed it I think. This episode was all character development. And it was done very well I feel. There was pretty much no action in this episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 29, 2010, 06:02:51 PM
People who think nothing happened this episode are the reason TV is mostly shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: trias_e on November 29, 2010, 06:35:13 PM
Cliched, obvious, boring are the three words that come to mind regarding the 'character development' of last episode.  Watching characters going through stages of grief is something that is better shown with change in demeanor over time, and not shoved down your throat in one marathon session.  The one good bit of development, not surprisingly, had to do with a relationship between living characters.  This episode utterly abandoned the best part about the survival-horror genre, which is a naturally exciting and often unexpected pacing over which character development to occur.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on November 29, 2010, 06:44:34 PM
People who think nothing happened this episode are the reason TV is mostly shit.

The reason TV is mostly shit is because of reality shows raking in $ for extremely low production costs.

This episode


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 29, 2010, 06:49:30 PM
Cliched, obvious, boring are the three words that come to mind regarding the 'character development' of last episode.  Watching characters going through stages of grief is something that is better shown with change in demeanor over time, and not shoved down your throat in one marathon session.  The one good bit of development, not surprisingly, had to do with a relationship between living characters.  This episode utterly abandoned the best part about the survival-horror genre, which is a naturally exciting and often unexpected pacing over which character development to occur.

This was originally only supposed to be a mini series.  They didn't have the luxury of taking a long, gradual approach to character development when the writers only expected to have 6 episodes to tell their story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 29, 2010, 09:53:13 PM
I watched the whole episode. Just browsed the internet during the first 45 minutes since it looked incredibly boring. It really was a waste of time and I highly suggest just FFing till the final 15.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 30, 2010, 06:17:03 AM
I admit I jumped at the exact same scene Vaiti did - it caught me off guard. It was a character building episode certainly, but it was well done.

My assumption for the next episode:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nerf on November 30, 2010, 02:21:03 PM
I admit I jumped at the exact same scene Vaiti did - it caught me off guard. It was a character building episode certainly, but it was well done.

My assumption for the next episode:

I


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 30, 2010, 03:30:00 PM
I admit I jumped at the exact same scene Vaiti did - it caught me off guard. It was a character building episode certainly, but it was well done.

My assumption for the next episode:

I



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 30, 2010, 03:46:52 PM

My assumption for the next episode:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on November 30, 2010, 03:49:32 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on November 30, 2010, 06:38:55 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on December 01, 2010, 12:06:17 AM
I hadn't thought of it that way, that makes sense too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on December 01, 2010, 11:13:59 AM

How many days after the episode aired can we stop spoilering?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 01, 2010, 02:11:55 PM
Seven.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 01, 2010, 03:47:46 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vaiti on December 01, 2010, 04:18:18 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on December 02, 2010, 07:02:23 AM




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on December 02, 2010, 08:24:26 AM
Sounds like a plan.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 02, 2010, 12:35:54 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Draegan on December 02, 2010, 01:54:15 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on December 03, 2010, 08:52:58 AM
This show is awesome. So glad it's not on a premium channel!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MuffinMan on December 03, 2010, 09:01:18 AM
I just wish either A&E or Hulu were streaming episodes online. Unless they are somewhere and I just don't know it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 03, 2010, 02:45:23 PM
Well, that seems to be a pretty big depaarture from the comic if I remember correctly. For those of you seeing this a week late you can just skip to the last 15 minutes. There's nothing of any note that happens in the first 45

I disagree.  I think also if you watch the whole series in a oner, you'll note that the release of tension in this episode works really nicely with the tense camp attack.  It's just a shame that doesn't come across so well given that the episodes are a week apart.

It's almost done (Ad Break at the mo) and I've enjoyed it enormously. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on December 03, 2010, 06:19:49 PM
Did no one watch the scenes from the next episode?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 03, 2010, 07:00:12 PM
I generally avoid those sorts of things.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 04, 2010, 03:10:11 PM
I just wish either A&E or Hulu were streaming episodes online. Unless they are somewhere and I just don't know it.

Having stumbled upon this in the last week, I feel the same way. It seems that you can get the episodes via iTunes, and some other places. I guess I'll have to look at the whole "TV shows on my Xbox" thing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on December 05, 2010, 01:25:00 PM
Did no one watch the scenes from the next episode?
Point of contention in my house. She loves them, I never watch them as a rule. For stuff like the Tudors, I'd just pause it and leave the room so she could watch them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 05, 2010, 01:39:00 PM
AMC is showing all the episodes tonight if you missed any. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on December 05, 2010, 10:07:39 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on December 05, 2010, 11:18:05 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on December 06, 2010, 05:29:14 AM

Apparently, we watched two different shows, because I thought it was spectacular.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on December 06, 2010, 05:46:11 AM

I'm pretty sure the scientist said...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on December 06, 2010, 10:37:57 AM

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2010, 10:46:58 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Vision on December 06, 2010, 02:57:45 PM
Whoever writes the dialogue for this show much be related to George Lucas.
It is that awful.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 06, 2010, 10:18:19 PM

fixed!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on December 06, 2010, 11:52:07 PM
Its interesting how the people in this thread either absolutely love the show, or absolutely hate it.  I absolutely love it, so fuck the rest of you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tarami on December 07, 2010, 01:28:05 AM
Its interesting how the people in this thread either absolutely love the show, or absolutely hate it.  I absolutely love it, so fuck the rest of you.
I don't absolutely hate it. It's just that it's a lot like Lost - everything of importance that happens is because of writers' deus ex machinas ("environmental reasons") rather than being properly character-driven.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on December 07, 2010, 01:49:29 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 07, 2010, 02:14:41 AM
Its interesting how the people in this thread either absolutely love the show, or absolutely hate it.  I absolutely love it, so fuck the rest of you.
I don't absolutely hate it. It's just that it's a lot like Lost - everything of importance that happens is because of writers' deus ex machinas ("environmental reasons") rather than being properly character-driven.


The funny thing is that:

a) The episode you're complaining about in your example was the one written by Robert Kirkman (the guy who writes the comic).

and,

b) While they're taking a bit longer to get from point a to point b than the comic did and adding in a lot of new stuff, if the next few seasons are anything like the comic at all, your criticism that they're unwilling to kill important characters will seem ridiculously invalid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on December 07, 2010, 06:49:43 AM
So yeah. Have to ignore this thread now, since AMC isn't doing reruns during the week. And my fiancee decided to queue up about a dozen hour-long HD recordings saturday and sunday. I was sitting around last night and...why isn't the Jets/Pats game recording!? Luckily, it was a massacre and I didn't miss anything, but when she took off I sat down to watch Walking Dead, nice Sierra Nevada Hef in hand, salty pretzels ready....and no Walking Dead, the DVR was full.

The last time that happened, it screwed the DVR and I needed to get a new one, so I guess I got lucky? I didn't really express to her just how angry I was with that one, just throwing recordings on that we have no time to watch and screwing the things I actually do watch....anger.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2010, 11:17:03 AM
Kill her.

It'll seem merciful when the zombies come.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on December 07, 2010, 11:49:34 AM
Kill her.
That will show her how angry you are.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on December 07, 2010, 12:13:07 PM
Sounds like you need to:
Become a cop
Get in a shoot-out with a bad guy
Get shot and put in hospital/coma
Survive a zombie infestation
Have your best friend tell your wife (who survived) that you died
(here's the hard part) wait a bit so your wife can hook up with your best friend
Finally return to your wife, thus making your relationship stronger than it ever was before
Buy another DVR


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 07, 2010, 12:14:56 PM
And then you can continue to shit up a thread about a show for which you've already expressed your deep disdain.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on December 07, 2010, 12:57:17 PM
Sounds like you need to:
Become a cop
Get in a shoot-out with a bad guy
Get shot and put in hospital/coma
Survive a zombie infestation
Have your best friend tell your wife (who survived) that you died
(here's the hard part) wait a bit so your wife can hook up with your best friend
Finally return to your wife, thus making your relationship stronger than it ever was before
Buy another DVR
But....my fiancee IS my best friend!  :ye_gods:  :drillf:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: lac on December 07, 2010, 01:14:45 PM
Is this one of those threads where the spoiler tag means people who have read the books are spoilering whatever they remember or is it because I got a tad drunk watching the last few episodes that I get a bit confused reading this?
It's a fair question, I usually watch this show after I go out for drinks with the lads and quite frankly I sometimes get a bit confused watching the recap at the start of the show (mostly because I fired up the wrong episode, but still).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: waffel on December 07, 2010, 01:16:32 PM
The spoiler tags are almost all about the previous episode that air'd recently. This is because some people in the thread are a week behind due to various factors.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: lac on December 07, 2010, 01:23:41 PM
Yea, it was the child stuff on the previous page that put me off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2010, 03:18:01 PM
There's also some comics stuff spoiled there.  But the more we see, the more it diverges, so don't worry about it yet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 11, 2010, 10:03:41 AM
Ok, so now it's all over, I'm impressed.  It was much better than it should have been.

However, do you know what it really needed ?

More zombies.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on December 11, 2010, 01:11:21 PM
More zombies.

I would agree, but since zombie stories aren't actually about zombies and are about other humans being much more of a threat I feel okay with the zombie screen time approaching zero. In fact, it may be even more frightening and tense if zombies started turning into humans and thus increasing the overall threat level.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 12, 2010, 10:03:30 AM
Ok, so now it's all over, I'm impressed.  It was much better than it should have been.

However, do you know what it really needed ?

More zombies.



Well, yeah... but you can say that about practically anything.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sky on December 13, 2010, 09:04:19 AM
Yay, AMC replayed the last ep and I was able to snag it for the DVR. Really liking Time Warner's new DVR web interface...they actually seem to have gotten something right after mangling the UI for the set-top box.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 14, 2011, 06:05:08 AM
So, uh, is this coming back this month?

According to this picture (http://i.imgur.com/hPJ3z.jpg) that was posted in the funny pictures thread, the billboard clearly says April 2011 and I got all excited, but AMC's website is a pile of shit and I can't find anything about it coming back this month...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 14, 2011, 06:54:53 AM
That poster was in the UK and it's advertising season 1.

2nd season is slated for October 2011 airing last I heard.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 14, 2011, 07:50:12 AM
aww  :cry:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Wasted on April 21, 2011, 07:45:33 AM
So, uh, is this coming back this month?

According to this picture (http://i.imgur.com/hPJ3z.jpg) that was posted in the funny pictures thread, the billboard clearly says April 2011 and I got all excited, but AMC's website is a pile of shit and I can't find anything about it coming back this month...



Wow, they put the Walking Dead poster next to a funeral home.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on April 22, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
You're quick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on April 22, 2011, 04:40:00 PM
Walking Dead season 1 = 10 bucks at Best Buy right now.  Not Blueray, but still a good deal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on July 24, 2011, 07:11:00 PM
Season 2 trailer from ComicCon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZ0mu8Ey6A).  Starts on October 16th.  13 episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MuffinMan on July 24, 2011, 09:12:42 PM
Season 2 trailer from ComicCon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OZ0mu8Ey6A).  Starts on October 16th.  13 episodes.
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/111434/happy.gif)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on July 25, 2011, 07:03:32 AM
Jesus christ, "hide under the cars"? really? fucking morons.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on August 28, 2011, 09:41:14 PM
Bad news - Frank Darabont got canned.  Hope the show doesn't suffer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-what-happened-fired-221449 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-what-happened-fired-221449)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on August 28, 2011, 09:57:17 PM
Bad news - Frank Darabont got canned.  Hope the show doesn't suffer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-what-happened-fired-221449 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-what-happened-fired-221449)

Yeah, this news came out a few weeks ago.  From the articles I've read, I don't see any way for the quality of the show not to suffer to some extent.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 14, 2011, 10:22:04 PM
Is AMC just run by clownshoes losers that couldn't make it on a real network, and are trying to prove why now that they're getting a little taste of success?  They had three successful shows, one of which was getting ridiculously good numbers in the most coveted demographic, and they are taking a shit all over them?

Walking Dead especially has huge potential if it can log enough episodes for syndication, and with AMC owning it outright you would think a competent executive would just sit back, share the wealth a little, and order his money hats.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 15, 2011, 03:15:18 AM

 you would think a competent executive would just sit back, share the wealth a little


Where the fuck have you been the last 15 years ?  Under a rock ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 15, 2011, 05:17:53 PM

 you would think a competent executive would just sit back, share the wealth a little


Where the fuck have you been the last 15 years ?  Under a rock ?
Yeah, it's just that it makes no goddamned sense at all.  Yes, you're bleeding money, but the whole point of *having* original content on AMC was to bleed money in order to build up the kind of viewer numbers that would let you get more revenue from both the cable companies and the advertisers.  And here, you've almost done it, you've got shows with lots of buzz and more than decent viewership, and the response to this success is...nickel and dime the golden geese to death.  And The Walking Dead is tailor-made as a vehicle for advertising every survival-horror video game and movie that comes out, why are you fucking with that?

Even for executives, this is an amazing degree of WTF?  Stop paying to show movies that aren't at least 30 years old and double down on these successful shows, you morons.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 17, 2011, 11:16:31 AM
No one?  The zombie herd and the "sign from god" was awesome.  The dumb people dumbing it up not so much.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on October 17, 2011, 11:20:09 AM
"We need tension, dammit!"

"How about we have someone do something stupid?"

"How about if four people do something stupid?"

"I like the way you think."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 17, 2011, 12:09:01 PM
No one?  The zombie herd and the "sign from god" was awesome.  The dumb people dumbing it up not so much.

Too much time spent looking for the girl.  I was excited that this was going to be a longer episode than usual, but after the herd I think the pace was a little slow.  I'm sure the ending is probably a good shock to people who haven't read the comic.  Daryl continues to be my favorite character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 17, 2011, 12:43:30 PM
Ya, I really want to like Rick but he thinks with his gut way too much to really survive.  Daryl is awesome.  You know he doesn't like the what the group is doing, but he plays smart and sucks it up because IT'S THE FUCKING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE and sitting around making pouty faces at each other is going to get you killed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 18, 2011, 06:10:14 AM
It's probably way too much to hope that the character is dead (have not read the comic). Maybe at least the character will be bedridden for a couple episodes. Can't do too much stupid shit from a bed.

I liked the episode, but watching it on PVR made it pretty obvious that it was 90 minutes just so they could fit in 35 minutes of commercials.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 18, 2011, 06:16:14 AM
Which is different from a show being 60 minutes so they can fit in 22 minutes of commercials how?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 18, 2011, 06:39:11 AM
I guess it isn't. Just means I'll likely switch to watching it on Torrents like most other shows. HBO spoiled me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on October 18, 2011, 06:49:13 AM
This was the first time I have noticed the unequal spread of commercials too.  The first commercial break was a good 15 or so minutes in.  By the end of the show they were only having like 5 minutes of straight show before a commercial break.  Was kind of annoying.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 18, 2011, 06:50:17 AM
Channel 4 over here used to do the most annoying thing ever, which was cut to the first batch of ads RIGHT AFTER the starting credits.

It was.....vexing.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 18, 2011, 07:14:40 AM
Somewhat related. I hate how Hulu will plays commercials, and then roll credits.  :oh_i_see: It so feels like they are just slapping it in ONE LAST TIME.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: AcidCat on October 18, 2011, 07:31:18 AM
The dumb people dumbing it up not so much.

It really became too much. Characters acting without a shred of common sense just to serve the plot. I don't remember any season 1 episodes being this dumb.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on October 18, 2011, 08:39:11 AM
Apparently this was two episodes grafted together with a lot of the journey away from the CDC removed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 18, 2011, 09:31:13 AM
It so feels like they are just slapping it in ONE LAST TIME.

That's what she said.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slyfeind on October 18, 2011, 02:18:41 PM
Hiding under the cars did seem dumb, but only because they played it relatively smart/realistic in Season 1. Did they do that in the books? Also weird was the girl running from the zombies, and the zombies keeping up, even though they were shambling and tripping while the girl was bounding through the woods like freaking Tarzan. It reminded me of Jackson's LotR, where he depicted Aragorn and Legolas striding along the plains, with Gimli constantly 20-25' behind them because he's running slower but not really.

I was ok with the awkward search for the girl, because I couldn't think what I might do differently in that situation.

Loved the church scene, especially when they first opened the doors.  :grin: slow turn :grin: I don't think Baptists have giant crucifixes though, do they?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2011, 02:52:59 PM
Loved the church scene, especially when they first opened the doors.  :grin: slow turn :grin: I don't think Baptists have giant crucifixes though, do they?

I think it's catholics. Though I still say the zombies put the crucifix up.  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 18, 2011, 02:53:36 PM
Hiding under the cars did seem dumb, but only because they played it relatively smart/realistic in Season 1. Did they do that in the books? Also weird was the girl running from the zombies, and the zombies keeping up, even though they were shambling and tripping while the girl was bounding through the woods like freaking Tarzan. It reminded me of Jackson's LotR, where he depicted Aragorn and Legolas striding along the plains, with Gimli constantly 20-25' behind them because he's running slower but not really.

I was ok with the awkward search for the girl, because I couldn't think what I might do differently in that situation.

Loved the church scene, especially when they first opened the doors.  :grin: slow turn :grin: I don't think Baptists have giant crucifixes though, do they?

No, they never hid under cars in the books.  It was an odd thing for them to do in this episode, because it's been established that the zombies detect people largely through smell, which makes it even more surprising that for the most part it worked (most of the herd passed them by).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 18, 2011, 02:57:54 PM
I still need to watch the interview show thing, but apparently Kirkman is retconning the whole track by smell thing, by saying that the zombies sense of smell deteriorates like the rest of their bodies.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 18, 2011, 02:59:37 PM
It's believable to me.  I couldn't smell someone under a car.  It seems more like that someone would have made noise to attract them or one of the zombies stumbles and catches a glimpse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on October 18, 2011, 08:43:07 PM
I started to watch the new season then realized I had missed the last two episodes of last year.

Episode 5 was amazingly good. It might be that they had Adagio in D Minor playing, which makes anything epic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: lac on October 19, 2011, 02:00:54 AM
Is this season going to be split in two halves like they plan to do with the final season of Breaking Bad?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on October 19, 2011, 03:34:17 AM
Is this season going to be split in two halves like they plan to do with the final season of Breaking Bad?

Yes. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 19, 2011, 03:37:08 AM
I enjoyed the episode mostly.  I wish the characters would wise up a little though.  The redneck is really showing his worth.  I laughed at the blonde in the bathroom.  What a stupid bag of hammers she is!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2011, 05:48:23 AM
It's believable to me.  I couldn't smell someone under a car.  It seems more like that someone would have made noise to attract them or one of the zombies stumbles and catches a glimpse.

Trouble with that line of logic, as Max Brooks covers in his novels, is that there is literally NO WAY for a zombie to sense anyone once you start analysing what is believable or not.  Eventually the senses should be utterly useless, which is believable.

Until they start bashing on your door.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on October 19, 2011, 06:12:51 AM
Don't ever analyze zombies or zombie worlds.  The list of 'wait, what about..' questions is far too long.

Beginning with senses and decay and ending with, "where are all the carrion eaters, anyway?"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2011, 06:16:23 AM
That one's been covered though :  Solamnum kills them.

  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 19, 2011, 08:27:37 AM
There were only two parts about the first new episode I didn't like. The blonde turning into stupid whiny "Why didn't you let me off myself!" and... hmm, I've forgotten what the second thing was because goddamn, she became really annoying really quickly. I was surprised by the ending. Not that something happened, just what it was that did happen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 19, 2011, 08:32:03 AM
I wonder what kind of sign he expected from a God who lets the world devolve into a pile of shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 19, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
"Here's a sign for you my child... HAHA PSYCHE!"

Sadly, I doubt its permanent. Core character in the books or not, he drags the show down.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 19, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
I want everyone but the guy from Boondock Saints and the asian kid to be eaten by zombies and for the show to turn into a zombie hunting buddy comedy starring those two.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2011, 08:15:41 PM
I want everyone but the guy from Boondock Saints and the asian kid to be eaten by zombies and for the show to turn into a zombie hunting buddy comedy starring those two.

Well Zombieland is being turned into a 30 minute tv show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on October 19, 2011, 08:24:44 PM
Zombieland started out as a tv show but CBS dropped it just before filming started.  :awesome_for_real: The movie is a condensed version of the first season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2011, 08:25:48 PM
Zombieland started out as a tv show but CBS dropped it just before filming started.  :awesome_for_real: The movie is a condensed version of the first season.

Yep, but instead of a sequel they are going back to TV.  I'm sure Walking Dead's popularity is what sealed that deal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 20, 2011, 03:08:05 AM
The exchange went something like this over at CBS...

Producer:  We want to do a funny/scary zombie show.
Suit:  Zombies?  On the Tiffany Network?  I say good day sir!
Producer:  We turned the concept into a movie and it made bank.
Suit:  I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my three martini lunch.
Producer:  The Walking Dead on AMC is wildly popular.
Suit:  WHAR SERIES WHAR


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 20, 2011, 03:12:32 AM
Too bad that Fox is the one going for the show, CBS is shit outta luck.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 20, 2011, 11:02:40 AM
That's a shame.  Odds are high of it being shitcanned halfway through the first season despite being fantastic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on October 20, 2011, 12:11:41 PM
Zombieland started out as a tv show but CBS dropped it just before filming started.  :awesome_for_real: The movie is a condensed version of the first season.

Yep, but instead of a sequel they are going back to TV.  I'm sure Walking Dead's popularity is what sealed that deal.


I kinda figured you knew that, but whatevs. I love the movie even though it only feels twenty minutes long. If done well, I'd rather see this than The Walking Dead each week.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 24, 2011, 06:20:54 AM
Well, episode two was at least paced out a lot better than the first one. And this may be the only show on tv where the redneck is the coolest character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 24, 2011, 06:46:16 AM
Saw the first of S2 last night.

It was well done and quite tense, but I still have real problems with the characters being....Bloody Stupid.

Some seriously obvious 'setup' which kinda broke the immersion for me.  Particularly the "'Now, you stay here' - BOLT" thing.  My wife was shouting at the screen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 24, 2011, 01:06:17 PM
Well, episode two was at least paced out a lot better than the first one. And this may be the only show on tv where the redneck is the coolest character.

Yeah, I thought this was a pretty good episode.  I like that they give Shane some redeeming qualities that never really came through in the comic.  Also, with what little screen time he's gotten so far, Otis is already miles better than his comic equivalent, so I'm looking forward to seeing how they get out of their current situation.  Daryl continues to be the character I'm constantly afraid will killed off for shock value and because it would probably be the biggest hit to the group.  At the same time though, I tell myself that he wouldn't get killed off before his brother shows up again.  Also still dreading the potential quality drop halfway through the season after we hit the point where Darabont left.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 24, 2011, 07:08:58 PM

Some seriously obvious 'setup' which kinda broke the immersion for me.  Particularly the "'Now, you stay here' - BOLT" thing.  My wife was shouting at the screen.

Well to be fair he said "stay here, but if i don't get back soon here is how you get back".  Which apparently she was actually following until for some reason she took off in a completely different direction.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 25, 2011, 12:47:26 AM
'Soon' shouldn't be defined as 'The Minute The Cop is out of Eyeline.'

She totally bolted.

Also, can someone tell me what the guy in the car actually died of ?  The one with the sweet roll of melee weapons ?

He was just sitting there.  Dead.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 25, 2011, 02:13:40 AM
I have a feeling that... Not. Everyone. Comes. Back...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 25, 2011, 02:16:08 AM
Well, sure, but there didn't seem to be a mark on him.  He was just...dead.

I wonder if the Army did a Brooks and dropped chemical weapons on fleeing infected.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 25, 2011, 02:21:34 AM
They asked about that guy to Kirkman on the Talking Dead.  He pretty much said that the guy would have died of some type of head trauma, probably from something like a car accident.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 25, 2011, 02:22:54 AM
He was wearing a seatbelt in stationary traffic.

 :why_so_serious:

I Know, I Know, I'll stop.  It just bugged the fuck out of me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2011, 03:34:57 AM
I figured all the people in that highway died of starvation after getting surrounded in their cars, cept for the ones that got broken into like the one with the bloody baby seat.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 25, 2011, 03:39:12 AM
 :ye_gods:

Fair enough.

I reckon with a lapful of axe, I'd chance getting out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2011, 09:33:06 AM
I hated Lori already but that "i'm mad at my husband because he's being reasonable" flashback made me want to bitch slap the shit out of her.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Jamiko on October 25, 2011, 11:08:56 AM
AMC renews 'The Walking Dead' for 3rd season (http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/10/25/walking-dead-third-season/)

Quote
Zombies rule: AMC has just renewed The Walking Dead for a third season.
The decision comes after only two episodes have aired of season two, but it’s still no surprise — the show’s premiere had more adults 18-49 than any other drama in basic cable history. (And for once, AMC has managed to renew a show without a protracted hand-wringing negotiation!).
Ratings for Sunday’s second episode: 6.7 million total viewers, 4.5 million adults 18-49. That’s down 8 percent from the premiere, but hell, at these levels TWD can afford to give viewers away like Halloween candy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on October 25, 2011, 01:21:04 PM
Why is Andrea picking Shane instead of Daryl? That makes no sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2011, 04:47:08 PM
She's not picking him, she's tagging along because he had already decided to leave.  It was just an opportunity she took.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 25, 2011, 04:53:54 PM
After reading the comics, finally, I'm kind of upset by the changes in some of the characters.  Andrea is the one that bothers me the most, cuz she went from kind of a badass in the comics to a whiny bitch.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on October 25, 2011, 05:39:55 PM
She's not picking him, she's tagging along because he had already decided to leave.  It was just an opportunity she took.

She doesn't make sense to me.  After what she's done, why is she looking for an easy out? And yes, she is way too whiny.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on October 25, 2011, 06:44:46 PM
She's not picking him, she's tagging along because he had already decided to leave.  It was just an opportunity she took.

She doesn't make sense to me.  After what she's done, why is she looking for an easy out? And yes, she is way too whiny.

She really does not want to die.  Or at least thats the impression I got.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: croaker69 on October 26, 2011, 04:39:14 AM
Did anyone catch the shout out to Breaking Bad in Merl's pharmaceutical stash?  :heart:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 26, 2011, 06:02:04 AM
Did anyone catch the shout out to Breaking Bad in Merl's pharmaceutical stash?  :heart:

Hah, that's awesome.  I wasn't familiar enough with meth to know it's not always blue.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: lac on October 26, 2011, 06:13:55 AM
Meth can never be so pure it turns blue. If it turns blue it's because there's a contaminant in there.
The blue meth in Breaking Bad was pure fiction yet since the show first aired cops have occasionally come across it. Some actual meth producers have started adding blue dye to their product...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Simond on October 28, 2011, 02:12:10 PM
Or he took one of his blades and slashed his femoral open.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 30, 2011, 06:47:32 PM
WTF...  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 30, 2011, 10:13:39 PM
Or he took one of his blades and slashed his femoral open.

I feel like I'm missing some vital part of information that will let me understand what the fuck this is talking about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 31, 2011, 01:07:15 AM
Or he took one of his blades and slashed his femoral open.

I feel like I'm missing some vital part of information that will let me understand what the fuck this is talking about.

Yeah I'm not sure either.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 31, 2011, 02:12:25 AM
He was attempting to answer my question.  It still didn't though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 31, 2011, 06:04:14 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 31, 2011, 10:19:01 AM
So, as of right now, my two favorite characters on this show are Shane and the redneck.

Shane for the joy of watching his descent into pure bugfuck crazy, and the redneck for watching his ascent into a good team player that understands what's on the line and is actually looking out for his fellow survivors.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 31, 2011, 10:38:31 AM
The asian kid has done absolutely nothing at all this season, he was one of the best characters in the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 31, 2011, 10:55:45 AM
So, as of right now, my two favorite characters on this show are Shane and the redneck.

Shane for the joy of watching his descent into pure bugfuck crazy, and the redneck for watching his ascent into a good team player that understands what's on the line and is actually looking out for his fellow survivors.

Yeah, but I still don't really get it.  There seems to be NO problem with what happened to his brother.  None.  That just seems strange to me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on October 31, 2011, 11:05:43 AM
So, as of right now, my two favorite characters on this show are Shane and the redneck.

Shane for the joy of watching his descent into pure bugfuck crazy, and the redneck for watching his ascent into a good team player that understands what's on the line and is actually looking out for his fellow survivors.

Yeah, but I still don't really get it.  There seems to be NO problem with what happened to his brother.  None.  That just seems strange to me.

He seems pretty convinced that his brother will resurface somewhere. Since he's so convinced that his brother is a badass, maybe that's why? It seems a bit thin, I know.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 31, 2011, 11:06:07 AM
So, as of right now, my two favorite characters on this show are Shane and the redneck.

Shane for the joy of watching his descent into pure bugfuck crazy, and the redneck for watching his ascent into a good team player that understands what's on the line and is actually looking out for his fellow survivors.

Yeah, but I still don't really get it.  There seems to be NO problem with what happened to his brother.  None.  That just seems strange to me.

I don't think him and Merle were too close in the first place.  From the story he told Andrea about how he was lost in the woods for 9 days, and that no one even noticed, tells me that he pretty much fended for himself most of his life.  I think that's also why he is such a team player now and actually cares for the people he's with.

As for Shane, he's a prick and I think he's at the point where he'll sell anyone out just to survive.  He's also not a character you really have to deal with much in the comics as, if I remember right, he's already dead before they get to Hershel's farm.  

I was really pumped that Pruitt Taylor Vince was on the show too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 31, 2011, 01:10:28 PM
As for Shane, he's a prick and I think he's at the point where he'll sell anyone out just to survive.  

This was my first thought after last night, but then I realized - if it was all about his own survival he wouldn't have wasted all that time wrestling the backpacks off of Otis. I think it was more a case of him ruthlessly deciding it was the best chance to save Carl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 31, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
As for Shane, he's a prick and I think he's at the point where he'll sell anyone out just to survive.  

This was my first thought after last night, but then I realized - if it was all about his own survival he wouldn't have wasted all that time wrestling the backpacks off of Otis. I think it was more a case of him ruthlessly deciding it was the best chance to save Carl.

That's selfish also, he's doing it more for Lori than Carl I bet.  Another thing is, someone mentioned that he took the gun that Rick gave Otis, so I think that's going to be the tip off.  Although I personally don't remember him getting the gun.

The thing is Otis also risked his ass for Carl/Shane twice to get them out of the school and it looked like they had a bit of room between them and the zombies.  If Shane hadn't of been limping I don't think he'd have done that to Otis.

It's kind of up in the air about his motives, but I think either way he's gonna get what's coming to him down the line.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 31, 2011, 01:29:01 PM
This isn't a morality play.  He will get exactly the same as everyone else, a heaping pile of shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 31, 2011, 03:51:42 PM
If there's one thing I've learned from watching this show and The Shield, it's to never trust anyone named Shane.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on October 31, 2011, 09:53:04 PM
Wow! What a bastard!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 01, 2011, 05:17:31 AM
Meh, I can't truly say what I would do in the same situation to be honest. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 01, 2011, 04:50:11 PM
Meh, I can't truly say what I would do in the same situation to be honest. 

I feel like in the comics, for all Rick's talk about the hard decisions he's had to make for the group, and the times he's pretty much said he'd sacrifice anyone to keep his kid safe, he's never really been put in the position Shane was in.  So in that respect I continue to like what they're doing with Shane's character, putting him on this slippery slope where you could almost justify his actions in this episode, but you know it's only going to get worse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 01, 2011, 06:28:11 PM
Good episode!  Zombie action and riveting human drama.  Even Rick's wife was good.  But Shane stole the show.  That was some messed up shit but it felt authentic.  These are desperate times and folks are pushed to the edge.  Was it right or wrong?  Do morals matter in a zombie apocalypse?  Why keep struggling?  This episode really brought these questions up and there's no easy answer, at least to me. 

Best episode of the series so far. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 01, 2011, 06:58:13 PM
As someone who expected Shane to die early in the first season, I like what they are doing with him. At the same time, I sure as fuck hope that Carl ends up shooting him. Granted, that likely won't happen as they've time shifted Carl getting shot to now as opposed to later in the comics. This was probably a good idea, because Kirkman's fan mail around Issue 85 was getting pretty mean.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 02, 2011, 02:00:17 AM

  Do morals matter in a zombie apocalypse? 


No.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 02, 2011, 06:19:49 AM
I much prefer slow zombies to fast zombies, but i'd take either of them to this shows "fast enough to be three feet behind you no matter how fast you are going" zombies.  Shane and Otis barely outran the zombies on their way in going at full speed, then they barely outran the zombies while limping an stopping for a wrestling match on their way out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 02, 2011, 07:08:03 AM
Don't you know, the show is called the Walking Dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 02, 2011, 07:25:35 AM
They sure run pretty fast when the situation calls for it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 02, 2011, 07:27:48 AM
Zombie speed is relative to what they need at the time.  If you want a more realistic approach the more intact/new the zombie is the faster they can move.  The older and more fucked up ones will be slower. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 02, 2011, 08:42:17 AM
Realistically zombies shouldn't have the motor skills to do much more than crawl on the ground hand over hand.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 02, 2011, 08:47:26 AM
I think if another person tries to inject realism into a Zombie discussion, I'm going to visit them with an axe.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 02, 2011, 10:46:37 AM
I don't think consistency is the same as realism.  The zombies that chased Shane and Otis into the school would have caught them in three seconds when they ran out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 03, 2011, 03:04:41 AM
Consistency dies due to dramatic tension shocker.

The horror genre as a whole is guilty.  Hell, most genres are guilty.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 07, 2011, 07:11:54 PM
I guess if you are going to have an episode with one single zombie appearance you better make damn sure it's memorable.  The asian kid nailing Vivian Volkoff really had me wishing this was on hbo.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 07, 2011, 08:18:55 PM
I guess if you are going to have an episode with one single zombie appearance you better make damn sure it's memorable.  The asian kid nailing Vivian Volkoff really had me wishing this was on hbo.

You have a thing for asian men?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 08, 2011, 03:21:14 AM
I guess if you are going to have an episode with one single zombie appearance you better make damn sure it's memorable.  The asian kid nailing Vivian Volkoff really had me wishing this was on hbo.

THAT'S where I remember her from!  Yeah, she is a hottie.  Not a great episode, but I think it was the buildup to some storylines.  The search for Sophia is wearing thin.  I understand they seem to be doing an episode per day of this merry band, but it's starting to damage the narrative flow.

Previews for next week look good though!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 08, 2011, 11:03:02 AM
I guess if you are going to have an episode with one single zombie appearance you better make damn sure it's memorable.  The asian kid nailing Vivian Volkoff really had me wishing this was on hbo.

THAT'S where I remember her from!  Yeah, she is a hottie.  Not a great episode, but I think it was the buildup to some storylines.  The search for Sophia is wearing thin.  I understand they seem to be doing an episode per day of this merry band, but it's starting to damage the narrative flow.

Previews for next week look good though!

The Sophia thing is being dragged out, but on the plus side, it hasn't really taken up that much of the last couple episodes, and it's given Daryl something to do.  I also liked the Shane and Andrea stuff, and the subtle hints that things are going to take a similar path to what happens in the comics.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 09, 2011, 02:08:09 AM

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 09, 2011, 02:20:15 AM
Yes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2011, 06:52:56 AM
I didn't recognize Vivian Volkof... how did I not recognize her? It was the lack of accent, I guess.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 09, 2011, 07:28:10 AM
Yes.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 09, 2011, 07:41:49 AM
The show may diverge, of course, but it was a big thing in the comic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 13, 2011, 08:46:14 PM
Haven't read the books but based on everything in the show I'm really siding with Herschel. A bunch of idiots disrupting his life and doing stupid shit that endangers everyone and wastes valuable resources.

I just realized that Daryl reminds me a lot of Sam Wateverthefuck from Avatar

The guy that plays Rick and the girl that play Maggie have superthick english accents in real life, yet I'd never have suspected. I have a hard time believing that our shitty actors produce UK accents that aren't cringeworthy.

Also, I'm hoping that Andrea just fucking dies or something.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 13, 2011, 09:52:43 PM
Haven't read the books but based on everything in the show I'm really siding with Herschel. A bunch of idiots disrupting his life and doing stupid shit that endangers everyone and wastes valuable resources.

The reveal about why Herschel is the way he is was shown tonight and he's just as much an idiot as everyone else can be.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 14, 2011, 12:31:40 AM
More, I think, assuming they keep it 'the same'.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 14, 2011, 07:49:26 AM
The guy that plays Rick and the girl that play Maggie have superthick english accents in real life, yet I'd never have suspected. I have a hard time believing that our shitty actors produce UK accents that aren't cringeworthy.

Well, to Maggie's credit, she's originally from Jersey.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 14, 2011, 12:17:11 PM
Second on the hope that Andrea dies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 14, 2011, 04:01:39 PM
Although I hate the current incarnation of Andrea, she's pretty awesome in the comics.  I hope they lean her more that way, and soon.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 14, 2011, 04:05:11 PM
At the beginning of the first season I preferred the show's version of Andrea, but they have taken a bad turn with her lately, and I'm not a fan.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 14, 2011, 04:35:53 PM
Although I hate the current incarnation of Andrea, she's pretty awesome in the comics.  I hope they lean her more that way, and soon.

I think there was some decent foreshadowing in the last episode that indicates they're going more in line with the comics.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: stu on November 14, 2011, 05:43:05 PM
I was within a heartbeat of quitting the show for good when they showed


Semi-related: The actress who plays Maggie is also on a show called Vampire Diaries and this was how it was marketed:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 15, 2011, 08:15:42 AM
I hope there are more flashbacks, the fall of civilization is a lot more fun to watch than the short bus survivors.  "I don't know how you guys made it this long" about sums up the show for me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 17, 2011, 05:46:43 PM
Evil Spoiler


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 17, 2011, 06:02:43 PM
Evil Spoiler

Sonuva.  Hot damn, I need to rewatch this scene.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 17, 2011, 06:48:24 PM
Evil Spoiler

I'd be surprised if that were true, but it's not like they've stayed real close to the comics with some of the characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 17, 2011, 08:59:20 PM
I'd be surprised if that were true, but it's not like they've stayed real close to the comics with some of the characters.

There's a screenshot of it from episode 7 circulating the intertubes. .

The whole thing could be a hoax I suppose.

Also, ditch the guns except for last resort and make/get some machetes. Seriously, any sort of big blade with some weight would take care of pretty much any of the groups except the giant swarms. Running away from 2 of the fucking things is shameful.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2011, 02:41:18 AM
Actually, that change makes sense from the dramatic narrative PoV that they've built around the farm.

However, I think that might muck up some of the 'good' comic stuff later on.  We'll see.


I don't think I said anything there worthy of a spoiler tag.  Heh.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arnold on November 21, 2011, 03:09:15 AM
The guy that plays Rick and the girl that play Maggie have superthick english accents in real life, yet I'd never have suspected. I have a hard time believing that our shitty actors produce UK accents that aren't cringeworthy.

That's because southern accents are easy to do.  If they weren't easy, southerners wouldn't be able to do them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on November 22, 2011, 08:18:21 AM
The guy that plays Rick and the girl that play Maggie have superthick english accents in real life, yet I'd never have suspected. I have a hard time believing that our shitty actors produce UK accents that aren't cringeworthy.

That's because southern accents are easy to do.  If they weren't easy, southerners wouldn't be able to do them.

California accents aren't tough either.  I have a Scot friend (who I spent the first year saying "What?" to a lot) who does a perfect California accent.  Her kids (raised here) could switch in and out at will, although I'm hearing them with an American ear, not a Scot ear, so I don't know how a Scot would consider their accents.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on November 22, 2011, 11:48:38 AM
The guy that plays Rick and the girl that play Maggie have superthick english accents in real life, yet I'd never have suspected. I have a hard time believing that our shitty actors produce UK accents that aren't cringeworthy.

That's because southern accents are easy to do.  If they weren't easy, southerners wouldn't be able to do them.

California accents aren't tough either.  I have a Scot friend (who I spent the first year saying "What?" to a lot) who does a perfect California accent.  Her kids (raised here) could switch in and out at will, although I'm hearing them with an American ear, not a Scot ear, so I don't know how a Scot would consider their accents.

If you as an American can understand someone putting on a real Scottish brogue, then they are doing it wrong.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 27, 2011, 10:49:42 PM
Okay, Shane is about batshit crazy, but as far as the barn and a wake up call to everyone - especially Hershel I think he was pretty much spot on. It's probably not a good sign that I agree with the not-crazy-times Shane a lot more than Rick. Also, the horrible Talking Dead talk show had some interesting pieces of info, plus a phone call from Alice Cooper. Previews indicate Hershel jups headfirst into the never ending pit of defeatism.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 28, 2011, 12:44:58 AM
Shane is the weakest link. He's playing post apocalypse tough guy to cover up that his nerve broke, and now he's a tweak. He's the kind of dude who might shoot you in your sleep because you ate the last cookie.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 28, 2011, 08:30:16 AM
Still it was stretched out at least an episode too long.

I really have to root for Shane since he's the only one who actually wants to survive.

Dale should have been executed.  He put everyone at serious risk.

Does anyone else cringe at the repeated waste of ammo?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 28, 2011, 08:53:52 AM
I still think Rick went out of this looking better than Shane.

In all off his Bravado Shane still froze when faced with a Walker he knew in life. And would likely have done until Sophia ate somebody.

And yes, they waste ammo like they have an infinite supply. Retards.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 28, 2011, 09:03:33 AM

In all off his Bravado Shane still froze when faced with a Walker he knew in life. And would likely have done until Sophia ate somebody.

Na, he was letting people get a good look at what morons they are.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 28, 2011, 09:32:49 AM

In all off his Bravado Shane still froze when faced with a Walker he knew in life. And would likely have done until Sophia ate somebody.

Na, he was letting people get a good look at what morons they are.

I interpreted it the same was as Tebonas.  He froze.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 28, 2011, 09:59:24 AM
Sure he was shocked, who wouldn't be? But he didn't immediately gun her down because she was no threat. (And really the writers wanted to savor the moment)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 28, 2011, 11:37:24 AM
Does anyone else cringe at the repeated waste of ammo?

I was thinking more about how many walkers all that gunfire could likely attract.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: devildog on November 28, 2011, 12:44:30 PM
I am hooked on the show for sure. A couple of things have been pointed out that bother me.Number one, the ammo thing for sure. Ok, we're fighting zombies and trying to survive. We also know that crossbows seem to be pretty damn handy. Can we not find a place to gather up some supplies? Obviously guns seem to have some drawbacks and should probably be the fallback weapon of last choice due to the noise issues. There is a nice bass pro shop 20 miles northeast of Atlanta i might have to stop by. Secondly, we don't have enough people. We need to have standing watches and such, having less than 20 guys is going to be a problem. Ok, so they are going to do it their way, but i think when the crap hit the fan we'd have to get the basics down. The basics now are defense, shelter, food, and ammo/weapons.

This show also brings a couple of questions up. Do we just assume there isn't going to be a cure and outlast them? I think that is what i would have to go on. So killing as many zombies as we can find seems to be a pretty good idea. Ah well, lots of questions and now enough answers in the show yet. This cannot be the only group to survive. The military cannot have all died, though so far we haven't met up with any special forces groups or the like. Maybe they've already got what they need and are hunkered down in outlast mode.

I'm looking forward to the rest of the episodes, but honestly this group of people is a bit on the lame side. Obviously not as lame as the guy running the farm, but i think we'll meet other groups that probably make these guys look like pacifists.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 28, 2011, 02:19:09 PM
Bear in mind that the average lifespan of a zombie is 5 years.

You don't have to kill them all, or even any of them.  You just have to avoid them.  A lot.

Trouble with that is any place that's 'nice' enough to live, well, there was this big bunch of humans, see, who thought the same way.  So they lived there.  And turned into munchers.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 28, 2011, 03:41:26 PM
I am beginning to wonder if the swarms avoid the farm because they sensed a large group there already (even though they were locked up in the barn).

Also - Shane totally froze.  For all his rhetoric about making tough decisions and whatnot he is still scared on the inside.  Only Rick stepped forward and did what needed to be done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 28, 2011, 04:19:23 PM
You guys just hate the morality Shane represents are ready to use any excuse to impune him in favor of Mr Hugs and Rainbows.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 28, 2011, 05:10:21 PM
Or he's a fucking idiot putting everyone at risk.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 28, 2011, 05:17:00 PM
Shane totally froze up.  He should have been the one to shoot Sophia to prove his point.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 28, 2011, 05:42:21 PM
Shane totally froze up.  He should have been the one to shoot Sophia to prove his point.

He also avoided going back to Atlanta.  "You went back to save a druggy!"

No, asstard - I went back to get my damned guns.  Justified by the walkie - but at the end of the day it netted guns.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 28, 2011, 05:44:43 PM
Shane totally froze up.  He should have been the one to shoot Sophia to prove his point.

He also avoided going back to Atlanta.  "You went back to save a druggy!"

No, asstard - I went back to get my damned guns.  Justified by the walkie - but at the end of the day it netted guns.

Like Rick said, if they wouldn't have had those guns from Atlanta they probably would have all died in that zombie attack.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 28, 2011, 05:49:54 PM
Hindsight.  Remember what dumbass shit Rick was doing when he lost the guns.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on November 28, 2011, 05:54:18 PM
Sure he was shocked, who wouldn't be? But he didn't immediately gun her down because she was no threat. (And really the writers wanted to savor the moment)

I agree.  I don't think he froze.

Rick had the opportunity to step up and did.

I actually liked Shane better after last episode than any of them so far.  Rick's approach with Herschel was fine until the discovery of the barn, but after? Rick looked like the nutty one; Shane was just distilled clarity.

Was agnostic about Dale until last night too.  I hate him now.  He's so confused he doesn't even know what's right and wrong.  He suffers from a profusion of irrelevant feelings with a large helping of self-righteousness.  As my daughter said, "I wish he'd just die now."

My favorite remains Glen, and Maggie's a close second.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 28, 2011, 06:05:51 PM
Are we watching 2 different shows?  I am assuming Tazel is baiting me, so ignoring his comment.

Xanthippe - Not sure I agree with ya here.  I mean, yeah, Dale should die, agree with you there.  But Shane totally froze and is wrong.

Why not just cap everyone living in the house and take it as their own?  Because - even though its the end of the world its not quiet at Mad Max levels.  It is Herschels land.  And as he said - there are tons of farms, if you want to have things your way go out and get one.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on November 28, 2011, 10:17:41 PM
Sophia as a walker bothers me- not because she's a kid, but because (as with most zombies) her existence as a non-eaten corpse doesn't make any fucking sense.  Zombies eat the people they catch, and as a kid she wasn't going to be able to get away from the zombie that chomped her shoulder.   

I'm excited they are moving away from the comic books.  I hope Shane lives forever and Dale (and Carl and Sophia's mother, and also Dale) die in a zombie fire. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 28, 2011, 10:22:38 PM
I'm excited they are moving away from the comic books.  I hope Shane lives forever and Dale (and Carl and Sophia's mother, and also Dale) die in a zombie fire. 

Meh it's not like it's impossible for there to be a scenario where she gets bit and is able to run away. 

Anyway, she's pretty much a useless character even in the comics.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 29, 2011, 05:26:29 AM
You are all nuts, of course Shane froze.  "They are just walkers until its one of yours" was the whole fucking point.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on November 29, 2011, 06:17:37 AM
Shane froze. I actually thought the direction of the shot was a little over the top in hammering that home. I'm surprised there's any question.

I disagree with almost everything. Dale is great. He's obviously irrational, but he's clinging to humanity. The entire zombie genre (actually the entire post-holocaust genre) is about whether we can remain human in a world of complete despair or just devolve and become no more human than the zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 29, 2011, 06:52:07 AM
Suprised just how much Dale hate there is. He does and says some stupid things, but it seems obvious to me that its because he feels so frustrated. He can see people losing grip on first their hope and then even their values and its frustrating him, but he's not good enough at relating to people to express himself.

I thought Glen finally redeemed his character in this episode with the realization that he had been treating the zombies like a game (volunteering to go down that well - what the hell?  :ye_gods: )

Knew what was coming at the very end, and I secretly hoped she would sprint out of the barn and chomp down on Carl. Dale needs to stick around to be a sort of impotent moral compass (Rick shows morality, but he's kind of placed himself above everyone else). Carl though, just annoys the living fuck out of me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on November 29, 2011, 10:01:14 AM
I like Carl.  That's your idealist, right there.  He's honest.  He's trying to be heroic.  He's brave.  He's an 8 year old kid who has been through horrific things.

Dale thinks he's a humanitarian but he really wants to get into Andrea's pants and she knows it.  Dale's a disgusting hypocrite, clinging to his shallow morality in a world where it makes no sense.  His self-righteousness is nauseating, and his stupidity makes him worse than worthless, it makes him dangerous.

Now, I'm not saying Shane is a guy I look up to - he's disgusting in his own way, of being too ruthless.  I don't like him, but I've gone from absolutely hating him to seeing his side of things more - I'd still argue with him over killing Otis.

I still don't think Shane froze - the guy who coldheartedly shot Otis is going to freeze at shooting Sofia, a girl he's been ready to give up on for some time?  From a character viewpoint, it makes sense that he was waiting to see what would happen.  I don't think he would have hesitated if she charged, or if he was alone or the only armed person.  But the device was employed so the scene could linger long enough for every character's reaction to register.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Jamiko on November 29, 2011, 10:52:55 AM
Inside The Walking Dead: Making of the Barn Scene on Youtube, in spoiler link below.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 29, 2011, 10:56:51 AM
Quote
the guy who coldheartedly shot Otis
He said he was sorry. What do you people want!?!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on November 29, 2011, 01:15:15 PM
Still it was stretched out at least an episode too long.

Oh, I agree. But they had to stretch it to make the mid-season finale!  :awesome_for_real:

For all those knocking Dale, I find it much more 'realistic' when there are people doing dumb shit in these types of stories. I know if the zombpocalpse hit, I wouldn't be the hardass or the tactical genius, I'd be the guy in the back bitching about no internet and having to shit in the woods.  :grin:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DLRiley on November 29, 2011, 10:48:28 PM
You are all nuts, of course Shane froze.  "They are just walkers until its one of yours" was the whole fucking point.

I believe this was the case. Fact is shane was originally the xander of the "pre zombie world", he isnt a hard ass, cold ruthless son of a bitch, by nature. That's something he embraced, slowly, and now sees no other way to be.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 30, 2011, 03:18:31 AM
That last episode was MESSED UP!  Loved it, put the show back on track and gave it a much needed dose of urgency again.  Even Lori was good.  I like how I hop between Rick and Shane's viewpoints.  Rick is a long term thinker; Shane is ruthlessly pragmatic. I think I have to stick with Rick though.  There has to be a long term plan.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 30, 2011, 08:06:08 AM
Shane most definitely froze up. It was the shock he needed to see the consequences of his paradigm. At some point had he continued following this track, it would have been a "we need to take Herschel out and steal his farm" kind of vibe. Dale getting rid of the guns was really stupid but I sort of see his point. Shane is going to (and did) take them to a very bad place with the guns. I think Dale is just reaching a point of frustration at the lack of control he now has over anything, so he panicked and took the only option he could think of to protect the group. The lack of leadership is showing, and the people who aren't leaders like Rick or Shane are flailing about trying to figure out which direction to go. Do they go to Rick's side, Shane's or somewhere in between?

But the ending was fucked up and the fact I have to wait until FEBRUARY is even more fucked up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 30, 2011, 11:47:10 AM
That last episode was MESSED UP!  Loved it, put the show back on track and gave it a much needed dose of urgency again.  Even Lori was good.  I like how I hop between Rick and Shane's viewpoints.  Rick is a long term thinker; Shane is ruthlessly pragmatic. I think I have to stick with Rick though.  There has to be a long term plan.



Fuck both of them, Daryl should be in charge.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 30, 2011, 05:27:50 PM
If they kill Daryl, I'm done with the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 06, 2011, 04:05:28 PM
I didn't know how the show would end and hadn't actually known it was the half-season finale, so the big dramatic ending really did the trick for me.

I'm looking forward to seeing Shane's further descent into madness. The woman he is in love with is going to have his baby, and he's supposed to pretend it's not happening and say congratulations to some other guy instead? But although I feel sorry for him, I do see him as a villain. I guess that depends on whether you believe he really had to sacrifice Otis.

I'm going to use the break in the show to catch up on the comics, which I have been neglecting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on December 07, 2011, 01:28:46 AM
Definitely a villain. Don't forget Otis came back to save him even if he could have gotten away without a problem. Most people aren't able to shoot a person that does that a few minutes later to save their own hide.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 07, 2011, 06:39:07 AM
I didn't know how the show would end and hadn't actually known it was the half-season finale, so the big dramatic ending really did the trick for me.

I'm looking forward to seeing Shane's further descent into madness. The woman he is in love with is going to have his baby, and he's supposed to pretend it's not happening and say congratulations to some other guy instead? But although I feel sorry for him, I do see him as a villain. I guess that depends on whether you believe he really had to sacrifice Otis.

I'm going to use the break in the show to catch up on the comics, which I have been neglecting.

There is a new TPB out if you are having trouble finding back issues. The only thing that I hate about the TPBs is that some of the fan mail is fun to read, in particular when Kirkman does shit to well-loved characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 08, 2011, 06:20:06 AM
I like dale, Clearly, its not that he wants to get in her pants, its that she and her sister were like daughters to him. If I'm not mistaken, they spent much time together before they even joined the group. I have not read the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 08, 2011, 06:51:59 AM
It Shows.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 08, 2011, 06:56:29 AM
I didn't know it was a prerequisite to comment on the TV show. A TV show that has apparently already diverged in a number of places from the comics. When I watch the show all I see is dale concerned for her safety.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 08, 2011, 07:05:32 AM
I see a lonely guy desperate for muff.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 08, 2011, 07:30:49 AM
Yes, after losing his wife, I'm sure that's the first thing he is looking for after meeting them shortly after.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 08, 2011, 07:41:00 AM
Yes, after loosing his wife, I'm sure that's the first thing he is looking for after meeting them shortly after.

Are you calling Dale's wife a whore?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 08, 2011, 07:44:23 AM
Heh, fixed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 08, 2011, 07:58:24 AM
Yes, after losing his wife, I'm sure that's the first thing he is looking for after meeting them shortly after.

You're right, there's no record of someone losing a partner and fucking someone straight after in the show.

Unless you mean Shane and Lori.

Grief is a great place for a fuck.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 08, 2011, 08:11:15 AM
I'm not really disputing that. I'm just describing what I see when I watch the show. I see dale as more concerned for his "daughter". YMMV. It's great you guys have read the comics, but the show does not give me this impression.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 08, 2011, 11:11:35 AM
You're right, there's no record of someone losing a partner and fucking someone straight after in the show.

Unless you mean Shane and Lori.

Grief is a great place for a fuck.

In fairness, your perception might be colored by what you know from the comic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 08, 2011, 11:21:23 AM
The whole thing with Dale and Andrea seems more to be Father/Daughter on the TV show then how it was in the comics.  In the comics Andrea and her sister were both shacking up with Dale so that he wouldn't throw them out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 08, 2011, 12:42:14 PM
I see Dale as being romantically interested in Andrea, but in a more sincere and less sexualized way than has been suggested here. But if he was acting to me like he is to her, no, father would not be the vibe.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on December 08, 2011, 09:41:59 PM
I think the TV Dale/Andrea relationship is a lot closer to Father/Daughter than anything else. I agree that he occasionaly acts in ways that give off a wierd, non-paternal vibe, but I think that's more TV Dales wierd, innappropriate boundary/interference/involvement issues he seems to have with everyone in general.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on December 08, 2011, 10:22:41 PM
We could find a compromise and say he gives off that creepy father figure that wants to diddle his daughter vibe.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2011, 01:07:20 AM
The whole thing with Dale and Andrea seems more to be Father/Daughter on the TV show then how it was in the comics.  In the comics Andrea and her sister were both shacking up with Dale so that he wouldn't throw them out.

What ?

No they weren't.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2011, 01:14:41 AM
You're right, there's no record of someone losing a partner and fucking someone straight after in the show.

Unless you mean Shane and Lori.

Grief is a great place for a fuck.

In fairness, your perception might be colored by what you know from the comic.

Jesus fucking Christ :

The Woman who got beaten every day of her life is chasing Daryl.

Dale is chasing Andrea.

Shane is chasing everything.

Rick is chasing sanity.

Asian is chasing hotness.

Are you people even watching the same fucking show I am ?  This is how humans act near death.  It's built into our fucking genes.  I'm not sure why I'm arguing, since some here missed the point of the final episode anyway, (Hint, Shane totally froze because he confronted what Hershel had been talking about for 4 episodes, in that it ain't easy when it's someone you know, and Rick, despite all the doubts everyone's been sowing, was the only one who could actually step up because he's The Leader and that's what it's all about), but humans fuck near death.  They make new attachments when the old ones are gone.

For reference, though, it was Andrea who was interested in Dale in the comics and she made the first move.  The comics Dale was UTTERLY SHOCKED.  There's not really that much crossover for me to be blinded by my perceptions here.  In the show, Dale is being waaaaay overprotective of Andrea in particular because he's interested.  He doesn't want to be and he doesn't think much of himself because of it, but he IS.  For everyone else it's, 'well it's none of my business'.  Except when it's her and he almost gets himself killed TWICE telling Shane he's a cunt because he's jealous.


I'm gonna go back to watching my version.  It seems to be more interesting.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 09, 2011, 02:23:25 AM
I think the scene at the end of the finale was meant to show that Rick is the guy that is going to take all the hard shit upon himself.  I don't really buy the stuff about it showing Shane freezing up though.  We've seen him kill a living, non-zombie, human being, and he's never shown as being particularly close to Sophia.  In fact he's pretty much the first one to write her off, and suggest they move on.  It doesn't really fit with what they've done with the character to have that being something that would cause him to freeze up.  That scene was entirely about Rick in my opinion.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2011, 03:17:22 AM
I think the scene at the end of the finale was meant to show that Rick is the guy that is going to take all the hard shit upon himself.  I don't really buy the stuff about it showing Shane freezing up though.  We've seen him kill a living, non-zombie, human being, and he's never shown as being particularly close to Sophia.  In fact he's pretty much the first one to write her off, and suggest they move on.  It doesn't really fit with what they've done with the character to have that being something that would cause him to freeze up.  That scene was entirely about Rick in my opinion.

It's not that he couldn't shoot a walker, it's that he couldn't shoot ZombieSophia in front of her mother.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 09, 2011, 03:26:18 AM
Dale thinks he's the Gandalf of this Fellowship and he keeps getting shocked when Andrea, Shane and others buck him and his decisions.

Hmm now that I think about it...

Rick=Aragorn
Shane=Boromir
Daryl=Legolas
Dale=Gandalf
Glen=Frodo
T-Dog=Gimli
Carl=The Ring
Lori, Andrea, Sophia's Mom=Merry, Pip, Sam


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 09, 2011, 03:30:22 AM
I think the scene at the end of the finale was meant to show that Rick is the guy that is going to take all the hard shit upon himself.  I don't really buy the stuff about it showing Shane freezing up though.  We've seen him kill a living, non-zombie, human being, and he's never shown as being particularly close to Sophia.  In fact he's pretty much the first one to write her off, and suggest they move on.  It doesn't really fit with what they've done with the character to have that being something that would cause him to freeze up.  That scene was entirely about Rick in my opinion.

It's not that he couldn't shoot a walker, it's that he couldn't shoot ZombieSophia in front of her mother.

Why not?  Everything they've shown us about Shane this season has indicated that this sort of thing would not be a problem for him.  He's willing to sacrifice a living person, and he doesn't have any emotional connection to Sophia or Carol.  It would be very odd for a situation like this to cause Shane to freeze up.  If it was a zombie Lori, Carl, or even Andrea maybe I could see it, but for the writers to drawn a line and say that this is the situation that Shane can't handle and Rick can wouldn't really make sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2011, 04:21:01 AM
Because it was all talk.  He still wants the respect of the group.  Any person who believed any of the shit that Shane's come out with would have lit out ages ago.

He's a nutjob, but not a strong one.  He's a very weak man who thinks Hard choices are easy.  There's only one bloke who not only understands, but can act on it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 09, 2011, 04:35:56 AM
Because it was all talk.  He still wants the respect of the group.  Any person who believed any of the shit that Shane's come out with would have lit out ages ago.

He's a nutjob, but not a strong one.  He's a very weak man who thinks Hard choices are easy.  There's only one bloke who not only understands, but can act on it.

I have the exact same take on the character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on December 09, 2011, 07:25:19 AM
I'm not really disputing that. I'm just describing what I see when I watch the show. I see dale as more concerned for his "daughter". YMMV. It's great you guys have read the comics, but the show does not give me this impression.

I haven't read the comics, but I've met a lot of Dales.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 09, 2011, 09:33:45 AM
Because it was all talk.  He still wants the respect of the group.  Any person who believed any of the shit that Shane's come out with would have lit out ages ago.

He's a nutjob, but not a strong one.  He's a very weak man who thinks Hard choices are easy.  There's only one bloke who not only understands, but can act on it.

I have the exact same take on the character.

Ditto. Shane has fallen into the survivalist bullshit ethos that Daryl's brother was selling, only without the overt racism. Daryl, meanwhile, is finding some humanity he was never exposed to before. Rick is having to find the strength to make horrible moral decisions in the face of a world where morals are all too easily forgotten (see Shane). They are all seeking connections - Shane is seeking to be the hero while Rick is trying to maintain what family connections he can.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 09, 2011, 09:34:46 AM
The whole thing with Dale and Andrea seems more to be Father/Daughter on the TV show then how it was in the comics.  In the comics Andrea and her sister were both shacking up with Dale so that he wouldn't throw them out.

What ?

No they weren't.


In the comics Andrea mentions to Rick that Amy and Andrea "charmed" Dale so that they would be able to stay with them in the RV.  It isn't til after Amy dies that her feelings turn into love for Dale.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: devildog on December 09, 2011, 11:13:49 AM
Not to be Mr. Negative here, but bullshit survivalist ethos is a bad way of describing what version of tactics you would be using at this point in the show. Maybe it is just me, but i think the people that couldn't change the oil in their car or had never touched a weapon might be behind the curve compared to rednecks and survivalists here. I'm not condoning the way Shane acts, in fact i think he's a poser, but i also think this is about the saddest group of survivors i have ever seen in a movie/show. If there are worse they aren't coming to mind. I'm not saying i would be bad ass zombie killer numero uno, but i would be hoping to meet up with some more capable people if that was possible.

If i was a white collar worker or a housewife i wouldn't be thinking: Hey, shit is going down and it's getting bad, i better find a couple of deputies. Daryl is about the only one with "survival skills". I guess it could be worse, they could meet up with Todd and his dad just back from gold mining in Alaska.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 09, 2011, 12:05:29 PM
It's like we are not even the same species.  Dale is a male, Andrea is a hot young piece of ass.  If his dick works the "Father figure" idea never even crossed his mind.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 09, 2011, 12:28:39 PM
Because it was all talk.  He still wants the respect of the group.  Any person who believed any of the shit that Shane's come out with would have lit out ages ago.

He's a nutjob, but not a strong one.  He's a very weak man who thinks Hard choices are easy.  There's only one bloke who not only understands, but can act on it.

Again, we've seen him essentially murder someone to save himself and/or Carl.  That's not really talk.  There is zero reason to believe that he could do that and yet would hesitate to shoot zombie Sophia.  Hell, Andrea shot her own sister who had turned.  I don't really see any reason why she couldn't have done it either.  If the point of the scene was that all these characters froze when it came down to shooting someone they know, I think that's poorly written and actually ignores what they've established about some of these characters in order to make Rick look more important.  Like I said though, I don't think it was about them, I think it was about Rick choosing to take it upon himself so the others don't have to.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on December 09, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
Not to be Mr. Negative here, but bullshit survivalist ethos is a bad way of describing what version of tactics you would be using at this point in the show. Maybe it is just me, but i think the people that couldn't change the oil in their car or had never touched a weapon might be behind the curve compared to rednecks and survivalists here. I'm not condoning the way Shane acts, in fact i think he's a poser, but i also think this is about the saddest group of survivors i have ever seen in a movie/show. If there are worse they aren't coming to mind. I'm not saying i would be bad ass zombie killer numero uno, but i would be hoping to meet up with some more capable people if that was possible.

Exactly. What do you do when you're saddled with "normal" people in your zombie survival group? The survivors are going to be messed up in the fucking head, and that's what they're trying to show in the series. I pity the Shane character. He got stuffed into the role of "The other guy" when Rick came back, and that seems to have started him on his path to being a royal douchebag.

The bullshit drama is what's going to get people killed now, and no one's immune to it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 09, 2011, 06:54:55 PM
See the whole theme of the zombie apocalypse genre going back to the original Johnny's got the keys is once you give into that survivalist mentality, you're just a zombie with a heart that thumps.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 09, 2011, 07:00:23 PM

The bullshit drama is what's going to get people killed now, and no one's immune to it.

I wish it was more like the comics when it comes to the amount of people that get killed off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2011, 11:44:45 PM
Again, we've seen him essentially murder someone to save himself and/or Carl.  That's not really talk.  There is zero reason to believe that he could do that and yet would hesitate to shoot zombie Sophia.  Hell, Andrea shot her own sister who had turned.  I don't really see any reason why she couldn't have done it either.  If the point of the scene was that all these characters froze when it came down to shooting someone they know, I think that's poorly written and actually ignores what they've established about some of these characters in order to make Rick look more important.  Like I said though, I don't think it was about them, I think it was about Rick choosing to take it upon himself so the others don't have to.

He fucked over someone to save his own skin when no-one else was around.  This isn't hard.  Andrea shot her own sister.  It was her right and she's strong.  Could she have taken over and shot Sophia ?  Yes, probably.  But it wasn't her place.  I think you're utterly correct in your last line - which agrees with my point.  That's what leaders do.  That's how group dynamics work. 

Rick did it because her mother never could.

Which is a seperate argument from what's going on with Shane.  Ultimately, he's not a strong enough person to take Rick's role.  And he keeps trying.

Think MacBeth.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 10, 2011, 06:09:13 AM
Andrea also took several hours to shoot her sister and still did it at the last second before she got chomped.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on December 10, 2011, 06:32:13 AM
Shane is W. He talks a swell game, but ultimately everyone else pays the price for his horseshit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on December 10, 2011, 09:55:21 PM
It's like we are not even the same species.  Dale is a male, Andrea is a hot young piece of ass.  If his dick works the "Father figure" idea never even crossed his mind.

I wouldn't say different species, but different age ranges. I'm 44 in classes and clinicals all day with physically ideal 20-24 year old females. While being nice to look at and way less annoying than 20-24 year old males to deal with, I'd really much rather have a really nice lunch and take a nap than fuck any of them. They spend all day talking about such trivial, easily solvable crap and making bad life decisions that I have to concentrate on keeping my mouth shut so I don't tell them what will no doubt be the results. Yes, your boyfriend going to school three hours away that you see twice a month is cheating. No, it's not a good idea to put the lease and all the utilities for the house you're sharing with 3 other people in just your name. Yes, oral gonorrhea is a real thing, oral sex is still actual sex, and in fact anytime a part of your body has a penis inside it, it's actual sex. No, freinds with benefits usually doesn't end well and it's not suprising that one of you is creeping on the other.

I'm pretty much Dale already, I just have the willpower and common sense to keep my mouth shut and smile while I hear this idiotic shit. Desire to solve all their stupid non-problems in less than 30 seconds? Check. Desire to bang them bang them? Eh, not really. Desire to have a relationship with one? Ugh, fuck no.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2011, 11:51:30 PM
Well, sure, but if they're still talking that shit during a zombie outbreak, just feed them to the nearest pack.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on December 11, 2011, 09:16:39 PM
Do them first?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2011, 08:24:46 AM
We have two 18-22 year old apprentices in the office.

I know exactly what Bob means.

It's not worth it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on December 12, 2011, 11:54:54 AM
We have two 18-22 year old apprentices in the office.

I know exactly what Bob means.

It's not worth it.


Yes, but you're not a Dale, and neither is Bob.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2011, 12:44:44 PM
Are you sure ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on December 12, 2011, 02:42:22 PM
Are you sure ?

Yes.  Most men aren't Dales, but Dales are easy to recognize.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2011, 03:02:17 PM
Meta.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 11, 2012, 02:40:32 PM
This is coming back tomorrow.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 12, 2012, 03:19:03 PM
2.5 hours- woop woop!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 12, 2012, 08:52:18 PM
Nice ending, though they wasted a really great opportunity for a crossover. That would have been so much more awesome if it had been Mac and Dennis or Charlie and Frank.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 13, 2012, 02:52:41 PM
I hope the wife is dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on February 13, 2012, 02:59:14 PM
Stupidity continues unabated. The unnatural shooting skills was cool, but completely out of place.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 13, 2012, 05:52:58 PM
Stupidity continues unabated. The unnatural shooting skills was cool, but completely out of place.

I can kinda get the shooting part.  What annoys me is home girl being cool with him heading to the "city of the dead" without issue (first season) then chasing him later on because he went out to save the good doctor.

I get she is pregnant, but I dunno.  It's not like she ever stopped him from searching for Sophia.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on February 14, 2012, 07:38:02 AM
It seems to me as though none of the writers have ever been pregnant, because if they had, Lori would have been all in favor of Rick going to find Herschel.

Lori is one of my least favorite characters, although Dale is right up there as well. Glenn and Carl are my favorites.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 14, 2012, 02:42:22 PM
Boring episode until the bar scene. :)  Intense!  I like Glen and Dale, Dale because he's a civilized man in an uncivilized world and hasn't yet grasped that.  Or maybe Shane is cluing him in.   :ye_gods:

The blonde cracked me up, that actress is starting to really click with me just how she was sitting in the back of the truck.
Expected her to spit tobacco and adjust her crotch.

Oh and Get.  Off.  Herschel's.  Farm.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on February 14, 2012, 03:34:29 PM
The bar scene reminds me of similar stuff from the comics, although Rick didn't get there until maybe 15 issues ago.

I was kind of hoping that we'd see the Philly group link up with Rick and Co., but I guess his "whatever it takes to protect my peeps" attitude is now going to go full post-prison.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 15, 2012, 08:16:42 AM
Loved the episode, but two things bothered me:

1) THEY KILLED BRITT!!!!!! (Guy from the criminally underappreciated show Terriers)
2) Lori is getting really fuckstupid. Hopefully terminally so. What the fuck are you driving to town for? Did you not think Rick could find his way back on his own? WHY ARE YOU DOING IT ALONE?

Stupidity that palpable needs to result in zombies eating her face off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 15, 2012, 02:02:45 PM
1) THEY KILLED RENE!
2) Only characters I really care about in the show are Glen, Maggie, and Daryl. I don't mind Dale and Token, and Rick is pretty much required, but I doubt I would notice if any of the rest got chowed on.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 16, 2012, 12:08:36 AM
Token, lol. Well played.

Also feel the same about the characters as you Bunk, although I'm interested to see what happens with Carol.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 16, 2012, 03:09:58 AM
Carol.

Cheryl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 16, 2012, 04:48:02 AM

Carol (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0234504/).

 :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Johny Cee on February 16, 2012, 05:41:47 AM

"I'm covered in ants, bitch!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 16, 2012, 09:02:02 AM
Johnny Cee got it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 16, 2012, 09:42:27 AM
I don't get it.  :sad:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Johny Cee on February 16, 2012, 10:35:32 AM
Johnny Cee got it.  :awesome_for_real:

I waffled...  almost went with "Cristal".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 16, 2012, 11:40:35 AM
Even better.

For Apoxcrifta... Cheryl, Carol, Cristal... (http://archer.wikia.com/wiki/Cheryl_Tunt)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 17, 2012, 04:26:49 AM
Haha OK, thanks  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 20, 2012, 12:30:27 AM
Man, Herschel goes from 0 to 60 awefully fast. Also, glenn needs to learn to keep his fucking mouth shut.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 20, 2012, 05:15:27 PM
Ah, good episode. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 21, 2012, 08:48:22 AM
I think its funny how people keep commenting that just dropping him off in the middle of nowhere with a pack of supplies is tantamount to just feeding him to the walkers, so why not kill him?

Well, were I the guy, and I was given the choice of being dropped off in the middle of nowhere vs a bullet to the head, I'd take option one.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 21, 2012, 02:42:14 PM
I think its funny how people keep commenting that just dropping him off in the middle of nowhere with a pack of supplies is tantamount to just feeding him to the walkers, so why not kill him?

Well, were I the guy, and I was given the choice of being dropped off in the middle of nowhere vs a bullet to the head, I'd take option one.

The whole point of that scene was to juxtapose the two different groups, imo.  At the first sign of trouble they dipped out- whereas Rick would risk saving the person.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 21, 2012, 08:19:03 PM
I don't mind people doing stupid shit that much, it's just that when people do stupid shit and it goes completely unpunished over and over it drives me nuts.  Sure, have the stupid bitch run off on her own, but that situation has to end with the stupid bitch being eaten.  Keeping zombies in the barn? fuck, at least three or four people should get eaten for that.  Going to a zombie infested town for a drink? congrats you just turned into a buffet.  I would LOVE a show with a rotating cast of stupid fucks who do stupid shit and get the fuck eaten out of them.  Like Cops, but with zombies instead of cops.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 22, 2012, 05:57:33 AM
To be fair, its tough to do a show that is primarily intended to be a character study if you kill off all the characters every few episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on February 22, 2012, 08:31:40 AM
But the study is about human dealing with a inhuman world, I don't this particular set of humans is required for that study.

The persistent feeling that the characters are surviving on the good graces of the writers tempers my enjoyment.  Basically right now I only watch for "that's fucked up!" moments.  The drama and survival are nonsensical.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 22, 2012, 05:28:02 PM
I think the barn is why the farm had little issue with walkers.  As the roamers migrated around they sensed there was already a group of zombies on sight so moved on.

Shame they killed off the barn.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 22, 2012, 07:50:00 PM
I thought it was mainly because of that swamp that the zombies would get stuck in.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 27, 2012, 12:52:37 AM
Beginning to hate Andrea. Oddly this was the first episode I even mildly like Lori.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 27, 2012, 01:24:04 AM
I wish they wouldn't fuck with Andrea so much.  She's such a badass in the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on February 27, 2012, 08:17:56 AM
I can't talk for comic Andrea, but this episode TV Andrea surpassed even Lori in Needs-to-dieness. And that is quite the feat.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on February 27, 2012, 08:40:19 AM
Still hate Lori the most by a far margin.  Extremely shallow character that a misogynist stereotype of women. Andrea is a bitch. That's not a bad thing especially in a world gone to shit.  If Lori needs help with laundry Glenn and Dale should be helping out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on February 27, 2012, 09:11:35 AM
But it is a bad thing. From a pure rational viewpoint the most scarce resource are living humans. Letting them kill themself in a fit of depression is not the way to a brighter future.

Lori still is a useless person, but at least this episode she didn't threaten the continued survival of the group. For a change.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on February 27, 2012, 09:15:10 AM
People who aren't interested in survival are a burden to the group.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 27, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
Post-revelation Herschel should be leading the group. Rick is way too forgiving. Shane is confirmed as an unsalvageable shitpile. For all of his "You can't keep the group safe" pussyrubbing, they've lost one person in the form of a developementally challenged girl and picked up an awesome piece of property and increased the group by two breeding couples and a medical person who is going to turn out to be an ex-SEAL or some other sort of ultimate badass. Point: Rick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 27, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
they've lost one person in the form of a developementally challenged girl

I think you are forgetting Jim, and Amy, and Jacqui, and Merle. Oh and probably Morales's entire family.

That being said, I still agree with you. Other than the whole "These guys must have been infected by scratches. I know, I'll cut my hand open and then smear it on zombie heads repeatedly!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Miguel on February 27, 2012, 01:24:32 PM
That being said, I still agree with you. Other than the whole "These guys must have been infected by scratches. I know, I'll cut my hand open and then smear it on zombie heads repeatedly!"

My wife and I were debating this last night, which prompted a few Google searches.

Apparently the "zombie virus" is not what kills you:  it's what reanimates your corpse.  Smearing their blood all over your open wounds doesn't kill you, it just guarantees that your corpse will reanimate.  Apparently the bite itself is much like the bite of a komodo dragon where the fever and infection are caused by something other than the zombie virus.  I don't want to start a neckbeard fight here, but it does explain that if that's the canon the writers are going by, why they can have zombie corpses draped all over themselves while they have their own open wounds. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 27, 2012, 01:28:56 PM
  Apparently the bite itself is much like the bite of a komodo dragon where the fever and infection are caused by something other than the zombie virus. 

This is pretty much how I had it figured as well, which is why the whole "it must be from scratches!" scene made no sense to me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 27, 2012, 01:51:25 PM

I think you are forgetting Jim, and Amy, and Jacqui, and Merle. Oh and probably Morales's entire family.


I excluded them on purpose. Jim and Amy were infected before Rick became "leader" (at least in my opinion) in that zombie rush at night, Jacqui commited suicide with Jenner, The Morales family left on their own to go in a different direction. Merle is a fair point though, I should count him.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 27, 2012, 03:56:03 PM
My take on the dead cops.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MisterNoisy on February 27, 2012, 05:21:08 PM
Really quite liked this ep - the shot of the walker in the field that Shane kept staring at was particularly moving for me.

Also, the song that they closed out with (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-DqwJ6o9Tk) was fucking awesome.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 27, 2012, 05:45:17 PM
My take on the dead cops.


I need to rewatch the episode- this was a pretty good observation.  Minus the lack of gunshot wounds or whatever.

It is obvious the bus was occupied by families.  All in all I was totally absorbed in the "oh shit tons of fast zombies all of a sudden!"

Now my mind wonders if they were more recent then previously dealt with zombies?  They seemed much more agile and faster then others we have seen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 28, 2012, 05:53:19 AM
Really quite liked this ep - the shot of the walker in the field that Shane kept staring at was particularly moving for me.

Did you notice that he was on Shane's side of the car, walking the same direction the car was travelling - both coming and going.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 28, 2012, 07:30:55 AM
For once The Talking Dead afterwards wasn't a complete waste of time. Scott Wilson had a lot of pretty interesting things to say, I wish they would have ditched Kevin Smith and the guy who plays trunk boy and just talked to Scott. Apparently Scott's mother told him to take the part after they had watched the show together and she had read the scripts. They also have a big picture of her as a young woman in Herschel's house.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on February 28, 2012, 09:32:15 AM
I found myself sympathizing with Andrea rather than Lori over the idea of suicide. Andrea's correct in that people who want to kill themselves need to have a reason not to. Otherwise it sucks group resources in trying to prevent their suicide.

With regard to the division of labor - why can't Dale do laundry? What the hell else does he do besides be on watch? At least Glenn is a good scavenger.

I don't like Andrea all that much (particularly not after her shooting Daryl - what a boneheaded move that was) but I still cannot stand Lori. She's setting up Rick to kill Shane now as though that is the only solution to the Shane problem. Why not try to convince him to leave instead? Because Lori's a worthless bitch who loves manipulating these two guys while she secretly hates men (what else explains her dismay over watching her own kid man up like he has?).

I do like Carol. Maggie so far too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on February 28, 2012, 11:33:49 AM
She's setting up Rick to kill Shane now as though that is the only solution to the Shane problem.

I see Shane as setting up Rick to kill Shane now as only solution to the Shane problem. Shane is bugfuck crazy and isn't trying very hard to hide it, plus that fight didn't help very much.

Lori being sad at watching her kid man up can be attributed to being sad that he has to man up. Childhood is over at what, 11 for TV Carl? That would upset and depress any parent. My kid starts kindergarten next fall and I'm sad about that. There's not even zombies involved, just expensive nuns and the fact that our house is districted for a really bad school.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 28, 2012, 03:02:44 PM
I finally really liked Rick.  He put Shane in his place and is thinking long term for the good of the group.  Shane belongs in the evil human camp, he can watch as women get raped and any injured get capped.  Rick is right, Shane needs to come back from the abyss and rejoin 'society'.  Shane will comply for now, he doesn't want to end up like the solitary zombie. 

He just needs to change his perspective, forget Lori and go bang Andrea who's practically his groupie.  But what fun would regaining his sanity be on a TV show? :)

I, too, sided with Andrea.  You can't expend resources doing a suicide watch indefinitely.  It was a crude plan but worked well.

Meta:  Jon Bernthal (Shane) is going to be on Frank Darabont's new TNT series, so I'd say he's walker-chow.  He's a damn good actor too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on February 28, 2012, 03:10:08 PM
For once The Talking Dead afterwards wasn't a complete waste of time. Scott Wilson had a lot of pretty interesting things to say, I wish they would have ditched Kevin Smith and the guy who plays trunk boy and just talked to Scott. Apparently Scott's mother told him to take the part after they had watched the show together and she had read the scripts. They also have a big picture of her as a young woman in Herschel's house.

Yeah, that was some good stuff.  Minus trunk boy.  God he sucked- actually made me cringe from his ackwardness.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 28, 2012, 05:24:37 PM
That's odd.  I think Randall(?) aka trunk boy was a regular on Rescue Me as Dennis Leary's son and he was solid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 28, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
The cops had no marks at all, i assumed given the topic of the episode that it was suicide.  Same as the people inside.  It was kind of odd that they were all packed in a closed building and the two guards were outside alone.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on March 02, 2012, 06:36:17 PM
The guys can do laundry and she can STFU about making excuses about why they can't.

Quote
From a pure rational viewpoint the most scarce resource are living humans

That's been my thought. Maybe it's our common infection with The Gay, but I keep hearing Neil Patrick Harris "we're in it for the species, boys and girls". You don't just get to off yourselves when you're genes are a valuable commodity.

Overall, I will watch anything with reanimated corpses, but these people have had long enough to get their priorities straight and I'm losing patience for the series.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 03, 2012, 01:55:46 AM
I have a real problem with Shane cutting his palm with the same knife he sunk into a walkers head two seconds before.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 03, 2012, 05:29:37 AM
He'll be fine, he's got Chuck Norris blood.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 03, 2012, 12:46:22 PM
I have a real problem with Shane cutting his palm with the same knife he sunk into a walkers head two seconds before.

Specially after the talk about how the guards turned from mere scratches literally five minutes before.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 03, 2012, 01:27:49 PM
Yes.  Exactly.

It's either fucking stupid or something's going on.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 04, 2012, 07:41:16 PM
re the latest episode - fuck me this did not go where I was expecting it to. Do not read the spoiler before watching.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 04, 2012, 08:57:36 PM
That was a really good episode.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2012, 10:22:15 PM
Wowzers. Though I'm still left wondering if the cow is a zombie cow? Guts on the ground and mooing doesn't exactly sound great. Cue ground beef joke. Fear the zombie bears.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 04, 2012, 10:44:04 PM
I got distracted during the big debate scene towards the end... because I realized I had completely forgotten about T-Dog (me and the writers both).  After I saw him there with the rest of the group I was trying to think if he had a single line of dialog in the last 2 or 3 episodes.  Hell, even Patricia got at least one line this episode.  Guess Dale didn't give a shit about convincing T-Dog to speak out at the meeting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on March 05, 2012, 04:56:20 AM
Man, crazy episode.   :ye_gods:

Things just got real.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 05, 2012, 07:59:05 AM
Wowzers. Though I'm still left wondering if the cow is a zombie cow? Guts on the ground and mooing doesn't exactly sound great. Cue ground beef joke. Fear the zombie bears.

I think it was eviscerated and just taking a long time to die.  A bit of 1 minute foreshadowing. 

You know, it's pretty amazing how sneaky those zombies can be when they want to be.  Also, Carl seems to take after his mother when it comes to making brilliant decisions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 05, 2012, 08:18:41 AM
Rick's looks and Lori's braaaaaainsssss does not a good combo make.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2012, 08:30:37 AM
What's wrong with Rick's looks ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 05, 2012, 09:07:52 AM
English healthcare teeth :oh_i_see:
I think he looks fine, I think I'd bang him if I were gay or a woman.

As far as Carl, the rock throwing and whatnot is what about every single boy his age would do if they discovered the same thing. Where he fucked up was crossing the river and getting within arms reach instead of just shooting or going to get an adult after dicking around. I guarantee it's not a mistake he's going to make twice now. I don't think an episode has gone by where someone hasn't said "Where's Carl at?" and no one seems to know. This episode kind of answers the sort of stuff carl is off doing.  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2012, 09:08:44 AM
 :ye_gods:

We're a week behind over here and now I'm all tantalised.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on March 05, 2012, 10:59:40 AM
:ye_gods:

We're a week behind over here and now I'm all tantalised.

Stop. Reading. This. Thread.

This episode was probably one of the best ones since Season 1.  Do not spoil your experience!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 05, 2012, 11:13:19 AM
Yeah, sorry... I didn't realize that you guys were behind. I don't think I wrote anything too spoilery but don't take chance. And it really is that good an episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2012, 12:20:26 PM
:ye_gods:

We're a week behind over here and now I'm all tantalised.

Stop. Reading. This. Thread.

This episode was probably one of the best ones since Season 1.  Do not spoil your experience!

Okay Doke.  Back laters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 05, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
I didn't think the episode was very good at all, merely shocking.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 05, 2012, 01:40:24 PM
After all the touchy-feelie interpersonal drama, the writers are reminding us that this is still the zombie apocalypse, and you only have to forget that for a second to wind up Zombie Chow.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 05, 2012, 01:53:31 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 05, 2012, 02:10:44 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 06, 2012, 09:13:16 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 07, 2012, 04:10:23 AM

Anything can kill their group. A hard winter where everyone gets pneumonia and they're all dead. There's strength in numbers, and they're going to have to take some chances on trust and get some new blood or their group will dwindle and weaken. Some semblance of civilization means they can earn trust and be trusted in return. The alternative is to go all Shane, kill every male they meet, and take their women for breeding stock. And then the show gets really depressing as we watch a pack of survivors turn into a gang of marauding rapists.

*Ed to fix spoiler tag


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on March 07, 2012, 04:48:14 AM
Last couple of episodes have been very good, I thought this was going downhill rather fast so I'm glad I gave it another chance.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 07, 2012, 09:49:44 AM
Shane's not THAT bad. Seriously, you think he went total caveman? Nah. He still has some humanity, I think.

I'd take crazy Shane over either Dale or Lori any day.

Let's not forget than Randal's buds went for their guns first in that little shoot out. Rick blew it by not mercy killing the guy when he was stuck on the fence. Herschel was right, Rick should have listened to him.

Herschel post-enlightenment seems to be all right.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 07, 2012, 10:04:18 AM
I'd take crazy Shane over either Dale or Lori any day.

Until it's you he shoots and leaves behind as zombie chow to save his own skin.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 07, 2012, 12:50:32 PM
I'd take crazy Shane over either Dale or Lori any day.

Until it's you he shoots and leaves behind as zombie chow to save his own skin.

Which group member do you think would sacrifice her/himself in order to save another, except those tied by blood?

I don't think that anybody would, except maybe Glenn to save Maggie.

Shane killed Otis because he saw Otis as not a member of his group, and killed him in order to save a member of his group (Carl), not just because he wanted to save himself - at least that's how I see Shane. He's a creep, but not any more than Dale was a creep.

Shane has done a great deal for members of his group - more than Dale did.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 07, 2012, 02:40:39 PM
I'd take crazy Shane over either Dale or Lori any day.

Until it's you he shoots and leaves behind as zombie chow to save his own skin.

Which group member do you think would sacrifice her/himself in order to save another, except those tied by blood?


Exactly.  Lori and Rick would both have killed Otis to save Carl.  Like Daryl said, it wasn't hard to figure out, Rick just didn't want to think about it because it meant Carls life.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 07, 2012, 05:43:03 PM
Lori wouldn't have because I don't think Lori is capable of killing anything.  Lori is the worst kind of useless because she's unwilling to learn how to defend herself.  She only escaped alive from that car wreck through sheer luck, not out of any kind of competence.  Rick wouldn't have killed Otis the way Shane did.  Oh, he'd have killed him if Otis directly threatened Carl, but Otis was actively trying to help.  He wasn't the enemy.  That's the big difference between what Shane did and what most of the others would do.

I'd take Dale over Shane any day.  Dale might be pompous, sanctimonious and insufferable but at least he has a moral compass.  Shane is a borderline sociopath who will rationalize anything to get what he wants.  Last time I checked, Dale isn't the one who tried to force himself on the woman he thinks is 'his'.  While I think Shane and Lori deserve each other, I don't see how a zombie apocalypse justifies attempted rape.

I also think you underestimate Dale's contribution to the group.  While he certainly isn't the fighter that Shane is, Dale was the best (only?) mechanic of the group which was pretty important when they were on the move.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 07, 2012, 06:15:43 PM
Shane's not THAT bad.

The writers have nearly written Helter Skelter on his forehead for us. His constant fidgeting, and scheming. This is exactly the type of character who will throw anyone under the bus at any time if he thinks he's going to get his way for it, or is provoked. Hell, I thought he was going to try to kill Lori when she gave him the "Leave me the fuck alone" speech. And you can tell he's just itching for Rick's blood.
Not to mention he was all for taking over the farm from the beginning. How do you think he was going to accomplish that? By politely asking Herschel to give them the farm?

I'd take a zombie over Shane. At least you know where you stand with the Zombie.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 07, 2012, 10:42:36 PM
Shane IS that bad.

Just because it was a few episodes ago we shouldn't forget that he almost shot Rick in the back unprovoked and all but admitted that to Dale while threatening to kill him as well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 07, 2012, 11:24:06 PM
(http://penny-arcade.smugmug.com/photos/i-tQbhFXr/0/L/i-tQbhFXr-X2.jpg) (http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/03/02)

IMO this show has, from the start, been deliberately written to polarise people and cause arguments. It's a non-reality version of reality TV. It's aimed particularly at American political sensibilities and doesn't really translate well for instance to my views. I think they're all acting like fucking retards and are the living (hah) embodiment of what Marx called the "muck of ages". Their ways of thinking are rooted in the world that existed before the collapse and simply don't apply any more. They are surviving despite their methods, not because of them.

I think it was particularly telling that the one time (that I can remember) that they took a collective, group decision, their self-appointed leader refused to implement it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 08, 2012, 12:53:41 PM

I'd take Dale over Shane any day. 

So looking at Dale's decisions, Andrea would not have access to firearms at all - but she's become pretty good at shooting zombies, so where would that have left the group? And there would still be zombies in the barn, if it was up to Dale. It remains to be seen how the Randal thing plays out and whether Dale would have been right about not killing Randal or not.

That is a good point about Dale being the mechanic.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 08, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
So looking at Dale's decisions, Andrea would not have access to firearms at all - but she's become pretty good at shooting zombies, so where would that have left the group?

When she's not mistaking people in the group for zombies, sure.  :awesome_for_real:  An Andrea without access to firearms might have left the group with a slightly less emo Daryl.

But honestly, just because I'd rather have Dale in a group over Shane doesn't mean I think Dale should be in charge of the group or that I think every decision he's made has been the right one.  Dale certainly wasn't the only one who thought the barn should be left alone.  I don't remember offhand now, but I'm pretty sure it was Rick who was the most vehement at leaving the barn alone so as not to offend Herschel.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 08, 2012, 01:07:00 PM
True. Rick has made a lot of errors, though, and he's not a great leader. I'm not sure who would be a better one though. Maybe Herschel (now). Certainly not Shane nor Andrea.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 08, 2012, 03:34:46 PM
DARYL


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 08, 2012, 05:44:22 PM
Glen.  He's brave, smart and good hearted.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 08, 2012, 06:51:51 PM
While I like both of those guys better than I like Rick, neither want to step up and lead, and both look toward Rick to do it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on March 08, 2012, 07:27:45 PM
So there are Walking Dead action figures based on the comic (I need to nab a Michonne for my desk), and Walking Dead action figures based on the TV show. Based on the limited number that they currently make, I can safely predict that the following two characters will not die any time soon:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 08, 2012, 08:12:29 PM
DARYL

Indeed. I have a feeling Daryl and his brother were living this lifestyle for a while before any zombie apocalypse. Before he decided the group was broken he was sociable, concerned for the group, and willing to take unpleasant action without being eager for it. Not sure if he'd be any good now though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 09, 2012, 04:19:59 PM
Sofia kind of broke him. He'll come back.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 09, 2012, 05:32:03 PM
Daryl's not bad, racism aside for a moment, but he strikes me as more of a doer than a planner and especially not a co-ordinator. Maybe he'll pick up those kinds of skills as the show goes on, maybe not.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 09, 2012, 09:12:11 PM
This episode plodded along with a bit too much of the "let's discuss the moral dilemma" and not enough movement. They've spent too much time on the farm, IMO. I think the big ending was telegraphed... it was just a matter of who got eaten, not if. Though I must say I was surprised by the who.

Herschel is a broken man and unable to lead. Daryl isn't a leader, he's the vanguard. Glenn's the scout. Shane's the goddamn headcase - you can tell he's trying to believe his survival of the fittest bullshit, but even he doesn't believe it. If he did, he'd have shot Rick a long time ago. He's trying very hard to do what he thinks needs to be done but he isn't willing to go all the way and kill his friend to accomplish that, proving he lacks the strength of his convictions.

I can forgive Carl being a dumbass because he's a kid. The rest of the group? Not so much. They all know killing Randall is wrong, but they are acting out of fear. T-Dog really has been ill-used this season. As the only black character, I'm surprised he's lasted this long.

I'm really hoping they get the fuck off the farm soon.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on March 09, 2012, 09:24:14 PM
My main issue is that, at the end of season 1, Fort Benning was the goal. It wasn't until 2 or 3 episodes ago that they learned Ft. Benning wasn't an option. I just hope that we see some version of the various refuge spots that the comic developed. I'd be pretty pissed if the show suddenly jumped from "desolation in zombie land" to being caught up in the current comic plot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 09, 2012, 10:18:26 PM
Well, they already cast a certain big villain from the comic for season 3, so I don't think they're going to be jumping all the way to whatever is happening in the current comic yet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2012, 01:20:49 PM
Yeah, sorry... I didn't realize that you guys were behind. I don't think I wrote anything too spoilery but don't take chance. And it really is that good an episode.

Well, I've watched it now and it was utter bullshit.

I'm kinda getting done on this show.  As someone else said, it's like a soap opera or reality TV at this stage and it's not that interesting.  Apart from the end, fuck all happened that was worth a damn.  And even that was done with so much 'this actor has better things to do, so we wrote him out.'


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 10, 2012, 03:16:29 PM
Little thing that bugs me; Daryl has his tent way off alone.  If he's not scared of walkers why should I be? My point is that the farm has become too safe, even with the events of last week.  They're just camping out on Herschel's Farm.  When they were on the highway, scrounging for gas, fixing the cars, that was tense.  When Rick and Shane went off for their 18 mile trip, the show improved. 

I'm not bailing on it yet, will watch the rest of the season, but for sweet zombie Jesus, get off the farm.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 11, 2012, 09:49:45 AM
Yeah, the farm thing has gone on WAY too fucking long. It was time to leave like 3 shows ago.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 11, 2012, 02:37:54 PM
I'm pretty sure that's a consequence of the budget caps they inflicted on it (twice the episodes for half the money as the first season).  Traveling or urban scenes, or any scene with a lot of zombie screen time, costs a lot more than putzing around the farm having drama and seeing a zombie or two.  So most episodes that's what we've gotten.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 11, 2012, 03:12:05 PM
Yup, this season really feels like it's done on the cheap. It's become really mediocre, really quickly, which is a crying shame because it started off so well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 11, 2012, 04:04:40 PM
It feels that way because it was, that was why Darabont left.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 11, 2012, 07:40:43 PM
Shit just got real  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 11, 2012, 07:45:34 PM
Well, each to his own I guess, I'm enjoying the hell out of it. Everyone seems to want MOAR ZOMBIES! which I get, but at the same time, if you overdo that, you end up with this season of Spartacus - which is entirely MOAR MUTILATION! and seems to have lost some of the drama and intrigue of previous seasons.

Really, since the mid season break, Dale's episode and Sophia's funeral have really been the only ones without any major action sequences. You guys are probably going to hate tonight's as well, but from the looks of the trailers for next weeks, they saved all the zombie budget for the (somewhat predictable) season finale (next week).

Honestly, I look forward to this show more than I do Spartacus.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 11, 2012, 09:06:29 PM
They're probaby going to be leaving the farm soon.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on March 12, 2012, 05:43:24 AM
HEAD SHOT!

Almost a great episode.  The only thing that annoyed me was the awkward scene- cannot believe they left it in there.   :uhrr:

Guess we know who the new mechanic is now.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 12, 2012, 06:33:27 AM
We should have a death pool for next episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 12, 2012, 06:34:29 AM
If there was any justice they'd all die.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 12, 2012, 06:35:15 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on March 12, 2012, 01:20:29 PM
They're probaby going to be leaving the farm soon.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 12, 2012, 01:31:41 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 12, 2008, 06:38:37 PM
In my mind there is a much better version of this show in which T-dog and Jimmy have constant awesome zombie adventures mostly based around luring Carl out of the fucking house and into the woods again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 13, 2012, 12:00:53 AM
Wow, Lori really wanted Shane dead it seems. How she went and rekindled his hatred after she realized he could maybe reintegrate into the group was a shitty thing to to, put perfectly orchestrated. At least if she didn't care which of her men survived this.

Please show, you are on a roll. Kill her next.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Thrawn on March 13, 2012, 07:23:34 AM
If there was any justice they'd all die.

That would be a great way to end the show eventually, instead of some sappy thing where they find a secluded island or something.  Everyone dies, and not in some self-sacraficing heroic way or something, they are just over run and killed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 13, 2012, 09:42:20 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 13, 2012, 10:05:09 AM
Wow, Lori really wanted Shane dead it seems. How she went and rekindled his hatred after she realized he could maybe reintegrate into the group was a shitty thing to to, put perfectly orchestrated. At least if she didn't care which of her men survived this.

Please show, you are on a roll. Kill her next.

I thought she did that because she was too stupid not to say something that would set him off. You think she planned that? If so, FUCKED UP. I'm really starting to hate that character for either being too stupid or too cunning.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 13, 2012, 10:08:15 AM





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 13, 2012, 11:15:20 AM
Wow, Lori really wanted Shane dead it seems. How she went and rekindled his hatred after she realized he could maybe reintegrate into the group was a shitty thing to to, put perfectly orchestrated. At least if she didn't care which of her men survived this.

Please show, you are on a roll. Kill her next.

 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 13, 2012, 03:01:11 PM
 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 14, 2012, 01:16:54 AM
I thought she did that because she was too stupid not to say something that would set him off. You think she planned that? If so, FUCKED UP. I'm really starting to hate that character for either being too stupid or too cunning.

It can well be I gave her too much credit. She is a really stupid person otherwise, so that could easily just be the cherry on top of her stupidness pie instead of Maciavellian strategy. Since her last strategy was to plain out tell Rick to go kill Shane which wasn't subtle at all.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 18, 2014, 07:23:04 PM


Double spoiled, for people who don't want to know what that pan up at the very end means for next season.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 18, 2014, 08:51:09 PM
I kind of want to read the comics now.  It would be nice to see how the season would have unfolded without retarded writing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 18, 2014, 09:16:01 PM
That fucking Lori...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 19, 2014, 04:00:19 PM
Oh man, that ending was great!

 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 19, 2014, 04:10:13 PM
I thought she did that because she was too stupid not to say something that would set him off. You think she planned that? If so, FUCKED UP. I'm really starting to hate that character for either being too stupid or too cunning.

It can well be I gave her too much credit. She is a really stupid person otherwise, so that could easily just be the cherry on top of her stupidness pie instead of Maciavellian strategy. Since her last strategy was to plain out tell Rick to go kill Shane which wasn't subtle at all.

She's that fucking stupid.  She was in the comics and she is in this.

Both wife and I were shouting at the TV during her speech to Shane.

"Shane, thank God you're here and not quite as good as Rick.  I'm really sorry I hurt you because you weren't as good as Rick.  We really need you here, but just not as much as Rick.  Please, we need you.  ... ....  ...  Just a little bit less than Rick."

No wonder he went fucknuts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on March 19, 2014, 05:55:39 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on March 19, 2014, 06:26:32 PM
Man, I thought what Lori said was kind of decent. Shows what I know.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 19, 2014, 11:50:14 PM
So how long have they all been on that farm? Quite some time - since the start in the case of Hershel's group. And in all that time they didn't make a single plan for a rain(ing zombies) day? No meeting place, no tactics, no defences? No, they spend the whole time arguing about who's the most manly leader and not actually doing fuck all. Thank god Hershel had a shotgun which holds 45 cartridges, eh? That seemed to be their only defence worth shit.

Seriously, this lot are the worst zombie apocalypse survivors I've ever seen. They should have been brain-nommed months ago, the lot of them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Wasted on March 20, 2014, 03:15:20 AM
As much as this season dragged on and annoyed me,



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 20, 2014, 03:21:55 AM
Chances are that mysterious stranger survived all on her own since the apocalypse and after the group is done with her she will be a walker and her Ninjacave will be a smoldering ruin. Thats their superpower.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 20, 2014, 03:23:42 AM
Man, I thought what Lori said was kind of decent. Shows what I know.

Through a straightforward lens of 'chatting' it was.  However, Lori (and everyone else) should really, really know how badly Shane was hurting and what kind of effect that particular speech would have.

Seriously, it's like "Let's just be friends" times the power of a million, with added "that guy you envy, he's better than you in every way".

Further, Killing Otis and then Shaving His Fucking Head should have been the groups first clue that all was not well in Shaneland.  He should have been treated like sweaty gelignite the minute that happened.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 20, 2014, 03:24:45 AM
As much as this season dragged on and annoyed me,


Really ?  They brought her in from the comics ?

That has the power to be interesting or just really annoyingly stupid.  I eagerly await the outcome.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 20, 2014, 03:42:37 AM
There are times when reading the comics where it starts to feel less like I'm reading a zombie story that just happens to be in comic book form, and more like I'm reading a comic book about zombies.  This character and the other one who has been cast for next season are the two biggest examples of when I get that feeling.  They just feel out of place in a Zombie story as characters who are overly comic-bookish.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 20, 2014, 09:57:31 AM
That fucking Lori...



Goddamn if you aren't right. I was apoplectic at her character. She bitches at Rick because he killed Shane, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE TOLD HIM TO DO LIKE TWO FUCKING EPISODES AGO! SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! And how does she never ever know where her fucking kid is? GAH.

Otherwise, an awesome season finale. If the season had had a few more instances of zombie kill hoedown, it would have been a better season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 20, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
The only smart one during that battle was Daryl, he actually STOPPED the god damn bike to shoot zombies.  Meanwhile everyone else is driving around the bumpy ground trying to do drive bys, not to mention they put one guy on the biggest most useful vehicle and double up on the others.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 20, 2014, 10:39:53 AM
As much as this season dragged on and annoyed me,


Really ?  They brought her in from the comics ?

That has the power to be interesting or just really annoyingly stupid.  I eagerly await the outcome.


I don't think they would have ever stopped getting shit about leaving her out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 20, 2014, 12:03:01 PM

Further, Killing Otis and then Shaving His Fucking Head should have been the groups first clue that all was not well in Shaneland.  He should have been treated like sweaty gelignite the minute that happened.

Shaved his head to try and hide the big patch o hair Otis tore out of his head.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 20, 2014, 12:13:58 PM
I'm aware.

You wouldn't take that as a danger sign ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 20, 2014, 01:47:26 PM
The only smart one during that battle was Daryl, he actually STOPPED the god damn bike to shoot zombies.  Meanwhile everyone else is driving around the bumpy ground trying to do drive bys, not to mention they put one guy on the biggest most useful vehicle and double up on the others.

I don't know if that was smart, I mean everyone else was still getting headshots while driving on bumpy roads  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 20, 2014, 01:51:51 PM
Rick had to kill him, but Shane was right and Rick now knows it which is why he was laying down the law. Its going to eat him up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 20, 2014, 02:39:18 PM
Oh yeah, Shane was a crazy motherfucker but he was absolutely right on every single thing they argued about.  Rick makes bad call after bad call, he just has more tact.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 20, 2014, 02:46:59 PM
I'm aware.

You wouldn't take that as a danger sign ?

Oh of course. I just was clarifying that it wasn't a Britney Spears move.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 20, 2014, 08:17:06 PM
You wouldn't take that as a danger sign ?

Honestly, without access to on-demand hot water for showers shaving my head would be step 1 for me in Georgia. It's a godawful hot, humid place.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xerapis on March 20, 2014, 10:56:20 PM
Yeah, totally agree on the head-shaving.

I always shaved my head before field training exercises in the Army. One less hygiene concern


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 21, 2014, 03:32:13 AM
Well, in the event of the zombie breakout, it'd be the first thing I'd do too, since that's what the guide says we should do.

But the timing was obviously suspect.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Arthur_Parker on March 21, 2014, 04:22:29 AM
The only smart one during that battle was Daryl, he actually STOPPED the god damn bike to shoot zombies.  Meanwhile everyone else is driving around the bumpy ground trying to do drive bys, not to mention they put one guy on the biggest most useful vehicle and double up on the others.

These things are always silly but my main feeling on watching the drive by shootings is I'd have built a fuck off gigantic zombie lawn mower by now.  Would sure save the bullets.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on March 21, 2014, 05:56:02 AM
I'd have at least reinforced the cars somewhat. The poor guy driving the RV payed for that mistake.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 21, 2014, 05:57:59 AM
These things are always silly but my main feeling on watching the drive by shootings is I'd have built a fuck off gigantic zombie lawn mower by now.  Would sure save the bullets.

Would there have been A-Team Montage Music playing as you built it?

Jimmy in the RV paid for being too dumb to lock the door.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 21, 2014, 06:16:25 AM
The only smart one during that battle was Daryl, he actually STOPPED the god damn bike to shoot zombies.  Meanwhile everyone else is driving around the bumpy ground trying to do drive bys, not to mention they put one guy on the biggest most useful vehicle and double up on the others.

These things are always silly but my main feeling on watching the drive by shootings is I'd have built a fuck off gigantic zombie lawn mower by now.  Would sure save the bullets.
Who has time to do that kind of shit when you can wonder the woods and debate morality?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 21, 2014, 09:14:00 AM
I'd have at least reinforced the cars somewhat. The poor guy driving the RV payed for that mistake.

None of these motherfuckers are Jan Michael Vincent fans.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xuri on March 21, 2014, 10:00:57 AM
Ah, if only they had played some more Left 4 Dead, they would have known that they could defeat any number of zombies by just huddling up in a corner inside the farmhouse and spamming melee-attacks until the zombies stopped coming.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 21, 2014, 11:23:22 AM
So a zombie puzzle game where you create traps that kill the most zombies with limited resources?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 21, 2014, 11:30:27 AM
Walking Dead Memes (http://io9.com/5895214/in-the-most-biting-walking-dead-memes-everybody-hates-lori).

It's official. Everyone fucking hates Lori.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 21, 2014, 01:44:56 PM
That's a keeper.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on March 21, 2014, 02:22:04 PM
Chick with a sword and 2 zombies shocked me. 

One of the few times I was caught speechless.  Like... Did I just see that?

 :drill: :drill: :drill: :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 21, 2014, 06:38:48 PM
Yeah, that was very effective.  I was like wha wha wha?  Badass. 

Also, never have been a fan of Andrea, but I am now.  She's on the run alone, doesn't sob or bitch or make wisecracks, she fights for her survival in a grim, effective manner.  I loved watching her fight to the very end.  It felt so visceral.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 22, 2014, 09:35:44 AM
Her origin story was in this months playboy.  I dunno why characters in a zombie show or comic would need origin stories more complicated than "i was working at jiffy lube then motherfucking zombies happened", but there you go.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 22, 2014, 09:43:10 AM
http://getoutofherecarl.tumblr.com/


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 24, 2014, 07:47:58 PM
Apparently, next month telltale games is releasing their first episode of their walking dead game (http://m.intomobile.com/2012/03/21/telltale-games-walking-dead-coming-ios-late-april/?maneref=http%3A%2F%2Ftechnews.am%2Fconversations%2Fintomobile%2Ftelltale_games_8217_the_walking_dead_coming_to_ios_in_late_april)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2012, 07:18:03 AM
Well, that's that over for another season.

Whomever is writing Lori needs to just stop.  Seriously.  STOP.  I know she was an annoying fuckstain in the comics too, but the level of really, really massive stupid hit critical there.  They can't seem to get any level of consistency with her from episode to episode.

At one point, guy who got mauled to death in RV happened and wife and I both turned around to say 'Who was he?' at which point the subtitles said 'Jimmy Screams'.  It brought to home how some characters just never got any screen time at all this season.  I mean, they're stuck in the car at the end with T-Dog and no-one's saying 'wait, who are you again ?'

Anyway.  Jail looms and mysterious challenger appears.

Yawn.

More budget next time please.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on March 26, 2012, 12:48:14 PM
Is ep 13 the finale for season 2?  The one that ends with "this isn't a democracy any more."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2012, 12:49:27 PM
I thought so.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 26, 2012, 01:38:57 PM
Is ep 13 the finale for season 2?  The one that ends with "this isn't a democracy any more."

Yep, next season 13 episodes of the prison.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on March 26, 2012, 01:52:02 PM
I just watched both seasons over a few weeks.  I really liked it.  Dale was annoying but I would have rather he survived than Lori.  Shane storyline in both seasons was well done.   I still think survivors would have adopted more melee weapons against walkers.  Save the guns for unfriendly humans.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 26, 2012, 04:34:18 PM
I just watched both seasons over a few weeks.  I really liked it.  Dale was annoying but I would have rather he survived than Lori.  Shane storyline in both seasons was well done.   I still think survivors would have adopted more melee weapons against walkers.  Save the guns for unfriendly humans.

If there is no need to be silent, I'd rather stay out of melee range as much as possible.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on March 26, 2012, 05:17:26 PM
I just watched both seasons over a few weeks.  I really liked it.  Dale was annoying but I would have rather he survived than Lori.  Shane storyline in both seasons was well done.   I still think survivors would have adopted more melee weapons against walkers.  Save the guns for unfriendly humans.

If there is no need to be silent, I'd rather stay out of melee range as much as possible.   :awesome_for_real:

Right, but the walkers are attracted to sound, so it just makes more sense to destroy zombies as silently as possible. Crossbows all around, imo.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on March 26, 2012, 05:31:11 PM
Bows also have the advantage of reusable ammo.  Pretty hard to reuse or make new bullets.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 26, 2012, 06:00:16 PM
With bows you still need to have good aim to hit the head.  I'm with katana-lady.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2012, 01:46:39 AM
Bows also have the advantage of reusable ammo.  Pretty hard to reuse or make new bullets.

This argument doesn't really hold weight with me.  Show is set in the Heartland of America.  I'm still a little puzzled as to why they're not swimming in bullets.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on March 27, 2012, 06:14:26 AM
Because scavenging makes boring TV and running out of ammo makes for teh drama.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2012, 06:37:37 AM
Given what happened every single time this group went scavenging, I suspect that they should have done more of it for more drama and maybe left the fucking reality TV type bantering and human interection to itself.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 29, 2012, 08:39:11 AM
I just read an interview with Sam Witwer (Aiden from Being Human, the apprentice from Force Unleashed) were he mentioned he played the zombie inside the tank on the first episode of season 1 because Darabont had already cast him as the lead on a prequel about the fall of Atlanta that was going to be "Blackhawck Down with zombies", but it went out the window when they got rid of Darabont :(.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 29, 2012, 01:55:57 PM
It really sounds like they fucked things up when they got rid of Darabont. The outline he gave for that episode you're talking about (Episode 1 of Season 2) sounds like it would have been great as well as showing how the group got together. Despite AMC claiming that no one would notice the lower budget, it's pretty clear it's showing.

What really pisses me off is they probably did it to pump more money into Mad Men, which I find boring as fuck with bad dialogue and bad acting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 29, 2012, 03:24:17 PM
They also shipped out hell on wheels at same time if I recall.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on July 09, 2012, 09:32:42 AM
I got around to watching this finally and i found it interesting how little had to be done to Atlanta for the filming.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 13, 2012, 04:51:43 PM
Starts up again tomorrow night, for those still interested.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 13, 2012, 07:45:32 PM
WHERE'S CARL??!

Yeah, still watching it.  Previews look interesting. 

As for Hell on Wheels, the 2nd season was really good and slowly slid down.  But they killed off a major character that I really liked, so I think I'm done with it. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 13, 2012, 10:28:52 PM
But they killed off a major character that I really liked, so I think I'm done with it. 

But did they... dumdumdummmmm!

I'm not sure which one you meant, but neither one was shown in a terribly convincing dead state, and conversations regarding one of them step around mention them being dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 14, 2012, 04:32:41 AM
I know who you're talking about and he's an awesome character.  But I was referring to the woman and it showed quite clearly she was dead.  With all the deaths and the arrest of Chief O'Brien, they have cleaned too much house IMO.

As for Walking Dead, I applaud two different storylines at two different places.  Andrea has really got her shit together.

Lastly, a note for both shows; STOP KILLING YOUR ATTRACTIVE FEMALES.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on October 14, 2012, 06:12:18 AM
I went to the channel online to see if I could watch on their site and it warned me not to get DISH or I wouldn't be able to watch them.   :ye_gods:  I feel threatened.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 14, 2012, 08:41:22 PM
I know who you're talking about and he's an awesome character.  But I was referring to the woman and it showed quite clearly she was dead.  With all the deaths and the arrest of Chief O'Brien, they have cleaned too much house IMO.

As for Walking Dead, I applaud two different storylines at two different places.  Andrea has really got her shit together.

Lastly, a note for both shows; STOP KILLING YOUR ATTRACTIVE FEMALES.

Yeah, bringing her back would stretch credulity too far. She was pretty obviously dead with the one exception no one said she was dead out loud. You have a very solid point about too much house cleaning. It felt more like a Series Finale than anything else. Where they're going from here with two main characters and half a dozen fringe characters and pretty much every other character of note dead is beyond me. It'd be like like if indians raided Deadwood and everybody on both sides died except Al Swearengen and people loyal to him. An exciting season of people sitting in the Gem playing cards and boning hookers. But in a boring way that's different from how they did that in the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xerapis on October 14, 2012, 09:14:42 PM
Gas masks rule.


Also.


HATCHET!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on October 15, 2012, 12:46:45 AM
I love gas masks.  They're very sexy.  Dead horses for lunch?  Not so much.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 15, 2012, 07:26:08 AM
Solid opening.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on October 15, 2012, 08:19:10 AM
Can someone explain why they didn't just


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on October 15, 2012, 11:36:30 AM
Can someone explain why they didn't just

Quote
I just attributed it to not taking the risk of having zombies overrun the fence based on the comment from a previous episode where a horde of walkers can tear down a house

I liked s3e1, though I would have liked more with the Andrea storyline


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 15, 2012, 01:57:43 PM
Still a solid start. Easily better than almost all of season 2.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 15, 2012, 02:16:22 PM
I agree.  Felt a bit more realistic and their decisions and actions made sense. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on October 15, 2012, 05:12:44 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on October 15, 2012, 07:05:48 PM
I loved the episode. To me the essence of the zombie genre is the feeling that it's all falling in on you and the claustrophobia is amazing for pumping that up. I didn't even need zombies to be clawing at the walls.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 15, 2012, 10:38:53 PM
Yeah that was a really good season opener. Hopefully the AMC honchos realised that they could either do this cheap or do it well, and that if they chose the former they would just kill it. Fingers crossed it doesn't degenerate into Dawson's Creek with zombies again.

Going to be very interesting to see how they handle Carl & Beth, given that they're (at a guess) 12 and 14 years old. Are they going to get told no shagging for 6 years, are there going to be some difficult discussions or are the writers going to steer clear of the whole idea?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 16, 2012, 05:16:40 AM
Someone pointed out that the actors are actually like 13 and 26ish respectively.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 16, 2012, 05:23:53 AM
Someone pointed out that the actors are actually like 13 and 26ish respectively.   :awesome_for_real:

Lol, nice one :p  They do a good job of making her look younger on the show, and my googlefu has failed to find her date of birth, which just makes me think of this (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/age).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 16, 2012, 09:41:04 AM
At least now the group is testing amputations for bites.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on October 16, 2012, 10:07:09 AM
At least now the group is testing amputations for bites.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 16, 2012, 11:11:34 AM
Rewatch episode 1.5. Zombies have infectious bite (like a komono dragon) the makes it agony for the infected move. It was assumed that next step was for the bitten to become a zombie, but it wasn't shown. For all we know the bitten will make a full recovery if they can survive long enough.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 17, 2012, 08:26:14 AM
At least now the group is testing amputations for bites.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ratman_tf on October 17, 2012, 08:43:33 PM
I'm assuming that a live, healthy person can fight off the zombie juice. A zombie carries a super strenth dose because they're "dead" and their immune system no longer fights off the zombie juice. So a wound from a zombie can overcome the immune system and turn someone while they're still alive. A scratch might be dangerous, but it might not.
It's storybook science, so probably doesn't make sense for a "real" disease, then again, I haven't read the books and have not totally ruled out a truly supernatural nature to the zombieitus yet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 17, 2012, 10:24:02 PM
In the first season Jim gets a nonlethal bite, but he slowly succumbs to the virus that is passed on from it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on October 18, 2012, 01:23:05 AM
I'm assuming they're going with the old "a rotten dead thing has a whole bunch of bacteria/virus living in it". Bites are bad, mmkay?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on October 18, 2012, 04:16:54 AM
Indeed! It makes the most sense if the thing that turns you Zombie doesn't kill you, but ptomain does.

In theory a freshly turned Zombie wouldn't be lethal yet, if that is the case.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Johny Cee on October 18, 2012, 04:47:20 AM
I'm assuming that a live, healthy person can fight off the zombie juice. A zombie carries a super strenth dose because they're "dead" and their immune system no longer fights off the zombie juice. So a wound from a zombie can overcome the immune system and turn someone while they're still alive. A scratch might be dangerous, but it might not.
It's storybook science, so probably doesn't make sense for a "real" disease, then again, I haven't read the books and have not totally ruled out a truly supernatural nature to the zombieitus yet.

Virus Latency. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_latency) 

The novel Feed has an interesting take on it:  Everyone is infected with the dormant version of the virus (which is a combination of two retroviruses, one that eliminates the Cold and one that fights cancer),  but nearly any contact with the "live" version of the virus from saliva or blood from the infected activates the dormant virus and causes zombification.  Also, the virus goes active from the stress of the host dying and causes the person to reanimate.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 20, 2012, 09:37:47 PM
The problem is viruses need living cells to reproduce or "live". Once the host dies there's not much difference between the corpse and a stainless steel counter. Of course, viruses have a pretty wide range of lifespans without a host, but they're not going to keep reproducing. Bacteria and other microbes would keep on reproducing though.

Not really the biggest problem with the non-magical zombie genre, but a bite shouldn't be much worse than rubbing fresh roadkill on a wound. By the time the zombie would be really, really foul it's mandible would just fall off if it tried to bite anything from soft tissue decomposition. What would matter more is where a bite or wound is. An ankle or forearm bite wouldn't be as big a deal, but a bite on the neck would be bad even if normal, healthy adult was biting you. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 29, 2012, 08:07:43 AM
Well that was interesting. I've never read any of the books, so I only knew of the Governor from non-spoilery hints. I get the feeling the last scene wasn't exactly the same as the books, possibly they went with a weird deviation a little more suitable for TV?

I'm assuming he'll eventually justify his actions in this episode with some sort of grand vision.


Was nice seeing someone in this world actually taking a scientific approach to these things.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 29, 2012, 08:16:41 AM
Its about male to female ratios like the last act of 28days later.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on October 29, 2012, 09:12:36 AM
I'm guessing he only wants to take in lone stragglers he can easily integrate into his existing structures under his unchallenged leadership. An organized block of soldiers with more solidarity to each other than to him threatens his power base. Which I guess would be bad news for Ricks little crew if discovered as well.

That or he really really hates military types.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 04, 2012, 07:27:18 PM
Holy.  Shit.

Powerful shit- I am man enough to admit it brought tears to my eyes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 04, 2012, 08:14:46 PM
Yeah, infinitely better than last season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 04, 2012, 08:39:06 PM
That was really great with one caveat:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2012, 09:11:00 PM
That was really great with one caveat:




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 05, 2012, 12:37:09 AM
That was really great with one caveat:





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 05, 2012, 12:56:21 AM
Can't you just be glad shes gone and move on?  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 05, 2012, 09:20:30 AM
It was the only logical choice anyway because



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 05, 2012, 10:28:43 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 05, 2012, 12:26:48 PM
Definitely pet worthy though!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on November 05, 2012, 01:41:02 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on November 05, 2012, 01:47:42 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 05, 2012, 02:59:21 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 05, 2012, 03:14:31 PM
Holy crap that was an intense, graphic and enthralling episode! 
Very happy with this season so far. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tgr on November 05, 2012, 03:30:58 PM
Someone once said that they felt the walking dead went a bit too Lost for their tastes. I'm not getting that feeling at all, I'm actually pretty damn satisfied with the show, and I'm hungering for more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 05, 2012, 03:33:02 PM
Definitely moving faster then last season.  I didn't think things would progress this fast at the prison.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 06, 2012, 08:19:14 AM
Holy shit, they finally remember T-Dog exists!


Really powerful episode, especially with the Lori/baby thing and Rick's reaction was just incredible acting. I'm also surprised at how quickly the prison has deteriorated. I expected them to have a little more time there to explore their feelings.

The Governator is starting to bug me though. He's obviously an Englishman trying to cop an American accent and it hurts his acting a bit in places. Plus, the whole Andrea is a fucking idiot with the screaming thigh sweats for the Governator is annoying too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on November 07, 2012, 11:11:04 AM
Andrea has often annoyed me.  She goes from ditz to badass back to ditz.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 07, 2012, 12:15:22 PM
Andrea has often annoyed me.  She goes from ditz to badass back to ditz.

Yeah I don't understand what her deal is on the show.  They took what's cool about her in the comics and added an idiot factor.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 08, 2012, 12:51:18 AM
I know it makes no sense (but little does in this show) but I was really hoping for zombie baby clawing it's way out.

Andrea strikes me as someone trying to reinvent herself constantly, but not being sure who exactly it is she wants to be. She's so wrapped up in herself that it makes her unable to analyse what other people are really like. She's also very contradictory - her animosity towards Dale was driven by his attraction to her, but her need to feel attractive again is putting her in a stupid position with Merle and the Governor. Maybe she's just badly written....

Powerful stuff though, very glad they've upped the game significantly from last season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 08, 2012, 01:00:16 PM
Oh wow.

That was amazing.  The acting in that last scene was just incredible.

Jesus.  Looking forward to seeing where else they take this.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: pants on November 08, 2012, 04:39:32 PM
Season 2: Watch it or skip and go straight to Season 3?

I really liked season 1 a little while back, and I started watching season 2, but its not really grabbing me, and teh intardnet tells me that overall its not very strong.  I'd been thinking about giving up on Walking Dead overall, but I'm hearing lots of good stuff about Season 3.

So, should I stick with season 2, or just skip it and jump straight into season 3.  Thoughts?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 08, 2012, 05:16:25 PM
Season 2: Watch it or skip and go straight to Season 3?
Marathon it if you have the time like I did.  It really wasn't as annoying as people made it out to be when you aren't waiting a week to see if nothing happens again.  Or go for the first 3-4 episodes and then the last 3 will get you pretty much caught up to where things begin with season 3 while skipping a bit of less than exciting episodes where nothing really progresses outside of 5-10 minutes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 08, 2012, 05:38:56 PM
Even though season 2 is a little slow, I would just watch it all and not skip episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 08, 2012, 05:41:40 PM
There are a couple epic moments in Season 2 you will want to catch.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: pants on November 09, 2012, 12:21:47 PM
Thanks all, thats a pretty clear endorsement.  I'll keep going.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 12, 2012, 05:27:05 PM
Season 2: Watch it or skip and go straight to Season 3?

I've just watched season 1 (excellent, loved it) and season 2 (a repetitive grind) and the first 3 episodes of season 3 (patchy so far, but better than season 2).

Season 2 is just "post-apocalyptic life on a farm". It's boring, with twice as many episodes as were needed. If I hadn't been sick and unable to do anything else, I wouldn't have got through it. But watching season 3 without knowing what happened in the 943 episodes of season 2 wouldn't make any sense. So if you want to stick with this series because zombies, suck it up and good luck.

I caught up on Homeland during the same flu, and it's far better even though it's more cerebral.

There are a couple epic moments in Season 2 you will want to catch.

I don't think I can remember any. Was it the time Shane tightened the bolts on the windmill? Or the omelette in episode 6?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 12, 2012, 08:09:37 PM
Season 2: Watch it or skip and go straight to Season 3?

I've just watched season 1 (excellent, loved it) and season 2 (a repetitive grind) and the first 3 episodes of season 3 (patchy so far, but better than season 2).

Season 2 is just "post-apocalyptic life on a farm". It's boring, with twice as many episodes as were needed. If I hadn't been sick and unable to do anything else, I wouldn't have got through it. But watching season 3 without knowing what happened in the 943 episodes of season 2 wouldn't make any sense. So if you want to stick with this series because zombies, suck it up and good luck.

I caught up on Homeland during the same flu, and it's far better even though it's more cerebral.

There are a couple epic moments in Season 2 you will want to catch.

I don't think I can remember any. Was it the time Shane tightened the bolts on the windmill? Or the omelette in episode 6?

1. Shane gets killed.  Twice.  Kinda big deal, my bad you are trolling
2. Father/son scene where gun is passed down
3. Dale?

Just 3 such events. My bad that the pacing and/or realism isn't "Revolution."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 12, 2012, 08:52:32 PM
That scene in the bar where Rick/Glenn/Hershel encounter the other scavengers is the first one that comes to mind for me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 12, 2012, 09:11:03 PM
Sophia coming out of the barn.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 12, 2012, 10:51:33 PM
Spoiler tags anyone?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 13, 2012, 06:19:44 AM
Spoiler tags are for up-to-date spoilers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 13, 2012, 06:22:44 AM
You mean like when Rick loses a hand ?




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on November 13, 2012, 09:22:40 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 13, 2012, 03:30:09 PM

Can't believe I didn't put that together.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 13, 2012, 04:26:18 PM
None of the people I watched the episode with understood what the hell was supposed to be going on in that scene.  It sort of makes sense now, but man was it confusingly executed.  (And unrealistically clean if that is what was supposed to have happened.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 13, 2012, 05:10:42 PM
I didn't get it either, but man that is some hilarious, nasty shit!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 13, 2012, 05:26:11 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on November 13, 2012, 08:41:40 PM
Well,



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 13, 2012, 09:44:54 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 14, 2012, 08:30:12 AM





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 14, 2012, 09:13:12 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 14, 2012, 12:25:14 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on November 14, 2012, 02:30:16 PM
So I'm up to like episode 4 of season three. I'm starting to wonder how much darker they can go, and if I really want to be watching. I mean its gripping and emotional but man....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 14, 2012, 02:34:36 PM
I think they're perilously close to "bad shit happening for the sake of bad shit happening."  Which is not nearly as good as "awesome shit happening for the sake of awesome shit happening".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 14, 2012, 02:39:10 PM
They have just started really getting into the comic level of how bad things are fucked.  The comic is pretty brutal.  The death of Lori in the comic is even more tragic than the one here.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on November 14, 2012, 02:51:56 PM
It's been a while now since I started reading the comics, but I feel like the characters in the comics generally sort of did things that make sense, whereas the characters in the series seem to do a lot more irrational things for the sake of furthering the plot.  Maybe the comics just did a better job of hiding the rails.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 14, 2012, 05:28:17 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 14, 2012, 05:37:27 PM
So I'm up to like episode 4 of season three. I'm starting to wonder how much darker they can go, and if I really want to be watching. I mean its gripping and emotional but man....

Yeah, it was fucked up and I felt the same way about watching the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2012, 03:31:40 AM

Wow, all that didn't start happening till much, much later in the comics.  I've not even seen the episode you're talking about yet, but I can see them picking the good bits and pieces.  No pun intended.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on November 15, 2012, 03:51:01 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 15, 2012, 06:36:21 AM

Wow, all that didn't start happening till much, much later in the comics.  I've not even seen the episode you're talking about yet, but I can see them picking the good bits and pieces.  No pun intended.


Yeah, they're pretty liberally cherry-picking bits this season, it seems. It's kind of nice because a straight comics to TV adaptation would be too hard to do for anything but HBO or Showtime (in particular ).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 15, 2012, 12:43:58 PM
Long as we get to see what she does to him, I'm good.  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2012, 02:06:23 PM
I actually think we're still going to get that, except with blondie.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 15, 2012, 02:17:14 PM
I was wondering how close are we to being up to date with comics. It feels like we blowing through the comics at a pretty rapid pace and we will be past the comics next season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 15, 2012, 02:56:55 PM
They are in the issues 30-50 area right now. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 21, 2012, 06:36:05 PM
Anyone else thought slaughtering the soldiers was the smart thing to do? I mean, just look at what happened with Rick's group for not slaughtering the prisoners.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on November 21, 2012, 06:39:52 PM
Anyone else thought slaughtering the soldiers was the smart thing to do? I mean, just look at what happened with Rick's group for not slaughtering the prisoners.

Apple and orange.  Plus, the Guvnah is batshit insane.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 21, 2012, 06:47:47 PM
Not saying he's not, but a heavily armed group nearby is a bigger threat than the zombies. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 21, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
Except that they are 1) trained 2) well-equipped 3) a last vestige of government.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 22, 2012, 08:50:09 AM
1 and 2 are the reasons why they are too dangerous to have around and they are way past the point were 3 should matter at all.  You are basically hoping a large well armed and trained fighting force will cooperate and be thankful for what you are willing to share with them rather than easily take it by force.  Sorry, but that is an insane risk to take.  Before considering taking in any group i would make sure a) it is a small enough group that they wouldn't be hard to deal with if they started trouble b) they have some women at least and c) they can be useful even if you disarm them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 22, 2012, 09:27:44 PM
The military is most likely not to go axe-crazy when the world ends so I don't see the military being a big threat to a group like Rick's or even when Shanes was leader. However for the shady Governor? Well they ain't idiots (i.e they'll suspect some shady shit is happening behind the scenes), so it'll just be a matter of relative safety, security, and normalcy outweighing the shady shit and taking orders from a shit head. Most people would pull a Andrea, trying to make the best of the situation, than go full paranoid "just because". So in that vein it is highly unlikely that that particular group of well armed men will immediately dispose of the Governor just because. They'd have to be crazy, power crazy, or just plain psycho axe murderers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xuri on November 22, 2012, 10:05:38 PM
The military is most likely not to go axe-crazy when the world ends so I don't see the military being a big threat to a group like Rick's...[snip]
Yeah, it's not like soldiers ever go bat-shit insane when fighting regular wars or anything, so they'll probably be just fine when the zombie apocalypse hits and they witness their fellow soldiers getting their faces chewed off, and are denied leave to go make sure their families are safe... :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 22, 2012, 11:23:55 PM
Really, the wholesaly slaughter of the soldiers is supposed to be morally ambigous?

They were not even en-route to the Governors town. If he would have just killed the pilot and ignored them they would likely never have met.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 23, 2012, 08:30:33 AM
The military is most likely not to go axe-crazy when the world ends so I don't see the military being a big threat to a group like Rick's...[snip]
Yeah, it's not like soldiers ever go bat-shit insane when fighting regular wars or anything, so they'll probably be just fine when the zombie apocalypse hits and they witness their fellow soldiers getting their faces chewed off, and are denied leave to go make sure their families are safe... :why_so_serious:

Percentage wise? Lets see, people living mundane lives who never fired a gun being asked to aim for the head and shiv walking corpses in the brain vs people trained in life and death situations. Yeah when a soldier goes axe crazy its bad. Really bad. Now lets multiply that by the number of potential pyscho's working at walmart and your local bank, see which group is more likely to remain sane after a year.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 23, 2012, 10:46:03 AM
Really, the wholesaly slaughter of the soldiers is supposed to be morally ambigous?

They were not even en-route to the Governors town. If he would have just killed the pilot and ignored them they would likely never have met.

I don't think it's supposed to be, I am just saying i personally consider it a good idea.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 23, 2012, 12:03:16 PM
True they likely never would have met, but a couple of bullets and the lives of people who are a potential risk to their community gains them a few trucks and quite a bit of high grade weaponry.

Shitty? Yeah, but smart. Not only ensuring control is maintained by eliminating a potential (regardless of what the percentage of them meeting is), but defenses are improved.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 23, 2012, 04:56:52 PM
I'm still just giddy over


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 23, 2012, 05:29:18 PM
All over the place how? I'd say he's been pretty consistently the asshole beholden to the governors rule, unless his inherent laziness overcomes his need to finish a job. (Michonne)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 02, 2012, 07:35:46 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 02, 2012, 08:22:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on December 03, 2012, 02:55:14 PM

This really annoyed me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on December 03, 2012, 06:08:18 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 03, 2012, 07:40:09 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 03, 2012, 08:09:32 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tgr on December 04, 2012, 01:26:17 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 04, 2012, 06:01:57 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on December 04, 2012, 06:20:27 PM

At this point, I'm starting to think the writers are doing some sort of genre meta-parody.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 04, 2012, 06:26:49 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 04, 2012, 07:04:11 PM

At this point, I'm starting to think the writers are doing some sort of genre meta-parody.

The mistake was not making Tyreese one of the original survivors instead of having T-dawg be there.  I don't think there is anything sinister behind the "token black guy" thing. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 05, 2012, 02:46:02 AM

Really loving this show.  Maybe my favorite on TV right now.  They have some great characters.  I do wonder how long Three Dog will last.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on December 05, 2012, 06:20:46 AM
Glen's brave and smart, but doesn't really come across as a leader type to me. It is a great show, and I do hope they continue to make it their own and not feel beholden to following too many events from the comics.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on December 05, 2012, 07:38:52 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 05, 2012, 08:36:24 AM
Michonne still doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 05, 2012, 08:56:20 AM
I've never liked Andrea but I don't have a problem with her motivation this season.  She's someone who's come across a small slice of normalcy and desperately wants it to be real.  Where Michonne is inherently suspicious, Andrea wants badly for Woodbury to be what it looks like on the surface.

Really, I think out of Michonne, Andrea and the Governor, it's Michonne that has the weakest motivation to do what she's doing and even with her a compelling case can be made that makes sense.  I think the characterizations have been done very well this season, and I really like how the Governor isn't just some mustache twirling evil dude.  He and Rick actually have a lot in common.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 05, 2012, 12:12:09 PM
You guys are looking too deep for Michionnes motivation.  She's just lonely... and the person she just spent months with has been suckered in by an asshole.  Andrea just wants some sense of normalcy so bad that she'll take whatever she can get. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: murdoc on December 10, 2012, 01:08:05 PM
Walking Dead Zombie Kill infograph

Spoiler for huge and possibly spoilers but not really by this point.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 10, 2012, 01:48:21 PM
I would imagine as ammo starts to run out, the humans would HAVE to find some creative ways to kill zombies that didn't involve a bullet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 10, 2012, 03:05:58 PM
Someone had a whole lot of free time on their hands.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 10, 2012, 04:01:14 PM
My thoughts exactly.  Also, Carl has almost as many kills as Michonne.  Badass.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 10, 2012, 06:46:36 PM
Yes, but the chart ignores at least one "yellow" character kill. By Carl. Or, wait, no. On-screen only.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 10, 2012, 07:00:34 PM
Yes, but the chart ignores at least one "yellow" character kill. By Carl. Or, wait, no. On-screen only.
And she (Lori) never became a zombie, that was the whole point in shooting her.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on December 10, 2012, 09:38:31 PM
I would imagine as ammo starts to run out, the humans would HAVE to find some creative ways to kill zombies that didn't involve a bullet.

I dunno... I'm betting there are a lot of people in the US with reloading equipment.  How hard is it to find lead? I'm guessing there are a lot of tackle-boxes sitting in people's basements. and it wouldn't be TOO hard to make a bullet mold...Gunpowder isn't terribly hard to make, Just need what? Charcoal, cow manure and sulfur? Sulfur would probably be the hardest to acquire, but I'm guessing it would be low on initial looters grabbing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 10, 2012, 09:57:06 PM
They could always use muzzle loaded black powder guns.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 11, 2012, 01:14:30 PM
Those only work when all of the power in the world stops working.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on December 11, 2012, 01:26:18 PM
Those only work when all of the power in the world stops working.  :why_so_serious:

 :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on December 11, 2012, 02:41:25 PM
I would imagine as ammo starts to run out, the humans would HAVE to find some creative ways to kill zombies that didn't involve a bullet.

I dunno... I'm betting there are a lot of people in the US with reloading equipment.  How hard is it to find lead? I'm guessing there are a lot of tackle-boxes sitting in people's basements. and it wouldn't be TOO hard to make a bullet mold...Gunpowder isn't terribly hard to make, Just need what? Charcoal, cow manure and sulfur? Sulfur would probably be the hardest to acquire, but I'm guessing it would be low on initial looters grabbing.

Also remember there's plenty of lead sitting around in the hills of target ranges around the US, just a few inches below the surface.  As you point out the gunpowder will be the hardest resource to come across.  Smokeless powder is not the same as black powder which would foul any modern weapon after only a few shots with it.  It's messy, messy shit.   Good luck trying to create smokeless powder on your own, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on December 11, 2012, 03:03:47 PM
I might be underestimating what you can do in your garage with a set of power tools from Home Depot, but I feel like it'd be really hard to replicate factory-made ammunition well enough by hand for it to work smoothly in a modern weapon.  Don't those things have pretty fine tolerances?

That's why I think Darryl has the right idea with that crossbow.  Not only can you reuse your bolts, it's a lot more plausible to me that you'd be able to make new ones that would work well enough to be effective.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on December 11, 2012, 03:17:41 PM
There's a joke to be made here, but I'm not a big enough jerk.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on December 11, 2012, 03:39:10 PM
There's a joke to be made here, but I'm not a big enough jerk.  :why_so_serious:

I too restrained myself.  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 11, 2012, 03:42:29 PM
I might be underestimating what you can do in your garage with a set of power tools from Home Depot, but I feel like it'd be really hard to replicate factory-made ammunition well enough by hand for it to work smoothly in a modern weapon.  Don't those things have pretty fine tolerances?

That's why I think Darryl has the right idea with that crossbow.  Not only can you reuse your bolts, it's a lot more plausible to me that you'd be able to make new ones that would work well enough to be effective.
I know quite a few people that handload in a home workshop sort of setting (most competitive shooters either load their own or buy from a specialist, the army has specialists that load their sniper rounds by hand).  If you've got the molds and the scales, it's easy.

Probably a lot easier than making a quarrel/arrow that will fly true.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 11, 2012, 03:43:10 PM
 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on December 11, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
I might be underestimating what you can do in your garage with a set of power tools from Home Depot, but I feel like it'd be really hard to replicate factory-made ammunition well enough by hand for it to work smoothly in a modern weapon.  Don't those things have pretty fine tolerances?
I know quite a few people that handload in a home workshop sort of setting (most competitive shooters either load their own or buy from a specialist, the army has specialists that load their sniper rounds by hand).  If you've got the molds and the scales, it's easy.

I'll take your word for it then -- is it fast enough work that you could keep pace with all the handgun rounds we see the Walking Dead yahoos squeezing off?  And is it equally easy for all guns and bullet types?  I'm thinking here of the Heavy and his monstrously expensive custom-tooled cartridges.   :awesome_for_real: 

The propellant issue still makes it moot, of course.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on December 11, 2012, 07:40:53 PM
There's lots of vids for reloading on youtube.  Here's a 2min video of a guy using a "budget" (cheap) press to reload. The last 20-30s are him actually using the press in real time.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMniDogU7Z8

He stresses in the comments to take your time with these models because of problems if you rush. He's still cranking out about 20 rounds a minute, so they could keep up if they had supplies.   


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 12, 2012, 11:42:58 AM
I'm sure most of the survivors on Walking Dead would love to take 30 minutes watching a Youtube tutorial on handloading your own rounds.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on December 12, 2012, 12:07:02 PM
This is a show set in the southern US.  Gun culture here is extremely strong, and bullets are relatively easy to make in large quantities.  You wouldn't need a Youtube clip; you can find information on how to do that stuff at any gun show, bookstore, etc.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on December 12, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
Plus, part of Daryl and Merle's archtype would have that knowledge. That way they could have all the ammo they's need for the full-on race war or whatever without the government knowing. I haven't shot a gun in almost 20 years and I still have my dads old press and molds somewhere. I have more lead than I can ever use laying around that I use to pirate GW figures. Also, they're in a prison, with a set of keys. There will be plenty of bullets to be had. The big advantage the crossbow has is it doesn't make any noise which is good for killing zombies and other stuff without attracting any attention.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 12, 2012, 01:57:09 PM
I like the fully automatic silenced Carl this season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on December 13, 2012, 03:56:51 AM
I'm sure most of the survivors on Walking Dead would love to take 30 minutes watching a Youtube tutorial on handloading your own rounds.  :oh_i_see:

 :oh_i_see:  He asked how fast you could do it, Haem, not how they'd learn.   We're speculating they'd have access to smokeless powder and primer in the first place. If they had that they'd have resources around for teaching how to do it, too.

This is a show set in the southern US.  Gun culture here is extremely strong, and bullets are relatively easy to make in large quantities.  You wouldn't need a Youtube clip; you can find information on how to do that stuff at any gun show, bookstore, etc.

Exactly.  Plus you'd have plenty of time to learn how to hand load before that.  In another 18 min-long vid I found while looking for that one the guy had just done 1000 rounds of handloads and was now vidoing his next 1000.  My gun-nut coworker said he keeps 2-3000 on hand between 9mm and .32 just because it's cheaper to buy in bulk.  That's not counting the .22 rounds which are ridiculously plentiful.  Ammo would not be lacking if you were scavenging every place.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 13, 2012, 04:12:58 AM
I looked it up and there are apparently 9 billion bullets produced in the US every year. It'll be a while before they need to worry about reloading.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on December 13, 2012, 10:47:43 AM
How many stay in the us?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nazrat on December 13, 2012, 11:46:47 AM
Well, I am an active shooter and hunter but not a survivalist.  I have more than enough rounds in my house to have killed all of the zombies for 3 seasons without touching the bricks of .22 ammo laying around. 

There is a lot of ammo in the world. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on January 09, 2013, 08:05:43 PM
Hmm..  So Glen Mazzara was fired on December 21st (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/walking-dead-why-glen-mazzara-410017), the second show runner let go in 18 months.  Apparently the producers and Kirkman were unhappy with how Mazzara was running things, especially over the second half of this season.  The half we haven't seen yet.  Maybe Mazzara was the one who kept bringing in new black dudes just to kill them off.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on January 09, 2013, 08:42:27 PM
I miss the epic feel and wide open spaces of Darabont's first season, before Farmville (season 2). Surely with ratings this good, they could afford it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on January 10, 2013, 12:54:09 PM
It does make some kind of sense that after the zombies have been around for awhile the game would change to human vs human.  Makes sad sense to me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: kaid on January 10, 2013, 01:32:35 PM
Well given that they are the slow zombies once the initial panic and flight happen really they are more of a force of nature to be respected and watched out for. Humans are the wild card especially when in a stressed situation any interaction between groups of people is a huge risk. Even if they are "good people" under that kind of stress a "good person" could shiv their grandma if it ment protecting their group and helping them live to see tomorrow.

Also over time the walkers are becoming less and less fresh and so are more decayed/slower/more clumsy over time so less and less of a threat unless you get overrun or taken unawares and anybody who survives this long is a lot less likely to get taken unawares.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on January 10, 2013, 01:55:59 PM
Have the zombies gotten any more rotten though?  I haven't noticed that in the show.  Sure, there are a few notable exceptions like the swollen zombie in the well, but in season 3 they look pretty much the same as season 1. 

It seems that it's easier to get away/fight mostly because the survivors aren't in the city anymore, they've been doing this a long time so they're pretty used to fighting them, and they tend to choose to fight them under better conditions/have better ground.

Either way, resources continue to dwindle and there's really no way to settle down and farm on a large scale so conflict between people is inevitable.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: kaid on January 10, 2013, 02:42:13 PM
It is one reason something like the prison is ideal. If you can lock down and secure a good chunk plus the yard you have an area you can safely garden and good fortified areas to protect you from human predators. It is worth losing some people to secure it in the long run.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on January 11, 2013, 07:21:31 PM
Have the zombies gotten any more rotten though?  I haven't noticed that in the show.  Sure, there are a few notable exceptions like the swollen zombie in the well, but in season 3 they look pretty much the same as season 1. 

Don't forget gas mask zombie at the prison.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on January 12, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
I don't think the zombies ever actual 'evolve' or change.  You think this is Resident Evil or something?   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on January 13, 2013, 12:57:08 PM
I don't think the zombies ever actual 'evolve' or change.  You think this is Resident Evil or something?   :why_so_serious:

They are rotten and decayed but do not rot or decay. They must eat and digest but never defecate. Yet they starve but never die of it. They are made of nonsense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on January 13, 2013, 08:20:09 PM
In terms of TV entertainment, I'm not sure I want to watch a zombie take a dump. Also, I'm pretty sure that the researcher and the Governor mention that Michone's zombies are starving but they don't die as fast as humans as a result of starvation (because zombies).

If we apply the urban myth of preservatives in food causing bodies to decay at a slower rate then it makes sense; being set in a western country and all  :why_so_serious:

Just finished watching the entire series over a few days via iTunes (because Australia) and have learned to suspend reality and just enjoy the storytelling. Mind you, Farmville nearly killed the season 2 for me but the first half of S3 picked it back up again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on February 10, 2013, 05:26:25 PM
Season 3 kicks back into high gear in 30 minutes  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 11, 2013, 04:48:41 AM
The Walking Glenn


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on February 11, 2013, 05:35:54 AM
Man has gone from a spry sprout to a "I don't give a fuck" bruiser in decent time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 17, 2013, 09:45:02 PM
Oh, holy shit did this go bad quick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on February 17, 2013, 11:41:11 PM
With the exception of two instances, everyone was a literal bad guy.  I've never seen so much ammo shot without actually hitting anything.  My only real complaint though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on February 18, 2013, 02:51:21 AM
With the exception of two instances, everyone was a literal bad guy.  I've never seen so much ammo shot without actually hitting anything.  My only real complaint though.

It's a legit complaint.  If it's a heard of walkers, it's headshots for every Z, even with pistols far beyond their intended range/accuracy.  But other people, even with AR-15s?  Nope, we've devolved into LAPD accuracy.

Aside from that, nice to see Daryl finally give up on his bro and come back.  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 18, 2013, 04:17:53 PM
It's different when they shoot back.  Not to mention that walkers just shamble straight ahead without any attempt to dodge or take cover.  That two people were killed with around two hundred fired isn't actually that bad, especially since they were mostly firing 'spray and pray'.  Suppressive fire at best.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 19, 2013, 06:23:12 AM
Exactly. They made it quite clear that there were enough bullets flying that our normally superhuman marksmen were afraid to lean out of cover long enough to actually aim at anything.

Also, I feel bad for the next character we learn any back story for.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 19, 2013, 09:40:49 AM
Also, I feel bad for the next character we learn any back story for.

Yeah.

Audience: I'm actually starting to like...

BLAM

Audience:  :ye_gods: Fuck it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 19, 2013, 09:44:07 AM
Any minor character that starts getting lines better tidy up their resume.  This goes for like every show where people actually die.

Pretty grim episode.  Par for the season.  No levity in the zombie apocalypse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on February 19, 2013, 12:40:21 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/YG4ETYD.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 20, 2013, 10:59:34 PM
I'm a bit worried that the series is rapidly falling off the rails. S1 was great, plenty of action and storyline. Farmville went on too long and mid S3 is all "Daryl meet brother, dumps group, reunites with group (who amazingly don't blink an eyelid at Merle - the whole reason for the split), Rick walks around,  hears/sees things, everyone talks, someone gets shot. Hershel mumbles something that no-one pays any attention to, Andrea can't read real motives for shit, Glenn goes from boring to romantic to fucked up to Rambo in 5 lines and then comes back from who the fuck knows to rescue Hershel. Meanwhile, Carol loses her daughter in S2, finds a bond with Daryl and then moves on to an inmate who looks like a pedophile and then shelters behind his corpse because we hadn't had this week's dose of "fuck it lets kill another character off because Walking Dead".

The only really worthwhile characters seem to be Michonne, Merle, Carl and Daryl with a tip of the hat to the Governor who at least is a badass even if he did keep his rotting daughter in a closet. Of those, only Daryl's character seems to really be explored in depth - they could have been doing so much more with Michonne and Carl's character while Rick is off in the bushes whacking off to the ghost of his supposedly dead wife who cheated on him and probably gave birth to his best mate's daughter.

I'm seriously hoping that they get the series moving with some of the depth of S1 because it's getting to the point where I'm wishing that the Governor would wipe the whiney-bitch protagonists out while skull fucking a zombie and laughing manically.

I really get the feeling the writers are stringing us along until they work out a decent story - and that makes me sad because at least the Sofia and Carl arcs and Daryl's development in S2 made up for life on the farm.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 22, 2013, 10:28:40 AM

They missed the best (https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/179666_338798112886841_799922646_n.jpg) one.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 25, 2013, 03:18:30 PM
I hope Andrea gets turned into a zombie and the Gov. keeps her in his closet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on February 25, 2013, 03:36:47 PM
The subtitle for the season 3 DVD set should be "It's All Andrea's Fault".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 02, 2013, 12:16:03 AM
I hope Andrea gets turned into a zombie and the Gov. keeps her in his closet.

This. She is so fuckstupid it hurts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 04, 2013, 06:34:49 AM
That had to be the most depressing episode of this show in which no major characters died.

One of my favorites so far, although it would have been better without the pointless "It's only a flesh wound!" scene.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 04, 2013, 07:44:27 AM
Writers clearly don't know how to create good female characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 04, 2013, 10:11:26 AM
Writers clearly don't know how to create good female characters.

Eh? Shows rather centered around them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2013, 11:28:36 AM
Writers clearly don't know how to create good female characters.

Eh? Shows rather centered around them.

Andrea disputes that claim.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2013, 11:25:41 PM
I was super disappointed by the neglect of the backpacker. :/


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 05, 2013, 01:01:57 AM
Me too, escpecially in an episode that also should have reminded Rick that he was only alive because of the kindness of strangers.

They outnumbered the backpacker 3:1, so there was no danger from him. And even from a utilitarian viewpoint what they need most is manpower.

Dumb fucks.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 05, 2013, 01:43:03 AM
Agreed, my over-riding emotion towards Rick now is that he deserves whatever shit befalls him and his loved ones.

Zombie fiction is about the present, and this show continues to be about the writers feelings that most of humanity is irredeemable - racist, sexist, selfish and violent. I watch it and think "man, this show comes from a really unpleasant place".


Also, how come they're back at the town where Rick was a cop? Did I miss something or is the entire USA only about 200km across?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2013, 04:16:20 AM
Yeah, that's bugged me since Season 2.  There's little to no scale at all.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 05, 2013, 05:40:48 AM
The backpacker neglect followed by taking his stuff... yeah that didn't sit right with me either.

Zombie fiction is about the present, and this show continues to be about the writers feelings that most of humanity is irredeemable - racist, sexist, selfish and violent. I watch it and think "man, this show comes from a really unpleasant place".
Honestly though, do you think they are wrong?  In a world with no rules or law as we know it, would it really be that much different?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 05, 2013, 06:09:20 AM
I read an interview with the writers about the positioning of everything, dimensions, etc. They said they figured the prison was on the opposite side of Atlanta from Rick's home town, and probably about a four hour drive. It still seems silly that all of a sudden they can just up and drive four hours away with no issue, but hey - it's a zombie show. Too much thinking makes it hurt.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: kaid on March 05, 2013, 06:26:39 AM
It took them almost an entire winter to get to the prison it was not a quick lil 4 hour drive with no problems. What I am more curious about is how far woodbury is from the prison I have to assume it is pretty damn close.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 05, 2013, 06:47:48 AM
Writers clearly don't know how to create good female characters.

Eh? Shows rather centered around them.

Andrea disputes that claim.

I am just trying to point out that the show is really centered around the females, not the men. Your personal view of Andera is an aside at best.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2013, 07:16:13 AM
I'm not sure you're right.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on March 05, 2013, 08:14:46 AM
I have my doubts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 05, 2013, 09:01:14 AM
It took them almost an entire winter to get to the prison it was not a quick lil 4 hour drive with no problems. What I am more curious about is how far woodbury is from the prison I have to assume it is pretty damn close.




No, they spent the winter going in circles.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 05, 2013, 09:42:40 AM
Honestly though, do you think they are wrong?  In a world with no rules or law as we know it, would it really be that much different?

Doesn't the very fact that I posted that lead you to conclude that I do think that?

And the show is about the women? What? The women who spent an entire season doing laundry at the farm?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 05, 2013, 10:06:48 AM
I'm not sure you're right.


Welp, lets see, Shane and Lori affair, Sophia line, Amy, Carol and hubby and eventual love intrust in Daryl, Hershel and the protection of the ladies of the farm, Glen and Maggie, Michonne and Andrea closeness, The governor and Andrea, Haley the crossbow girl, Beths transformation, Ricks Visions, Ass Kicker...

Just about every Female in the show has had more of a progression in the series than the men. Who are relatively the same as the day they walk on screen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 05, 2013, 11:32:09 AM
Seriously? The same as they were at the start?

Darrell coming out from under his brother's shadow, Carl going from whiny idiot to badass psycho, Glen going from happy go lucky Shortround to raging freak.
Rick coming to realize that being a nice guy is going to get everyone killed and turning in to a cold hearted bastard.

Every character in the show that lived more than three episodes has gone through some type of arc.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2013, 11:39:52 AM
I'm not sure you're right.


Welp, lets see, Shane and Lori affair, Sophia line, Amy, Carol and hubby and eventual love intrust in Daryl, Hershel and the protection of the ladies of the farm, Glen and Maggie, Michonne and Andrea closeness, The governor and Andrea, Haley the crossbow girl, Beths transformation, Ricks Visions, Ass Kicker...

Just about every Female in the show has had more of a progression in the series than the men. Who are relatively the same as the day they walk on screen.

Not sure you're right.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 05, 2013, 11:51:13 AM
Lori is ridiculous negative stereo type of a women. Men fight over her like property and she encourages it. She tells other women to get back in kitchen.  She runs to place herself in harms way for no reason or guilt others to do it for her.  The one transitionally female role that would have useful was minding the child which she couldn't do for shit.  She is such a bad charactor she might as well be a Mcguffin with a vagina.

Andrea had a promising arc but it is diving hard.

Sophia, Haley, Amy and Judith are nothing more than a stick figures. Ridiculous to even to discuss them.

Beth is hardly better.

Maggie is alright. But no real arc.  Maybe torture stuff will start one.

Carol is the the best.

Michonne clearly has a ton of potential but they have stunted her character. Look forward to see if they can do something with her besides being angry swordswoman.

Anyway, your descriptions are what real damn your argument since they mostly describe Male character reactions to the females. Prince kills a dragon to save a princess. Tells you more about the prince than the princess.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 05, 2013, 12:07:02 PM
Quote
The same as they were at the start?

That's not what I said.

As for Taz, your personal opinion, and what seems like some sort of projection, does not really change the fact, the show is extremely woman centered. It does not matter if you enjoy the arcs or not. Im thinking we are not watching the same show. Previously isolated semi-racist Maggie hasen't changed? lol?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2013, 01:38:12 PM
your personal opinion, and what seems like some sort of projection, does not really change the fact, the show is extremely woman centered.  Im thinking we are not watching the same show.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 05, 2013, 02:34:04 PM
As for Taz, your personal opinion, and what seems like some sort of projection, does not really change the fact, the show is extremely woman centered.

I think you might have this sentence the wrong way round.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 06, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/tQI92Hd.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 07, 2013, 02:04:18 AM
 :awesome_for_real:

In fairness to the chap, he seems quite a capable actor as well as being the only actual character most people can stomach.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 07, 2013, 02:53:22 AM
The walking dead can't do much with female characters.

Likes to kill off every black character it can find.

And what little goes for development of characters your suppose to like, retards itself the next episode.

So yeah. And I really tried to...dear god just ignore that they just drove to Rick's house from the prison...

Oh and they finally gave Michonne some dialogue. I guess her character arc will be "when I don't act like a deaf, mute, psychopath people actually want me around...." :oh_i_see:

Andrea only role is to be the devils advocate. I mean its "justifiable" for a perfectly normal person to think woodbery is awesome. Considering her background, "what you mean go back to the kitchen", type of chick would reaaaaaaaaaaaaallllllly want to go back to civilization. Unfortunately that type will do... pretty damn fuck retarded bitch things to get it back (hence sleeping with the governor even AFTER realizing how much of a douche he is). They never really knew what to do with Andrea...her being in the comic is the only thing keeping her alive.

Only female character they know how to write is Carol and Maggie and they mostly do this by putting the camera on them as little as possible.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 07, 2013, 02:32:57 PM
Andrea is only as stupid as the writers need her to be.  Sometimes quite stupid. Looks good in a thong though.

I really liked the last episode.  Just a few characters, an interesting setting and great acting.  Sometimes a change of pace is very welcome. 

The ending was sad and hilarious at the same time.  A highlight of the season.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Lt.Dan on March 07, 2013, 06:41:35 PM
I find Andrea to be annoying but she's not a bad character.  She's caught between the two groups trying to improve the Rick teams circumstances and appalled at the carryon in town.  Her problem is that she's one of those people who think that she suffers from middle manager syndrome.  She thinks she's a good manager but has no fucking clue and can only screw things up.  As a result noone respects her opinion.

Also very glad that Michonne is becoming more human.  The whole samaurai sword wielding killing machine shtick wasn't a character.  Seeing the empathy with Rick's son was a great character moment.

On the other hand, Maggie has kind of faded into the background which might just be the writers cycling characters into the spotlight.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: goishen on March 07, 2013, 07:58:36 PM
Honestly though, do you think they are wrong?  In a world with no rules or law as we know it, would it really be that much different?

Doesn't the very fact that I posted that lead you to conclude that I do think that?

And the show is about the women? What? The women who spent an entire season doing laundry at the farm?  :uhrr:


God, I hated the second season.   I just kept thinking to myself, "Oh great, another Jericho."   Ya know, a show where they say, "Hey, the entire world's just ended, ya wanna go to prom?!" in a really high squeaky girly voice.  Honestly, after that season, I was gonna give it one or two more episodes and that was it (because the cliffhangers that they leave on the endings and beginnings of seasons).  I have a feeling that the show wasn't really all that well planned out. 

This goes back to season one but if I were to wake up in Atlanta and there was something making the dead go walking around, the first thing I would do is head straight for the CDC.  No ifs, no ands, no buts.  Then, once I got there, I wouldn't be getting drunk with random strangers or wondering WTF is up with some guy's watch. 

Luckily by season three they saved it, barely.   I would much rather see Andrea running amok rather stupidly then to see Carl sitting there toiling away at his math homework.  Because uhhh yah.   The entire world has just ended, now give me your dissertation on Socrates vs. Thrasaymycus.   'Cause that shit's important, yo.   You must know the zombie to kill the zombie.

I understand where it comes from, the desire to be normal.  For things to go back to the way that they were.   But, jeezus.   



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 10, 2013, 11:25:25 PM
Rick's group really, really need to bathe. And change clothes. Even if they just change into prisoner jumpsuits it would be a hell of an improvement. They're in a prison with a master key. The places are literally designed to be able to be compartmentalized in order to clear them almost room by room. By now they should have been able to clear most of the buildings in complete safety and have huge stores of supplies on hand. As far as Woodbury attacking them, just lock the doors of your re-enforced concrete building and use the guard's sniper rifles and grenades on anything coming close.

But really, take some pride in your appearance and body scent prison crew.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 11, 2013, 06:40:47 PM
Honestly though, do you think they are wrong?  In a world with no rules or law as we know it, would it really be that much different?

Doesn't the very fact that I posted that lead you to conclude that I do think that?

And the show is about the women? What? The women who spent an entire season doing laundry at the farm?  :uhrr:


God, I hated the second season.   I just kept thinking to myself, "Oh great, another Jericho."   Ya know, a show where they say, "Hey, the entire world's just ended, ya wanna go to prom?!" in a really high squeaky girly voice.  Honestly, after that season, I was gonna give it one or two more episodes and that was it (because the cliffhangers that they leave on the endings and beginnings of seasons).  I have a feeling that the show wasn't really all that well planned out.  

This goes back to season one but if I were to wake up in Atlanta and there was something making the dead go walking around, the first thing I would do is head straight for the CDC.  No ifs, no ands, no buts.  Then, once I got there, I wouldn't be getting drunk with random strangers or wondering WTF is up with some guy's watch.  

Luckily by season three they saved it, barely.   I would much rather see Andrea running amok rather stupidly then to see Carl sitting there toiling away at his math homework.  Because uhhh yah.   The entire world has just ended, now give me your dissertation on Socrates vs. Thrasaymycus.   'Cause that shit's important, yo.   You must know the zombie to kill the zombie.

I understand where it comes from, the desire to be normal.  For things to go back to the way that they were.   But, jeezus.  



Actually the first thing I'd do is find me a woman. CDC would probably be fucked first, all the idiots will swarm the hospitals, pharmacies, government buildings first, if a pandemic that extreme happened. They'd have to move the CDC to some underground bunker in the middle of fuck knows where that is-ville, so they can actually work on a cure without all of the united states migrating there banging on the door. However a woman? I mean, I'm not masturbating till I die in some cabin in the woods at 40.

This was a good enough episode, sad and funny that Andrea was given the "men are talking" look by both Rick and The Governor. Its not that she doesn't have a point, she just criminally bad at reading people. At this point her character is being officially fueled at stupid. So I'm going back to the Governor so I can back stab him, cause you know I've been able to predict his every move so well... n Android


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: OandA on March 11, 2013, 08:34:40 PM
Actually the first thing I'd do is find me a woman. CDC would probably be fucked first, all the idiots will swarm the hospitals, pharmacies, government buildings first, if a pandemic that extreme happened. They'd have to move the CDC to some underground bunker in the middle of fuck knows where that is-ville, so they can actually work on a core without all of the united states migrating to there. However a woman? I mean, I'm not masturbating till I do in some cabin in the woods at 40.
What is this... I don't even...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 15, 2013, 08:49:17 AM
Andrea sweats liquid stupid.

Just... so... fucking... dumb.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on March 16, 2013, 04:42:03 AM
There's a reason this (link to an image) is in spoilers. Don't look if you don't want to be spoiled  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 16, 2013, 09:27:34 AM
Sweet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Furiously on March 17, 2013, 12:37:30 AM
So.... just as an aside I watched "The Mist".

I felt like I was watching an episode of The Walking Dead. (Mostly because three actors from The Mist are also in The Walking Dead.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Wasted on March 17, 2013, 01:01:56 AM
The Mist was also written and directed by Darabont.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 17, 2013, 09:08:04 AM
And it was also a heaping pile of shit because the screenplay differed from the short, in almost every negative way possible.  Ending was terrible, just terrible.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 17, 2013, 02:58:01 PM
You said it, so I didn't have to.

EDITED to Add :

Ok, that last episode was the worst we've had yet.  So, so, so fucking stupid.  This seasons going to shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Teleku on March 17, 2013, 04:00:09 PM
And it was also a heaping pile of shit because the screenplay differed from the short, in almost every negative way possible.  Ending was terrible, just terrible.
Awww, really?  I liked The Mist quite a bit, and thought the ending was delightfully fucked up.  You don't get shit like that in Hollywood outside of the Twilight Zone normally.

Granted, I have't read the short, but I still liked the movie a lot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 17, 2013, 06:38:26 PM
Ok, that last episode was the worst we've had yet.  So, so, so fucking stupid.  This seasons going to shit.
I agree with the worst episode yet.  It was completely lame and solved nothing except making me want to bitch-slap people around for their idiocy.  There's only 3 episodes left (2 after tonight) so it can't really get too much worse than that, and hopefully the previews indicate SOMETHING actually happens.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 17, 2013, 07:31:10 PM
So.... just as an aside I watched "The Mist".

I felt like I was watching an episode of The Walking Dead. (Mostly because three actors from The Mist are also in The Walking Dead.)

From what I've read, Thomas Jane from The Mist was originally offered the role of Rick Grimes, but turned it down, and worked on HBO's Hung instead.  It could've been an even bigger reunion engineered by Darabont.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 17, 2013, 08:52:05 PM
Saw that coming but didn't see it coming.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 17, 2013, 10:29:51 PM
Ok, that was easily the worst episode of this show to date.  I'd take a Season 2 talkfest episode over this cavalcade of bad clichés. 

It would probably be faster to just list the things I actually liked about this one:


Glen Mazzara is listed as one of the writers of this episode.  He's the now  the second ex-showrunner.  The new one for Season 4 is Scott Gimple, who's listed as the writer for the next episode.  It'll be interesting to compare, keeping in mind that the overall plot still has to follow Mazzara's 'vision'.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 19, 2013, 08:38:08 PM
So.... just as an aside I watched "The Mist".

I felt like I was watching an episode of The Walking Dead. (Mostly because three actors from The Mist are also in The Walking Dead.)

Four, Sam Witwer from Being Human played the dead soldier inside the tank in season 1.  Darabont had planned a "Black Hawk Down" with zombies prequel about the fall of Atlanta starring him.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 20, 2013, 02:52:19 AM
Someone is finally going to pay for her fuckstupidness.  Yes, that's a real word dammit.  Episode was almost pointless.  Stretching out the season again. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 20, 2013, 08:20:39 AM
Or it seen as further misogyny from the writers, female character repeating acts random and stupid and slutty until she is deeply unpopular then she will be punished and killed for a "gets what she deserves" catharsis.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 21, 2013, 08:22:46 AM
Someone is finally going to pay for her fuckstupidness.  Yes, that's a real word dammit.  Episode was almost pointless.  Stretching out the season again. 

This. The episode was a completely circular waste of screen time to stretch out a season. Andrea's continued idiocy is just SO rage-inducing.


SO MUCH STUPID.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on March 21, 2013, 09:57:09 AM
That was possibly the worst episode they've ever done.  It was like watching a completely different show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 21, 2013, 11:46:00 AM
You know in anime, you get to a point where an episode is so bad, so pointless, that you just scrub it from your mind. This was that episode. Complete, utter filler.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on March 21, 2013, 11:50:02 AM
I disagree. The 60 seconds of the governor laying out his implements of destruction was worth it.

It was only 59 minutes of filler.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 21, 2013, 11:51:05 AM
Oh and the super creepy whispering...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 21, 2013, 01:58:24 PM
Here's my speculum.  Here's me tapping my speculum again to bring attention to it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 22, 2013, 11:58:08 AM
I disagree. Though creepy, it just left me puzzled. I mean, we knew the Governor was fucked up, but they seem to be taking great pains to show JUST HOW FUCKED UP he is and to hit the audience over the head with LOOK AT ME I'M EVILLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it's overkill. Keeping the heads in a jar was enough. Killing the army guys including the chopper pilot was enough. By now, we KNOW he's evil. We don't need Snidely Whiplash Saw Torture Pr0n levels of evil. We don't need zombie pit fights. We get it. We can't root for him at all. Everything they've done to humanize him as someone who "just wants to create a safe place for his people" is totally undermined by all those things piled on. It's taken what could be an interesting, conflicted character into cardboard cutout.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on March 22, 2013, 12:05:32 PM
It supposed that we are watching is the evolution from benevolent dictator to psychopath.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 22, 2013, 12:22:26 PM
It supposed that we are watching is the evolution from benevolent dictator to psychopath.

I got more of a "used to be a psychopath gyno and then I was only secretly crazy and now I'm back to what I used to be before ww:z" kind of vibe.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 22, 2013, 12:36:43 PM
I got a "the writer is terrible and is trying to turn him into some third-rate slasher movie villain wannabe" vibe.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 22, 2013, 12:44:01 PM
I got a "the writer is terrible and is trying to turn him into some third-rate slasher movie villain wannabe" vibe.

lol, ya


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 24, 2013, 10:12:57 PM
You know what the walking dead needs? Less people acting in character. Oh wait...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on March 24, 2013, 11:19:51 PM

We can't root for him at all. Everything they've done to humanize him as someone who "just wants to create a safe place for his people" is totally undermined by all those things piled on. It's taken what could be an interesting, conflicted character into cardboard cutout.

We were never meant to root for him. I didn't see anything done to humanise him. He has never wanted to create a safe place for his people. He has never been a conflicted character, just a sick fuck. The thing with his daughter was just more of his sickness.

I don't know what the comic book version is like, but the TV version has consistently been portrayed as a single-minded psychopath. The only people meant to believe he's got any redeeming factors are the citizens of Woodbury. We are meant to know he's fooling them, not be like them.

It supposed that we are watching is the evolution from benevolent dictator to psychopath.

But he's never been a benevolent dictator. He was a fake from the start. He's only ever been using Woodbury, in the way a psychopath manipulates people and treats them as disposable.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 25, 2013, 05:14:01 AM
But he's never been a benevolent dictator. He was a fake from the start. He's only ever been using Woodbury, in the way a psychopath manipulates people and treats them as disposable.

Exactly this. And Rick's speech toward the end was supposed to be the thing that highlighted this the most.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on March 25, 2013, 07:34:05 AM
The problem I had with Rick's speech at the end is now he's completely flipped from how season 2 ended.  Is the group a democracy again?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 25, 2013, 08:17:43 AM
Yeah. He said as much in the speech. Something along the lines of, "All that shit I said after the farm was dumb."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 25, 2013, 08:28:32 AM
And for once he was right.  Shane might have been a total dick but he was absolutely correct in every single thing him and Rick disagreed on, apart from the whole wanting Lori thing were both were wrong in wanting the stupid bitch.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on March 25, 2013, 08:33:40 AM
Wow, I like this show a lot more than you guys do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on March 25, 2013, 08:38:38 AM
Wow, I like this show a lot more than you guys do.

I do too. I think I am just able to suspend my disbelief because I figure that people would not be acting rationally you know, because apocalypse and all. I didn't read the comic though so maybe that has something to do with it?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 25, 2013, 11:12:29 AM
No. I like it a lot. Does it have its faults? Yes. It's still damn good TV watching as far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 25, 2013, 12:01:25 PM
I'm not feeling it this season. Dialog stupid. Plot stupid. Focus each week seems to be on how gross killing zombies can be.

I never read the comic either. I just think that this is the worst season of this show.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on March 25, 2013, 03:04:24 PM
Too much time where no Cylons are attacking but otherwise I'm on board.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 25, 2013, 03:23:09 PM
I never read the comic either. I just think that this is the worst season of this show.



The comic isn't really about the zombies either, it's about all the survivors. 

Other than that, season 2 was definitely worse than this season.  People complain this season is moving too slow but the last one was worse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 25, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
I don't think this is the worst season, but in many ways it's the most uneven season.  This last episode was actually pretty well written.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 25, 2013, 03:31:04 PM
Last episode pulled the show out of the tailspin.  Finally, finally we get some much needed dialogue.  Motivations are reinforced, lines are drawn, choices are made.  Good.  This episodes theme to me was 'unity'.  Ricks final speech was overdue as he finally sees his reflection in the Governor. 

 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 25, 2013, 04:48:24 PM
This season started incredibly strong, faded, and is picking up again at the end.  Pretty standard for a lot of good shows.  It is significantly better than season 2.  Also, while the characters don't always make completely rational decisions, they're still making better ones than they did last season.  Plus, you know, zombie apocolypse...I don't think I'd be all that rational either.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 25, 2013, 05:57:20 PM
I am pretty optimistic because two of the best recent episodes (last nights and the one were they meet Morgan again) have been from the new show runner.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 25, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
I am pretty optimistic because two of the best recent episodes (last nights and the one were they meet Morgan again) have been from the new show runner.

I feel like Rick's apology speech was the new show runner apologizing to us.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on March 25, 2013, 11:37:43 PM
Too much time where no Cylons are attacking but otherwise I'm on board.

Best post.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on March 26, 2013, 03:38:23 AM
Thank Ron Moore for that one.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on March 26, 2013, 06:49:06 AM
This season started incredibly strong, faded, and is picking up again at the end. 

You just described every JJ Abrams series.  Ever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2013, 09:38:23 AM

We can't root for him at all. Everything they've done to humanize him as someone who "just wants to create a safe place for his people" is totally undermined by all those things piled on. It's taken what could be an interesting, conflicted character into cardboard cutout.

We were never meant to root for him. I didn't see anything done to humanise him. He has never wanted to create a safe place for his people. He has never been a conflicted character, just a sick fuck. The thing with his daughter was just more of his sickness.

That's part of my problem. He's just been this one-note psycho. I don't know how he was in the comics either but he's a cardboard cutout. He's boring and silly and he's been one step from mustache twirling all season long. His stupidity is only eclipsed by Andrea. It's been a decent season but it's been in spite of him, not because of it. I think we could have had a real good season full of conflicting emotions and some subtlety so that there might actually seem like a real choice between Woodbury and the prison. But as it is, there's just no reason to root for Woodbuy or think the citizens are anything more than blind idiots.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2013, 09:42:54 AM
Just because everyone keeps banging on :

THE GOVERNOR IN THE COMICS WAS AN UTTER SHITFUCK FRUITCAKE.

Thanks.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2013, 09:45:33 AM
How close has this season's story with Woodbury followed the comics? Was the town just a flimsy mechanic to introduce said shitfuck fruitcake?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2013, 10:05:34 AM
 
Fuck it, spoiling it all.


Edited to Add ; The wiki isn't that bad.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Governor_(The_Walking_Dead) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Governor_(The_Walking_Dead))


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 26, 2013, 10:50:07 AM
I like Woodbury and the Governor more in the series than in the comics.  Anyone who is mad about the Governor being one-dimensional needs to stop; what we got in the series is an improvement, believe it or not.  Also, yes, people in Woodbury are blind to what the Governor is doing, but they're reacting very similarly to how people react in the real world when someone comes along and brings them normalcy during a difficult time, even if he is a psychopath.  In fact, it's pretty common.  You don't  have to have someone to root on the other side to make a good story, or make it believable, either.

In fact, I think damned near everything this season is better than what is in the comics, which have some of the worst dialogue I've read in a comic and are very overrated.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2013, 12:05:41 PM
Wow, ok. Yeah the series IS an improvement over the comics then... because that bit in the comics sounds pretty shitty and not worth spending much time on. I can see the problem though. The TV writers don't want to make him quite as obviously crazy but they haven't done a good job of disguising his crazy at all. The Woodbury idea in the TV show is a good one that has a lot of interesting story potential, but only if you make the Governor deeper than he is, which they can't do because they are following the over-the-top bad beats from the comic.

I like Robert Kirkman as a comics writer (his Invincible was pretty good for the first 50 or so issues I read) but the comics Governor sounds horribly written.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 26, 2013, 12:18:18 PM
He was abyssmal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 26, 2013, 02:32:56 PM
The fact that the Woodbury citizens are so desperate for the pretense of both normalcy *and* that the walkers are just like scary animals they pit-fight for amusement is probably meant as some kind of commentary on our own ability to be distracted from shit-tastic government actions by "you won't believe what Kim Kardashian did to Honey Boo-Boo".  But it's either so veiled it sails right on by, or I'm just reaching for it to *mean* something besides giving the writers an excuse to turn Merle.


--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 26, 2013, 03:11:05 PM
I like Robert Kirkman as a comics writer (his Invincible was pretty good for the first 50 or so issues I read) but the comics Governor sounds horribly written.

Out of the entire run of the comic so far, the Governor has been the thing I disliked most. It's the level of cartoonish villainy you'd expect to see in superhero books. Based on the most recent issue of the comic though, I have a feeling Kirkman has just added something that is about to become the new most retarded thing he's put in the comics (and I say this as someone who is a fan of the comic for the most part despite its multiple flaws).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2013, 03:12:32 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and put this out there.

The Walking Dead is not a very good comic at all.

And I love Zombie Stories.  It's just not very good.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 26, 2013, 03:22:06 PM
I'm just going to go ahead and put this out there.

The Walking Dead is not a very good comic at all.

And I love Zombie Stories.  It's just not very good.


I enjoy it, and yet I can't argue with you on any of that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 26, 2013, 04:00:56 PM
This season started incredibly strong, faded, and is picking up again at the end. 

You just described every JJ Abrams series.  Ever.

Except for Fringe. Which started out weak, got really good, got weak again and then ended well.

As for Walking Dead? Yeah, shit story if you stop and think about it, but I still enjoy the hell out of the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2013, 04:54:08 AM
I'm just going to go ahead and put this out there.

The Walking Dead is not a very good comic at all.

And I love Zombie Stories.  It's just not very good.


I enjoy it, and yet I can't argue with you on any of that.


I enjoyed it too, but it just got silly shelling out for it when very little actually happened.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 27, 2013, 05:51:04 AM
That shit's expensive too.  I tried to get into the comics but after the first few batches I couldn't justify $8 for about 15 minutes of entertainment.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on March 27, 2013, 06:08:41 AM
I bought one of the huge compendium. $32 for 48 issues worth. Still haven't gotten past the first series though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 27, 2013, 06:13:09 AM
I got them from my local library.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 28, 2013, 02:54:31 AM
For anyone who wants a minor spoiler on just how retarded things got in the most recent issue (#108) I sincerely hope this doesn't spoil anything for future season of the TV series because they need to sidestep this entirely:


Part of this makes me think that the reason they're on their third showrunner on the TV series is because at some point these guys ask Kirkman what he's got planned for the comic and he tells them about stuff like this prompting them to ask him if he's fucking crazy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on March 28, 2013, 08:37:49 AM
About the Governor(TV), some of you touched on it, but there is one huge positive for that guy: hot showers.  You go long enough without a hot shower and you'll be pretty much drinking any koolaid that you are handed.  Andrea wants a fucking hot shower.  So, yes he's a nutcase, but he built a secure town with a relatively-amazing quality of life.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 28, 2013, 09:10:57 AM
About the Governor(TV), some of you touched on it, but there is one huge positive for that guy: hot showers.  You go long enough without a hot shower and you'll be pretty much drinking any koolaid that you are handed.  Andrea wants a fucking hot shower.  So, yes he's a nutcase, but he built a secure town with a relatively-amazing quality of life.

Hot shower, hot food, shelter, safety, fighting pits lined with zombies.  No doubt he is a psychopathic asshole, but given a choice between the two camps, I think I'd choose the Governor's.  I think most people would.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2013, 09:21:07 AM
No.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 28, 2013, 09:42:20 AM
Those people have zero clue he is a crazy psychopath in the first place.  The only ones who know are his henchmen, and they are people like Merle who don't much care.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 28, 2013, 10:00:17 AM
See, I could buy that right up until the pit fighting started. Then I'd be the slightest bit suspicious. By the time he's drafting kids with asthma to fight for him, I'd be all like "HELL NO."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on March 28, 2013, 10:12:44 AM
He's drafting kids to fight for him because an armed gang of evil psychopaths attacked the town. The average resident doesn't have a clue what's really going on. They just know that suddenly these guys were invading what had been a peaceful safe place.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mrbloodworth on March 28, 2013, 10:13:49 AM
I'm not going to try to judge the minds of people living though what they have lived through.  Its not like the citizens of the governors have an options, and he offers them a life like they used to have. Kinda powerful.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 28, 2013, 10:43:02 AM
I'm wish Haemish on this one. Maybe i could have bought all those excuses before the zombie fighting pit. Not anymore afterwards. There is no excuse for watching people fighting Zombies and each other to the death. Everybody who didn't walk out of that in disgust deserves to be stuck in a town overrun with Zombies.

And, yes that includes dumbass Andrea.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on March 28, 2013, 10:51:02 AM
Probably not that easy to walk away from a safe place and into total chaos where everybody is most likely out to kill you. While stuff like the fighting pit might shock and revolt people at the start most will just get used to it as the new normal relatively quickly and some will actually like it. Humans aren't really that nice and civilized once the soft layer of civilization is peeled off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 28, 2013, 10:59:38 AM
I have a bad feeling that Andrea is going to survie the finale and be rescued to be retarded for another season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 28, 2013, 11:07:20 AM
Of course she will. It's not like she's black or anything.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on March 28, 2013, 01:10:53 PM
I'm wish Haemish on this one. Maybe i could have bought all those excuses before the zombie fighting pit. Not anymore afterwards. There is no excuse for watching people fighting Zombies and each other to the death. Everybody who didn't walk out of that in disgust deserves to be stuck in a town overrun with Zombies.

They're scared. Fear makes people put up with shit that is just wrong. You can morally judge them all you like, but they're trying not to die under a dictator, with a zombie invasion outside.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 28, 2013, 01:13:21 PM
So the Zombie fighting pits were mandatory? Because if they weren't, staying at home would have been an option.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 28, 2013, 02:54:00 PM
Meh, Andrea's on the Quest for Dick.  Dale was too old, Shane fit the bill but Rick killed him.  Michonne didn't have one.  So when she found a hot meal, soft bed and a hard dick, she was golden.

It was only after OVERWHELMING evidence that the Gov was crazyballs that she fled to the prison, where coincidentally she learned that Rick was a single dad, proof he had a working dick.

It's the only way I can explain her stupidity.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 28, 2013, 03:13:50 PM
I loved the last episode, especially Darryl cracking up when confronted by zombie-Merle - it matched his character during the final of the Sophia arc. He has to be the character with the greatest depth - Glenn was getting there, now he's a joke - Seriously? Propose with a ring that you broke off the fingers of an almost dead woman? Reminds me of when I stopped off at the local cemetery for flowers when I was on a date.

Anyway, what I would have liked to see:

Merle not dying - his character could have gone even deeper, either turned to a governor style character later on, or even given a chance for living.
If he had to die - fuck, do it so that it really smashes Darryl - make him about to turn or even, new form of zombie with last vestiges of humanity in it - recognition of his brother who then has to kill him anyway.

I'm actualy pissed that they killed off Merle and not Andrea - Andrea as the governor's zombie plaything would be infinitely more interesting than Andrea alive.

But here is where I have a problem with the whole S2 and S3 - it is damn near impossible to become emotionally interested in 2D characters. Miconne and Merle should have been fleshed out a lot more - hell, you could have done a whole episode on them going up against the governor with a similar ending in which Michonne escapes - just


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 29, 2013, 07:38:33 PM

So I just started watching this show the last few episodes. I found the Cylon comment funny, because my brother had just commented that I liked the show because it was like BG, in the sense that like the metal cylons the zombies are almost incidental to the story (I happen to agree that TWD is like BG, but only in the worst possible way: there's a magic virus in both and sometimes contrived drama  :dead_horse:)

I'm watching the marathon as well, to get caught up. On one hand it's kind of depressing since I know what the future holds for them, but on the other hand it heightens my interest in the new ep coming up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 31, 2013, 07:07:27 PM
That was a weak ending for the season I think.  I was really hoping they would move on more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 31, 2013, 09:17:24 PM
I thought it was pretty good. Given the way things played out, it makes no sense for them to move on. Or did you mean move along story progression? I just don't want a certain somebody popping up later as a plot crutch later on .


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 07:01:48 AM
He is obviously going to do just that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on April 01, 2013, 07:13:01 AM
Ok, I take back my comment that this has been the weakest season. The last two shows were good, I thought.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2013, 07:27:26 AM
I think you'd be very, very surprised what opportunity and power will do to a normal person.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 07:37:22 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 01, 2013, 07:41:28 AM
I think you'd be very, very surprised what opportunity and power will do to a normal person.

I agree but I find it interesting that you don't think people would tolerate zombie fights in order to have hot meals.  I'd probably treat it like I do Honey BooBoo and the Kardashians.  But not Killer Karaoke, that show is hilarious.  I already consider the price of my great broadband to be reality television, so I might just already be in that mindset.

If there was any serious barrier to tolerating zombie fights in your backyard, it would be the fact that most people remember real society and perhaps are mostly nonviolent.  UFC might disagree, and there are enough people in Georgia with that mindset to fill out Woodbury.

I happen to think that Phillip was somewhat off when he appeared on the show, but he could have been a normal guy before his family was killed.  Now he just needs a black top hat and thin mustache.

My favorite parts of the ending were the ones I didn't anticipate.  The forced conflict is a bit too transparent for me, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Wasted on April 01, 2013, 07:42:05 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2013, 07:46:20 AM
I think you'd be very, very surprised what opportunity and power will do to a normal person.

I agree but I find it interesting that you don't think people would tolerate zombie fights in order to have hot meals.

Um ?  I didn't say that.  I'm quite sure not only would they tolerate it, they'd take to it enormously.  I'd be silly to ignore bread and circuses and try to argue that just because we're more civilized now, we wouldn't do it.  Christ, this is me you're talking to.  I think people are nasty scum, without exception.  I can see them eating each other for the chance at a hot shower and a good meal.

I was saying that I personally wouldn't stay in Woodborough.  The crazy is utterly clear to me and, frankly, were the world to end tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't be keen at all to going back to the way things are now.  Andrea, I would not be.

Edit :  Yeah, I've reread and I see where we went wrong.  It's the post in the middle that talks about most people.  I wasn't replying to that.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on April 01, 2013, 07:48:45 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 01, 2013, 07:52:24 AM
Edit :  Yeah, I've reread and I see where we went wrong.

Hooray for terseness!  I'll do better next time.  Still mad at Herschel.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2013, 07:54:52 AM
The Governor on the TV show had a lot of opportunity to be a deep, nuanced character that slowly descended into madness. Unfortunately, that kind of subtlety is beyond the writers so we got stupid WWAAAARGGLGLGLBLBLBBLL crazy instead.

Here's what I don't get:


I'll likely give this show 2 or 3 episodes more to get the stupid out next season and then I'm fucking done. The Governor showing back up would be a real fucking damper.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 08:01:07 AM
The Governor on the TV show had a lot of opportunity to be a deep, nuanced character that slowly descended into madness. Unfortunately, that kind of subtlety is beyond the writers so we got stupid WWAAAARGGLGLGLBLBLBBLL crazy instead.

Here's what I don't get:


I'll likely give this show 2 or 3 episodes more to get the stupid out next season and then I'm fucking done. The Governor showing back up would be a real fucking damper.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2013, 08:13:12 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 08:27:04 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on April 01, 2013, 09:26:19 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 01, 2013, 09:50:41 AM

It was better even in the weak moments than Season 2, but the liberal passing of the Idiot Ball was awfully overdone.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on April 01, 2013, 09:54:24 AM
Or it seen as further misogyny from the writers, female character repeating acts random and stupid and slutty until she is deeply unpopular then she will be punished and killed for a "gets what she deserves" catharsis.
Called it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2013, 12:46:20 PM
It was better even in the weak moments than Season 2, but the liberal passing of the Idiot Ball was awfully overdone.

This. The show has been littered with plot contrivances with no thought and spinning wheels in place because they have 13 episodes but only 9 episodes worth of plot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 01, 2013, 12:54:36 PM

As for the rest, there's just so much that doesn't make any sense but I'm not going to get into it.  I just didn't think it was a very strong ending.  I do have to wonder why Rick decides all of a sudden to take in all these new people when he not long ago threw out Tyreese & friends and left that one poor hiker begging for help to get eaten by walkers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 01, 2013, 01:04:46 PM

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 01, 2013, 01:32:29 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 01, 2013, 02:07:43 PM
In fairness, they were pushing Mad Men so much because it starts up again on Sunday.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on April 01, 2013, 03:43:11 PM
I enjoyed the finale.  Last two episodes were really good and got me excited again for when it returns.  Consider me quite satisfied with the ending.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 01, 2013, 06:45:05 PM
I do have to wonder why Rick decides all of a sudden to take in all these new people when he not long ago threw out Tyreese & friends and left that one poor hiker begging for help to get eaten by walkers.

For the same reason he made the speech at the end of the previous episode. Strength in numbers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2013, 07:24:23 PM
There is no strength in adding a bunch of children and old people.  He obviously did it because he saw what is happening to Carl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tgr on April 01, 2013, 07:33:34 PM
If it had been for strength in numbers, they would've picked up that hiker.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on April 01, 2013, 11:04:24 PM
That hiker was before Ricks epiphany, though.

I think if they met the hiker last episode they would have taken him in.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 02, 2013, 02:05:09 AM
Rick's taking on of those people at the end isn't really surprising.  This whole show centers around his journey from one extreme to the other as he fights to figure out whether he should fight to protect his small group, or if he is going to fight for humanity in general.  I think he has finally realized that isolating his own group at all costs is only a short term solution, and that mankind is fucked if they don't stop fighting each other.  I still think he will put his own "family" first, but no longer at the expense of everybody else.

Regarding Carl: 
Will be interesting to see where they go next season.  I think they are going to have to get up-rooted from that prison somehow, or it will begin to get too stale.  The zombies in the last half of the season have been barely more dangerous than cattle, and I think they need to re-introduce some element of the survival against the undead.  I realize they need to show man's struggle against his fellow man as well, but that isn't what makes this show fun or unique.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 02, 2013, 09:46:11 AM
Oh, for fuck's sake. Cause and effect, people. The hiker was before the speech and before he realized he wasn't the governor.

It's like I'm taking crazy pills.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 02, 2013, 11:07:58 AM
It's like I'm taking crazy pills.

You got this before me.

Regarding Carl: 

I'll agree with dangerous path, since he's a kid, but not "poor decision" since my eyes told me that they would both be dead otherwise.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on April 02, 2013, 11:11:06 AM
Regarding Carl:  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Jamiko on April 02, 2013, 11:51:16 AM
I had the same feeling while watching that scene.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 02, 2013, 02:31:05 PM
It was deliberately ambiguous. It's supposed to divide viewers. Enough said.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 02, 2013, 02:51:49 PM
Good episode. If only they were writing like that for all the dud's this season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tgr on April 03, 2013, 08:03:48 AM
Next episode on the walking dead:
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 03, 2013, 04:49:13 PM
It was deliberately ambiguous. It's supposed to divide viewers. Enough said.

This is why I'm angry.  The writers are fucking with me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on April 04, 2013, 11:52:44 AM
I'm with Carl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 05, 2013, 06:00:15 AM
I thought the final episode was really well done.  The series wandered a bit during this season but ended strong.  The writers have license to do a lot of things for season 4.  Let's hope they keep up the intensity and don't turn the show into something softer.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 05, 2013, 02:35:02 PM
Are you chaps watching the same episode I did ?

Carl just totally murdered someone.

Stop pissing about it, it's quite clear.

Edited :  and he just admitted it.  You people are nuts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tgr on April 05, 2013, 02:40:27 PM
Yes, he did. Someone who apparently took too long to drop the gun when told to do so.

I have to admit, I was thinking "um, isn't he going to put his gun down soon, he said he was going to put it do-holy fuck did that just happen?" during that scene myself. The others aren't wrong, the writers must've deliberately done that to divide the readers and get us arguing amongst ourselves while they make the next season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 05, 2013, 02:41:15 PM
Oh please.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2013, 03:33:13 PM
The writers are American. To an American with our love of the gun culture, that scene could go either way depending on where your sympathy towards guns and pre-emptive action lie.

FWIW, I agree with Ironwood.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 05, 2013, 04:07:45 PM
I was leaning towards being on Carl's side based on the shooting scene alone, but I think it becomes clear near the end of the episode when Rick has that talk with Carl that Mazzara wanted the audience to think that Carl overreacted.  Of the reasons Carl gave for shooting the kid, not one indicated that he felt threatened right at that moment.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 05, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
The writers are American. To an American with our love of the gun culture, that scene could go either way depending on where your sympathy towards guns and pre-emptive action lie.

FWIW, I agree with Ironwood.

I have no love of guns but that was the middle of a battle, Carl was protecting the weak members of the group, and that fucker DID NOT drop the gun when told.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on April 05, 2013, 06:21:58 PM
So I checked out the DVR since my daughter watches this and the discussion here was interesting.  I took Haemish's stance based only on comments, that the writers are American and this was a cultural misunderstanding.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 05, 2013, 07:12:18 PM


Your first sentence and your last kinda contradict each other.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 05, 2013, 08:21:05 PM

Your first sentence and your last kinda contradict each other.

Why are we spoilering this, anyway?

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 05, 2013, 08:24:42 PM
1) He's a war child. He likely doesn't even remember peace and playing around except in fleeting memories. Decisions are made on a binary of survival vs. death. Morality as you, I, or any of the adults doesn't come in to play. He's 13 and his most formative years have been around this ONE central tenant.  You do what it takes to survive or you die.  THAT is his morality.

Without getting into the rest of it, I believe only a year or so has passed since the zombie apocalypse started. I don't think point 1 really stands up given that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 05, 2013, 08:30:37 PM

Without getting into the rest of it, I believe only a year or so has passed since the zombie apocalypse started. I don't think point 1 really stands up given that.
You don't remember being thirteen, do you? Not all years are created equal when it comes to development.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 05, 2013, 08:41:26 PM

Without getting into the rest of it, I believe only a year or so has passed since the zombie apocalypse started. I don't think point 1 really stands up given that.
You don't remember being thirteen, do you? Not all years are created equal when it comes to development.

--Dave

I certainly had more than fleeting memories of the past when I was 13, didn't you?  By the way, who is Frank?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 05, 2013, 09:06:30 PM
I think he meant Rick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 05, 2013, 09:15:52 PM
I'm going to be honest. Most of you still wouldn't have shot the kid. The few that would, would have done so out of fear. That's not what Carl did. Carl shot him because Carl didn't want to deal with the whole aftermath, he didn't want to look over his shoulder, he didn't want to have any doubts. It didn't matter whether the guy he shot was harmless or a serial killer, all Carl saw was a guy with a gun wearing the wrong team jersey. Most people would have waited to the last possible second to pull the trigger if at all. Normal people rather not have to shoot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2013, 09:49:11 PM
Normal people rather not have to shoot.

And think this along with Merusk's point about Carl's age is really the crux of this. At this point in time, Carl is NOT a normal person, at fucking all. At a time in his life when the biggest worries he should have is about the facial hair growing on his upper lip, those strange rumblings in his pants and his voice cracking in front of girls, he's instead had to face fighting for his life every single second of every day for the last year from both undead horrors and human shitheads. He's had to put a bullet in his dying mother to keep her from becoming said horror after he watched an almost total stranger cut his baby sister out of his momma's belly. He's watched his dad go through a nervous breakdown AND kill a man that Carl saw as both a moral authority and father figure (Shane) and he's lived through the slow-motion trainwreck disintegration of his parent's marriage. All while he's still just trying to figure out his own place in the world.

Carl is undeniably FUCKED IN THE HEAD. Minus the undead horrors and total collapse of civilization, kid would be looking at some serious counselling to say the least. Whether Carl's choice is the new morality or a poorly telegraphed plot point for next season, it's absolutely understandable what he did.

But again, minus the zombie apocalypse, what he did would be considered murder. It might be justifiable, but it's still fucking murder and a cold-blooded one at that. There's actually a lot of room for some interesting storytelling and character moments with this.

Unfortunately, based on how the writers totally shit the bed on the interesting dilemmas posed by Woodbury and a Governor character that's more than a spray tan character, I'm going to say it'll get annoying by episode 3 if not sooner.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 05, 2013, 10:30:38 PM

Without getting into the rest of it, I believe only a year or so has passed since the zombie apocalypse started. I don't think point 1 really stands up given that.
You don't remember being thirteen, do you? Not all years are created equal when it comes to development.

--Dave

I certainly had more than fleeting memories of the past when I was 13, didn't you?  By the way, who is Frank?
Yeah, better than most (I was in my twenties before I realized most people don't really remember their childhood).  I also remember how much more 'in the now' I was at that age, and how much I changed in just a couple of years.  A year of hell at 12 is probably the time it would have maximum impact.  Carl can't be judged by normal standards, because of what he's calibrated his standards against.

I meant Rick, it's fixed.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 05, 2013, 10:43:59 PM
To be clear, I think Carl is fucked up by what's been happening since the zombie apocalypse started.  I think fucked up Carl actually a more interesting character.  I just don't think he's fucked up because pre-zombie time is somehow a distant memory.  If we were 5 years into zombie time and he were 8 when it started then yeah, I'd agree with that.

Now I do think that what he's been forced to do has had a greater impact on him than it would on an adult because he's so young.  I also think that one of the unstated reasons he shot that kid is that Carl has completely lost confidence in his father's ability to lead and he doesn't think Rick can make the tough decisions anymore, so Carl will just do it himself.  That attitude has actually been building up over the latter half of the season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2013, 03:38:58 AM
Also, the kid was the same age as the blonde girl and had he taken him in, that'd be dick competition.

So boom.

Look, I'm not saying I disagree with any of the good points raised, what I'm saying is I was a little stranged out by the reaction to a guy holding a shotgun by the barrel and clearly terrified being efficiently murdered on screen.  There wasn't even any wiggle room.  Did he relinquish the gun ?  Not really, but he sure as hell wasn't holding it in a way that could be threatening to any imagination.  And then Carl said 'Sure, I wasn't scared or worried or thinking he was going to shoot, he was just a problem and I was getting rid of that problem'. 

And then you come here and find a 'Dilemma' as to what the scene meant.

Hint :  It meant Carl is finally going to be semi interesting.  And a complete nutjob.  For alllll the reasons H mentions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on April 06, 2013, 06:23:25 AM
I think there's a disconnect between what the scene was supposed to be and what it actually was. The later discussion between Herschel and Rick makes it crystal clear that the kid was shot down, but the actual scene just isn't that black and white. It's bad direction in the shooting scene.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on April 06, 2013, 06:37:35 AM
Nope.  If the kid was just going to be gunned down, Carl would have done it without telling him to drop the gun.  Carl gave him two chances to drop the gun and he didn't for whatever reason.

If Carl is a psycho, he wouldn't have given the kid a chance.  Carl's not a psycho, but he will act quickly to kill anyone who he views as a threat.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on April 06, 2013, 06:42:45 AM
I think there's a disconnect between what the scene was supposed to be and what it actually was. The later discussion between Herschel and Rick makes it crystal clear that the kid was shot down, but the actual scene just isn't that black and white. It's bad direction in the shooting scene.


Carl's immediate reaction in that scene IMO looked more like shock and surprise than one of relief or pitiless psycho.  I think he shot Shane and Morgan with less emotion on his face, but then I'd have to re-watch those to be sure. Taken everything as is (as opposed to chalking it up as bad direction/acting, which I agree with), I'd say Carl wants to be trusted with the heavy lifting and didn't want to admit to accidentally shooting someone in the face. He's justifying his actions in hindsight, which sounds more like something an adult would do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 06, 2013, 09:58:23 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on April 06, 2013, 01:01:46 PM
Totally unrelated but the actress who plays Beth (the younger girl) is 27. Blew my mind. I thought she was like 17.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 06, 2013, 02:20:01 PM
You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 06, 2013, 04:21:21 PM
You guys seem to be trying to put more thought into that scene than the writers or director did.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on April 06, 2013, 10:10:45 PM
To be fair, that's not hard to do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 07, 2013, 08:15:00 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 07, 2013, 08:57:10 PM
Well to be honest, Carl acts and behaves a lot like Shane, minus the unhinged.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on April 08, 2013, 06:28:24 AM
I really liked the episode and I thought the boy who plays Carl did an awesome job.  That last bit when he was talking to his dad especially.  He went from confused little kid to stone cold killer.  Everything about him changed right then.  His eyes, demeanour and body language became completely different.  Nice bit of acting and from a kid, no less.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: kaid on April 08, 2013, 11:51:59 AM
Given all of carls experiences to date really when in doubt there is no doubt just shoot. Sure maybe that guy would have handed his gun over maybe he would not have wound up back stabbing them or selling them out later. Given what carl has seen to date on what happens if you give mercy to somebody who was hostile to you a short time ago he chose correctly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: calapine on April 08, 2013, 07:20:09 PM
You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.

Uh, the only red team vs. blue team I can possibly imagine in that situation is zombies vs. humans. Else its self defense or murder, not many other options left.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2013, 07:03:21 AM
Carl made the right call. His group was not taking in strangers.  What would they do with a prisoner?  He didn't know Rick was going to change his tune.  The fact that Carl is only 12(?) makes the right call hard to watch, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: kaid on April 09, 2013, 07:38:19 AM
Also the kid was coming with a gun in a position it would have been pretty easy to quickly go back to a shooting pose. Had he dropped the gun altogether that would be one thing but he was an active hostile who was still armed. Had the guy really wanted to surrender he should have dropped the gun completely and put his hands up not keep inching forward with the gun almost at the ready position.

The kid pretty much is following through with shane type thinking with less douche bag. Shane was right in many ways he just went about it in a bad manner. Seriously what would they have done if the kid surrendered there is no good jail to stick him that is not wasting the groups food. If you let him go they had every reason he would regroup and be sent back to attack them again by the governor. What option did they have but to off him carl is not a psychic to know what the governor would do to his people and that the survivors of woodbury would come to the prison for sanctuary.   


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: calapine on April 09, 2013, 07:40:00 AM
Carl made the right call. His group was not taking in strangers.  What would they do with a prisoner?  He didn't know Rick was going to change his tune.  The fact that Carl is only 12(?) makes the right call hard to watch, though.

Murder a person? I am going to bite my tongue here, else this is would turn into a big derail with everyone being mad at me for shitting up a (another?) thread.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on April 09, 2013, 09:55:32 AM
Thats one point you shouldn't press too much outside of politics and just write it off as cultural differences.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: croaker69 on April 09, 2013, 10:57:44 AM
There's no murder without a system of justice is there?  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 09, 2013, 11:44:35 AM
Yes, there is. Next question?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: croaker69 on April 09, 2013, 11:52:52 AM
If murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of someone else with a twist of optional malice then how is what Carl did murder? There are no laws, it wasn't premeditated, and there was certainly no malice.  Murder is a loaded word that doesn't pertain here.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 09, 2013, 12:26:07 PM
You guys are thinking about it wrong. The scene was not about whether Carl was right to shoot the kid and more about why shot Carl the kid. In war there are two basic reasons to shoot someone; out of self defense or because their the red team to your blue team. We liked to assume its always the former because "self defense" is understandable and you can argue all day about whether the person you shot was really intending to kill you. There is a legal argument in self defense and we are fond of arguing.  We'd like to think we can negotiate ourselves out of the situation, and let by gones be by gones. The latter, the "you're wearing the wrong team colors" has no argument. No grand debate, no witty recourse or moral dilemmas. Carl looked shocked because that was the first time he pulled the trigger for that reason. It was always for self defense before, and we can justify that, we can defend that, we can do it bravely or reluctantly. It also assumes that if the "threat" wasn't threatening we wouldn't shoot, or better yet wouldn't have to shoot. Makes you feel good about committing murder now that the basics of the human justice system is behind you. Carl doesn't have that luxury, he shot someone not because he had to but because that person wasn't directly behind him. No argument, no debate.

Uh, the only red team vs. blue team I can possibly imagine in that situation is zombies vs. humans. Else its self defense or murder, not many other options left.

And here is where the understanding fails. The red vs blue was Ricks group vs the Governors group. That's how Carl saw it and that's why he pull the trigger. In our normal world, we call that murder.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 09, 2013, 12:29:06 PM
If murder is defined as the unlawful premeditated killing of someone else with a twist of optional malice then how is what Carl did murder? There are no laws, it wasn't premeditated, and there was certainly no malice.  Murder is a loaded word that doesn't pertain here.

If you don't believe in an absolute morality, then sure, murder doesn't pertain. I happen do so.

Murder also does not have to be premeditated or have malice to be murder, and murder is a concept that transcends legal classification.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 09, 2013, 12:32:27 PM
Pssh, without absolute morality, which no one believes in anymore, something like murder is only a crime if not justified. Or done to someone you're suppose to be close to.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on April 09, 2013, 01:31:42 PM
I have nothing to add except that this debate reminds me of Ed O'Neil's character from Wayne's World. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrOGeua94FM)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Lt.Dan on April 09, 2013, 01:42:00 PM
Carl shooting the kid is commentary on society. It's saying that shooting someone is the easy and obvious way to solve a situation - something a 10 year old would rationalise - not a considered solution of an adult.  That's what shocked Rick and Hershel. Rick saw that as the dark tunnel he'd come out of. Hershel because he's the shows moral Everyman.

The whole greedo debate is incidental.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on April 09, 2013, 09:42:10 PM
And here is where the understanding fails. The red vs blue was Ricks group vs the Governors group. That's how Carl saw it and that's why he pull the trigger. In our normal world, we call that murder.
We do this all the time in war.  Other bastard gets to die for his country\cause.  And Rick did say they were going to war with the Governor's group.  Doesn't necessarily make it right, but I can see both sides of it - especially considering the kid didn't drop the weapon right away and was still inching forward.  Hesitate in a war and it could cost you your life or others theirs.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 09, 2013, 10:31:33 PM
The context is what the group is trying to be. They've always presented themselves as "good people" and a large part of that identity is not killing other people unless they have to.

Hershel is the good conscience, Shane was the bad one, and 80% of the show is about watching Rick getting pulled in two directions by those opposing philosophies.

By the unwritten laws of what the group wants to be then Carl didn't need to kill that kid and it was murder. By the opposing tenets of Shane's alienation it was the safest thing to do. Alienation vs cooperation, it's kind of the whole point of the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on July 21, 2013, 04:55:37 PM
Season 4 trailer from SDCC...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSi2fJALDyQ


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: schpain on July 21, 2013, 06:23:30 PM
looks good.  there was alot in there though, i'm worried how many episodes they have spoiled from that trailer already


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on July 21, 2013, 06:43:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxg27QsaIEY for those not in the US

Looks goo, I just spent a few nights re-watching the first three seasons and am looking forward to this.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on July 22, 2013, 12:16:09 PM
New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 12:25:09 PM
I think that's a Canon one, actually.  So we won't talk about it yet.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on July 22, 2013, 12:27:33 PM
New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: schpain on July 23, 2013, 08:29:15 PM
what the walking dead needs is a 'in memoriam' video similar to game of thrones.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on July 26, 2013, 12:04:16 PM
New black guy introduced, scene with old black guy getting mobbed by zombies.  Don't ever change Walking Dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM

Still one of my favorite K&P skits ever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on July 26, 2013, 12:12:02 PM
All it needed was a little Liam Neesons or Bruce Willy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 13, 2013, 09:09:58 PM
Normally I would make a zombie thread joke here, but that seems redundant.  This started up again tonight, one thing we certainly don't have is a shortage of SFX budget for zombies.  New Black Guy did not get killed, but they introduced a new boyfriend for the younger girl just so they could redshirt him.

Actually, they introduced a Newer Black Guy, should we start a dead pool for which gets killed?

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on October 13, 2013, 09:12:04 PM
Actually, they introduced a Newer Black Guy, should we start a dead pool for which gets killed?
First thing I said when I saw him.  Although all the fresh faces who didn't get names probably means the body count is going to be high...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 13, 2013, 09:19:11 PM
Although all the fresh faces who didn't get names probably means the body count is going to be high...

Between the end of this episode and the teasers for what's going to happen this season, that's a given.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 13, 2013, 10:14:36 PM
In Walking Dead, there is only one safe character... and he isn't entirely safe despite the story being about him.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 14, 2013, 04:34:53 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 14, 2013, 08:30:50 AM
I hope D'Angelo and Cutty make it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 14, 2013, 10:11:22 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 14, 2013, 12:37:57 PM
Actually, they introduced a Newer Black Guy, should we start a dead pool for which gets killed?
First thing I said when I saw him.  Although all the fresh faces who didn't get names probably means the body count is going to be high...

Just out of curiosity: are you saying that because of all the "don't give them names" talk in the episode or because of the nature of the show in general?



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 14, 2013, 12:44:59 PM
Continuing spoilers just for people who haven't watched the episode yet.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 14, 2013, 02:10:47 PM
I've been wondering for years how people stay healthy after being so close to well ventilated rotting meat... and having infected blood sprayed all over them over and over and over.  Why wouldn't mosquito bites kill you if they bite an infected person and then you? 

I am worried about Daryl.  I think he should be one of the safer characters on the show... but on this show, being one that shouldn't be killed is a pretty good reason to expect being killed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 14, 2013, 03:25:10 PM
Daryl would've been safe if the video game based on him hadn't failed spectacularly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 14, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
Daryl would've been safe if the video game based on him hadn't failed spectacularly.

Had nothing to do with Darryl.. the game was shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 14, 2013, 03:56:27 PM
I am worried about Daryl.  I think he should be one of the safer characters on the show... but on this show, being one that shouldn't be killed is a pretty good reason to expect being killed.

I feel that's truer for the comic than it is for the show. I can't think of too many characters who have died on the show that people were upset about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 14, 2013, 07:42:33 PM
I am worried about Daryl.  I think he should be one of the safer characters on the show... but on this show, being one that shouldn't be killed is a pretty good reason to expect being killed.
Depends on the people: If you didn't know the comics, some deaths were more unexpected.  And some people really liked comic characters that are no longer with us on TV.

I feel that's truer for the comic than it is for the show. I can't think of too many characters who have died on the show that people were upset about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 14, 2013, 11:09:53 PM
I've been wondering for years how people stay healthy after being so close to well ventilated rotting meat... and having infected blood sprayed all over them over and over and over.  Why wouldn't mosquito bites kill you if they bite an infected person and then you? 

I am worried about Daryl.  I think he should be one of the safer characters on the show... but on this show, being one that shouldn't be killed is a pretty good reason to expect being killed.

I think that is more because we have a "passive" version of the virus already that our immune system is apparently suppressing because it only takes over and brings us back when we're dead. So small amounts of the virus in blood splatter doesn't arm us. I think the virus, the active version you have to amputate for and what we assumed was the only version of the virus since season 1, mostly concentrated in the mouth.... though this show has no rules on what zombies actually do to people. Do they always eat who they catch? do they num on people for a while than move on? can a single zombie dismember you before you turn if your left alone? If so, is the only way the world ended so quickly so far (not counting we come back from the dead anyway when we die) is because we were actually too good at rescuing people from zombie attacks?



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 14, 2013, 11:21:18 PM
Zombie bites don't turn you, they kill you. It's just that since everyone is infected, once you're dead you turn.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triax on October 15, 2013, 09:43:59 AM
I've my own theories regarding the disease upon watching it that evening...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on October 15, 2013, 09:57:56 AM
I've my own theories regarding the disease upon watching it that evening...






Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on October 15, 2013, 10:29:28 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 15, 2013, 04:52:47 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on October 15, 2013, 06:14:42 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 15, 2013, 10:36:48 PM

To be fair, they did have a scene of passing on farming knowledge in this episode. As for the doctoring, he taught Carol a bunch last season due to Lori's pregnancy.

That being said...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 15, 2013, 10:45:10 PM
Regarding all of the comments about this episode, I've decided to treat this show like True Blood in my head, not Breaking Bad. There's no point expecting logical story lines, consistent reasoning or believable character behavior. If I decide that it's just entertaining fluff, but with zombies, then I think I'll enjoy it a lot more.

Given that approach I thought that was a solid opening episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 16, 2013, 07:48:37 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 17, 2013, 12:16:11 AM
FFS - I hadn't realised this had started up again and started re-reading this thread. Not even itunes advertised it - the joys of living in Australia.

Downloading Ep1 now for consumption tonight.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 17, 2013, 05:07:58 PM

I really liked this ep but I have to agree with the sentiment of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNxvo8AcpQQ


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 18, 2013, 07:24:09 PM
The tents outside of the supermarket were a total nod to DayZ, including the blood bags on the floor.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2013, 03:06:33 AM
Ok, the wife and I were wondering, after watching the first episode, if the rest of the season is just going to be two blokes talking in a tent.

Because it really looked like the blew the Whole Fucking Budget.

Good start !


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 21, 2013, 12:08:55 PM


Don't give them names  :heartbreak:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 21, 2013, 12:12:40 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 21, 2013, 12:35:24 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 21, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
I have this strange feeling this season may turn to shit really fast.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 21, 2013, 01:58:29 PM
I have this strange feeling this season may turn to shit really fast.

Did the 2nd episode give it away?   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 21, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
I have this strange feeling this season may turn to shit really fast.

Did the 2nd episode give it away?   :awesome_for_real:
:oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 21, 2013, 04:03:31 PM
The stuff so far is foreplay.  It provides a nice riddle, but the meat is coming fast.  If you wateched the clip in Talking Dead, you might have the same guess that I do about what is coming next.  It should be a spectacle, regardless of the story.  And then there are old friends to come back....

I'm hopeful this will be a great season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2013, 12:05:11 AM
Carol is really coming into her own this season. 

Also, whoever decided to have Marilyn Manson on Talking Dead is a retard.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on October 28, 2013, 04:40:51 AM
Carol is really coming into her own this season. 

Also, whoever decided to have Marilyn Manson on Talking Dead is a retard.

he seemed inebriated.  Chris handled him well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 28, 2013, 10:43:51 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 28, 2013, 02:10:52 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 28, 2013, 02:26:49 PM
Anyone else think they were deliberately messing with us on New Black Guy/Newer Black Guy?

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 28, 2013, 02:35:41 PM
Anyone else think they were deliberately messing with us on New Black Guy/Newer Black Guy?

--Dave

Yeah, but i forgot there was also two black girls.  Not holding out much hope for the sick one.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 28, 2013, 03:21:01 PM
Ya, 100% chance they are.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 28, 2013, 03:52:28 PM
Anyone else think they were deliberately messing with us on New Black Guy/Newer Black Guy?

--Dave

I know this is a running gag (with horror in general and WD in particular) but it was unsettling
 to see Darryl in a car with 3 black people. I don't know if that says something about the show, media in general, or me personally. At least he was driving.  :why_so_serious:





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 28, 2013, 04:07:09 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2013, 04:15:10 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2013, 04:21:22 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 28, 2013, 04:48:07 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2013, 04:53:54 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 28, 2013, 05:01:13 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 28, 2013, 05:02:49 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 28, 2013, 05:04:08 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2013, 05:05:01 PM
Prolly cuz people like Carol and don't want to ruin the marketing of the show.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on October 28, 2013, 05:31:43 PM







Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 28, 2013, 10:38:20 PM
Just curious: Anyone else think Merle got a 5-second cameo (Rick killed him at the fence)?


--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2013, 11:58:57 PM
Just curious: Anyone else think Merle got a 5-second cameo (Rick killed him at the fence)?


--Dave

Darryl definitely put Merle out of business, he's not coming back.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 29, 2013, 12:07:41 AM
Has anyone ever said why no one calls the 'walkers' or 'biters' by their real name? ZOMBIES.  :vv:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on October 29, 2013, 02:35:57 AM
CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 29, 2013, 08:09:55 AM
Just curious: Anyone else think Merle got a 5-second cameo (Rick killed him at the fence)?


--Dave

It's not the zombies that bother me so much as yet again we're getting a season where people have non-human responses to crisis situations, only to find their morally reprehensible choices meaningless to their own survival and for the rest of the cast to shrug or feel false outrage at the state of amoral human's. I think the show is trying to say that people are basically good but crisis situations make us not good, but if done for survival their kinda good anyway...i guess? And the funny part is less "making hard decisions for your own immediate survival is bad/good/maybe alright" but more "doing bad things when your not Rick Grimes and haven't deferred your personal judgement to what he feels you should do is bad?? or whatever.."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 29, 2013, 08:35:38 AM
Has anyone ever said why no one calls the 'walkers' or 'biters' by their real name? ZOMBIES.  :vv:

Its always been inferred that "zombie lore" didn't exist in this universe, thus why we don't have anyone running around with Zombie Apocalypse Handbooks. No one in this world has ever heard the term.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on October 29, 2013, 08:49:39 AM
This is the most rational season so far. Carol's stuff included.  While not the best idea, it could have worked.  Have we forgotten the atrocity of the prego survivor who stole a car and drove off by herself to go find her husband? Not even close.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 29, 2013, 09:40:24 AM
People really need to look at the road when they're driving on this show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 29, 2013, 01:43:18 PM
AFAIK: The 'no zombie' think goes back to the comics - they do not use the term there either. 

As for the lack of zombie survival kit junk - such concepts were not conceived before the comics began, and thus did not exist in the WD worlds when they went to heck.  ZSKs were a joke response to the zombie craze that really kicked off with the popularity of the Walking Dead comic and the resurgence of the zombie movies in the early 2000s...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 29, 2013, 02:28:57 PM
Walking Dead got picked up for season 5.

Also some speculation here in spoilers:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 30, 2013, 12:26:18 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 03, 2013, 08:59:26 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 03, 2013, 09:41:56 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2013, 12:13:22 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triax on November 04, 2013, 02:50:58 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 04, 2013, 02:53:02 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 04, 2013, 08:32:27 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 04, 2013, 09:06:43 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2013, 03:12:25 PM
I must admit, that is NOT how I expected that to go.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 04, 2013, 03:17:52 PM
If they do another Walking Dead show, I hope it starts on the same outbreak but on the east coast or another country.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 04, 2013, 03:32:19 PM
Oh, NICE twist!  Didn't see it coming.  Enjoyed the episode.  We get out of the prison and we get good character moments.  Rick and Carol, damn that was good drama.  Darryl and the others weren't bad either. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 04, 2013, 03:43:37 PM
If they do another Walking Dead show, I hope it starts on the same outbreak but on the east coast or another country.

Uh, Georgia is on the east coast.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 04, 2013, 03:47:43 PM
I meant the other east coast. The one that liberals control.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on November 04, 2013, 04:13:47 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 04, 2013, 05:30:41 PM
Great episode for a character development one, though I found it painful to watch:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 04, 2013, 05:54:08 PM
I meant the other east coast. The one that liberals control.

hah no zombie outbreak here cuz we have health care  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 04, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
Great episode for a character development one, though I found it painful to watch:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 08, 2013, 06:20:02 AM
OF ALL THE RICK GRIMES IN THE WORLD, YOU'RE THE RICK GRIMEIEST!




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 08, 2013, 06:29:13 AM
Also:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 08, 2013, 12:06:16 PM
Also:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 08, 2013, 12:52:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 08, 2013, 01:51:59 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 08, 2013, 10:47:47 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 09, 2013, 07:23:55 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 09, 2013, 07:28:37 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on November 09, 2013, 08:14:03 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 09, 2013, 10:53:13 PM
I see a lot of authoritative opinions about how a hypothetical and unusually fast spreading deadly disease would operate.  How many of you have ever encountered a flu that kills in hours without medication?  If you did encounter it while out on vacation away from modern medicine, with your friends and family with you, how would you react?  If you have an answer to that question, you're kidding yourself.  

And for those that are bringing up Daryl - has he shown symptoms yet?  I didn't notice any.  I'm not sure why people are bringing him up in their discussion of the disease as anything other than proof that the disease doesn't spread to everyone easily and fast.

When Carol acted, there was incomplete information.  She knew, "These people are going to die, and until they do they could infect more people - and if they die when nobody is near them, they could pose other dangers."  She acted out of a sense that something hard had to be done and if she didn't do it, it wouldn't get done.  They didn't know how many others might be infected - and it isn't clear that if one one or two more had come down sick, whether Carol might have snuffed them too and saved everyone.





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 10, 2013, 01:05:03 AM
The problem with Carol actions, beyond the "hardness" of it was the unnecessary nature of it.

1. You don't know how the flu is communicated
2. You've already have them isolated
3. The risk of getting caught is ridiculously high compared to the reward. If Tyrese (or anybody) showed up 10 minutes sooner he would have caught you in the act.
4. Assuming that you DO get away with it. And that YOUR actions prevent the spread of further disease, what is your plan for the full on investigation that will tear your community apart. You just single handily invented a witch hunt. 


The problem with Carol actions is that its dark and gritty for no reason. Kinda like Shane shooting that fat guy in the leg....or any of Shanes actions in season 2. I mean come on writers if you want to write people making immoral but right decisions at LEAST pretend their necessary. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 10, 2013, 02:51:31 AM
You see, you're thinking about it logically.  She wasn't.  That's why Rick did what he did.  He didn't want her to set Carl on fire for a spider bite.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 10, 2013, 07:27:19 AM
Actually the story is asking us to think she is thinking logically. She made a hard and fast decision and LOOK Rick can't go there, LOOK now she can't be trusted. When in fact she made a kinda out of character decision that was thought out poorly and the only thing handled remotely well about it was Rick's reaction to it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on November 10, 2013, 12:22:37 PM
Even with the most convoluted fuckheaded rationale that in some way would vindicate Carol's actions, I think pragmatically the group is better off with Tyreese and Sasha (if she lives) than Carol.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: schpain on November 10, 2013, 01:24:01 PM
that's a pretty cold way to look at it, hayduke.

carol's been there from the start, she's not flashy but she's a good shot and will get the hard stuff done  (remember practicing to remove the baby when they weren't sure Hershel was gonna make it?); and tyrese isn't exactly mr mentalhealth right now...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 10, 2013, 01:40:22 PM
And why isn't he Mr. Mentalhealth right now?  Who's fault is that again?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 10, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Tyrese always sucked 10 char.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on November 10, 2013, 06:16:06 PM
Iif you're judging characters by where they hit bottom plenty of other characters are way worse than Tyreese.  Rick and Carol have both been way worse on that front.

Also Tyreese and Sasha have survived just as long as everyone else.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 10, 2013, 07:01:49 PM
Fuck. Me.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 10, 2013, 07:21:06 PM
The Long Dark Night at the Prison.  Herschel was very brave and noble.  Awesome episode for that character.  Rick and Carl bond in another heroic scene. I also liked the quieter moments; love that the director lets a scene breathe.  Might be the best episode of this new season.  Shit certainly goes downhill fast in that world.


Really good to see the show still has high quality in its fourth season.  I do wonder if there's an endgame to this story.  But as long as it stays good I suppose.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 10, 2013, 07:28:04 PM
All I can say about Carol - If you can't understand (I'm not saying agree with - I'm saying understand) why Carol thought she was in the right, you're going to die when the zombie apocalypse hits in 1 year, 7 months, 4 days, 6 hours and 18 minutes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on November 11, 2013, 02:04:45 AM
All I can say about Carol - If you can't understand (I'm not saying agree with - I'm saying understand) why Carol thought she was in the right, you're going to die when the zombie apocalypse hits in 1 year, 7 months, 4 days, 6 hours and 18 minutes.
For a second I thought you were Nebu and was very very afraid. :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 11, 2013, 03:49:25 PM
Five episodes into the season and the quality has gotten better with each one. THIS is what good writing is like. Hands down one of the best episodes of any season.

But...

Fuck me.


That will be the real test of these writers. Can they make this shit character worth watching?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 11, 2013, 07:40:17 PM
I love how they keep a bucket of assault rifles outdoors.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 11, 2013, 08:44:50 PM
I love how they keep a bucket of assault rifles outdoors.

yeah a definite "lolwut" moment in an otherwise good episode.


That will be the real test of these writers. Can they make this shit character worth watching?

I'm betting against it. it's a shame though, I've like this season much more than season 3.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 12, 2013, 02:41:34 AM

That will be the real test of these writers. Can they make this shit character worth watching?

I was ready to rave about the episode - then they do that shit right at the end.  :ye_gods:

What's next? Zombie Andrea and Zombie Lori to round out a trinity of waste of space characters?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2013, 09:51:55 AM
That episode was for me the best episode of the series, HANDS DOWN.

Right up until the last second reveal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 12, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
I can't imagine anyone is actually surprised by the reveal at the end?



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 12, 2013, 10:32:21 AM
I can't imagine anyone is actually surprised by the reveal at the end?




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 12, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
That episode was for me the best episode of the series, HANDS DOWN.

Right up until the last second reveal.

100x this.

I was thinking he was responsible for some of the shit too, but still, it's going to be disappointing no matter the reveal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2013, 12:33:36 PM
I can't imagine anyone is actually surprised by the reveal at the end?

I wasn't surprised, just disappointed. Andrea may be the only character I hate more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 12, 2013, 12:41:30 PM
When they didn't kill the Governor at the end of last season, you knew he was gonna be back.  I'm not a big Governor fan either, but a lot of the TWD fans like him.  I'd rather they move on, but I guess if you are gonna stretch out the prison you might as well have him around for it. 




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 12, 2013, 12:50:21 PM
I would rather have a mustache twirling villain than brain-dead misogynous woman driving the story. I know its a low bar.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 13, 2013, 11:05:26 AM
I'll hold out some hope that they can write him in for a few episodes without making it too horrible.  Consider how BAD ASS that last episode was, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Best episode of the series.  Herschel is a rockstar.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on November 14, 2013, 01:11:04 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that if they had that much ammunition (and skills) they should have gunned down the zombies *before* they broke the fencing?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 14, 2013, 01:20:19 PM

The main problem was the illness keeping people from thinning the herd. Since zombies are stupid and no one is going to make ammo for awhile, it makes sense to conserve as much as you can.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 14, 2013, 01:55:40 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that if they had that much ammunition (and skills) they should have gunned down the zombies *before* they broke the fencing?
They were culling the herd without using ammunition.  Ammunition is precious if you do not have the ability to make more - which they do not seem to have.  The herd just grew too much with so many people ill.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 14, 2013, 03:59:45 PM
Not only that, but the sound also draws more walkers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 15, 2013, 04:51:38 AM
They've also now made it clear that there's a fucking chain swarm living just down the road.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 17, 2013, 07:03:54 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the way this ep turned out. Ben Nichols has an amazing way of making haunting post-apocalyptic songs.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 17, 2013, 07:14:53 PM
An excellent episode and it looks like the show is going to change it's focus for at least the next couple of weeks. Talking Dead is also not sucking for a change.

The whole prison defense thing bugged the shit out of me. There should have been a dry moat ten feet deep all the way around that outer fence. I guarantee there's at least one bobcat in that prison.They also should have been building a solid wall of stuff on the inside of the inner fence as well. Plus, I f all it took was less than fifty people pressing on a prison fence to take it down the US would have a penal system with zero prisons and a billion escapees.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 17, 2013, 07:28:14 PM
Well, in all fairness, their fences that haven't been maintained for a few years and the zombies aren't worried about guards in towers blowing their brains out. Prisoners just might be.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2013, 01:42:48 AM
I've never understood why the hollow area between the two chain link fences isn't FILLED WITH SHIT after about a month of living there.  It would have been one of my first priorities.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 18, 2013, 10:34:22 AM

I'm really surprised how strong this season has been. Although I really don't get the character, I thought this was a good episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2013, 12:19:23 PM
My take: He started with the right intentions, but didn't deal with the (initial) death of his kid in the same way that others would - and then lost it when the zombie version of her passed.  He stopped trying to do the right thing and began to spiral out of control while seeking vengeance - and realized how far he'd gone only after gunning down most of his remaining people.  From there, he was dealing with what he'd done (burning down Woodbury, walkng the land, etc...) by distancing himself in every way from what he'd done.

When the family connected with him, he started to put himself back together.  He still has to reconcile the crazy %@$# he did with what he wants to be for this family.  The first question is: can he be the man he wants to be, or if things go bad again will he revert to the guy that slaughtered so many people?  And the second question is: If he can be a good man from here forward, what should the people around him do about him?  Accept the good man he can be, or punish him for being the bad man he was?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 18, 2013, 12:21:01 PM
Round to the grape. Dude's never going to be able to be trusted.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2013, 12:23:12 PM
Round to the grape. Dude's never going to be able to be trusted.
Well, yeah.  I didn't say it was a hard question.  Especially in the zombie apocalypse.  I could see them setting up this deep internal debate about the quality of redemption and the worth of a man ... and then have Glen blow his brains out the second they see each other.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 18, 2013, 12:49:52 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2013, 01:18:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 18, 2013, 02:13:28 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 18, 2013, 02:16:54 PM
The Governor was a total dick even before he met Andrea and Michionne. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 18, 2013, 02:25:30 PM
To outsiders, sure.  The people of Woodbury had it pretty good though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2013, 02:41:24 PM
The people of Woodbury would have been dead without a leader to organize them and their defenses.  You can argue someone else might have stepped up, but that other leader could have abused his power outright rather than putting a cleaner public image out there like the Gov.  If they follow the comics, you'll see other types of leaders out there eventually. 

The Gov. did right by them in so many ways - and, in general, the wrong he did (up and until the gunning down of his people) was either in the name of protecting his people, or retribution.  Then, he snapped.  The Gov. lacked control in some key ways, but started from a place of good.  The horror story really hits when you get to the guy that only cares about himself, has power, and is in full control.  The Governor was a more dramatic villain for the comics, but the villains I think will be much better on screen are still to come... maybe years from now.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 18, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
The Gov. did right by them in so many ways - and, in general, the wrong he did (up and until the gunning down of his people) was either in the name of protecting his people, or retribution.  Then, he snapped. 

When he gunned down those soldiers last season I'm pretty sure that was not in the name of protecting his people. He could have brought a bunch of trained soldiers back to Woodbury to help protect the town, but they might have taken control of things. He also sent Merle to kill Michonne after she left Woodbury. The fact is, in both the comics, and in the show last season the Governor was just a really poorly written, one-dimensional comic book villain.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2013, 03:41:24 PM
I'm not validating his methods, but I think he wanted to preseve the people he was responsible for protecting - and maintaing his role in their community. 
...When he gunned down those soldiers last season I'm pretty sure that was not in the name of protecting his people.
I saw it differently.  I saw it as - "These guys could be great, but they could also take control.  And if they take control, they could do anything.  I doubt they'd understand Penny.  They'd 'kill' her.  We're better off with their guns and without them."
Quote
...He also sent Merle to kill Michonne after she left Woodbury...
She'd already shown that she was a threat to the established rule.  She did not trust them, and judged their way of dealing with the world.  She might have come back and sabotaged, might have led another violent group there to 'liberate' the people, etc...  Again, better safe than sorry...  Better to gun her down and make sure she isn't a threat...

A truly one dimension character has no motivation to do evil - they just do evil.  He was in control and was trying to protect both the people he controlled, and his control over those people.  If he lost control, the new power could 'kill' Penny, and could hurt the people of Woodbury.  Nothing he did was out of the blue, and everything started from a place of reason. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 18, 2013, 03:51:11 PM
The funny thing is that the Governor is the least badly written villain from the comics. I feel this last episode is the direction Shane should have gone. I told believe the govenor as a badass normal though the show keeps insisting he is. Don't believe he is a "misunderstood good guy" though the show insist that he is. I keep waiting for his "hyde" to show up and nope it doesn't. So now we going the "he is a complex character, basically good guy route." where only a few weeks ago he gunned down his own people after failing a suicidal zerg rush on a group of guys who wanted nothing to do with you. We are to believe the humanizing factor is the little girl?? Ok I'll buy that show, I'll buy that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 18, 2013, 04:00:05 PM
Yeah I don't buy it either, but if I handwave away season three (and who doesn't, amirite  :why_so_serious:) then this last episode is good.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 18, 2013, 04:14:06 PM
I don't see what's unrealistic about someone not doing evil ALL of the time.  I am perfectly ok with someone who guns down a group of people not gunning down every group of people he comes across.  I don't see why a guy who will rape and torture and murder can't also go on a dangerous mission to get a dying old man a can of oxygen.  It doesn't make him any less evil or any more good, it just makes him a more realistic human being.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 18, 2013, 04:33:02 PM
I don't see what's unrealistic about someone not doing evil ALL of the time.  I am perfectly ok with someone who guns down a group of people not gunning down every group of people he comes across.  I don't see why a guy who will rape and torture and murder can't also go on a dangerous mission to get a dying old man a can of oxygen.  It doesn't make him any less evil or any more good, it just makes him a more realistic human being.

It's not that he has to be all evil or all good, but the way he tends to go about things makes him the chaotic neutral of the Walking Dead universe. Shooting his own people just felt like the writers going "look how crazy and evil this guy is, he's shooting his own people!". If he came across you there seemed to be an equal chance of him taking you in to live in Woodbury or cutting your head off to put in his fish tank and then tracking down all your friends to kill them too. Or maybe you'd get lucky and instead of killing you, he'd have you beaten while he makes your girlfriend get undressed in the next room while he just creepily stands behind her.

And no, I don't generally think someone who has a habit of gunning down or torturing innocent people typically has the empathy to do nice shit for strangers. Mind you I liked last night's episode because it managed to portray him as more of a complex and tortured individual in one episode than the entirety of the last season managed to, but I don't for a second think it's consistent with his character as portrayed before. I'm willing to forgive that though because the way he was portrayed before was complete shit and because I think David Morrissey does a good job despite the writing frequently being bad.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 18, 2013, 04:47:56 PM
I liked the episode more when I stopped thinking of him as the governor. Replace him with say Shane and the entire episode not only makes sense but works beautifully.

Now as far as the "way the governor is portrayed?" Man in some respects the tv writers are trying really hard to polish turd. They (tv writers) wanted to make him "sympathetic" in a fucked up amoral way without really knowing what amoral actually means. So he just comes off as two light shades from axe crazy. Comic Governor? Completely axe crazy, even to the point of turning everyone associated with him (i.e everyone in woodbury) into lighter versions of axe crazy. They toned him down for tv, in order to polish the turd (with mixed results). The other walking dead villains are just utterly ham-fisted governor rejects, going into randal flagg territory of comical baseless evil (minus the awesome and the lovecraft elements). Don't know how they going to polish some of those turds.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 18, 2013, 07:03:38 PM
I sure hope that they don't try and being the current big bad of the comics to the show.  Not because he would suck, but because there is another leader from that plot line that would just piss me off.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 18, 2013, 08:14:31 PM
I'm hoping they continue to avoid word for word the graphic novel's plotline. I can do without a lot of the things in the graphic novel


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on November 18, 2013, 08:19:58 PM
Further they stay away from the comics the better imo.

Hopefully the governor will find a way to get the two sisters killed, take the kid for himself, and go back to being a merry little asshole.  And then Michonne can kill him for good, as she should have when she had the fucking chance.  Goddamn this fucking show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 20, 2013, 08:15:28 AM
Mind you I liked last night's episode because it managed to portray him as more of a complex and tortured individual in one episode than the entirety of the last season managed to, but I don't for a second think it's consistent with his character as portrayed before. I'm willing to forgive that though because the way he was portrayed before was complete shit and because I think David Morrissey does a good job despite the writing frequently being bad.

This. ALL OF THIS. I fucking hated the Governor because he was such an idiotic, schizo character. He was one step from mustache twirling one minute, a good guy doing bad things the next. I'm not sure where they are going with this focus on the Governor, but he was SO much better written in the 40-odd minutes here than in the entirety of time we've seen him before. The writing has been consistently good to great this season so I'm willing to take a few weeks to walk with the crazy person.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 20, 2013, 08:17:01 AM
I'm also amazed that they managed to keep it looking like they're blowing the budget every week.

Much better this season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on November 20, 2013, 12:34:55 PM
Is it typical in survival situations to always keep coming back to the same locations you've visited before?  I know it's easy to get lost wandering, but damn these people can't ever seem to leave the same 60mi radius.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 21, 2013, 06:27:32 AM
I still don't believe the writers have ever intended viewers to feel conflicted about the governor or defend him in any way. He's only a sadistic psychopath. There is no complexity to it.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 21, 2013, 07:57:56 AM
Tale, I think you're going to see things differently over the next 6 or so episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 21, 2013, 08:50:33 AM
Is it typical in survival situations to always keep coming back to the same locations you've visited before?  I know it's easy to get lost wandering, but damn these people can't ever seem to leave the same 60mi radius.

In a survival situation that you know has no chance of rescue, sure. As long as your needs are being met where you are there's no upside to exploring the zombie infested countryside for the hell of it. Anything outside of walking distance there and back before nightfall would be a deal breaker in most cases. I'm sure it varies from area to area, but when did settlements in Europe to relax and decide that the people in the next village over probably weren't werewolves and they were best off killing any travelers they came across and taking their stuff?

The one thing I would say is that when you find a location like a store or gas station you loot that thing bare as fast as you can. None of this driving there, taking a backpack's worth of stuff each and going back when you need more. Find/build a trailer and take everything there in one or two trips.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 21, 2013, 09:17:03 AM
There'd be arguments for and against travel.  You could find a place of safety or a new threat that you can't handle.  Of course, threats you can't handle may travel and find you...  But you at least have a chance to fortify your position if you are the one that is stationary.

Personally, I think the safest place for me to be in the ZA would be on a ship sailing along the coast.  Ships have space to store supplies.  You could spend nights out at sea where you were not visibile from land.  Fishing for food, visiting land to get fresh water... I'd experiment with using the ocean to get rid of zombies.  I don't think they'd swim.  Fish/sharks would eventually eat them.   Make loud noises while a mile out to sea and see if they walk into the ocean.... (just don't eat the fish in that area anytime soon).  Of course, life would get rough when the weather turns bad...  It is sort of the best of both staying put (on a ship) and traveling (across the ocean) with limited zombie threats. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 22, 2013, 03:13:38 AM
Darabont has been out promoting his upcoming TNT show Mob City and has spoken vaguely on the circumstances around his departure (http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/21/frank-darabont-many-on-the-walking-dead-felt-abused). It's worth noting that he cast Jon Bernthal (Shane) and Jeffrey DeMunn (Dale) as some of the main characters of his new show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 22, 2013, 03:21:05 AM
Well, that all sounds horrible.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 22, 2013, 04:54:29 AM
But not surprising. And it explains why season two looks like it was shot for about $20 and a fucking six pack.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 22, 2013, 07:22:05 AM
So they end up with a huge hit and some TV exec CUTS the budget?  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 22, 2013, 07:23:29 AM
It's the Drug Model.  Get your audience hooked and then you can feed them the cheap shit for a bigger price.

That said, as I've said before, this season is really knocking it out the park.  Clearly, words were had.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 22, 2013, 09:43:47 AM
So they end up with a huge hit and some TV exec CUTS the budget?  :uhrr:

That's AMC's main method of operation though. Hell, Breaking Bad is lucky to have gotten a full final season commitment. AMC execs are just really not used to success.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 24, 2013, 06:47:36 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 24, 2013, 09:03:59 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on November 24, 2013, 09:53:26 PM

You know, having had a little bit of time to sit and think about it everything he did makes perfect sense. It was cold and calculating as hell, but there are good reasons for all of it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 24, 2013, 09:57:34 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on November 24, 2013, 11:16:59 PM

I want to discuss this show but I'm too pissed off atm to say anything intelligent. I've liked this season up until this episode. I'm upset enough to just bail on the whole series.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 24, 2013, 11:43:13 PM
The writing this season has been much, much better than it has been in a long time.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 25, 2013, 09:53:33 AM
This better be over after next episode we don't need a rehash of season 3.

Prediction:
Quote
Big show of force outside is a diversion.  Real assault comes through the back taking the prison while they are outside. They will be stuck in the middle and forced to surrender.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 25, 2013, 10:04:58 AM
This better be over after next episode we don't need a rehash of season 3.

Prediction:
Quote
Big show of force outside is a diversion.  Real assault comes through the back taking the prison while they are outside. They will be stuck in the middle and forced to surrender.



I want to discuss this show but I'm too pissed off atm to say anything intelligent. I've liked this season up until this episode. I'm upset enough to just bail on the whole series.


If there was any time to drop the walking dead now is the time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 25, 2013, 10:25:56 AM
When next week's preview said "...and some won't make it" they might as well have flashed pictures of the black guys.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 25, 2013, 12:13:31 PM
At least we'll be done with Tyreese. Tired of his shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 25, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
I call Beth, Lil Asskicker, Hershel, and Bob going down.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 25, 2013, 01:57:21 PM
Lil Asskicker, Beth, Tyresse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: tazelbain on November 25, 2013, 02:17:52 PM
Definitely Hershel, rest is a crap shoot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 28, 2013, 11:30:56 AM
Well, at the risk of being alone in my opinion, I rather enjoyed the last two episodes.  While he isn't be re-invented, I rather prefer this version of the Governor.  And Morrissey plays the part very well.  The writing has been good.  I have no complaints.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 28, 2013, 01:09:25 PM
Well, at the risk of being alone in my opinion, I rather enjoyed the last two episodes.  While he isn't be re-invented, I rather prefer this version of the Governor.  And Morrissey plays the part very well.  The writing has been good.  I have no complaints.

This.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 28, 2013, 01:15:08 PM
I've only seen one of his, but I thought the first one was really good.

So, you know, no hate dump here.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on December 01, 2013, 03:40:09 PM
Anything that drags the plot closer to the comics isn't good writing~~


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2013, 04:59:38 PM
I've seen a couple eps of this and didn't care for it.

I watched an episode last week in a hotel with a dude with an eye patch. It seemed pretty good - there was real drama and stakes, and it was pretty interesting. I didn't recognize any characters and thought that was weird, also they appeared to be in the same environment they were in during the first few episodes of the series, which was also weird.

Then I get to the end and realize oh, this is actually a different group of people, and the awful original people are someplace else. Hmm. Not sure how I feel about a separate cast of characters being more interesting than the main cast.

This jail/governor stuff is also where I dropped the comics. Show seems like an improvement on that front.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 01, 2013, 07:00:48 PM
Daryl Mutherfuckin' Dixon!

EPIC STORYTELLING.  GOT-DAMN.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on December 01, 2013, 07:02:37 PM
Daryl Mutherfuckin' Dixon!

EPIC STORYTELLING.  GOT-DAMN.

This. But Mother. Fucker.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 01, 2013, 07:12:41 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on December 01, 2013, 07:25:11 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on December 01, 2013, 07:29:19 PM
Second best episode of the series.

christ... too many emotions. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 01, 2013, 07:29:46 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on December 01, 2013, 07:42:55 PM
I was hoping they'd go further from the comics - not because the story is bad, but because I'd like them to go in a different direction and do less rehashing.  Yes, there were clear changes, and there is room for more changes than we realize there were, but I would have loved to have seen something entirely different, like them being overrun by the 7500 zombie herd just as Rick walks down the hill early in the episode...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 01, 2013, 11:13:24 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on December 01, 2013, 11:34:37 PM
The show writers love Daryl, not even Rick gets to be a badass and he is the main character.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 02, 2013, 02:53:10 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 02, 2013, 06:40:25 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on December 02, 2013, 07:13:28 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on December 02, 2013, 12:48:22 PM
Guys, I kinda feel like I need a hug after that episode.  God damn.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on December 02, 2013, 05:03:08 PM
Tale, I think you're going to see things differently over the next 6 or so episodes.

...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on December 02, 2013, 06:19:59 PM
Tale, I think you're going to see things differently over the next 6 or so episodes.

...




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on December 02, 2013, 08:21:37 PM
Ok, wow.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on December 02, 2013, 11:04:54 PM
Ok, wow.



I know people are gushing about the latest episode/series but I really couldn't get into it. Hershel, psycho-kid and Carl are the only characters that have depth amongst the prison-dwellers. Even Glen has gone from badass to non-entity. Yeah Daryl has good writers/action but even he is fading into the background to be dragged out when something needs to be done or "words". Rick needs to get killed off to give the others more screen time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 03, 2013, 09:08:11 AM
Ok, wow.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on December 03, 2013, 11:09:14 AM
Shit, you are right. Ok, I change my prediction:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on December 03, 2013, 02:17:08 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 03, 2013, 02:19:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on December 03, 2013, 09:01:45 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on December 03, 2013, 11:31:51 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 04, 2013, 08:58:15 AM
A good episode that gets better the more I think about it.


February. FUCK.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 04, 2013, 11:54:40 AM
I've had a bit of a marathon, watching the the last four episodes of the half-season over the course of two evenings, and I have to say this has gone back to being a great show. Possibly better than it's ever been. The Governor's episode was brilliantly written and acted and the big finale was tense and action packed. As others have said, the Governor became a far more interesting character this time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Wasted on December 04, 2013, 03:45:19 PM
I hated the last episode, I think I am pretty much done with this show.  The first episode with the Governor was great and had the potential to lead onto something excellent, but then they threw it all away the next week.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on December 04, 2013, 04:14:58 PM
I hated the last episode, I think I am pretty much done with this show.  The first episode with the Governor was great and had the potential to lead onto something excellent, but then they threw it all away the next week.


no.  It was perfect timing and in character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on December 04, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
I hated the last episode, I think I am pretty much done with this show.  The first episode with the Governor was great and had the potential to lead onto something excellent, but then they threw it all away the next week.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on December 04, 2013, 07:34:51 PM
I hated the last episode, I think I am pretty much done with this show.  The first episode with the Governor was great and had the potential to lead onto something excellent, but then they threw it all away the next week.





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on December 06, 2013, 01:08:15 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/awesomer/greatest-dad-jokes-from-rick-grimes  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on December 06, 2013, 01:23:09 PM
Holy mother of Christ, I haven't laughed that hard in probably more than 20 fucking years.  I have tears streaming down my face and am nearly puking from all the spasms in my abdomen.  I don't know what it says about me, but that is the funniest goddamn shit ever.  I have to stop looking at it soon, or I will start coughing up blood or something.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on December 08, 2013, 02:18:28 PM
I think a few of you are missing the point on the Governor: He got his shot at redemption, and he blew it.  The writers deliberately set up the redemption trope, and the Governor just couldn't change.  As soon as he had what he'd claimed to have wanted, he burned it down with short-sighted power-grabs.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on December 08, 2013, 02:41:42 PM
It's not missing the point, that aspect was just poorly handled. If that's what the writers were going for, that's not an arc you squeeze into three episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on December 08, 2013, 03:04:39 PM
It's not missing the point, that aspect was just poorly handled. If that's what the writers were going for, that's not an arc you squeeze into three episodes.

The best I can say about this arc is that (hopefully) it's over.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on December 08, 2013, 04:14:26 PM
If that's what the writers were going for, that's not an arc you squeeze into three episodes.
I thought it was done well in the short episode span that they took.  Do we really need the governor plotting, killing people, making them trophies, and twirling his mustache while everyone else stands by clueless on what to do for the rest of the season?  Because that was last season and I was cheering when it was over.  Hopefully now they can move on and work on a different arc.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on December 08, 2013, 10:06:22 PM

You're doing it wrong.


I think a few of you are missing the point on the Governor: He got his shot at redemption, and he blew it.  The writers deliberately set up the redemption trope, and the Governor just couldn't change.  As soon as he had what he'd claimed to have wanted, he burned it down with short-sighted power-grabs.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on December 31, 2013, 08:02:39 PM
Finally caught up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on January 01, 2014, 12:02:01 AM
No chance Asskicker is gone. Not a chance. This is still network tv. You gotta have hope somewhere. T[/spoiler]



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Numtini on January 01, 2014, 08:27:10 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on January 01, 2014, 11:28:26 AM
There was no impact when Sophia emerged... oh she died and just so happened to meet up with Harshels crew. Ain't it hilarious she was in the barn the entire time??  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on January 02, 2014, 07:23:31 AM
Not sure if serious.  Maybe I just fell into the chasm, but I am pretty sure I loudly exclaimed OH FUCK HELL NO THEY DID NOT JUST DO THAT when Sophia came out.  It also proved that nothing at all was off limits.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on January 02, 2014, 07:57:01 AM
It didn't really do anything for me. I thought it was the most likely outcome given Hershel's stance on walkers at the time.

Is that the last time (outside of P) we've had a child zombie?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on January 02, 2014, 08:20:01 AM
Ass-kicker was likely alive and taken from the prison, but I could also see them showing a flashback where a character makes a choice to leave the baby behind to save their own skin and having that be a wee-tad point of contention with Rick.

Having a baby on the road could result in a MASH finale type twist (chicken/not a chicken) - but I think they're aware that 'a baby puts us in danger' would get old very fast.  If still alive, the baby will not end the next season with Rick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on January 02, 2014, 10:02:02 AM
I bet the two sisters have the baby, it would be the only way for anyone from the governors crew to make good with the group.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on January 02, 2014, 01:10:33 PM
Didn't one of those sisters die?  Or was it just the one sister's girlfriend?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on January 02, 2014, 03:02:54 PM
Not sure if serious.  Maybe I just fell into the chasm, but I am pretty sure I loudly exclaimed OH FUCK HELL NO THEY DID NOT JUST DO THAT when Sophia came out.  It also proved that nothing at all was off limits.

That was pretty much my reaction. In fact it was pretty much the only thing I found to be done well that season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on January 02, 2014, 03:12:45 PM
Didn't one of those sisters die?  Or was it just the one sister's girlfriend?

The sisters gf got head shot by one of the crazy little white girls, yeah.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 09, 2014, 07:18:29 PM
'Dat pudding tho'


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on February 10, 2014, 07:11:12 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 10, 2014, 07:24:27 PM
I was really hoping the kid would buy it instead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on February 10, 2014, 07:41:14 PM
I really hate Carl but I have to say that it was a well made episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 10, 2014, 08:30:46 PM
It was solid all the way around.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2014, 10:00:19 PM
Oh shit, did this premiere?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on February 10, 2014, 10:19:13 PM
Premiere!

Yes, very well made.  Carl's attitude was pissing me off, but it was well done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 11, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Carl's attitude was pissing me off, but it was well done.

This. I almost wrote this episode off until the ending - which made me smile.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 11, 2014, 04:04:06 PM
I think they perfectly straddled the "i can take care of myself"/"I'm still a dumb ass kid" line perfectly with Carl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 11, 2014, 04:49:27 PM
That whole episode between Car and Rick was very close to the comics.  Rick needs to take Carl behind the woodshed for a bit though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 11, 2014, 11:26:17 PM
So do we have any indication of the timescale in this show? How long has it been since The Fall? A year? 2 years? There don't seem to have been any seasons in the world, it's been a perpetual nondescript spring-summer-autumn visually.

I ask because I was very aware in this episode that the neighborhood Carl was wandering around in didn't look particularly abandoned or overgrown. It was just... quiet. When he pulled that solar light out of the ground, for instance, the plants around it were totally manicured. I know it's just a budget & time thing but little details like that really pull me out of it unfortunately.

Other than that, yeah, decent episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ginaz on February 12, 2014, 12:13:45 AM
So do we have any indication of the timescale in this show? How long has it been since The Fall? A year? 2 years? There don't seem to have been any seasons in the world, it's been a perpetual nondescript spring-summer-autumn visually.

I ask because I was very aware in this episode that the neighborhood Carl was wandering around in didn't look particularly abandoned or overgrown. It was just... quiet. When he pulled that solar light out of the ground, for instance, the plants around it were totally manicured. I know it's just a budget & time thing but little details like that really pull me out of it unfortunately.

Other than that, yeah, decent episode.

It's set in the deep south.  I think the only seasons they have down there are hot and hot as fuck.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 12, 2014, 01:18:49 AM
Good Episode, I liked it.

I suppose we're not meant to because Carl, but it really worked for me.  And just knowing that Michonne married the guy out of Leverage is just lovely news.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 12, 2014, 07:16:52 AM
It didn't tell me everything I wanted to know NOW, but that was decent TV.  If Carl wasn't Carl, he'd be dead.  "I can take care of myself, except I lack the physical strength and good judgement to do so!"

You'd think maybe the website version of the show would have less commercials, just to be less annoying if nothing else.  NOPE.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 12, 2014, 08:34:02 AM
Oddly, we were forced to use Fox Catchup here because it didn't get much advertisement and it was advert free.  I liked that a LOT.

Also, what teenager DOESN'T say he's all grown up when he's clearly not ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 12, 2014, 10:50:16 PM
You'd think maybe the website version of the show would have less commercials, just to be less annoying if nothing else.  NOPE.

You're using the wrong website.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 13, 2014, 09:38:25 AM
Comcast recently sent me an email about which websites I should and shouldn't be using.  I'd say it was an idle threat, but they were very specific.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on February 13, 2014, 05:15:38 PM
Comcast recently sent me an email about which websites I should and shouldn't be using.  I'd say it was an idle threat, but they were very specific.

I'd be interested to know what they said you should and shouldn't use.  I guess with the merge they're counting on they feel invincible! 

Also, what's with Carl?  Is he the new Wesley?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 13, 2014, 10:22:09 PM
I really liked that episode, but what else is new.  Really stark contrast to the last one, that's for sure.  I think one great thing about this show is that it is really easy for them to sort of reset things...all shit hits the fan, and then they are suddenly back in desperate survival mode.  Not many shows have this luxury.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 14, 2014, 01:09:56 AM
I think there needs to be a little more consistency about the Zombies tho.

They seem to swarm JUST WHEN THE STORY NEEDS THEM TO and thereafter there's none around for miles.  Also, the Michone Detect Tether Method is just utter bullshit.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on February 14, 2014, 01:43:40 AM
She should teach that to the other survivors for a modest fee. For the low price of one can of baked beans you will never ever be bothered by Zombies again.

Hell, she could sell them pre-configured armless jawless zombies for an added fee and make a living out of it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 14, 2014, 02:21:38 AM
Well, I think we have to suspend some disbelief (other than for the obvious reasons) regarding the zombie swarms.  Because if we are going to go down that route, nothing in this show remains remotely believable.  The US is so sparsely populated per square mile/kilometer that avoid zombies would be just about the easiest things in the world. 

And yeah, I don't know that I much like the tame zombie thing.  It seems like they would continue to attack her even without a lower jaw, and would still be quite able to infect her.  Beyond that, I suppose we are meant to believe that somehow having them in proximity masks her smell somehow.  It isn't very consistent behavior...we all remember in season one when they had to cover themselves in zombie stank.  I prefer that method.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 14, 2014, 02:52:58 AM
I get that, but it made much more sense when she first arrived because she had two real rotters and an oilskin cloak covered in guts.  Fair enough.

But the latest episode just didn't make me buy it.  She looked lemony fresh and her actions in the middle of  group didn't register at all until she started lopping bits off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on February 14, 2014, 03:36:10 AM
I get that, but it made much more sense when she first arrived because she had two real rotters and an oilskin cloak covered in guts.  Fair enough.

But the latest episode just didn't make me buy it.  She looked lemony fresh and her actions in the middle of  group didn't register at all until she started lopping bits off.


That would actually make for a kind of an interesting development storywise if they'd eventually notice that the zombies are getting used to people for some reason or maybe that the living people are slowly being zombified (when alive) like the fact that everyone is turning into a zombie when they die might suggest.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 14, 2014, 06:01:02 AM
No, because she knew she could do this already, didn't she?  She didn't looked surprised in any event.  I think we are supposed to believe that dragging them along masks her scent.  Other people don't do this on account of it being totally fucking psycho and more than a little bit disgusting.

I don't remember anything about an oilskin cloak, but I'll take your word for it.  Makes more sense than what we just saw anyway.

I'd be okay with Michonne getting eaten at this point (and not in a Carl Becomes a Man kind of way)  Her character is very inconsistent, and not wholly believable either.  While we are at it, they need to make some passing mention of how zombie skulls turn incredibly mushy as a result of their zombiness, because it is just way to easy to cleave into them.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 14, 2014, 06:40:55 AM
(http://popgoestheweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Michonne-Walking_Dead-1024x572.jpg)

In the comics, it's pretty grody.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 14, 2014, 07:36:49 AM
Ah, I forget that sometimes the comics explain this stuff, having never read them myself.

Aren't we also meant to believe that the two original dudes she had as pets were those same two dudes we saw in her flashback?  Because again, psycho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on February 14, 2014, 07:50:03 AM
How does she get them to heel so nicely?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 14, 2014, 08:53:46 AM
, psycho.

Yes.  It's more subtle on TV, but yes.  She's an utter fuckflip.  She got totally broken.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 14, 2014, 09:02:17 AM
I thought it was a good episode and enjoyed all the Carl and Mich airtime.  Both went solo in a group only MMO and came back.  Even if she chopped off their jaws and arms, though should still be bumping into her trying eat her.  But the visual of her joining the 'walking dead', becoming part of the herd is worth the quibble.  She can certainly survive on her own but what's the point?  To be last human standing in a world of death?  She finally realized that, with all the baggage that comes, that she needs to be with others to protect and be protected.  To give her existence some kind of meaning.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Der Helm on February 14, 2014, 12:05:25 PM
Not watching this atm, gonna wait till the season is complete, but did they not kind of "explain" the non-agressive behavior of michones zombies through some scientist in governor town ? I think I remember some scene were some science dude tells the governor that taking away the teeth and arms of a zombie "surprisingly" turns them docile, as they now have no way to harm you ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on February 14, 2014, 12:14:42 PM
That does sound familiar to me as well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 14, 2014, 02:41:21 PM
Yep, it was the forgettable scientist type that worked for the governor and whose sole redeeming quality is that the gov used him to infect Andrea. There was some discourse on it and then it wasn't mentioned again.

The last episode, are we led to believe that


Hence Rick's reaction?

Anyway, Michonne was one of the more interesting characters that didn't get enough development so I enjoyed this episode for that. The last time I really thought they were going anywhere with her was the interaction between her and Merle - and that was overshadowed by bloody Daryl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on February 14, 2014, 02:44:14 PM
Not watching this atm, gonna wait till the season is complete, but did they not kind of "explain" the non-agressive behavior of michones zombies through some scientist in governor town ? I think I remember some scene were some science dude tells the governor that taking away the teeth and arms of a zombie "surprisingly" turns them docile, as they now have no way to harm you ?

Yeah but that doesn't explain how holding the zombies hides you from zombies you haven't chopped the teeth off of.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 14, 2014, 05:07:58 PM
Some theories from Reddit:

"Ok, walkers are pack animals, if one does something, then the others do something as well, since the two walkers DONT attack, then the others wont attack either. The other walkers are pretty much like "Oh look at those guys over there, they arent doing anything interesting, they must not sense any fresh meat roaming around so why the fuck should I care about what they are doing" "

"Its just about range. Michonne could cover herself in zombie guts, yeah, but like you said, a short sprinkle of rain would wash it away. A living walker will always smell like a walker. If a non docile walker were to walk up on them, then yeah, they wouldn't be very effective, but Michonne would just use her sword. Think about it like this, in a room, you fart, and the people around you blame you, but the people further from you know that somebody farted, but not who. So if you have a strong concentration of zombie smell on you, then others around you will think that you are a zombie. If you have a pet walker that smells like zombie, the zombies a few yards off will just think you are both zombies."

"It is a form of camouflage, similar to how Rick and Glenn covered themselves in zombie guts in season 1. It works like this in the comics too, and she explains it at some point.

She cut there arms off and removed there teeth so they are no threat to her, they are only capable of walking around really. Walkers are not intelligent, they have to be pretty close to either see, smell or hear you. However if one walker sees you it can alert others nearby. They have the herd mentality. Basically if a walker sees other walkers acting strangely, like they are going after something that could be food the walker will follow(This type of walker is called a roamer). This is how huge packs of walkers form herds, they will all start fallowing one and then they end up a massive pack wondering around.

It works like camouflage because if a walker sees Michonne and her walkers it assumes they are all undead."

http://www.reddit.com/r/thewalkingdead/comments/1kes7h/michonnes_zombie_repellant/

Sadly I found this by googling "how does michones zombie camouflage work" - the world has changed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 24, 2014, 06:49:33 AM
Clearly we should take the retard with a mullet at his word when he says he can save the world.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: croaker69 on February 24, 2014, 10:32:37 AM
I haven't read the comic but my first thought on the three new characters was they must be LARPERs who've cracked and their story about the trip to DC is just the lore for their characters. They don't fit their claimed roles at all. The female looks like she's trying too hard to be Lara Croft, the "genius" scientist who comes across as neither, and an over the top "Sarge" type with a fixation on saving the world. Also they claimed to be in communication with DC just a few weeks ago. It does not compute.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 24, 2014, 11:35:04 AM
If it follows the comic, it'll all make sense in due time.

Good to see Glen with a Mission back and the patter between Michonne and Carl was solid.

The pack of assholes reminded me of Day Z a lot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 24, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
The pack of assholes reminded me of Day Z a lot.

I was actually wondering if those guys were maybe a foreshadow to Negan's group.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2014, 01:51:40 PM
The female looks like she's trying too hard to be Lara Croft,

She looks retarded.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 24, 2014, 01:55:49 PM
It's the end of the world:  LET'S COSPLAY.  The introductions in this last episode were not subtle.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on February 24, 2014, 02:08:56 PM
Series will end with it all being a feverdream while Ricks turns into a zombie, aka the longest version of Jacob's Ladder ever. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on February 24, 2014, 06:18:39 PM
Clearly we should take the retard with a mullet at his word when he says he can save the world.
My first thought too.  "Classified" is such a moronic answer when the world is obviously over and done by well over a year.  I get Glenn bailing on the ridiculousness.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 24, 2014, 08:21:23 PM
The female looks like she's trying too hard to be Lara Croft,

She looks retarded. post-apocalypticaly hot, if a bit ridiculous.

Fixed that for ya.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ginaz on February 24, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Not sure if I'm digging the new cast members of Rainman, Sgt. Rock and Ms. Short Shorts McBare-Midriff.  They all look out of place for the series.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 25, 2014, 02:49:31 AM
I'm interested in Rainman, not so much (yet) of the sarge and Laura Croft.  Also interested in Michonne's tight jeans!



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 25, 2014, 06:06:49 AM
Part of the problem I had with the new trio was that they looked so damn clean and well laundered. Perhaps there's an explanation to come. I will be rather shocked though if any of them survive to seasons end.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 25, 2014, 06:15:06 AM
Tighty McMidriff will be the first to go.  Guarantee it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 25, 2014, 07:16:08 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 25, 2014, 03:39:23 PM
If anybody ever shot the fuck out of the truck we were riding in and then had the balls to tell me he's smarter than me...bad things would happen to that man. Accidentally of course.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 25, 2014, 03:43:47 PM
I do hope the scientist is for real.  After, what three seasons, there needs to be some big answers forthcoming. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 26, 2014, 01:12:56 AM
You're watching the wrong show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ginaz on February 26, 2014, 05:40:27 AM
You're watching the wrong show.


Yeah, its like hoping no more main characters are going to die in Game of Thrones. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 26, 2014, 06:05:59 AM
It's a show about a group of random assholes in a dead world, there is no reason why there should ever be any answers to what caused the zombie apocalypse.  Frankly answers would probably ruin it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 26, 2014, 06:27:49 AM
Yup.  Answers to 'How does The Force work' proved that.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 26, 2014, 06:47:20 AM
Rage infected monkeys, right?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 26, 2014, 07:48:36 AM
Best cut off line in any film ever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 26, 2014, 07:54:00 AM
I do hope the scientist is for real.  After, what three seasons, there needs to be some big answers forthcoming. 

I somehow doubt Rain Man is going to provide any sort of real answers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 26, 2014, 07:57:17 AM
The curious part of me would love to know more about the origins of the zombie plague in WD, but another part of me would rather not know because of how that kind of storyline would detract from the existing setup of the show.

Regardless, within the show (I nearly typed 'game' there), that knowledge would be extremely sought-after and anyone claiming to actually have that kind of information would have great value to a lot of people. The fact that his particular guy was so unconvincing is probably why he's accompanied only by a pair who are also, clearly, several sandwiches short of a picnic between them. I doubt a single one of them is gonna survive past season finale.  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 26, 2014, 11:18:06 AM
Nobody of above average intelligence ever sported a mullet.  It is a fact of nature, I'm pretty sure.  My apologies to any mullet-sporting F13ers out there, but yeah, I'm afraid that means you're stupid.

Square/Red headed Sgt Army guy does not come across as a believable human being.  You can't act like that in a post-apocalyptic world and not expect some friendly fire.

I fully approve of Latina Lara Croft person thingy.  I felt her character had a lot of depth and nuance.  And navel.  Yum.

I'm not comfortable with where any of this is going. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: croaker69 on February 26, 2014, 11:25:07 AM
Watched the episode again with my wife. The truck scene is just badly written and filmed. It's contrived to the point of breaking immersion for me and I'm pretty tolerant of plot contrivances. The shot where the new hotness bends over to retrieve Maggie's pic for Glen was the first time in this show that my wife gave me the are-you-fucking-kidding-me disgusted woman look.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 26, 2014, 11:27:27 AM
Odd...that was my favorite part of the whole episode.   :headscratch:

You're right, though, it was getting pretty hammy.  In fact, I am getting a little too much of that same vibe from both of the last two episodes for my liking.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on February 26, 2014, 11:57:56 AM

Square/Red headed Sgt Army guy does not come across as a believable human being.  You can't act like that in a post-apocalyptic world and not expect some friendly fire.


I really expected this  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGw8DWctAts) to start playing at some point. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 26, 2014, 06:29:55 PM
Glenn and Maggie's engagement pics if they had hooked up in a less fucked world. (http://www.lamag.com/lastyle/lalookbook/2014/02/24/spring-fashion-2014-affair-to-remember) Pure fluff, but nice pics of them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 26, 2014, 11:45:42 PM
Nice pics :)

Now, how come nobody on the Walking Dead ever gets infections? I don't mean zombie plague infections, I mean everyday infected wounds. There's frequently violence, multiple cuts, bruises, even gun shot wounds. They spend a lot of time either living rough or in filthy-looking places like the prison, and yet not a one of them has ever had septicemia or tetanus.

The constant drip of these little things turn this show into a mediocre one for me, when it could easily have been so much more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 27, 2014, 01:14:55 AM
Uh, they just had a plague at the prison ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 27, 2014, 02:42:31 AM
Yeah, a respiratory illness that wasn't presented particularly realistically.

How come none of their wounds ever get infected? Before the advent of antibiotics (and after the likely point in our when antibiotics are useless) minor cuts and injuries could be a serious problem. A bad infection meant almost certain death.

Edit: *Especially* when they spend so much time beating rotting zombies to pulp with knives, crowbars, hammers, etc. Those things must be walking sacks of virulent bacteria!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on February 27, 2014, 02:53:25 AM
Because it would make for boring Television?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 27, 2014, 04:04:18 AM
I'm pretty sure that's what's going on with Rick's hand.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 27, 2014, 04:48:07 AM
How come none of their wounds ever get infected?

Yeah, how come ??  I mean, for fucks sake, tell us ?  HOW COME ?

AND WHY ARE THE CORPSES WALKING AROUND INSTEAD OF LYING DOWN ?

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 27, 2014, 07:11:24 AM
Because infections are just lies the Big Pharma fabricated to make you buy drugs!  Right?  Right?

They have not been totally without medical options - they had people with some medical training, access to books on health, and they've spent considerable time looking through medicine cabinets, etc...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 27, 2014, 07:30:18 AM
They've also grabbed up any particular drugs they could find along the way. I'm pretty sure they have had a steady supply of penicillin since the beginning of the show, simply because that's such a general application antibiotic that it's everywhere. Not to mention things like OTC ointments (Neosporin, etc.) which are used to keep small cuts from getting infected.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on February 27, 2014, 07:34:51 AM
I assumed it was as if Haemish said; the basic needs are implied to be met. 

"Rick hunts for amoxicillin III" - best episode title yet!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 27, 2014, 07:35:48 AM
Still more exciting than the farm.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 27, 2014, 07:37:19 AM
Are we really doing this ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 27, 2014, 12:14:09 PM
Now, how come nobody on the Walking Dead ever gets infections? I don't mean zombie plague infections, I mean everyday infected wounds. There's frequently violence, multiple cuts, bruises, even gun shot wounds. They spend a lot of time either living rough or in filthy-looking places like the prison, and yet not a one of them has ever had septicemia or tetanus.

Er, they have? Several times actually. I can recall Daryl saying something about medicine for TDog, and how they should have just asked seeing as his brother was always getting the clap or some shit... There's more, but I don't recall them offhand. (Oh yeah, Carl when he got shot.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 27, 2014, 10:37:35 PM
Really? OK, I haven't been paying attention properly then.

Carry on.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ginaz on March 02, 2014, 06:47:51 PM
I didn't know the girl that plays Beth recorded an album.  Not my type of music but she does have a nice voice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQpcMMmGZPo


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 02, 2014, 07:27:37 PM
That was by far the worst episode of the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 02, 2014, 09:41:54 PM
That was by far the worst episode of the show.
I thought it was pretty good, personally.  I certainly wouldn't complain about it.  Of course, I'm not sure there is an episode of the series that I would complain about - expect the one that was never made that was supposed to start season 2.  I'll complain that I never got to see it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 02, 2014, 11:03:28 PM
That was by far the worst episode of the show.
I thought it was pretty good, personally.  I certainly wouldn't complain about it.  Of course, I'm not sure there is an episode of the series that I would complain about - expect the one that was never made that was supposed to start season 2.  I'll complain that I never got to see it.

I'd complain about 70% of season 2 and TBH, a fair bit of S3 as well!

There's been some quality moments but there's been a hell of a lot of shitty writing too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 03, 2014, 06:58:40 AM
To each their own, but even in the slower pace of season 2, I've been very pleased.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 03, 2014, 07:36:17 AM
They could've redeemed the episode if Daryl had turned out to be a computer salesman or accountant instead of going with the unsurprising cliche.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 03, 2014, 10:16:45 AM
We already knew that Daryl and Merle didn't have a suburban mall rat background, it would have been pretty hard to shoehorn a white-collar job into their mutual backstaory at this point.  Cliche would have been having them hook up (with the predictable consequences when they finally meet up with Carol), having dodged that I don't mind them doing the obvious with Daryl's crappy white-trash daddy issues.

It could be seen as one of the weaker episodes this season, but it's nowhere near as bad as most of of the Farm Season.  If they were going to go with a character development exposition dump/scenery chewing, at least the walkers weren't reduced to off-screen menace.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 03, 2014, 11:47:59 AM
Personally, I thought this was one of the strongest episodes of the series.  The final 15 minutes showed real human beings interacting, not just a plot push. 

Daryl finally broke.  Beth realized she's not built for that world and likely won't make it much longer.  However, she makes Daryl realize he was built for that world, he's going to be the one likely to take care of Carl when Rick dies at the end of the series. 

Or maybe Daryl dies next week, who knows with this show.  Regardless, I liked that they showed Daryl's human side for once.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 03, 2014, 12:58:44 PM
Personally, I thought this was one of the strongest episodes of the series.  The final 15 minutes showed real human beings interacting, not just a plot push. 

This. That was a fantastic character development issue and one that was much needed. It changed Beth from an annoying character to one that makes sense and one that I actually like. And it let Darryl be more than just the badass.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 03, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
It was good, but I wish we had gotten just a little bit more out of the episode.  Good scene where she hugs him from behind, powerful.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 04, 2014, 05:02:15 AM
I thought it was a decent episode aside from Beth's completely unrealistic reaction to drinking alcohol for the first time (especially since it was Moonshine).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2014, 05:04:06 AM
Yeah, good episode, but she should have just fallen over after the second one.  The lassies just skin and bones for gods sake.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 04, 2014, 05:32:16 AM
Not to mention a teenager who's never drank anything in her life.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2014, 05:45:25 AM
Well, except Velorath did mention it.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 04, 2014, 09:44:59 AM
Maybe she's of Scottish descent.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 04, 2014, 12:21:18 PM
Personally, I thought this was one of the strongest episodes of the series.  The final 15 minutes showed real human beings interacting, not just a plot push. 

This. That was a fantastic character development issue and one that was much needed. It changed Beth from an annoying character to one that makes sense and one that I actually like. And it let Darryl be more than just the badass.

Yeah.  I have been getting a little peeved at the regression back to type for Darryl, and was relieved to see that it really just was a wall he had built up and that he actually does give a shit.  I got a little choked up there at the end.  And I am really starting to like Beth, though I fear her time is short.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2014, 04:13:46 PM
It was still pretty telling that even after all this time the preconceived notions the group has/had about him still shine through. I thought the jail challenge was exceedingly bitchy. It should have gotten a well deserved swift fuck you, instead of the drawn out fuck you exchange.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 04, 2014, 10:51:11 PM
I thought that was fair enough. Like he said, he's a mean drunk. I thought the whole episode was pretty well acted tbh. And while I think Norman Reedus is a better actor than Emily Kinney I think she's come further and probably had to work harder at that episode.

I was fully expecting it to end with a clumsy, drunken attempt by her to seduce him. But given that I think she's being portrayed as 16 years old (or so) I guess that's somewhere AMC don't want to go.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 04, 2014, 11:20:21 PM
I just looked her up, and she is 28 IRL.  That kinda blows my mind a little.

The whole thing with Daryl is, I think, a little different than what is being said here.  The assumption the others have about him is not that he is some former useless drunk redneck ex-tweaker dangerous asshole shitbag.  That is what they thought about Merle (and rightly so).  No, the consistent theme with Daryl is that they know that he came from that kind of environment - but he has always been better than that.  They don't guess that he was the guy in prison, they assume he was the guy guarding the prison.  He is as good or better than the very best of them, and not just as a survivalist.  I think the problem with the writing is that it is all too easy for them to pull out the "there goes Daryl, being all rednecky and moody again" every time the shit hits the fan, but it does make a certain amount of sense, because a guy like Daryl has absolutely no idea of his own worth.  I am hoping that Beth has broken down that wall once and for all, but I doubt it.  I fear she may be end up being another Sophia.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 06, 2014, 11:56:29 AM
I think different characters see Daryl differently.  I think that if you put him in a room with some people in the 'group' and they had a frank conversation, some would still be very dismissive of his value - while others would see him as an essential member of the community.

Regardless, I think he was a follower in the redneck tweeker lifestyle that just happened to collect some skills useful in the zombie apocalyse and managed to be the last ex-tweeker standing... but that he has grown.  The last few episodes were (partially) about him seeing the world that had grown around him destroyed, and him being afraid that the only thing that made him better thatn what he used to be was the people that surrounded him that are gone.  I think this was a key battle in him truly believeing he is better than who he used to be.

As a reminder, one of the key changes they've made between the comics and the show is that they jump ahead in time at certain points to allow characters time to age.  They skip months at a time a few times - once right before they found the prison, and once during the time they were at the prison.  I'm not sure if there were other times they had time jumps.  They were unclear on how much time has passed.   Beth started out around 16, but she could very well be 18 by now...  or even older.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 06, 2014, 02:31:50 PM
I enjoyed the long talky angsty episode but I hope they don't do that again. Maybe once a season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 09, 2014, 08:14:45 PM
Dat Fallout reference tho'


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on March 09, 2014, 09:12:23 PM
I may be in the minority, but I really enjoy what they are doing with this season. You can only run from zombies (or the governor) for so long before it becomes tedious.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 10, 2014, 08:17:23 AM
The only thing that is straining credibility for me is that they spent so much time at the prison, all get booted in several directions, and all come across information about Terminus for the first time (with the exception of a vague radio broadcast) while scattered to the winds.It'd have been much better if they had discussed Terminus briefly once in the prison as a group so that it made sense that everyone might head there...

Oh, yeah, and the zombies strain credibility, too.  They may not be real.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2014, 08:20:51 AM
lol


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 10, 2014, 11:09:38 AM
Dat Fallout reference tho'

I missed this, splain.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 10, 2014, 04:10:12 PM
It wasn't actually in this ep. It was in the preview for next week.

There's a record player playing the Ink Spots', "Maybe", inside a house while out the window, it looks like a kid is playing tag with a walker.

Creepy as fuck.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2014, 04:37:22 PM
This was an odd episode, full of stuff that made no sense for plot reasons.

But whatever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 10, 2014, 05:15:11 PM
I liked the episode a lot.  The opening montage was done well, and I'm generally not a fan of montages.  I'd have been perfectly happy if they had even just left out the zombie action part.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2014, 10:57:42 PM
I thought it was a nice filler episode.  I think it is just fine when they do these once in a while.  Makes it feel like none of these people are throwaway characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 11, 2014, 01:00:33 AM
Yeah, I think Bob and Sasha were fairly undeveloped characters prior to this episode. We know from The Wire that Lawrence Gilliard can act, but I think this episode was the first time in the Walking Dead that he's really had a chance to show that off. Before that his character was just "the recovering alcoholic" who also had an army medic background.

Beth also needed the character development she's gotten in the last couple episodes. Despite being around since season 2, she was just Maggie's sister who occasionally sang and typically took care of the baby so everybody else could do plot stuff. I couldn't even remember her name most of the time during seasons 2 and 3.

Now they just need to do some character work with Tyrese, but overall with the character development they've done over the past season I think this is the strongest cast they've had throughout the show. It's a shame T-Dog didn't last this long because I feel like the current showrunner and writers might have actually come up with something to do with his character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 11, 2014, 01:20:11 AM
I didn't totally mind the filler until I saw the preview for the next episode say only 3 episodes left in the season.

Are they going to fill the rest of the season with them walking towards terminus "finding themselves" and the season finale be they finally make it?  That's going to to feel very dragged on....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 13, 2014, 09:49:10 AM
but overall with the character development they've done over the past season I think this is the strongest cast they've had throughout the show. It's a shame T-Dog didn't last this long because I feel like the current showrunner and writers might have actually come up with something to do with his character.

Absolutely agree with this. These writers seem to know how to write actual characters without sacrificing action and forward narrative. It's refreshing. I liked this episode fine, but with only 3 episodes left, you can tell that they'll all manage to make it to Terminus by the finale and then what it is and who runs it will be the subject of next season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 13, 2014, 03:27:14 PM
The problem with that is that more characters might become untouchable.  This show needs at least one or two deaths of the regular characters a season, not including the endless parade of disposable black guys.  The list of "untouchables" is starting to grow a bit long.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 13, 2014, 03:42:12 PM
The problem with that is that more characters might become untouchable.  This show needs at least one or two deaths of the regular characters a season, not including the endless parade of disposable black guys.  The list of "untouchables" is starting to grow a bit long.

Hershel was a fairly well liked character and that didn't save him. Rick, Carl, Daryl, and Michonne are the only ones who I think are absolutely safe for the time being.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 13, 2014, 04:04:35 PM
Pretty sure Bob, Sasha, Lizzie, and Mika are probably on the death roster.  Possibly Beth as well.  TWD has a habit of giving characters big episodes then having them end up dead not too long after.  Like Hershel and his prison sickness episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 16, 2014, 07:16:53 PM
Holy fucking shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on March 16, 2014, 07:20:45 PM
Holy fucking shit.

Best episode this season.

I forgive you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 16, 2014, 07:25:25 PM
Can't say I didn't see it coming. Just not quite like that.

Knocked me on my ass.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on March 16, 2014, 08:44:10 PM
Duuuuude. WTF. I assumed something was going to happen. Just didn't anticipate that.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 16, 2014, 09:14:58 PM
The second Lizzie started to show her colors, I was pretty sure that this was where they were headed.  That was an adaption of something from the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ginaz on March 16, 2014, 10:44:42 PM
That was fucked up. :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 16, 2014, 11:22:53 PM
Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck. I knew I shouldn't read this thread as iTunes hasn't released this week's episode yet.

Now I'm all intrigued but haven't clicked the spoiler link.

Fuck you Australian distribution.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 16, 2014, 11:49:05 PM
Doesn't matter if you have a feeling about what's coming.  Just brutal.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 17, 2014, 11:46:46 AM
Holy shit!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 17, 2014, 12:14:21 PM
I actually kinda thought the episode was pretty weak for the first 2/3rds or so, but then WHAMMO.  Jesus Jumping Christ.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 17, 2014, 12:20:40 PM
I was disappointed they did it. I really liked the lil un.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 17, 2014, 01:09:15 PM
I think that was the first genuinely upsetting episode of this show.

Also, I didn't work out what the fire was until right at the end.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 17, 2014, 01:10:09 PM
Holy shit!

Duuuuude. WTF. I assumed something was going to happen. Just didn't anticipate that.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 17, 2014, 01:16:01 PM
I think that was the first genuinely upsetting episode of this show.

Also, I didn't work out what the fire was until right at the end.

Wait, what was the fire?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 17, 2014, 01:22:22 PM
Perhaps you might recall a couple of someones setting a fire in a recent episode?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 17, 2014, 01:23:18 PM
Man I'm kinda surprised you guys liked this episode. This was grating and made me wonder why I enjoy shameless and once a upon a time more despite this show being so entrenched in the genre of shit I like.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 17, 2014, 01:32:38 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 17, 2014, 03:17:22 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 17, 2014, 06:55:17 PM
Strong, sad episode. Carole is such a great character. Tyrone really fleshed out for me too. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 17, 2014, 09:08:58 PM
Man I'm kinda surprised you guys liked this episode. This was grating and made me wonder why I enjoy shameless and once a upon a time more despite this show being so entrenched in the genre of shit I like.

Maybe it's time for you to accept this show isn't for you and move on? You've obviously not liked it for awhile.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 18, 2014, 02:28:52 AM
Perhaps you might recall a couple of someones setting a fire in a recent episode?

Old age has kicked in, I can't remember.

As soon as Carol



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 18, 2014, 02:30:00 AM
I didn't really like the resolution of it, to be honest.  It was obvious from a mile away (and a few episodes back) that this was coming.

As to 'not being able to act' I actually thought older lassie did 'Crazy In The Coconut Fruitcake' quite well.

Also, the first 10 minutes had so much foreshadowing, the screen may as well have been black.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 18, 2014, 03:24:52 AM
I thought she was okay, but a bit uneven.  Of course, her character could be described as uneven, so there's that.

What I mentioned about being not thrilled about the first 2/3rds of the episode was more the acting done for Tyrese.  That guy does big angry zombie killing dude well enough, but everything else he does seems a little ham-fisted, and I thought some of the scenes were set up poorly as well.  What then redeemed it for me was Carol's acting towards the end, plus...

 

So even an otherwise ham-fisted, obvious-as-shit-bad-situation-incoming episode still manages to have impact anyway, and I can't help but think the writers did it to me on purpose.  I shouldn't be surprised at this point how well they pull off the Big Moments, and yet I am.

On a related subject, now that the Tyrese/Carol situation is fully resolved and she is redeemed in his eyes, I fully expect Tyrese to get munched. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 18, 2014, 03:31:16 AM
I think he'll be around for a while.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 18, 2014, 05:26:21 AM
Interesting coincidence:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 18, 2014, 08:20:24 AM
The writer of this episode also wrote "Clear" the episode were Rick Michonne and Carl go back to his old police station and meet up with the black guy from season one, the one were they ignore the hitchhiker and he turns up dead at the end.  He is also the new show runner, which actually gives me hope for the future of the show.  Usually the show tries to milk the dramatic fallout of traumatic experiences without actually having the balls to go through with them.  Like Maggies "almost" rape or Carl is a cold blooded killer storylines or even with lil kick ass not being really dead.  And when they did have the ball to go through with it, like with Sophia, they milked it for a whole season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 18, 2014, 09:31:09 AM
Holy fucking shit.

Best episode this season.

I forgive you.

Triple agree. That scene with Tyrese and Carol at the end... fuck.

This season has been directed, acted and written at a level so far above the previous seasons, it's unbelievable. It's like it's not even the same show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 18, 2014, 10:16:07 AM
Perhaps you might recall a couple of someones setting a fire in a recent episode?

So apparently I have the memory of a rock but I'm failing to remember someone setting fire to something recently.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on March 18, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
Beth and Daryl set fire to the house they were drinking in.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on March 18, 2014, 10:47:26 AM
On a related subject, now that the Tyrese/Carol situation is fully resolved and she is redeemed in his eyes, I fully expect Tyrese to get munched. 

Funny, I figured it would be Carol getting dead.  I looked at the confession to Tyrese as finally having snapped after losing her adopted daughters and wanting someone to end it for her.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 18, 2014, 11:56:54 AM
On a related subject, now that the Tyrese/Carol situation is fully resolved and she is redeemed in his eyes, I fully expect Tyrese to get munched. 

Funny, I figured it would be Carol getting dead.  I looked at the confession to Tyrese as finally having snapped after losing her adopted daughters and wanting someone to end it for her.

And clear the way for a Beth/Daryl relationship :P


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 18, 2014, 12:19:31 PM
When the older girl was yelling at Carol, my wife looked at me like I was a monster when I said they need to put that chick down asap. Minutes later, I was proved right.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 18, 2014, 12:27:17 PM
Yeah, about halfway through I was like "They got to put that little girl down."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2014, 03:34:18 PM
This is silly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2014, 07:48:55 PM
This is silly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 25, 2014, 12:08:37 AM

That is exactly what I said at that point. Talk about telegraphing it. This show is many things, subtle is rarely one of them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2014, 03:56:33 AM

Well, that's silly as well, but the whole Darryl thing is silly.  Stupid woman is silly (foot trapped.  omg.  stupid made up tension).  Scientist saving world is silly.  Terminus is REALLY silly.  Hot Soldier woman still having perfect make-up is silly.

This episode really just distilled the whole silliness into one black hole of silly as I watched it.

I can't see how next week is going to be even remotely interesting, given that.  It's also particularly hard to swallow given the Carol episode we just had to endure.

EDITED FOR THE READING COMPREHENSION OF THE GREAT JS :

When I said 'endure' here, I mean that the Carol episode was particularly hard hitting and difficult to watch.  It took itself seriously at least.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2014, 07:26:49 AM
If you do not enjoy the show, don't force yourself to watch. 

They're playing with the expectations of the comic readers. They realize there ate several potential storylines they could draw upon, and they're hinting at multiple of them... which could mean we're not headed for any of them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2014, 07:29:09 AM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2014, 08:54:55 AM
:uhrr:
Dude.  You called it silly 8 times in 3 lines of text.  Then you said you doubted the next episode could be remotely interesting and that you had to 'endure' the Carol episode that many people thought was really good.  You had about 10 insults for the show in about 75 words. 

You're not just being critical - you're straining to piss on the show as hard as you can - and you're doing it all over episodes that made the crew proud (read some recent interviews).  Expect more of the same.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on March 25, 2014, 09:02:39 AM
:uhrr:


Don't argue anything from comics is silly with jg. It's not worth it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2014, 09:09:49 AM
Doubling down on that with 'If you don't like it don't watch' is pretty much the playground answer to that.

Given what we just got with the Children episode, all the made up shit in this episode WAS silly.  You want me to spell it out for you because you perceive it as high art ?  Ok.

Daryl, rather than following the trail of a motor vehicle, has abandoned the lassie he had a hugely touching moment and bonding with in favour of some murderous retards.  Explain that to me in a way I'll understand and even remotely believe.

The woman punishing herself to follow Maggie-betrothed to the point of damaging her knee and then, as if she wasn't clumsy enough, being trapped in a pile of rocks, in the most unbelievably made-up moment of dramatic tension, is also not hugely believable, for her, or for Glenn.  Glenn is NOT this guy.  Would he pursue Maggie ?  Hell yes.  Would he subject this woman to it ?  Nope, nope, nope.

The Scientist is quite literally retarded and has explained nothing to anyone and done nothing except appear retarded.  Yet everyone is treating him as some kind of mythical savior, including two rather sensible folks who literally just met him five seconds ago.  Explain to me how them suddenly following the Messiah Mega Brain is NOT silly.

Terminus may as well have fucking Admiral Ackbar welcoming them.  Explain to me, given all they've gone through, why not one single one among them haven't even remotely smelled fish ?  And then, Tasha Yar.  I mean.  Jesus Christ, it's Tasha Yar, last seen being slain by Dexter.  Go on, explain it to me.

The Soldier, who hasn't even explained who the hell she is, has at least found trousers and a jumper, but she's still perfectly made up.  Maybe it's Maybelline ?  Explain that to me.

These are things in the past we'd palm off, usually because they're in separate shows.  In this one they were ALLLLL there.  It's stupid and, alas, totally broke my immersion big time.  If it wasn't for Southland Cop, I'd have been chucking stuff at the TV.

So, to sum up, Fuck Off.  I'm not straining to do anything.  I'm saying that this last show was weak as all hell and it's a fucking shame because this season has been top notch.

I have no idea why they were particularly proud of THIS one, seeing as it was such a fucking turd, but if you wanna white knight, you go right ahead, you crazy madman.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2014, 09:17:22 AM
:uhrr:


Don't argue anything from comics is silly with jg. It's not worth it.

Hey, it could be worse, I could take Agents of SHIELD out to the woodshed.  Though at least I'd have May and Skye if I did that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2014, 09:33:21 AM
Dude.  Expect more of the same.  Act appropriately.  All I'm saying.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2014, 10:05:38 AM
I am.  I'm acting entirely appropriately to watching a show that has had moments of transcending the retardery of the comic book on which it's based, only for it to swoop back down into the stupidity from whence it came.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 25, 2014, 11:57:14 AM
In a similar situation, I would actively move in the opposite direction from a place named Terminus.  Just saying. 

Also, the Ackbar reference made for a great mental image.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2014, 12:37:05 PM
We have different definitions on appropriate.  For instance, "retardery" =/= appropriate.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 25, 2014, 01:17:45 PM
Doubling down on that with 'If you don't like it don't watch' is pretty much the playground answer to that.

Given what we just got with the Children episode, all the made up shit in this episode WAS silly.  You want me to spell it out for you because you perceive it as high art ?  Ok.

Daryl, rather than following the trail of a motor vehicle, has abandoned the lassie he had a hugely touching moment and bonding with in favour of some murderous retards.  Explain that to me in a way I'll understand and even remotely believe.

The woman punishing herself to follow Maggie-betrothed to the point of damaging her knee and then, as if she wasn't clumsy enough, being trapped in a pile of rocks, in the most unbelievably made-up moment of dramatic tension, is also not hugely believable, for her, or for Glenn.  Glenn is NOT this guy.  Would he pursue Maggie ?  Hell yes.  Would he subject this woman to it ?  Nope, nope, nope.

The Scientist is quite literally retarded and has explained nothing to anyone and done nothing except appear retarded.  Yet everyone is treating him as some kind of mythical savior, including two rather sensible folks who literally just met him five seconds ago.  Explain to me how them suddenly following the Messiah Mega Brain is NOT silly.

Terminus may as well have fucking Admiral Ackbar welcoming them.  Explain to me, given all they've gone through, why not one single one among them haven't even remotely smelled fish ?  And then, Tasha Yar.  I mean.  Jesus Christ, it's Tasha Yar, last seen being slain by Dexter.  Go on, explain it to me.

The Soldier, who hasn't even explained who the hell she is, has at least found trousers and a jumper, but she's still perfectly made up.  Maybe it's Maybelline ?  Explain that to me.

These are things in the past we'd palm off, usually because they're in separate shows.  In this one they were ALLLLL there.  It's stupid and, alas, totally broke my immersion big time.  If it wasn't for Southland Cop, I'd have been chucking stuff at the TV.

So, to sum up, Fuck Off.  I'm not straining to do anything.  I'm saying that this last show was weak as all hell and it's a fucking shame because this season has been top notch.

I have no idea why they were particularly proud of THIS one, seeing as it was such a fucking turd, but if you wanna white knight, you go right ahead, you crazy madman.


Gotta say, I pretty much agree with all of this.  I didn't like this episode much.  I felt that it combined all the things that have been only bothering me slightly into one big, annoying hour. 

To add another, the gang of bad guys that Daryl hooked up with, the ones that kick each others faces in and may even kill one another on a bad day...suddenly they have some code of honor that makes them follow some poor guy that choked out one of their group?  They are really going to follow him all that way just for some revenge.  Um, okay.  Sure they'd do that. 

It's like they are going out of there way to add a bunch of annoying and not believable characters we don't need.  I don't care if they were in the comics (and while we are at it, pretty much nobody else does either).



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 25, 2014, 03:22:25 PM
Rick did more than kill one of their guys.  He left a zombie landmine that could have done a lot of damage.  With their warped sense of "honor" I can see them going after him.  Especially since they just seem to be a drifting group with no mention of a home and such.  If that is the case, it could because they also have nothing better to do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 25, 2014, 04:36:04 PM
Agree with some things but:


Daryl, rather than following the trail of a motor vehicle, has abandoned the lassie he had a hugely touching moment and bonding with in favour of some murderous retards.  Explain that to me in a way I'll understand and even remotely believe.

The Scientist is quite literally retarded and has explained nothing to anyone and done nothing except appear retarded.  Yet everyone is treating him as some kind of mythical savior, including two rather sensible folks who literally just met him five seconds ago.  Explain to me how them suddenly following the Messiah Mega Brain is NOT silly.

The Soldier, who hasn't even explained who the hell she is, has at least found trousers and a jumper, but she's still perfectly made up.  Maybe it's Maybelline ?  Explain that to me.

When Beth is taken it happens at night. He tries following until sometime during the day so we're looking at several hours to possible half a day. Given that the roads around there look clear the car could be well over a 100-200 miles away at that point. Presumably we'll find out what happened to her at some point because it's a fictional show and convenient stuff like that happens (like everyone meeting up on the way to Terminus), but realistically it makes sense for Daryl to not just continue running down the road by himself in a zombie apocalypse chasing after a car.

The two folks who just met the scientist aren't really treating him as a savior and are quite willing to go their separate ways when their goals aren't coinciding. They tag along when it's convenient because safety in numbers and all that. I assume Abraham follows him because he's trying really hard to be a "it's all about the mission" military guy. If he wasn't doing it, he'd probably have no idea what to do with himself.

Rosita probably gets her makeup done at the same place Beth and Maggie do. I think it's right next to the barber shop everyone goes to to keep their hair and facial hair a consistent length and style and where Glenn maintains an absolute clean shave.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 25, 2014, 07:12:36 PM
If Glenn's like me at that age, he has to shave once every other month.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 25, 2014, 10:43:01 PM
For the record, I do think the whole thing with Glenn and Tara going into the tunnel though was absolutely retarded, given that Abraham and the others ended up making it to the other side of the tunnel faster, not even getting into the danger of it. For that matter I'm not sure why Maggie had gone through the tunnel either.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2014, 01:27:00 AM
The two folks who just met the scientist aren't really treating him as a savior and are quite willing to go their separate ways when their goals aren't coinciding. They tag along when it's convenient because safety in numbers and all that. I assume Abraham follows him because he's trying really hard to be a "it's all about the mission" military guy. If he wasn't doing it, he'd probably have no idea what to do with himself.

I disagree with most of your explanations here (but it's a free country) but for this bit I want to explain that the two folks I was talking about are black woman and The Wire Black Bloke, not the soldiers.

They both met the scientist, have heard NOTHING about him AT ALL except SAVIOUR, and agree to go to Washington with him.   It's really, really badly done.  Especially if, like me, you know what's coming.

The two soldiers I might buy, Maaaaaybe.  But those two ?  I thought they were better than that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 26, 2014, 01:57:55 AM
In terms of the comic books, I don't find the TV series over the top. Plenty of clichés there too.

I find the writing of the Telltale video games to be better than both of the above.

But I enjoy watching the series and reading the comic books and am willing to suspend judgement over reality because you know, zombies are real amirite?

Re Beth, I thought there was more depth to the relationship with Carol than one episode with Beth.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 26, 2014, 02:04:05 AM
The two folks who just met the scientist aren't really treating him as a savior and are quite willing to go their separate ways when their goals aren't coinciding. They tag along when it's convenient because safety in numbers and all that. I assume Abraham follows him because he's trying really hard to be a "it's all about the mission" military guy. If he wasn't doing it, he'd probably have no idea what to do with himself.

I disagree with most of your explanations here (but it's a free country) but for this bit I want to explain that the two folks I was talking about are black woman and The Wire Black Bloke, not the soldiers.

They both met the scientist, have heard NOTHING about him AT ALL except SAVIOUR, and agree to go to Washington with him.   It's really, really badly done.  Especially if, like me, you know what's coming.


I don't really want to jump to conclusions there because that sequence came towards the very end of the episode, plus the scientist and his buddies just helped save Glenn's ass so they probably get a little leeway. I'd be very surprised if whenever the Terminus stuff is finished and the group inevitably ends up on the road again, if there isn't some deeper discussion about whether or not they should actually go with these guys to D.C. and what the scientist actually knows, but that's just not where the show is at right now.

I'm not going to argue that this show has great writing, and in fact even defending small bits of it here leaves me feeling a tad unclean. It is currently better writing though than any of the previous seasons and most of the comic as well, not that either of those set the bar high. This was absolutely one of the weaker episodes, I just disagree with some of your reasons as to why.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 26, 2014, 02:20:30 AM
I think the scientist is mildly autistic and is full of shit.  Also, I thought the two black folks were going only to Terminus.  Average episode, though it was nice to have a 'down' episode after the shattering Carole episode.

Episode.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2014, 05:13:12 AM
I'm not going to argue that this show has great writing, and in fact even defending small bits of it here leaves me feeling a tad unclean. It is currently better writing though than any of the previous seasons and most of the comic as well, not that either of those set the bar high. This was absolutely one of the weaker episodes, I just disagree with some of your reasons as to why.

Yeah, it was just a shame sitting there expecting 'better' only to be reminded of the Farm.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 26, 2014, 06:35:22 AM
The problem with hillbilly scientist guy is that if I were in that world with him under those conditions, I would not be able to keep my yap shut.  "Hey, you do and say a bunch of stupid shit.  You look and act fucking retarded, and none of the things that come outta your mouth inspire me to believe that you know your ass from a hole in the ground.  I am pretty sure that in a battle of wits, or a battle of anything for that matter, you will come up short against an ordinary person.   So therefore, prove to me that you know what the hell is going on before I use the butt of my M4 to knock your mullet clean off your odd shaped head."

I don't think I am alone.  The stakes are too high to take any of this at face value, so it annoys me that otherwise good characters are just going along with it.

That said, the writing and acting for this season has for the most part been really good.  That last episode was a total exception.  And the Terminus plotline also sucks.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 26, 2014, 07:10:57 AM
The first "it's classified" should have earned him a bullet to the head.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2014, 07:23:30 AM
Nah, just derision.  I mean, I totally understand hope, really I do, but in my experience it doesn't come mullet shaped.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2014, 08:53:19 AM
I'm not going to argue that this show has great writing, and in fact even defending small bits of it here leaves me feeling a tad unclean. It is currently better writing though than any of the previous seasons and most of the comic as well, not that either of those set the bar high. This was absolutely one of the weaker episodes, I just disagree with some of your reasons as to why.

It was a weak episode because it was a set up episode. It was moving all the very disparate pieces into place for a finale. They had to take some stretches to get everyone back in time for supper (whoever supper may end up being). I imagine it might have been better if they had split it out over 2-3 more episodes so each segment of characters could breathe, but they didn't. If it means we have great episodes like the one with Carol and Tyrese in between sometime lackluster episodes filled with convenience and the most boneheaded of decisions, I'm ok with that because those other episodes make it worthwhile.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on March 26, 2014, 10:26:39 AM
The first "it's classified" should have earned him a bullet to the head.

This is an absolute indicator of bullshit in the real world. People with actual "classified" anything never put themselves into a position to reveal they have it. Also, on the outside chance that they're going to give this guy some actual important stuff for the plot of the show there's no reason I can think of not to share it with the ranking military guy at the least.

I haven't watched the show since he went full auto on the truck's gas tank. That episode I could totally believe he was a sperglord scientist. I've worked with more than a few guys who were smart enough to set things on fire with their brain and did magic in their specialty, but stood around mumbling and doing senseless, awkward things when they were not actively working.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 26, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
The first "it's classified" should have earned him a bullet to the head.

This is an absolute indicator of bullshit in the real world. People with actual "classified" anything never put themselves into a position to reveal they have it. Also, on the outside chance that they're going to give this guy some actual important stuff for the plot of the show there's no reason I can think of not to share it with the ranking military guy at the least.

I haven't watched the show since he went full auto on the truck's gas tank. That episode I could totally believe he was a sperglord scientist. I've worked with more than a few guys who were smart enough to set things on fire with their brain and did magic in their specialty, but stood around mumbling and doing senseless, awkward things when they were not actively working.
Go to Hunstville AL sometime, you'll meet a whole different species of geek: Redneck rocket scientists.  It's impossible to describe, you just have to see it, and that guy would not look at all out of place there.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 26, 2014, 10:38:57 AM
That may be true, but the point is that there is no way a person like that makes it to a place in life where he has classified information on why the world is being taken over by zombies.  Not remotely believable. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 26, 2014, 11:11:37 AM
To remind people: Rick determined that 'everyone being infected' was classified information that should not be shared.  Whether you agree with it or not personally, there are reasonable arguments for not sharing information in a crisis (or apocalypse) situation.

Personally, in a zombie (or other) apocalypse, I'd be amongst the crew that gave all benefit of the doubt to supporting people claiming to have a fix.  I might think someone is likely full of it, but if there were any reasonable argument remaining that the person had a fix, I'd be throwing my effort behind making that fix happen, regardless of whether they shared information with me, had a mullet, or were a poster child for aspergers.  It is a cost benefit / probability thing: A small chance of a massive fix is worth too much to toss away.  Of course, once the argument goes from 'a reasonable argument' to 'no reasonable argument', there would be a price to pay.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 26, 2014, 04:55:13 PM
OK, but I wouldn't travel from Houston to Georgia all the way to D.C. because some mullet head said 'it's classified'.  I'd need more than that.  A lot more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 26, 2014, 10:56:42 PM
To remind people: Rick determined that 'everyone being infected' was classified information that should not be shared.  Whether you agree with it or not personally, there are reasonable arguments for not sharing information in a crisis (or apocalypse) situation.

Um, Rick was horribly and dangerously wrong in keeping that to himself.  Mullet head keeping a potential world saving solution to himself is not only blatantly irresponsible, but pretty much grounds for beating the information out of him as far as I can tell.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 27, 2014, 12:22:00 AM
I just started re-reading the comics. The Tyrese and Dale and Andra of the TV series pale into insignificance compared to their comic counterparts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2014, 05:34:07 AM
To remind people: Rick determined that 'everyone being infected' was classified information that should not be shared.  Whether you agree with it or not personally, there are reasonable arguments for not sharing information in a crisis (or apocalypse) situation.

Um, Rick was horribly and dangerously wrong in keeping that to himself.  Mullet head keeping a potential world saving solution to himself is not only blatantly irresponsible, but pretty much grounds for beating the information out of him as far as I can tell.

Yeah, it doesn't matter a shit if you're not going to understand it, getting that kind of information in as many heads as you can is just important if some zombie decides to eat mullet.  There's realistic and then there's unrealistic and then there's this shit.

Also, I agree that Rick holding that information was criminally wrong ;  if you're thinking you're ok when not bitten, you're in for a surprise and it's not a fair one.  He was a tit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 27, 2014, 06:57:50 AM
You have some very reasonable arguments as to why Rick was wrong.

However, there are also very reasonable arguments that he was right.  Jenner, the guy that understodd the secret better than anybody, killed himself - and that decision was likely strongly influenced by what he knew.  Protect and Serve Rick was scared that telling people might make them lose all hope.  He wasn't willing to risk lives by telling people.

Disagreeing with a view does not make it unreasonable.  The world (both the real world and the world of the Walking Dead) is not that black and white.  If you don't get that idea, I think you'll find much of the show very frustrating as they pretty much hang their hat on finding difficult decisions for characters to make.  This show is all about ' no easy answers'.

Go back for Merle?  How to deal with the people with a deadly contagious disease?  Trust new people?  Psycho little girl?  Kill Carl for being annoying?  Hard decisions are everywhere.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 27, 2014, 07:04:39 AM
Dead is Dead.  It's not going to make me lose hope about an infection that does something to me after death but only then.  All that matters is the survivors need to know how to change burial patterns.

I don't really think that's why Bunker chap gave up.  Bear in mind, didn't he operate on his wife or some shit ?  I think he was just giving up hope because of, well, all the fucking zombies shambling about.

Though I am mindful of the 'Free Information' operators in WWZ who topped themselves, so who knows.

It's not the black and white that gets me, it's the utter inconsistency shown and the established characters suddenly being retarded for the sake of dramatic tension.  It's not just THIS show either.  I hate it when any show does it.  (See my comment on Donna in the Suits thread, for example.)

Also, I find it ironic that the hard decisions you list... aren't.  Maybe I'm just a psychopath or something.  (Except Carl.  Carl is an interesting question.  Lori, however was fairly clear cut.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 27, 2014, 09:05:51 AM
Yeah, the only reason bunker guy decided to live was to attempt to honor his wife's wishes.  Once that was impossible (remember the lab was auto-incinerated), he killed himself just like many around him chose to do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 27, 2014, 09:21:32 AM
...Maybe I'm just a psychopath or something...
I guess some things are black and white.  :why_so_serious:

Forget Jenner, then.  He is a tree.  We're looking for the forest.  There were rational, reasonable reasons to keep that information private.  You're still arguing whether it was the right decision - and my point is that there are reasonable arguments - whether you agree with them or not - to keep it a secret. 

As for inconsistency in characters - part of that is writing inconsistency, but to be honest, I don't usually get bothered by inconsistency as most people I know are inconsistent.  Constantly.  If I see a character that is consistent, I often find them to be bland, boring and flat. 

Ironwood, each of the questions I listed (except Carl) has strong positivies and negatives.

Merle: Leave a man to die that you physically put at risk or risk more lives to save a jerk?  Contagious disease: A cure may be on the way, but every moment they're alive is a chance for the unknown disease to spread...either way, people that might live could die based on your decision (remember they do not have any idea how the zombie plague spread to everyone).  Trust new people: If you drive them away, you lose their potential strength.  Psycho little girl: When was the moment she had to die, or could she have been restrained and had someone continue to work with her?  You may have opinions on each of those questions, but there are hundreds of thousands of fans out there that would disagree with your answers.  That is what they strive to create on the show - hard choices.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 27, 2014, 12:16:02 PM
As far as the Daryl situation goes, I don't think following the character pattern he would continue to hang with that crew. I think the writers are setting him up to show himself that he's better than his brother, (Staying on with the governor, and being his club) and he's not a nothing like the Daryl/Beth episode had him spouting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 27, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
That is what they strive to create on the show - hard choices.

What Ironwood is getting at is a lot of these "hard" choices just ended up being fuckstupid choices. The one about Rick not telling people that you're a zombie no matter what you do... that was a stupid choice that could quite clearly get people killed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 27, 2014, 02:47:06 PM
...What Ironwood is getting at is a lot of these "hard" choices just ended up being fuckstupid choices. The one about Rick not telling people that you're a zombie no matter what you do... that was a stupid choice that could quite clearly get people killed.
At the risk of repeating myself: That is an opinion, but there are others.  You are likely in the majority in your view, but there are reasonable arguments against telling people the secret, especially for a man that made a career of protecting people who just watched someone he knows toss their life away because she thought the world was too bleak.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 27, 2014, 10:57:00 PM
You keep saying that.  Name one that we will considerable reasonable enough to outweigh the possibility of getting your friends killed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 28, 2014, 01:14:13 AM
People make mistakes. We've all - all - made choices at some point in our lives that when we look back at them realise were wrong, sometimes stupid, occasionally dangerous.

TV is full of characters who are perfect, who always make the right decision, who have no need of hindsight. I have many issues with many of the characters in this show, but the fact that they're often mistaken, stupid, wrong is actually starting to strike me as more believable than all the Sherlocks in the world.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 28, 2014, 01:25:49 AM
That's fine.  I don't have an issue with Rick making the mistake of keeping that to himself.  He probably did it so he would sap his friends of all hope (and for dramatic reveal reasons).  But it was still a mistake, and could have been a very costly one.  I get why he did it, but that does not make it reasonable or excusable.  Believable?  Sure, I suppose.  I can see someone making that mistake.

So that is one thing.  It is a whole different matter to let the mullet sporting savior of the world keep that information to himself on some premise of confidentiality.  The people around him have endured way too much bullshit to let that pass.  I was not kidding before - it would be far more believable for them to tie him up to a chair and get that information out of him at all costs.  It is flat out retarded to keep those eggs in a single basket, and people would act accordingly.  NOT BELIEVABLE.

Edit to add:  A better way for them to do this, presuming mullet guy is actually on to something, would have been the same way that bunker guy told Rick.  Simply hide the information from the viewer somehow.  Let the characters know what is going on so that we can buy into the whole thing, without telling us exactly what it is. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2014, 02:11:15 AM
Except they can't do that for actual reasons we don't really want to get into here.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 28, 2014, 02:17:24 AM
Not being Comic-spoilered I suspect Mullet Man is completely full of shit and there is nothing to explain off-screen. He sounds like somebody who plays at being smart and only gets away with it because he surrounds himself with dumb people. But maybe this is just bad acting and/or writing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 28, 2014, 02:22:16 AM
Yeah, that's what I think, too.  Either way, I find it insane that nobody is calling his bluff.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 28, 2014, 03:31:25 AM
In the comics Andrea (still alive and a kick ass character) does question him at gunpoint



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2014, 04:04:21 AM
All I know is the TV Series triumphs when it moves away from the comics.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 28, 2014, 07:06:28 AM
You keep saying that.  Name one that we will considerable reasonable enough to outweigh the possibility of getting your friends killed.
I just did. If you want more, go visit the message boards for WD from that era. There is only so far I will go to try to convince someone that their disagreement with a view does not render it inherently unreasonable.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 28, 2014, 08:48:39 AM
I guess our definition of reasonable differs then.  We can probably just leave it at that.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 28, 2014, 09:15:11 AM
I guess our definition of reasonable differs then.  We can probably just leave it at that.
It shouldn't.  We have dictionaries.  It really comes down to someone looking at the facts before them and drawing a conclusion based upon it.  If they do, it is a reasonable decision/conclusion, even if the majority disagree with the result.

Here is a reasonable train of thought that might have been

"Gee, Jacqui just killed herself because she did not want to 'end up like Jim and Amy' (zombies).  Now, I know that we're all going to end up like them - zombies unless our brains are destroyed.  I can handle that information, but look at these people around me - they're terrified and just lost everything again when the CDC exploded.  And lost Jacqui.  My wife has been acting crazy - would she give up if she knew and put a bullet in her brain?

Well, what if I don't tell them yet?  What if I keep it a secret until we get to a place where we have a chance to breath and everyone feels more settled?  What is the risk?  The big risk is that someone dies from something other than a zombie bite and nobody knows to expect they'll turn.  But I'll know.  I can deal with it if it comes up before I decide it is time to tell them.  There is the risk that I get offed in such a way that I don't have a chance to warn them... but is that risk greater than the risk that one of them gives up and kills themself now?"

I think that Rick was wrong to do as he did, but he was also clearly being reasonable.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2014, 09:23:13 AM
I can't say I wasn't warned.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on March 29, 2014, 05:48:31 AM
People make mistakes. We've all - all - made choices at some point in our lives that when we look back at them realise were wrong, sometimes stupid, occasionally dangerous.

TV is full of characters who are perfect, who always make the right decision, who have no need of hindsight. I have many issues with many of the characters in this show, but the fact that they're often mistaken, stupid, wrong is actually starting to strike me as more believable than all the Sherlocks in the world.

Which is all well and good so long as there are consequences from the stupid decisions that come back on the main character in time. GoT did this well as did Breaking Bad. Walking Dead won't kill off Rick, even if he waded into a zombie concert and decided crowd surfing was a good idea. Because COMICS. 

Rick is protected by plot armor from all his stupid which makes it just that much more aggravating, not compelling, that he's so stupid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 29, 2014, 06:55:00 AM
Yeah that's a good point.

You could argue that other people have paid for his mistakes and that that contributed to his brief flirtation with going off the deep end last season, but that would be being overly generous to the writing and he seems to have got better from Teh Crazy anyway.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 30, 2014, 06:28:42 PM
That was fucking nuts. And it's only the first half.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on March 30, 2014, 07:36:59 PM
They're gonna feel really stupid when they find out....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 31, 2014, 12:23:19 AM
...that they'll have to wait six months to get any semblance of a resolution to that episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: schpain on March 31, 2014, 03:53:34 AM
smarmy asshole is a dick.  news at 11.  i don't understand why Rick and the crew weren't just shot.  alot less bullets.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 31, 2014, 06:28:45 AM
smarmy asshole is a dick.  news at 11.  i don't understand why Rick and the crew weren't just shot.  alot less bullets.

No electricity = no refrigeration = you don't kill your meat until you are going to eat it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 31, 2014, 10:49:10 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2014, 01:17:09 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on March 31, 2014, 05:52:33 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on March 31, 2014, 07:44:57 PM
Thoughts on the last few posts:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on April 01, 2014, 12:45:36 AM
Good episode, but the cannibals (I think we can now safely assume thats what they are, with the fresh skeletons and all) don't make sense. If they don't kill their "food" as soon as they arrive, they have to feed them until they are slaughtered. Which might well mean a net loss in food. Better have some of the meat spoil and at least have no net gain instead of a net loss.

Yeah, I know, the main characters need to escape and all, but that bugged me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2014, 01:21:23 AM
The only way this episode redeems itself is if the next one shows a flashback of meeting Carol and Tyreese and keeping them outside in case shit goes wrong.  Because otherwise, this is all kinds of stupid.  Burying the guns and the whole 'Rabbit in a snare follows the tracks to the trap' fucknonsense is pointless unless your characters are cleverer than that.

I will say that I'm hugely satisfied at how they handled the rape gang.  Really, really well done.  The Ackbar trap ?  Not so much.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 01, 2014, 03:02:28 AM
Thoughts on the last few posts:



That was a good episode right to the trap - Michonne is becoming a stronger character as they show her human side and the Michonne/Carl side to things is redeeming a lot of the other crappy writing for me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2014, 03:28:14 AM
Yeah, it really was an episode of two halves.  First one continuing the 'good stuff' and the second one being a showcase to retardery.  (Possibly.  It might be a Rick Fakeout.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 01, 2014, 05:25:26 AM
The reveal at the end pissed me off.  Or the non-reveal.  All those flashbacks and all that tension leading up to something, as if he had an ace up his sleeve, and it turns out to be nothing at all.  The only thing surprising about Terminus was that there was nothing suprising at all.  If there really is something up his sleeve, he should have at least hinted at it.  Fuck.

The build up to the end itself was fine, and the way they dealt with the roaming rape gang was pretty great.  Well played scene all around.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2014, 05:31:43 AM
I really doubt the show would skip showing the reunion between Rick and Carl and lil ass kicker if it had happened.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2014, 05:47:19 AM
Oh yeah, the baby.

Shite.  No, defo not that then.  The formula milk at the steps was a reminder there, so it's clearly not that.

Ah well, I can live in hope, eh ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hawkbit on April 01, 2014, 07:33:41 AM
Good episode, but the cannibals (I think we can now safely assume thats what they are, with the fresh skeletons and all) don't make sense. If they don't kill their "food" as soon as they arrive, they have to feed them until they are slaughtered. Which might well mean a net loss in food. Better have some of the meat spoil and at least have no net gain instead of a net loss.

Yeah, I know, the main characters need to escape and all, but that bugged me.

Rick looked down when he was getting in the train car and saw empty bags of powdered milk.  They're fattening them up for a relatively low cost.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2014, 08:10:59 AM
Good episode but really suffered from not having the space in the season to actually get into what Terminus is. The build up starting mid-season meant that I knew they wouldn't do any real explanation of Terminus at all this season, so that last really badly filmed chase scene was a let down.

But... the resolution of the road gang....

FUCK.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 01, 2014, 09:08:15 AM
I'm not sure if it was a 'if we had time we'd explain what Terminus is' situation.  I think they intentionally tried to hint at what it was (with the 'make you a plate line' and the bone graveyard they ran past), but wanted to leave it somewhat ambiguous. 

In the 'Talking Dead' they pointed out they that they wanted big moments in the finale, but no deaths in it to break the mold of prior finales. 

Not the best episode, not a great finale, but fine.  The episode, as a whole, was still good tv.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2014, 09:09:18 AM
Some people keep saying that.  I'm not sure what ambiguity they're seeing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on April 01, 2014, 09:14:07 AM
Not the best episode, not a great finale, but fine.  The episode, as a whole, was still good tv.

Wait. That was the finale?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2014, 09:23:04 AM
Some people keep saying that.  I'm not sure what ambiguity they're seeing.


Yeah, there was pretty clear no ambiguity in whatever the fuck the Terminus people are doing - at least not in how it relates to Rick's group. I'm pretty sure the herding them forcibly into railway cars is meant to invoke a little bit of Jews being herded into railway cars during Nazi Germany. It's not a very subtle image.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2014, 09:26:11 AM
Well, yeah, but the whole Cannibals thing is pretty fucking conclusive, even if you just look at that episode alone.

I mean, Rick may as well have said 'This rabbit here is us, Son, in about 2 hours.  See, we go down this track and then get caught and eaten.'  Then he turns to the camera, Ian Richardson style and say 'DRAMATIC SUBTLETY BITCH'.  Or something.

I mean, these are well fed people roasting meat on barbecues with what has been made clear in the last 4 episodes is very very poor hunting grounds.

If they're going for the old fakeout next season because it's too strong a theme, fair enough, but it's just not been subtle.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Good episode but really suffered from not having the space in the season to actually get into what Terminus is. The build up starting mid-season meant that I knew they wouldn't do any real explanation of Terminus at all this season, so that last really badly filmed chase scene was a let down.

But... the resolution of the road gang....

FUCK.

I didn't see anything wrong with the chase scene, it was exactly what Rick taught Carl and Michonne: create a funnel and let your prey run itself into the trap.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 02, 2014, 11:47:20 AM
....somewhat ambiguous. 
Man, you folks don't read adjectives, do you?

Somewhat ambiguous = not absolutely explicit.  Nobody said, "I'm going to eat you."  Nobody was gnawing on Beth's skull. 

The clues are all there, and pretty obvious if you pay moderate attention... but that could still, theoretically, be a collection of red herrings.  Theoretically.  However, I'd be shocked if it were not Soilent Green territory at this point.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 02, 2014, 12:38:44 PM
Well, yeah, but the whole Cannibals thing is pretty fucking conclusive, even if you just look at that episode alone.

I mean, Rick may as well have said 'This rabbit here is us, Son, in about 2 hours.  See, we go down this track and then get caught and eaten.'  Then he turns to the camera, Ian Richardson style and say 'DRAMATIC SUBTLETY BITCH'.  Or something.

I mean, these are well fed people roasting meat on barbecues with what has been made clear in the last 4 episodes is very very poor hunting grounds.

If they're going for the old fakeout next season because it's too strong a theme, fair enough, but it's just not been subtle.



On Talking Dead, Scott Gimple said that not everything is what it seems at Terminus.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 02, 2014, 12:46:12 PM
I'm very dissappointed that Daryl didn't just walk up and go "Claimed bitches" to save Rick and co.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 02, 2014, 12:49:28 PM
I was also waiting for that to happen, it seems like a missed opportunity by the writers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 02, 2014, 01:33:07 PM
On Talking Dead, Scott Gimple said that not everything is what it seems at Terminus.

I hope so.  I really, really do.  But they've said that shit before and then pulled the 'Complete Lack of Surprise, Motherfucker !'

I mean, Sophia was in the barn all along ?  WHO KNEW.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 02, 2014, 11:27:47 PM
On Talking Dead, Scott Gimple said that not everything is what it seems at Terminus.

I hope so.  I really, really do.  But they've said that shit before and then pulled the 'Complete Lack of Surprise, Motherfucker !'

I mean, Sophia was in the barn all along ?  WHO KNEW.

Give them their due. That season was so fucking tedious I'd be lucky if I remembered who Rick was. Sophia was "oh, yeah - that person" so there was some surprise.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2014, 01:22:22 AM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 03, 2014, 02:14:22 AM
The Terminus people were giving off a total Jehovah's Witness vibe too. Me & the wife were sat there going "cannibals!", "no, Godders!", "OK, cannibal Godders!".

Still don't quite understand the need for the bullet-wasting herding bit. I mean, they all put their weapons down on the floor... why wasn't that the time to capture them instead of giving them all their guns back and creating a tense standoff situation that puts them all at risk of getting shot? And extended automatic weapon fire at concrete floors surrounded by walls and no ricochet injuries? All seems stupidly risky to me.

And keeping them alive to eat them doesn't make sense either. Humans were preserving meat in lots of different ways long before the advent of electrically-powered refrigeration.

But hey, drama.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2014, 02:21:58 AM
Mostly, I think, because they were taken by surprise and probably wanted to have a conversation before capture.  One almost thinks that the food offering initially is probably drugged - that would be the easiest way to subdue hungry travelers and also hugely ironic.

But it didn't really ring true either because they were taken by surprise and then tons of snipers and shooters showed up on the roofs and, yes, out at the gates where they'd been moments before.

The second half was all a bit silly when you think about it.  Which, alas, I can't help but do...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 03, 2014, 06:01:29 AM
And they needed a reason to tie in the rabbit trap into the story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 03, 2014, 10:18:13 AM
Ourt of curiosity, for those that hated this season / half season as a whole: What season of TV from the last 12 months did you find to be good?  Breaking Bad and what else?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2014, 10:24:55 AM
Who hated this season or half season? Because if you didn't like this season, you have to fucking hate this show. This season was the best they've had, and that includes the first. It only fell apart just a little in that last half hour. The season really was about 15 minutes too long.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2014, 10:35:45 AM
I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not the best it's ever been.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on April 03, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
The rape crew scene was almost a bit much for me.  I knew they were protected by the plot shield and general unwillingness to let the show go THAT far, but still...  I'm not sure the fat bastard got stabbed enough.  I probably would have stabbed more.

Good season. A definite upgrade over Farmville and Let's Go to Prison.  A season free of Andrea.

Terminus is probably going to end up being all kinds of stupid, but at least this season has shown they can do better. Maybe they will.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2014, 10:58:59 AM
I found the that scene quite a bit more powerful than it would have been because :

1 - Michonne was 'better'.  You know she'd actually care now.
2 - They put a lot of effort this season into building up Carl for the audience.  We'd actually care there too.
3 - Mopey old Useless Rick finally did what needed to be done and DIDN'T MIND.  That's a big ole care for me.

Andrea was all kinds of retarded.  Always.  At every turn.  Jesus Christ.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 03, 2014, 11:00:02 AM
Ourt of curiosity, for those that hated this season / half season as a whole: What season of TV from the last 12 months did you find to be good?  Breaking Bad and what else?

I don't really accept your initial premise, but True Detective thus far has shown us that proper characters played properly will make you believe and invest in anything.

So there's that, I guess.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 03, 2014, 11:12:22 AM
Ourt of curiosity, for those that hated this season / half season as a whole: What season of TV from the last 12 months did you find to be good?  Breaking Bad and what else?

So if I liked this season does that mean I can't answer?  Because Game of Thrones and The Americans both spring to mind.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 03, 2014, 11:50:43 AM
Hated was perhaps too strong a word - I should have said, "For those with complaints" or "For those that thought this season was silly"...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2014, 12:24:43 PM
You vex me.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on April 03, 2014, 12:26:40 PM
Shit-poster gonna shit-post.  Don't fret it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rendakor on April 03, 2014, 09:32:04 PM
Haven't watched this show in ages, but skimmed the last page or so and saw this gem:
A season free of Andrea.
Did they finally kill her off? If she's dead, Jim, then maybe I'll check this season out after catching up via Wikipedia.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 04, 2014, 01:31:44 AM
Nit-picking is fun. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy the show. I do think this has been the best season so far.

I always want films & TV shows to be better though. There's precious few that really, really shine, but these last few years there's been many that were excellent despite some flaws. Being aware of the flaws and discussing them publicly doesn't detract from the excellent bits, and it's interesting to hear other people's ideas of what they like & don't like.

These discussions don't happen in a vacuum either. The writers have clearly responded to criticism of earlier seasons, particularly in regard to the female characters. Remember when all the women just washed clothes and cooked food? Not like that any more because the show got called out for rampant sexism. I'm not for one minute suggesting that The Walking Dead writers & producers read f13 of course ;)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 04, 2014, 01:55:41 AM
Interesting.  One could make the argument that the rampant sexism was a result of the previous civilization breaking down and a new one coming to the fore.

(I wouldn't make that argument.  I think it's shit.)

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 04, 2014, 03:31:19 AM
Lol  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 04, 2014, 04:58:25 AM
Interesting.  One could make the argument that the rampant sexism was a result of the previous civilization breaking down and a new one coming to the fore.

(I wouldn't make that argument.  I think it's shit.)

 :why_so_serious:

I'm pretty sure that's more or less exactly what they were doing.  For better or worse, it was being shown as a return to the days where the men did all the skull bashing and the women did the nesting...I think they even said as much in season 1.  As far as it being rampant sexism...yeah, probably.  I am absolutely not going to point out that the one and only female of the group that railed against it was Andrea, who we all hated the shit out of. 

Part of me wonders what would happen if something like this really did happen to society.  The other part of me suspects that I am about to get flamed.   :grin:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 04, 2014, 07:23:06 AM
Interesting.  One could make the argument that the rampant sexism was a result of the previous civilization breaking down and a new one coming to the fore.

(I wouldn't make that argument.  I think it's shit.)

 :why_so_serious:

I'm pretty sure that's more or less exactly what they were doing.  For better or worse, it was being shown as a return to the days where the men did all the skull bashing and the women did the nesting...I think they even said as much in season 1.  As far as it being rampant sexism...yeah, probably.  I am absolutely not going to point out that the one and only female of the group that railed against it was Andrea, who we all hated the shit out of. 

Part of me wonders what would happen if something like this really did happen to society.  The other part of me suspects that I am about to get flamed.   :grin:



You could point that out, then we could point out the dumb broad accidentally shot Daryl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 04, 2014, 04:13:41 PM
I didn't rail against Andrea for being feminist. I railed against her because she was so fucking stupid!

 If there was a wrong choice to make, she made it. It's almost as if they reversed Carol and Andrea from who they were in the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on April 04, 2014, 04:26:48 PM
On the other hand if she were still around she'd likely be sleeping with the guy from Terminus, immediately tipping everyone off to the fact that he's a villain.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on April 04, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
Her hoo hoo had an evil homing device didn't it?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 06, 2014, 07:14:17 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 07, 2014, 07:37:07 AM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 08, 2014, 06:25:43 AM
Gender equality is a luxury of a modern, wealthy society.  If the zombie apocalypse actually arrived, I have no doubts that social norms would slowly revert to a more feudal type.  When hunger and death are daily worries, gentility usually gets shit-canned.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 08, 2014, 06:39:00 AM
Er.  That's one of those things that sound true, but probably isn't.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on April 08, 2014, 07:42:16 AM
Gender equality is a luxury of a modern, wealthy society.

This is false for more reasons than I care to enumerate in a thread about a fictional zombie apocalypse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 08, 2014, 07:46:57 AM
Well, I am just considering the gender inequality prevalent in many of today's non-modern and/or unwealthy societies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 08, 2014, 08:00:13 AM
Well, this isn't a dangerous conversation at all. 

Given the way society evolved across the globe, there were likely biological tendencies that influenced gender roles.  However, we evolved.  Some biological evolution, and a lot of cultural and societal evolution.  If the world went down the rabbit hole in the outhouse, that evolution would not be lost.  You might see some reversion in some communities, but it would not be a complete reversal.  Just like they didn't revert to torches and stone wheels on Walking Dead during the apocalypse, I would not expect we'd abandon all progress in the areas of equality.

And, if the idea that we've grown as a society and all that progress would not be lost is not enough by itself, remember that they still have a lot of technology in the WD world - guns, cars, battery powered personal massagers, etc...  These are pretty solid equalizers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 08, 2014, 08:26:00 AM
Frankly, I get the whole idea of protecting the womb-bearers, but in the event of a zombie apocalypse, I'd want me woman beside me shooting at shit too.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on April 08, 2014, 10:49:32 AM
Gender equality is a luxury of a modern, wealthy society.

This is false for more reasons than I care to enumerate in a thread about a fictional zombie apocalypse.

Eh, there's a big difference between Gender Equality and Sex Equality. He might have been using them interchangeably, lots of people do. Different cultures have had varying degrees of of gender equality/inequality, not to mention different types and number of genders. I'm not talking about the current annoying and stupid as fuck wymyns studies/GLBT genders that the field is just making the fuck up. Those people are genuinely hurting the GLBT community. I'm talking about concepts like berdaches, Bissu, Calabai, and other non-binary roles that go back in their respective cultures quite a ways.

Sex Equality on the other hand is a different story. Regardless of the reasons why it developed that way, males and females are a lot better at different activities and even understanding and processing different actions and concepts from each other. physical, violent, and aggressive tasks are much better left to males. Sure, females can fire a gun. But they cant do it nearly as long as a male before fatigue. And that's a luxury afforded by technology. When the bullets run out or the gun malfunctions they become as capable as an adolescent male. Everything about a male human is set up to be stronger, faster, and more adept at violence. We have much more type II muscle mass, much lower skin sensitivity, even our joints and muscle attachments are different. The utility of a female opposed to a male in a hunting/raiding group is pretty much directly related to how long their gun works and has bullets.

I'm not saying men are better than women, but they're beyond a doubt better at the sort of things needed for group survival in a primitive setting. Historically the only thing that women have been consistently valued for more than males is childbearing. Go back far enough in a lot of cultures and eventually you get to a point where that is literally the only thing they are considered good for, sometimes not even as a first choice for sex - just providing kids.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on April 08, 2014, 12:19:48 PM
You're ignoring the part where women often shoot better than men.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 08, 2014, 12:33:28 PM
Which raises a great point.  Women were largely excluded from martial combat due to physical constraints.  Guns remove most of those constraints.

I am not saying that in a hypothetical apocalypse, all women would stay in camp and cook/wash/birth but the proportion that did would vastly exceed the proportion of men that did.  The more survival depends on physical traits, the more likely it is for the women to be pushed into "home" tasks.  I don't think our modern views would be sustained for long in a survival-based society.  That also does not invalidate those views.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on April 08, 2014, 12:46:26 PM
(http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/twd-dale-convo.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 08, 2014, 01:02:05 PM
Gender equality is a luxury of a modern, wealthy society.

This is false for more reasons than I care to enumerate in a thread about a fictional zombie apocalypse.

Eh, there's a big difference between Gender Equality and Sex Equality. He might have been using them interchangeably, lots of people do. Different cultures have had varying degrees of of gender equality/inequality, not to mention different types and number of genders. I'm not talking about the current annoying and stupid as fuck wymyns studies/GLBT genders that the field is just making the fuck up. Those people are genuinely hurting the GLBT community. I'm talking about concepts like berdaches, Bissu, Calabai, and other non-binary roles that go back in their respective cultures quite a ways.

Sex Equality on the other hand is a different story. Regardless of the reasons why it developed that way, males and females are a lot better at different activities and even understanding and processing different actions and concepts from each other. physical, violent, and aggressive tasks are much better left to males. Sure, females can fire a gun. But they cant do it nearly as long as a male before fatigue. And that's a luxury afforded by technology. When the bullets run out or the gun malfunctions they become as capable as an adolescent male. Everything about a male human is set up to be stronger, faster, and more adept at violence. We have much more type II muscle mass, much lower skin sensitivity, even our joints and muscle attachments are different. The utility of a female opposed to a male in a hunting/raiding group is pretty much directly related to how long their gun works and has bullets.

I'm not saying men are better than women, but they're beyond a doubt better at the sort of things needed for group survival in a primitive setting. Historically the only thing that women have been consistently valued for more than males is childbearing. Go back far enough in a lot of cultures and eventually you get to a point where that is literally the only thing they are considered good for, sometimes not even as a first choice for sex - just providing kids.

Hail Hydra.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on April 08, 2014, 02:05:25 PM
You're ignoring the part where women often shoot better than men.


I'm not ignoring it, it's not true. Sure, it's a popular urban myth but any information with actual statistics that I've found show the opposite to be true.

Even if it were true though, it doesn't change the fact that she'd only be useful as long as she had a working gun. After that you'd be better off with a 12 year old boy.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/731/769/c97.png)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on April 08, 2014, 04:27:48 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 08, 2014, 04:38:23 PM
You're ignoring the part where women often shoot better than men.

Olympic shooting says you're wrong.  In fact, it's not even close (men generally score 50-75% better), and that's with the extremely light single-shots designed specifically for match shooting.  "Real" shooting is only going to favor males more.

Face it, although a physically fit or well-trained woman may exceed the average male, at equal levels of preparation a lifetime of testosterone is such an advantage it's not even a contest.  Human dimorphism is a lot more than just upper-body strength, it carries through to every aspect of physical performance.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 08, 2014, 06:13:15 PM
[insert 10 pages of posts about guns]


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on April 08, 2014, 06:58:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/huxo8jG.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 08, 2014, 07:21:09 PM
[insert 10 pages of posts about guns]
I'm too busy being sexist to argue about guns again.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rendakor on April 08, 2014, 07:51:31 PM
Place bets now: Politics or The Den?

:popcorn:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on April 08, 2014, 08:27:11 PM
[insert 10 pages of posts about guns]

Not really. Unlike a discussion about what amounts to opinions about guns, there's plenty of numbers available to come to a clear, indisputable conclusion about which sex is better with firearms. It's men, pretty much the end of discussion.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 08, 2014, 08:32:12 PM
Frankly, I get the whole idea of protecting the womb-bearers, but in the event of a zombie apocalypse, I'd want me woman beside me shooting at shit too.

Pretty much that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 08, 2014, 09:45:15 PM
Frankly, I get the whole idea of protecting the womb-bearers, but in the event of a zombie apocalypse, I'd want me woman beside me shooting at shit too.

Pretty much that.
Yeah, I'm not making a blanket statement that women can't shoot, or that they can't be better shots than men (given a random selection of persons in low numbers, it is possible that the best shot will be a woman, and likely there will be men who are worse shots than one or more of the women, the chances of the first go down and the second up as the size of the group increases).  Just pushing back against the received wisdom that male/female physical performance issues are just upper body strength.  They aren't, men on average have 20-40% more lower body strength, a faster metabolism, faster reflexes, and greater precision in large-muscle motions, and that's *after* controlling for all environmental, training, and non-gendered genetic influences.

On the flip side, all other factors being equal men die younger.  In the Zombie Apocalypse, I'm going to want everyone to know how to protect themselves, and if there's a woman that's a better shot and we're short on guns or ammo, I'd rather have her shooting then Johnny Fumblefingers (for example, "Lara Croft" probably wouldn't have shot up the truck).  But I'm a product of an egalitarian upbringing and culture, where physical performance was not the make or break of who gets to call the shots.  Take away our social support system and I don't think it would take more than a generation for that to fall away.  I'm not saying it would be a good thing, it wouldn't be.  But it would be inevitable.  I think that the writers for TWD thought so too, but abandoned it after the first season because they weren't making a show about *that*, it was a distraction.

--Dave

EDIT: Since the whole topic at hand is the *lack* of sexism in TWD, I am not making value judgements about it but merely discussing the factual context, and the second paragraph is an explanation of why the discussion is germane to the series, I'm not sure what Tale's problem with it is.

EDIT2: What I'm getting at is that people being the ego-centric, status-conscious pricks they are, if someone tries to take the gun away from Johnny Fumblefingers and give it to Annie Oakley, odds are he's going to bitch up a storm and many (perhaps even most) of the others are going to back him up, even if it reduces the overall chances for survival.  We're nowhere near enlightened enough for it to go any other way, and the fact that the writers have chosen to step away from that is a bit of an "Elephant In The Room".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 08, 2014, 09:57:33 PM
Post about The Walking Dead or GTFO. Don't just give it a token mention at the end of your post.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 08, 2014, 10:59:14 PM
See, this started because I said that the shows writers responded to criticisms of sexism in early seasons.

I could also have said they responded similarly to criticisms of racism.

Go!  :popcorn:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 08, 2014, 11:30:04 PM
See, this started because I said that the shows writers responded to criticisms of sexism in early seasons.

I could also have said they responded similarly to criticisms of racism.

Go!  :popcorn:

...so in conclusion, in the event of a zombie apocalypse, all black people would be considered disposable meat shields.  It's natures own law!

(that is totally green, by the way)

I agree with Dave for the most part.  Then again, I think it depends on how far and for how long things devolve into chaos.  The longer it lasts, the more likely we are to revert to those ancient (maybe not so ancient) norms.  Also, when the bullets run out, and they eventually will, the women are going to be screwed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 05:13:22 AM
The racism was blatant tho. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 09, 2014, 05:42:21 AM
Yeah, probably.  Especially if you take Glenn in the conversation, as the clever little Asian fellow.  Odd that this is rarely brought up.  At any rate, I think they are doing better on that front now.  There are a couple pretty strong black characters that aren't being portrayed as disposable.

This doesn't mean they won't get their faces eaten off, it just means they can't do it without us giving a shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 07:00:07 AM
No, I'm not sure at all that I'll accept the Glenn character as being a racist portrayal.  Quite the opposite.


But introducing black character after black character as Red Shirts was fucking shameless.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 09, 2014, 08:12:56 AM
No, I'm not sure at all that I'll accept the Glenn character as being a racist portrayal.  Quite the opposite.


But introducing black character after black character as Red Shirts was fucking shameless.

I disagree.  If the story worked best with those characters dying, and they refused to kill them off due to their race, that would be shameless.  That would be clear racism.  The deaths on the show made sense for the story and the characters were not displayed in a negative light.  That is not to say that the show has not disappointed me in this general area.  I'll give them knocks for under-representation, and give them knocks for underutilization of those characters... but not for killing off characters of a certain race. 

Death is equal opportunity in the apocalypse.  It just isn't on a quota system.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 08:27:50 AM
A wondrous man of straw appears.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 09, 2014, 11:53:12 AM
Heh.

Racism is probably the wrong word regarding Glenn.  A bit of stereotyping, perhaps.

Anyway, whatever, I don't care.  I just want good, believable characters and I don't give a shit what they look like.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 09, 2014, 11:55:50 AM
Yes, let us please not equate stereotyping with racism.  They are not completely separate but they are also not the same thing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 09, 2014, 01:20:34 PM
The women I know all say that men can't run a house, so it might be less about fighting and more about getting us out of the camp so we stop making fart jokes and shaking the babies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 01:21:30 PM
I don't even see Glenn as a stereotype either.  I think I'm seeing a different Glenn than you chaps.  Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 09, 2014, 01:27:07 PM
Possibly they mean Season 1 Glenn.  He's matured a lot.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 09, 2014, 01:49:36 PM
Yeah, but when we met him he was like 9 or something.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on April 09, 2014, 02:04:37 PM
He was also good at math.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 09, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
Even though he is Asian, he was still a better driver than Lori.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on April 09, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Even though he is Asian, he was still a better driver than Lori.

except he left the blinker on for miles!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on April 09, 2014, 04:23:43 PM
Remember that before the apocalypse Glenn was a slacker who delivered pizzas for a living. That's most decidedly not an Asian stereotype.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 09, 2014, 07:54:47 PM
Quote
I disagree.  If the story worked best with those characters dying, and they refused to kill them off due to their race, that would be shameless.  That would be clear racism.

What in the everliving fuck are you talking about?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 09, 2014, 09:56:18 PM
Quote
I disagree.  If the story worked best with those characters dying, and they refused to kill them off due to their race, that would be shameless.  That would be clear racism.

What in the everliving fuck are you talking about?

Lighten up...some of his best friends once knew a black dude!



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on April 09, 2014, 10:00:07 PM
Well, that makes it ok then.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on April 09, 2014, 11:35:51 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/0fvNS7a.jpg)

Also:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on April 10, 2014, 01:13:26 AM
Oh God, that dog.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 10, 2014, 11:15:07 AM
Quote
I disagree.  If the story worked best with those characters dying, and they refused to kill them off due to their race, that would be shameless.  That would be clear racism.
What in the everliving fuck are you talking about?
Making a decision based upon race, and not upon how it factors into the story -  Why do I need to explain how that is racism?  It is cookie cutter racism.  Saying, "We can't kill the only black person on the show" is as racist as saying, "We can't portay the green person as intelligent."  The story should dictate how the characters are treated, not the color of an actor's skin.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 10, 2014, 11:25:20 AM
Quote
I disagree.  If the story worked best with those characters dying, and they refused to kill them off due to their race, that would be shameless.  That would be clear racism.
What in the everliving fuck are you talking about?
Making a decision based upon race, and not upon how it factors into the story -  Why do I need to explain how that is racism?  It is cookie cutter racism.  Saying, "We can't kill the only black person on the show" is as racist as saying, "We can't portay the green person as intelligent."  The story should dictate how the characters are treated, not the color of an actor's skin.
This series kills kids.  On camera.  I don't think they'd shy away from killing the black guy just because he was black.

--Dave

EDIT: I think part of the deal with T-Dog and "Other Black Guy" was that OBG was literally just a placeholder for T-Dog, who was fired for non-plot driven reasons.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 10, 2014, 01:12:08 PM
...EDIT: I think part of the deal with T-Dog and "Other Black Guy" was that OBG was literally just a placeholder for T-Dog, who was fired for non-plot driven reasons.
I thought the death of T-Dog was story driven.  I have not heard anything otherwise. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on April 10, 2014, 01:18:12 PM
...EDIT: I think part of the deal with T-Dog and "Other Black Guy" was that OBG was literally just a placeholder for T-Dog, who was fired for non-plot driven reasons.
I thought the death of T-Dog was story driven.  I have not heard anything otherwise. 
There was a lot of talk about the fear the actors had over taking sides in the arguments between Darabont and the network, and how "anybody can get killed".  T-Dog was the death that was least integral to the overall plot around that time.  Where Dale and Shane you could see it coming for a long time and was a major plot point, T-Dog was more just "*bam*, he's dead Jim", and then OBG was there mostly just standing around in scenes until he was killed.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 10, 2014, 01:50:17 PM
I believe I read articles where they discussed the reasons for killing T-dog.  2 reasons stickin my memory: They wanted to cut down the 'inner circle' so that you removed Rick's support structure and made it harder for him to 'walk away' from the fight, and it was intended to make the audience feel the 'death quota' had been filled so that the Lori death would be more of a surprise.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 11, 2014, 06:56:27 AM
I always viewed Lori's death as inevitable after Shane died.  The show just seemed to be moving in that tragic path.  I wouldn't have been surprised to have seen Carl die last season, but now he has developed into a much more interesting character on his own and less of a Rick appendage..


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 11, 2014, 07:24:44 AM
Tragic path?  I thought it was fantastic.  I think I preferred Andrea.

I think Carl is almost as untouchable as Rick.  I might be wrong.  I don't always llike they way he is used in the show, but he seems to be a critical piece all the same.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on April 11, 2014, 11:22:40 AM
I meant tragic in the traditional theater sense, not the modern "when anything bad happens" sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 11, 2014, 11:24:12 AM
I expect the show to end with Rick's death and Carl becoming the new leader.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on April 11, 2014, 11:02:56 PM
I meant tragic in the traditional theater sense, not the modern "when anything bad happens" sense.

Yeah, I guess I knew what you meant.  I just couldn't pass up the chance to express my dislike for her.  I wanted her dead from the first few minutes I saw her in season one.  Something about that chick bothers me.  Not to mention that she practically flat out told Rick to kill Shane, and then freaked out on him when she found out she actually did.  Dumb slut.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on July 25, 2014, 03:51:58 PM
Season 5 trailer up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4GAs9TJVjM).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on July 25, 2014, 04:16:56 PM
Looks pretty awesome to me.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on July 25, 2014, 05:03:19 PM
Looking forward to it. I really think last season was done very well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on July 26, 2014, 01:17:36 AM
Season 5 trailer up (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4GAs9TJVjM).

Once again FU AMC - at least let Aussies watch the trailer  :heartbreak:

Then you can go back to whining about how we are the biggest pirates in the world


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on July 26, 2014, 03:40:26 AM
Ditto, Apparently.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 01, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
Season 4 is on Netflix.  I'm all caught up, just in time to start getting behind again in a couple weeks.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 01, 2014, 04:52:43 PM
I'm excited for this as well. I think last season was one of if not the best overall. Looking forward to where they are going to take it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on October 02, 2014, 08:38:54 AM
Season 4 is on Netflix.  I'm all caught up, just in time to start getting behind again in a couple weeks.   :awesome_for_real:

Great season.  I loved how they had everyone flow together.  It was obvious it was going to happen but it was really well done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 12, 2014, 07:22:43 PM
That was a hell of a season opener, felt like a season finale.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 12, 2014, 07:53:39 PM
Ridiculous start. And the post script turned it up to eleven.

Also, from Talking Dead, "Dunder Mifflin Kill Chamber"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on October 12, 2014, 08:01:56 PM
So yeah, that was awesome for a premiere and probably my favorite episodes of the entire show. Only a minor rolling of my eyes at , but that was easily forgiven.

Also, the absolute very end of the episode  :grin:


fakedit: yeah the Dunder Mifflin comparisons were awesome.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: EWSpider on October 12, 2014, 08:07:12 PM
My fucking recording stopped right as


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 12, 2014, 08:20:56 PM
My fucking recording stopped right as



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 12, 2014, 08:22:38 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on October 12, 2014, 08:27:40 PM
My fucking recording stopped right as




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 12, 2014, 11:54:00 PM
So yeah, that was awesome for a premiere and probably my favorite episodes of the entire show. Only a minor rolling of my eyes at , but that was easily forgiven.

Yeah, it's a quibble but it was glaring enough that I was wondering the same thing when it happened.  Also


Good episode, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 13, 2014, 03:21:04 AM
I think that opener made up for every farmville and mustache twirling governor episode.

My only problem was with


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 13, 2014, 04:16:52 AM
Yeah, but anybody that has a clue about pretty much anything could probably tell that was bullshit. They were just looking for hope.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on October 13, 2014, 05:40:40 AM
Wow, what a brutal opening.  :drill:

The most unbelievable part for me:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on October 13, 2014, 11:23:21 AM

Good episode, though.


I think that opener made up for every farmville and mustache twirling governor episode.

My only problem was with



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 13, 2014, 06:12:45 PM
I didn't even realize this was starting again so soon. It wasn't on my DVR because I'd switched to a new DVR recently and hadn't added this back yet. Thankfully, it was on onDemand. Really good start to the season, and you know



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 13, 2014, 06:15:26 PM
I didn't even realize this was starting again so soon. It wasn't on my DVR because I'd switched to a new DVR recently and hadn't added this back yet. Thankfully, it was on onDemand. Really good start to the season, and you know




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 13, 2014, 06:25:31 PM
Goddamn hipsters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 13, 2014, 07:55:12 PM
I hope Rick makes good on his promise then.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 14, 2014, 01:11:19 AM
I was surprised he didn't push harder against the resistance to his initial plan to

But yes, very solid start to the season, enjoyed it greatly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on October 14, 2014, 06:09:16 AM
So great.

Only thing that's bothering me still:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 14, 2014, 08:40:52 AM
Only thing that's bothering me still:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on October 14, 2014, 09:17:42 AM
It's 90% food coloring, actually. Because people won't buy grey beef.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 14, 2014, 09:45:29 AM
I thought it was carbon monoxide in the US (which binds to myoglobin and makes it stay red) these days rather than food colouring. I'm not sure what's done here in the UK but generally our supermarket meat does indeed go brown after a day or two, which makes me think it's neither dyed nor in modified atmosphere packaging.

But, yeah, that kind of shit is why we get our meat from a local butcher anyway :)

I doubt the Terminus folks were too concerned about the colour though...  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on October 14, 2014, 03:48:51 PM
Dye.  Europe is different.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 14, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
The US uses carbon monoxide now.. not dye.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 15, 2014, 06:50:44 AM
Watched last season's finale and this season's premier one after another last night - that was a really good two hours of tv.

Is it just me though, or do Sgt Buzzcut and his gang not still stand out like sore thumbs? The girl still looked she bought that outfit a week ago. (I find it telling that I don't know any of their names. I know everyone else's, even Bob).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 15, 2014, 08:20:41 AM
We do the best derails.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 15, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
Oh sure let's not go back and finish of the survivors, it's not like that hasn't backfired horrendously in the past or anything.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Miguel on October 16, 2014, 08:23:19 AM
Oh sure let's not go back and finish of the survivors, it's not like that hasn't backfired horrendously in the past or anything.

Seriously, wasn't that the entire point of that scene?  I'd have to go back and re-watch, but I thought the Governor gave nearly that same line when he was convincing his group to attack the prison.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 16, 2014, 09:55:58 AM
... I thought the Governor gave nearly that same line when he was convincing his group to attack the prison.
Not a coincidence.

I expect we'll see Rick (and others) echo Shane, the Governor, the Termites, and a few other characters from the past that were shown to have been good folks once upon a time, but focused more on surviving than doing 'the right thing'. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on October 16, 2014, 01:07:11 PM
One thing this show has taught all of us: the only way to live in peace during a zombie apocalypse is kill everyone else!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 16, 2014, 02:53:43 PM
Holy shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 20, 2014, 07:14:29 AM
Oh sure let's not go back and finish of the survivors, it's not like that hasn't backfired horrendously in the past or anything.

Well, that didn't take long.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 20, 2014, 07:18:51 AM
Slower episode. It was obvious they were setting the table for larger things.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on October 20, 2014, 12:29:33 PM
Even so
...they were setting the table...


Heh, that they were.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 20, 2014, 12:36:46 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on October 20, 2014, 02:52:42 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 20, 2014, 03:01:38 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 20, 2014, 03:32:14 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 20, 2014, 03:33:44 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 20, 2014, 04:20:50 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on October 20, 2014, 05:46:49 PM
I'm really enjoying this show again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 20, 2014, 07:20:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 21, 2014, 02:48:06 AM

That's very Dale from the comic books.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2014, 03:22:12 AM
Yes.  They've already said that they want to stick to the comics as much as they can.  I haven't seen it yet, but I'm a sucker for spoilers and this sounds lifted directly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2014, 11:34:34 AM

The showrunner, writers and directors they've had since the beginning of last season have elevated this show so much from the basement it had been dwelling in before the death of Andrea.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 22, 2014, 09:44:28 PM

The showrunner, writers and directors they've had since the beginning of last season have elevated this show so much from the basement it had been dwelling in before the death of Andrea.

Yeah all this is Gimple, I'm glad he was given the reigns.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 23, 2014, 02:35:06 AM
That's an unfortunate name.  What's his resume ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on October 23, 2014, 03:20:31 AM
He did some work on Pulp Fiction.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 23, 2014, 03:29:22 AM
The Basement scene, perhaps ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 23, 2014, 09:59:31 AM
Hmmm, based on his IMDB resume, I'm not sure I would have expected how good this has been (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0991355/?ref_=nv_sr_1).

I mean, he wrote the 2nd Ghost Rider movie, but then he also did some scripts for Flash Forward, which I liked but it had its problems.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 23, 2014, 11:36:47 AM
FlashForward broke my heart.  It had some elements that were really good, and a lot of very visible elements that were just so horrible.  It was one of those rare shows that you felt could have been overhauled and massively improved between seasons...

I'd like them to twist the comics and do some misdirects here and there to keep people guessing.  People that have read the comics are looking for the storylines, and I'm waiting for them to use those expectations as a misdirect.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 23, 2014, 01:23:34 PM
Hmmm, based on his IMDB resume, I'm not sure I would have expected how good this has been (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0991355/?ref_=nv_sr_1).

I mean, he wrote the 2nd Ghost Rider movie, but then he also did some scripts for Flash Forward, which I liked but it had its problems.

I really liked Life and was sad to see that canceled.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on October 23, 2014, 09:26:24 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 23, 2014, 09:49:58 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on October 23, 2014, 11:36:14 PM

I'd like them to twist the comics and do some misdirects here and there to keep people guessing.  People that have read the comics are looking for the storylines, and I'm waiting for them to use those expectations as a misdirect.

Of the roughy 40 trillion people who watch this show (it is something close to that I'm pretty sure), I would wager that less than 20% even know there are comics.  And of that group, absolutely zero of them actually read the comic that aren't F13 forum posters.

What I am saying is that this is not a relevant point for them at all, because the vast portion of their audience has no idea whatsoever about what happened in the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 24, 2014, 12:35:23 AM

Of the roughy 40 trillion people who watch this show (it is something close to that I'm pretty sure), I would wager that less than 20% even know there are comics.  And of that group, absolutely zero of them actually read the comic that aren't F13 forum posters.

What I am saying is that this is not a relevant point for them at all, because the vast portion of their audience has no idea whatsoever about what happened in the comics.


Ok, so the last wont happen because Lori is dead (is she?) and I really would have liked them to make Andrea the comic book character but I can't have everything :)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 24, 2014, 04:14:37 PM
...Of the roughy 40 trillion people who watch this show (it is something close to that I'm pretty sure), I would wager that less than 20% even know there are comics.  And of that group, absolutely zero of them actually read the comic that aren't F13 forum posters.

What I am saying is that this is not a relevant point for them at all, because the vast portion of their audience has no idea whatsoever about what happened in the comics.
Watch Talking Dead once.  They constantly talk about how much they care about aligning the comics and the show and what a major concern it is... 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on October 26, 2014, 06:17:30 PM
I assumed he was crying because of the wine being drunk.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 27, 2014, 01:00:52 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 27, 2014, 01:18:38 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on October 27, 2014, 01:00:55 PM
Really nice episode.  Tense.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on October 27, 2014, 01:57:24 PM
Predictable episode, but well executed.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 27, 2014, 02:09:16 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 28, 2014, 11:51:30 AM

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2014, 12:01:06 PM

Still, absolutely killer season so far.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 02, 2014, 08:51:11 PM
Interesting episode tonight. They always leave me wanting more.


Edit: really need to stop drunk posting


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 03, 2014, 07:19:45 AM
I took the end as:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on November 03, 2014, 08:37:32 AM
I took the end as:




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on November 03, 2014, 12:53:56 PM
For the folks with some actual medical knowledge, would the pill crushing bit actually work? There were still huge pill chunks when she was drawing that dosage.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 03, 2014, 04:31:06 PM
That episode was a bit limp, to be honest.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 03, 2014, 06:53:24 PM
For the folks with some actual medical knowledge, would the pill crushing bit actually work? There were still huge pill chunks when she was drawing that dosage.

I used to know people in college who would cook down pills after crushing them. I have also heard stories about back loading pills....crushing them, dumping into syringe, somehow add water. Have only seen the former done with dilaudid and morphine in person. I have no personal experience because I am hella scared of needles.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on November 04, 2014, 04:19:50 PM
I took the end as:


My take on the end:


I did like the spoiler at the end of Talking Dead for next episode:




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2014, 07:23:06 PM

Good episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on November 04, 2014, 10:02:13 PM
I personally hated the Beth episode. All the others have been great this season, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on November 04, 2014, 10:49:39 PM
Yeah, I was really surprised they actually went for an all-Beth episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 05, 2014, 02:47:48 PM
I'm okay with an all Beth episode. I wouldn't want more, but one of those after not seeing her for so long is okay.



Good episode.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 05, 2014, 03:38:47 PM
Yeah, I was really surprised they actually went for an all-Beth episode.

This is the Beth is probably gonna die this season episode.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 09, 2014, 11:17:24 PM
I dunno, I was convinced
And it's about time  I am rather amazed that they actually made the Washington three interesting with this episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 10, 2014, 02:31:48 AM
Well, finally I can rest easy knowing the character was meant to be played this way.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 11, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
Good episode and nice to finally get some answers on Eugene. Not sure how GI Joe is going to handle that though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 11, 2014, 10:22:59 AM
Good episode and nice to finally get some answers on Eugene. Not sure how GI Joe is going to handle that though.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2014, 01:13:19 PM
Good episode and nice to finally get some answers on Eugene. Not sure how GI Joe is going to handle that though.

You mean other than


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 11, 2014, 02:17:59 PM
Good episode. Though, it's weird. I actually felt like that episode wasn't that good until I thought about it and realized it's just because the rest of the season has been so great that this episode didn't seem that good to me. The Eugene thing is one of two things I figured was going to happen with him, and #Dolphinsmooth's back story was okay with his wife. It was explained better on Talking Dead for those that don't read the comics

It was explained as


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 11, 2014, 02:19:43 PM


You mean other than


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 11, 2014, 02:44:52 PM
Hmmm.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 11, 2014, 03:35:18 PM
Hmmm.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 11, 2014, 05:15:20 PM

Though I've read the comics, these characters have never appealed to me and I tend to forget all the details about them...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2014, 02:02:50 AM
I also knew the backstory and had to explain it to my wife.

She thought it was really retarded, but the most retarded bit was them running away from him.

We're Scottish, of course, so her view is that she'd be disappointed if I hadn't beaten them to death.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 12, 2014, 02:59:48 AM
Hmm, yeah it really wasn't clear from the TV show alone what exactly was going on there.

I think it kind of meshes with Eugene's story though - both were tales of how different people adjust (or not) to the changed world.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2014, 03:21:42 AM
Yeah, it ties in nice with the 'Weak are Gone, Strong are left.'

Which has been a recurring all season to be honest.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 14, 2014, 09:29:24 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 16, 2014, 07:59:58 PM
You have replenished your supply of black guys.

Also: zippers, zombies greatest nemesis.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 16, 2014, 08:42:49 PM
Enjoyed this episode as well. I really like how they are fleshing out the characters in the show rather than it just being about one big bad guy (governor). This season is good.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 17, 2014, 07:54:42 AM
Its annoying, but they are doing a good job of somewhat "cliffhangering" episodes and then jumping to a different story the next one - keeps leaving me wanting more. Really strong season so far, possibly the best.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 17, 2014, 05:00:00 PM
Good Episode, great pacing, but there were three separate moments of 'Wait, you're doing what, that's retarded' that kinda ruined the immersion a bit.

Also, are we supposed to think it was an accident 
Hey ho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on November 17, 2014, 05:04:45 PM
Good Episode, great pacing, but there were three separate moments of 'Wait, you're doing what, that's retarded' that kinda ruined the immersion a bit.

Also, are we supposed to think it was an accident 
Hey ho.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 17, 2014, 05:06:37 PM
Yes, that was my question and also my opinion.  I wondered if it was just me being... evil in thought.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on November 17, 2014, 06:21:29 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 18, 2014, 08:57:56 AM



It fit pretty well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 18, 2014, 09:15:41 AM

Can't wait till Carol and friends tear that place apart. The Governors town was an Utopia compared to this setup and I wouldn't have thought the Cannibals would turn out to be the lesser evil of this season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2014, 09:53:17 AM
Errr, I still think Terminus is way worse mate.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 18, 2014, 10:18:55 AM
Maybe, but while I despise what the Cannibals did, I think they were more broken than evil. That could be because we were told why they became that way and I find it tragic.

This is just a bunch of assholes with a lazy and/or ineffectual leader that operate their little corner of the world like a company mining town with rape as currency. And I loathe the concept of company mining towns to begin with.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 18, 2014, 10:23:18 AM
Yeah, but she's broken and they're blokes.

You've yet to see the backstory of why.

Jesus, you're siding with the Cannibals.  I've been on to you since The Start !


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 18, 2014, 10:32:08 AM
The fact that my doctor told me I can't eat meat for two weeks has nothing to do with this. Everybody who implies thats why I like butchers more than hospitals is a dirty liar!

Be it as it may. I am looking fowards to Carol handing their asses to them just like she did with the Cannibals. I just hope they don't screw that up and kill her off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 18, 2014, 01:42:43 PM
And being where you are, the doctor would have told you not to eat fleisch, so basically you're craving flesh. We are so on to you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2014, 03:00:51 AM
Two Things :

1 - I can't give a toss about Beth.  You'd think I'd be able to, but I've tried and I just.  don't.  care.

2 -  It's getting very old that people who should know better don't for the sake of dramatic tension.  How many times will this group TRUST when they shouldn't ?  VERY OLD.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 26, 2014, 03:22:56 AM
I rolled my eyes so hard at 2 that one of them still hasn't come back. George RR Martin would have killed her for that, no messing.

All the zombies molten to the ground were  :uhrr:  :ye_gods: too. Seriously grim. And I hope they'll ease up on the flitting back & forth between different stories and times now, it was starting to get confusing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2014, 03:34:45 AM
But Rick was Guilty too.

RICK.

HE SHOULD FUCKING KNOW BETTER.  He should also have popped bald cop and I have no idea why Daryl stopped him.

Do these guys not REMEMBER kneeling down in front of a blood sink, waiting their turn ?  It's the kinda thing that would stick in my memory.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 26, 2014, 04:58:22 AM
But he;s trying to GOOD PEOPLE CORAL. GOOD PEOPLE!!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2014, 05:35:47 AM
Bob was Agent Sitwell ;  WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU TRUST HYDRA ???


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 26, 2014, 02:33:37 PM
Exactly. I was yelling at the TV, "he's Hydra!" As my wife rolled her eyes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 26, 2014, 04:45:10 PM


(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/731/769/c97.png)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 26, 2014, 06:12:45 PM
But this episode had the return of CORAL!

I mean, that amounts for something, right?

I'm also hoping that we see the first case of tetanus. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 26, 2014, 10:48:34 PM
For a pre-midseason-finale, the episode was okay. Far from great, but not bad overall and definitely not bad enough to take away from this being the 2nd best season so far (with only the first season being better imo). Yes, they need to stop trusting people but then the show would be over with basically them locking up somewhere starting a farm and we've seen how shitty that is for TV. Also,
Also, I still like the Beth story line. It's at least better than the people back at the church for now. I'm guessing that changes (hopefully with tetanus) but I don't know for sure.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 27, 2014, 09:01:09 AM
I am guessing that Cop dude is still a generally decent guy, which would explain why he didn't go further.  I guess we'll see.

And I don't think Rick is trying to do the right thing so much as Daryl is.  Daryl cockblocked him at least twice in that episode. 

I liked the episode quite a bit, despite point 2.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 27, 2014, 09:07:11 AM
Rick is playing for survival, Daryl is trying to be a better man. As for the Sitwell, he wasn't trying to take down Rick's crew, merely trying to survive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 27, 2014, 09:48:55 AM
That's just your opinion, man.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on November 27, 2014, 10:47:43 AM
I get the cop may still be trying to be a good person and even only looking to survive/escape, but I just think that's just as dumb right now as anyone in Rick's crew showing them any trust


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 27, 2014, 10:56:40 PM
Well yeah, that's kind of been the point of the whole season. Are you strong or weak? Are you trusting (weak and stupid) or do you take the world as it is now (strong and hacky hacky time)?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 30, 2014, 08:05:48 PM
Mother. Fucker.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 30, 2014, 08:31:37 PM
Well they didn't completely telegraph that or nothing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on November 30, 2014, 08:45:18 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 30, 2014, 08:46:38 PM
Good episode again. While I think you could see things coming, I've seen the show enough times to have it leave a little doubt. I also thought the mid-season finale would leave more of a cliff-hanger than it ended up being.


Also,



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 30, 2014, 08:52:10 PM
If I'm not mistaken the Terminus guy talked about marking the trees in case they wanted to go back, then he was like "back to what? there is nothing left".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on November 30, 2014, 08:55:52 PM
Good half-season ender.  The show is staying strong and now Rick has come full circle to Shane-ness.  Just took him three more seasons.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 30, 2014, 09:03:47 PM
Good half-season ender.  The show is staying strong and now Rick has come full circle to Shane-ness.  Just took him three more seasons.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on November 30, 2014, 10:29:37 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on December 01, 2014, 03:14:29 AM
Great episode, and this is definitely the best season since the first season


edit: the couple on Talking Dead from NY, just wow :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on December 01, 2014, 08:35:39 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on December 01, 2014, 08:40:17 PM

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about, and then saw


and realized my recording cut that off.

So an fyi for anyone else who has a crappy recording.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on December 01, 2014, 08:52:58 PM
Wait, what?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on December 01, 2014, 09:01:05 PM

I was trying to figure out what you were talking about, and then saw


and realized my recording cut that off.

So an fyi for anyone else who has a crappy recording.

No, what you missed was this I think.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWHs2VIPTeo


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on December 01, 2014, 09:43:58 PM
Err yeah, copied the wrong url, my bad


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 02, 2014, 02:17:08 AM
I don't know what to make of that episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on December 04, 2014, 03:43:26 AM
First, can I rail gently against the convention of using spoiler tags within these threads? If you're reading a thread dedicated to a currently-airing TV show and you don't want to see spoilers then don't read the thread would be my position. Using spoiler tags seems redundant to me and breaks up the flow of the thread. However, I won't break with the convention unanimously, despite thinking it's idiotic.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on December 04, 2014, 07:27:09 AM
You can rail all you want.  If there's clouds in the sky, you may even step outside and yell at them if it pleases you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on December 04, 2014, 07:56:25 AM
You can rail all you want.  If there's clouds in the sky, you may even step outside and yell at them if it pleases you.

Haha OK, I won't bring it up again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on December 05, 2014, 06:54:54 PM
Glad Beth died.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: slog on December 28, 2014, 07:27:15 PM
Question:

Remember way back in season 1, when Rick first meets the gang and the have to get the guns he dropped?  They smeared Walker guts over themselves and were able to walk among them without issue.  Is there  some reason that they don't do this ever again?  When they need the medicine to operate on Carl back at the farm, it would have been easier to just walk in using smeared walker guts.  The fat guy might still be alive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on December 28, 2014, 08:43:36 PM
Carol did that last season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on December 29, 2014, 09:48:29 AM
Yeah, but they should be doing it a heck of a lot more.... although, if you read the comics, it does seem that doing it too often might desensitize you too much...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 09, 2015, 02:48:04 AM
Not a bad kickstart to the second part of the season but not exactly riveting either.

The only thing I had a chuckle about was Glenn picking up a baseball bat and giving it a tentative twirl. Would they have the guts to follow the comic I wonder?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 09, 2015, 06:04:08 AM
Yeah. I saw that and thought the same thing. Put the bat down and walk away Glenn.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on February 09, 2015, 02:00:28 PM
At this point they are just trolling their viewers with this "Black man comes in - another black man has to die" gimmick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 09, 2015, 02:44:26 PM
Anyone other than Rick can die on this show - and Rick might just get killed off in Any Lincoln gets tired of it and the show has legs.  It isn't about killing off one race or another - it is about killing everyone.  How many characters from the first two or three episodes are there still? Rick, Glenn, Carl, Daryl and Carol.  Morgan, too - I guess - if Lenny James sticks around.  How many characters have joined with this band, played significant roles, and then died in a little over 5 seasons?  I expect that no more than 2 of those 6 names will be there when the final episode ends - although I would not be surprised if the series ends with Rick - being the last living person on Earth - dying.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 09, 2015, 02:56:57 PM
"Oh, sure we can bring Beth back guys... here you go" "what do you mean we made it worse? wtf!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 09, 2015, 05:18:12 PM
It was about the last thing I wanted to see happen in the storyline but there's no denying they know how to tell a good story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on February 09, 2015, 08:26:26 PM
I really think the series has improved over the years. Look back at season 2 and you can see the difference in the storytelling. Now can they please stop killing off characters I would like to see develop?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 09, 2015, 08:32:05 PM
Whoever it was that cut up the bodies and left the limbless torsos in the truck is one sick sumbitch.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on February 09, 2015, 09:20:44 PM
Besides the bait and switch funeral, I actually didn't like this episode. I get it was a tribute to the character, but I just didn't like the way it was handled. I feel they missed out big-time bringing the characters back but not bringing back the most important one to him (Karen), and I felt they showed the images of Woodbury, the prison, the windshield, etc too often which were just not interesting to see over and over again.

That said, fucking fuck that's two characters in a row they killed off that I liked.

And I'm looking forward to finding out more about the people that cut up the bodies, as I'm guessing that they are the next antagonists we'll see.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 10, 2015, 12:51:15 AM
Well camera direction has gone sideways. Somebody likes to do the little artsy shots that focus on irrelevant shit. Hope it stops. Hate this style of shooting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 10, 2015, 12:54:13 AM
Also, dude was a liability. Don't miss him a bit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on February 10, 2015, 01:07:47 AM
Not as much of a liability as the new preacher guy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2015, 01:11:14 AM
It just continues the theme of killing off the weak, I guess.  I thought it was fairly well done.  I was scratching my head through the first half, but I thought they did a pretty good job overall.

The reason Karen wasn't there, I think, was because they only people showing up in his visions were those he specifically had some feelings of guilt or responsibility about.  Karen's death was out of his control.

Speaking of which, I thought it was odd as hell that Carol was not in the episode at all.  She above all others (except Sasha) had a connection with him.  Made no sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 10, 2015, 02:18:47 AM
Insert 'Black Dude Again' comment here.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2015, 03:56:10 AM
I don't know if they are doing it on purpose, but there is something to the whole Black Dude Syndrome thing.  On the other hand, I think for the most part the Black Dudes they have had on the show have been well written, likable and compelling characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 10, 2015, 05:35:38 AM
3 black person, 1 Asian and Whitey.

So the odds were high, but still.....

That said, the dream sequence was almost pure Whitey, so I guess maybe it's ok.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on February 10, 2015, 07:18:05 AM
I don't know if they are doing it on purpose, but there is something to the whole Black Dude Syndrome thing.  On the other hand, I think for the most part the Black Dudes they have had on the show have been well written, likable and compelling characters.

Most of my family disagrees. Everyone likes Morgan though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 10, 2015, 07:24:12 AM
So you are saying you didn't like Bob?  It's possible your family are racists.

(not serious)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on February 10, 2015, 07:46:47 AM
Oh I liked Bob. My brother may actually be a racist.  :why_so_serious: He thinks most, if not all,  of the black men have been...pansies.

I didn't much care for T-token, but after rewatching the first 2 seasons or so he grew on me. Random black prison dude died too fast for me to remember him, but I give him credit for trying to rescue Glen and Maggie.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 10, 2015, 08:36:39 AM
T-DOG 2.0.... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

I liked the episode, especially the artsy shots and the music video, but it certainly could have been a little bit more peppy. Felt kind of filler because of all the focus on T-Drese's visions. The choice of where to go next was a good plot move, though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 10, 2015, 12:32:57 PM
Everybody is going to die except (perhaps) Rick and Carl.  All the White, Black, Asian, Green, Male, Female, Good, Evil, Right Handed, Left Handed, etc...  If we went to Vegas and gave over/unders for how many episodes characters will survive, I'm betting Carol and Maggie would be the next two characters with longer survival expectancies - but I'd have given Andrea a similarly high expectation once upon a time. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on February 10, 2015, 12:38:34 PM
I never liked T-Dog 2.0.
They tried really really hard to give him a character, but the mans retarded. They tried to hide behind the moniker that his "higher morals" makes his inability to show any kind of strength or resolve a given because "oh noes he is such a good person you can't possible expect him to do X or to get over Y". I mean wow, he had the importance of T-Dog with the "I can't believe we're doing this" of the late Dale, minus any of the conviction. Glad he's dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on February 10, 2015, 02:13:16 PM
he had the importance of T-Dog with the "I can't believe we're doing this" of the late Dale, minus any of the conviction.

I agree with you.

Having said that, let us never speak of this again.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on February 11, 2015, 11:38:55 AM
I thought it was a rather weak show. It's becoming a weak pull for me to continue to tune in.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 16, 2015, 03:37:55 AM
Well Rick finally made the point that they are the walking dead. Looks like it's heading towards the comics a bit more too. But why am I feeling that the budget has been cut again?

I was bored


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 16, 2015, 10:28:25 AM
Or they burned the budget on the episode before. Seriously, more effects budget in that one episode than in the entirety of the Farm Season.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on February 16, 2015, 05:35:07 PM
I'm still loving the show, although having God turn up to save them ruins the tension a little.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 16, 2015, 06:39:27 PM
Well Rick finally made the point that they are the walking dead. Looks like it's heading towards the comics a bit more too. But why am I feeling that the budget has been cut again?

I was bored

I missed last week's, the hiatus really drops my desire to tune back in. But yesterday's episode was really good.  A quiet episode of folks approaching their physical, and in some cases, spiritual limits. 

The Walking Dead line was a nice touch.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 16, 2015, 11:45:29 PM
I'm still loving the show, although having God turn up to save them ruins the tension a little.

Agreed, that was jarring, and didn't really make sense.

That aside, I'm really liking this season. The pacing is working really well for me, the slow episodes don't actually feel slow, just carefully done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on February 17, 2015, 01:13:24 AM
It wasn't Gawd, it was a tornado. And it only passed them by because the pull of the nearby trailer park was too strong.

Also, I still hate the new camera guy. Wanted to huck a brick at my set during that retarded storm scene.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 17, 2015, 08:36:47 AM
A good episode, IMO, a much needed pause for breath before whatever shitstorm we know is waiting for them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 17, 2015, 08:56:18 AM
I liked it well enough.  Didn't like the constant presence of God because, let's face it, the tornado was utter bullshit.

Also, I'm not sure in what universe you think a group like that is going to touch your water in the middle of the road with an anonymous note.  Though seems to me that Eugene would be a perfect tester, so I'm not sure why the idea was so soundly dismissed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 17, 2015, 11:33:18 AM
Recall that they have traveled far from where they were.  There is no reason to assume that the world they're now in, closer to DC, is the same as near Atlanta.  It is 600+ miles away.  Part of the reason they're headed there is because they think it might be a better place where more of civilization survived... that was Eugene's theory. 

I did not like the execution of the 'tornado'.  It seemed like a windy storm to me.  I can't see the undead getting knocked around by the storm I was seeing - and saw no reason why they'd be drawn to the barn, anyways.  It was out of place.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 17, 2015, 12:00:06 PM
I thought it was really good just for the fact that it was the calm before the shitstorm (or, "Hakchalla", for those that played HoL).

And the guy at the end? Way too clean and well-informed to be trustworthy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 17, 2015, 01:47:38 PM
"That man's had a hot shower!"

"Get a rope!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on February 17, 2015, 02:17:02 PM
"That man's had a hot shower!"

"Get a rope!"

When was the last time you saw someone in this show take a shower that wasn't either stupid or evil? IMO they shouldn't waste a rope on this guy when they have swords, knives, and machetes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 17, 2015, 04:51:58 PM
...
When was the last time you saw someone in this show take a shower that wasn't either stupid or evil? IMO they shouldn't waste a rope on this guy when they have swords, knives, and machetes.
I'm sorry, but the closest they came to an evil shower was that tornado and... what?  Oh, never mind.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 23, 2015, 04:34:53 AM
Yeah. I saw that and thought the same thing. Put the bat down and walk away Glenn.

Tonight's episode and build up - I think they are going to do it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 23, 2015, 12:11:58 PM
Yeah. I saw that and thought the same thing. Put the bat down and walk away Glenn.

Tonight's episode and build up - I think they are going to do it.

If you mean Negan, we are about 30ish comics away story wise.  There is still a lot to go through before Negan shows.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 23, 2015, 01:08:55 PM
... if they follow the story at the same pace.  I could see the event that people are hinting at occurring at pretty much any time.  I think the earliest I'd be expecting to see a variation on it would be the end of the season.  However, I do not know if they'll do it exactly the same.  If you want to really make a villain...  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 23, 2015, 01:54:06 PM
Yeah, 'cause that'll ever happen.

Don't be retarded.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 23, 2015, 02:06:37 PM
Yeah, 'cause that'll ever happen.

Don't be retarded.
Using that word as an insult is beneath you.  Grow up.  It isn't 1980 anymore.

...and I would not put anything off the table with WD. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 23, 2015, 03:39:40 PM
Yeah, you don't know me at all.

You were being fucking retarded.

You're telling the chap to grow up after you suggested villainy in a TV Show would be best shown with bludgeoning infanticide.

Seriously, shut the fuck up.


(Also, quite grown up in the 80's.  Thanks.)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on February 23, 2015, 03:52:08 PM
I just hope it isn't a repeat of Terminus or the governer's place (forgot what they named it).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 23, 2015, 05:25:02 PM
I seriously doubt they make the loving gay couple evil, heads might explode.  My guess is the place is completely empty, no people on the pictures, no guards at the gate.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on February 23, 2015, 05:37:35 PM
So the sounds of the kids playing were just Rick's imagination?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 23, 2015, 05:52:05 PM
Or a recording most likely, kids playing right by the gate with zero people around doesn't seem like a great idea.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 23, 2015, 05:55:33 PM
Or a recording most likely, kids playing right by the gate with zero people around doesn't seem like a great idea.

Having sounds that draws walkers isn't a good idea.  Hell I can hear kids yelling and playing a block away in my neighborhood, doesn't mean they are right up against the gate.  Rick mentions earlier in the episode about Woodbury and Terminus being silent when they came upon them.  The fact that their are children playing is supposed to be a cue that these people believe they are safe enough to let that happen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on February 23, 2015, 06:09:17 PM
I seriously doubt they make the loving gay couple evil, heads might explode.  My guess is the place is completely empty, no people on the pictures, no guards at the gate.

I agree, there's no one inside.  Not sure about the children sounds.  Glad they moved from the boonies.  I hope they start to learn a bit of what went down.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2015, 02:44:32 PM
I've been introduced to some of the comments about the fact there are two gay blokes on the show.

The best rebuttal to these asshats for me was 'Watching Cannibalism, that's ok, but guys kissing is where I draw the line.'

Fucking hell.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 24, 2015, 02:56:15 PM
And as usual nobody gave a shit that there is already a lesbian on the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Of course not.  Lesbians are the GOOD type of gay.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on February 24, 2015, 03:09:32 PM

Is there some sort of explanation in the comics why there's a lack of natural food sources (e.g. fruits and berries, game, fish)? Growing up in Florida we had a orange tree in our front yard, and we knew of places to go where we could find wild berries. We even lived by the lake so we could go fishing whenever we wanted (man I miss that place).

My uncle's yard (again, FL), to hear him tell it, is invested with wild chickens. I certainly remember some chickens around a relative's house when I was a kid.

In earlier seasons of WD people would fish, Daryl would hunt, etc. That all seems to be gone now. One episode Glen and the lesbian girl (I forget her name) were surprised to see a fish.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2015, 03:17:15 PM
I think it's because the plot demands it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 24, 2015, 03:22:29 PM
Not really, but you could attribute it to a lack of maintenance for the fruit trees, berry bushes, crops, etc...  We're now quite a ways out from the last point in which there were people maintaining these types of things.  Maybe the bugs are getting them without the pesticides to keep the bug population down?  Maybe these people just suck at finding food for the most part...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on February 24, 2015, 03:40:56 PM
Yeah, but that 'logic' breaks down if you understand nature at all.  Folks who live in Hollywood don't, I get that. However, you don't need horticulturalists to maintain peach trees, orange trees or any other native American fruit they should have run across. Those were taking care of themselves for hundreds of THOUSANDS of years before man said, "Hey, it might be a good idea to hang around these trees what makes food."  Which was a few thousand before we said, "oh hey.. we might be able to make these work better for us" and developed agriculture.\

Pesticides also don't (deliberately) affect Bees, because bees are the only reason we have most fruits. Even the most anti-bug farmer won't kill bees if he wants to keep harvesting crops.

Don't question the "science" of TWD. It all breaks down once you realize within a day of the first zombie appearing that carrion-feeders would have ripped it apart for the meat. The only way any of it makes sense is if all wildlife and most importantly ALL invertebrates were wiped-out in the zompocalypse. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 24, 2015, 03:44:42 PM
At least WWZ made zombie meat poisonous to all living things, WD had a Bob BBQ that went nowhere.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 24, 2015, 03:53:04 PM
To be fair, everyone that ate Bob (who was well cooked) died pretty quickly after doing so.

I wonder if Bob should be offended by that...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on February 24, 2015, 04:47:19 PM
At least WWZ made zombie meat poisonous to all living things, WD had a Bob BBQ that went nowhere.

Which is even more infeasable. Living things include not just mammals which we western-educated folk first jump to but reptiles (and birds), insects, fungi and bacteria. All of whom can eat shit that would kill us PDQ.  There's even bacteria that can live on arsenic. Zombies would have to be made of, oh, aluminum to be toxic to everything.


Ed: OH.. and PLANTS. I can't believe I missed those. Plants would eat-up any bits lying around without a care. They'd probably start growing on the dead flesh within a few weeks, too.

It's almost as if the whole planetary ecosystem had developed various methods of breaking-down meat over the course of billions of years. Which is why I find zombies obnoxious on the whole when folks take them beyond the allegory for human behavior they are.

As I said, don't look into the logic, reason or science. It doesn't hold up past a 6th grade understanding.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 25, 2015, 12:14:50 AM
I've been introduced to some of the comments about the fact there are two gay blokes on the show.

How is this even an issue in the 21st century? Or am I missing something by living on a large island in the Southern Hemisphere?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 25, 2015, 01:07:54 AM
I've been introduced to some of the comments about the fact there are two gay blokes on the show.

How is this even an issue in the 21st century? Or am I missing something by living on a large island in the Southern Hemisphere?

People in these parts believe that if you see two gay men at any point in time, it raises the chance that you will go out and suck a dick.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 25, 2015, 02:25:01 AM
I've been introduced to some of the comments about the fact there are two gay blokes on the show.

How is this even an issue in the 21st century? Or am I missing something by living on a large island in the Southern Hemisphere?

You tell me.  I don't get it either.  I've never understood it and, it turns out, Scotland used to be a really, really bigoted place behind my back.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on February 25, 2015, 03:50:19 AM
I've been reading this forum to see if there is any interesting shit that happens since I dropped the show after the introduction of the guy headed to Washington DC because he had the cure. So far I conclude no.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on February 25, 2015, 04:08:24 AM

TWO MEN KISSING.  How is that not interesting?

Damn gays, soiling the sanctity of the zombie apocalypse.  Next thing you know, zombies will be biting other zombies, it's only a matter of time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on February 25, 2015, 04:14:25 AM
Seeing a guy dumb enough to go full auto on his own truck and seeing said truck explode and than seeing said guys retarded "well what do you think was going to happen" expression just drove me into a fuck fuck fuck this show rage that made me stop apologizing for how bad this show is.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 25, 2015, 04:23:27 AM
Seeing a guy dumb enough to go full auto on his own truck and seeing said truck explode and than seeing said guys retarded "well what do you think was going to happen" expression just drove me into a fuck fuck fuck this show rage that made me stop apologizing for how bad this show is.

What exactly happened in that scene is explained later on in the season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on February 25, 2015, 04:27:30 AM
Didn't that guy basically find a couple of idiots dumb enough to believe he had a cure and convince them to head to Washington. Mostly because he is incredibly stupid and inept and only marginally decent at lying to the mentally retarded. Like I said, I've been looking for reasons to get back into the show but nothing seems to overcome my general hate for having to apologize for the shows many spirals into fuck stupid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 25, 2015, 07:25:24 AM
Yes, it is a guy with a little book knowledge that managed to convince a buncha retards he was the most important person ever so they would keep him alive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 25, 2015, 10:33:05 AM
There are small minded bigots everywhere.  If you're surprised by the presence of people that think it is ok to spew hate and/or slurs, you're not paying close enough attention to the people you encounter.  There are even some here on f13. 

The show is pretty good right now in my mind.  However, if you left because of the Eugene storyline, I don't think you're likely to enjoy the rest of the season any more than that story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on February 25, 2015, 10:40:45 AM
The Eugene storyline was barely a storyline. It was just a sideshow to introduce new characters to kill off. Like all previous seasons.  Walking Dead has to keep introducing new characters in order to keep killing off characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 03, 2015, 04:35:51 PM
That bad, huh? :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 03, 2015, 04:43:45 PM
Although no TV show is perfect, this show is still one of my current favorites and I am hoping they'll keep it going for decades...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 03, 2015, 05:17:55 PM
Yes, it is a guy with a little book knowledge that managed to convince a buncha retards he was the most important person ever so they would keep him alive.

Eugene is supposed to be really smart, but he's a coward.  They have too many people in the cast to showcase them every week.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 03, 2015, 05:49:31 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this episode. Maybe the writers understand human nature better than I do.

Evil, I understand. Stupid, I understand. Evil and stupid (biting the hand that feeds you, just because you can)? I'll never understand.

I sort of feel Tyrese's despair and resignation: "turn it off".


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 06:37:48 AM
I loved this latest episode.  Mostly for the performance by Carol.  Perfect.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 06:39:21 AM

Evil, I understand. Stupid, I understand. Evil and stupid (biting the hand that feeds you, just because you can)? I'll never understand.


Wait, what ?  Who ?  Are you talking about Rick, because if you did you really, really missed the Mark.

Otherwise, you've confused me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 04, 2015, 08:43:17 AM
I loved this latest episode.  Mostly for the performance by Carol.  Perfect.



Yeah, I've been rewatching the early episodes of the show and one thing that really sticks out is how much Carol has changed. Except in this latest episode, you see a few flashes of the old Carol coming through. It's very well done.

Another thing that struck me was that the zombies were initially portrayed as being quite a bit smarter than they are now (or have been since season two).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 08:47:31 AM
Yeah, but it's an act.  For the audience, it's SCARY how well this woman is imitating 'silly old dear' for the benefit of this community just so that they'll never see her coming if she wants to strike.  Watching her fumble with the gun as if she'd never used one before was hilarious.  Especially since she soloed a cannibal camp with a firework.

That said, I'm not sure I'd be totally fooled.  Given the nature of the group, you'd be hard pressed to believe that she survived simply due to the kindness of strangers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2015, 08:52:52 AM
That said, I'm not sure I'd be totally fooled.  Given the nature of the group, you'd be hard pressed to believe that she survived simply due to the kindness of strangers.

Why not? Eugene has.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 09:12:28 AM
Yeah, that's a fair point, but I don't think it'd take the Mayor long to figure out that A - He's a Dumbass and B - The group only found out he was a dumbass recently.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2015, 09:20:31 AM
You also have to remember the act that Carol used was the one she was using on her husband. I'm sure the Deanna isn't fooled though the other residents might be.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 04, 2015, 10:18:22 AM
Yeah, that's a fair point, but I don't think it'd take the Mayor long to figure out that A - He's a Dumbass and B - The group only found out he was a dumbass recently.



Then there's the useless priest to account for.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 04, 2015, 11:47:15 AM
Yea, you kind of knew it was all an act the moment she started talking about missing her husband. Well done though. Only real problem I had with the episode was the guys on the run, thought their stupidity/lack of experience could have been shown a little more subtly.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2015, 01:15:12 PM
Did Rick go Governor or am I reading his "We'll take it." speech wrong?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 04, 2015, 01:17:31 PM
I don't think he's going Governor so much as "we won't let this great piece of territory go to shit because these people aren't hard enough to keep it." One could argue that is governor-like but I don't think Rick is into rampant slaughter and keeping walkers around for arena matches.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 01:28:34 PM
That would appear to be Two chaps who took Rick the wrong way.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2015, 01:51:04 PM
Well sure he's not going blood thirsty asshole. Still, I just thought it was slightly out of character for him. Mebbe he evolved again, and I missed the part where he started thinking it was ok to take shit by force rather than talk it out. That said, Aidens a fucking idiot. He's probably the sole reason for the low population there.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 04, 2015, 02:22:31 PM
I think he was quite clearly saying 'This is a good place to defend and start again.  And, if we see any previous fucking stupid behaviour, like someone gouges out an eye, hugs a dead undead loved one, or, you know, starts fucking eating other people, we'll just put a stop to that and take over'.

It seemed quite clear to me.  This is a group that can't be fucked with stupidity anymore.  In any form.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 04, 2015, 02:52:14 PM
Well that'd be a refreshing change, wouldn't it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 04, 2015, 03:06:35 PM
Didn't occur to them that they were likely being listened too while they were having that little chat though?

I mean, this place has electricity & video cameras and the boss used to be a senator (governor? Can't remember, one of those), so covert surveillance is probably second nature.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 04, 2015, 03:56:33 PM
Did Rick or anyone ask her why/how the zombie shit started?  I didn't catch it and she's in a pretty good job to know.  Or was that explained way back at the CDC?

Oh and Carol's little performance was the highlight for me, at first I was 'huh?' then I lol'ed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 05, 2015, 04:53:26 AM
Did Rick or anyone ask her why/how the zombie shit started?  I didn't catch it and she's in a pretty good job to know.  Or was that explained way back at the CDC?

It's never been explained and I suspect it never will. The guy at the CDC place, if I remember rightly, just had some information about the spread of it in a human body.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 05, 2015, 08:33:29 AM
I wondered if he'd ask that question, and then I wondered if him not asking was intentional. Maybe the why question just doesn't matter after all they've been through.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 05, 2015, 09:36:42 AM
It really doesn't.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 05, 2015, 09:50:38 AM
I think he was quite clearly saying 'This is a good place to defend and start again.  And, if we see any previous fucking stupid behaviour, like someone gouges out an eye, hugs a dead undead loved one, or, you know, starts fucking eating other people, we'll just put a stop to that and take over'.

It seemed quite clear to me.  This is a group that can't be fucked with stupidity anymore.  In any form.


I'd like to think that you're right. The problem I have is IIRC right before that they replayed a clip of Rick's interview where he says something like "people measure you by what they can take from you."  I suppose one could interpret that as Rick wanting to toughen up the locals.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 06, 2015, 05:40:30 AM
To me there is no doubt that what he was doing. He basically screamed at her that they were lucky that his group are basically Hippies by the standards out there and that they really should stop being stupid and opening their doors for random strangers. Given that is the story how Terminus ended up becoming Terminus he is not wrong. And given how he sees his own group and what he knows about the compromises they had to make he can't have that much faith in the Senators ability to judge people.

Basically, if there isn't an external factor that welds together the two groups by force like one of those exiles returning for vengeance, Aiden might get his group killed for the risk he presents to Judith by being a total moron in a position of authority.

Because one thing got clear this episode. Rick is definitely done showing leniency for stupidity that endangers his group.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 06, 2015, 01:03:06 PM
And yet he seems to have no trouble taking any idiot he finds into his group.  Half of those hippies would be more useful to have around than the idiot priest that they basically let tag along for no reason at all, at least mullet guy is half way smart.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 06, 2015, 01:32:56 PM
How many people has Rick taken in since Terminus?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 06, 2015, 02:02:07 PM
Idiot priest. And I still haven't figured out why.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 06, 2015, 02:06:43 PM
Two actually.  Priest and Beth's friend.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 06, 2015, 02:26:32 PM
At least Noah had shown some ability to survive in difficult situations. Idiot priest should be dead seventeen times over.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 06, 2015, 02:28:40 PM
Yeah, but then I presume Rick is religious. Religious people tend to value a Priests life quite high, I don't think they can just leave them to die if they can help it. That might count as a deadly sin or something.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 06, 2015, 03:04:26 PM
Rick is not religious. At best, he's agnostic. They've given several clues to this throughout the series.

Also, Rick offered to take on anyone that wanted to come from the hospital. So, he's not closed to the idea of newcomers. Hospital was a closed population though, so that was probably a calculated offer.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 06, 2015, 03:12:25 PM
Oh, I thought I saw a scene where he prayed in one recent episode, but maybe I misremembered. No matter then.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on March 07, 2015, 01:30:46 PM
Two actually.  Priest and Beth's friend.

I'd say more, since he just met the three in Abraham's crew and Tara while at Terminus. He took them in even though it was other members of Rick's crew that met them first (similar to Noah in that way).

So out of the five people he's taken in since Terminus, only the Priest is awful and should be left imo. Eugene started as a lying useless piece of crap but now seems to at least be contributing, while Abe, Tara, and Rosita all seem to be really solid people to take in and good choices


As for if Rick is religious or not, I think that was the whole story with him and Herschel where Rick was not religious but Herschel was. As for why he took the priest in, I kind of think he figured the Priest is a piece of crap but he isn't a killer and doesn't seem to be a betraying type and isn't an evil person. By the time Rick's crew was in the starving state they were in recently they probably just accepted him as one of their own to enough of a point to not boot him out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 09, 2015, 04:13:51 PM
That episode took a long time to go nowhere.

Also, zombie horse ?  What ?



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 09, 2015, 04:43:10 PM
That episode took a long time to go nowhere.

Also, zombie horse ?  What ?



It wasn't a zombie horse.. it was a horse that had managed to survive.. well til they chased it off into some walkers.  If you mean why did they shoot it?  To put it out of it's misery.  It's wierd that people get taken out left and right and i felt more sorry for the horse than any of the humans.  lol


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on March 09, 2015, 06:37:41 PM
I know how you feel, Evildriver.  If I had to choose between an A-Mish man and a Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur, I'd push the teeny furry critter out of the path of the steam roller.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2015, 12:15:58 AM
Should be fun to see how much Rick's judgement gets clouded because of hot blonde MILF lady.  And speaking of romance, am I the only one not surprised to see Daryl getting sorta cozy with the male couple?  I have always thought he might be batting from the other side of the plate, but maybe we are just being trolled by the writers. 

Also, nice to see Carol return to form a bit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 02:54:53 AM
That episode took a long time to go nowhere.

Also, zombie horse ?  What ?



It wasn't a zombie horse.. it was a horse that had managed to survive.. well til they chased it off into some walkers.  If you mean why did they shoot it?  To put it out of it's misery.  It's wierd that people get taken out left and right and i felt more sorry for the horse than any of the humans.  lol

Horse was eaten.   I mean, fucking EATEN.  Insides had been ripped out and eaten, it had been pulled apart, it was quite a visceral scene.  And then they have to shoot the motherfucker in the head to put it out of its misery, despite the fact IRL it would have already been really, really dead.

Hence, Zombie Horse.  Buttons, the Zombie Horse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2015, 03:00:32 AM
That scene was shot really well, by the way.  Not sure how they did that without needlessly stressing an actual live horse, but when they were pawing at it and pulling it to the ground....fuck. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 03:02:09 AM
Actually, yes, I was wondering that myself.  I was trying to look and see if it was CGI or what, but if not, the chaps dressed as zombies must have been really good horse handlers, or the horse itself was a professional playful wee bugger.

Maybe CGI is just better these days ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 10, 2015, 03:50:08 AM
If it'd been a zombie horse then surely we'd have seen other zombie wildlife by now? Whereas they've actually intimated that there's not much wildlife left around now, presumably having all been nommed by the shamblers.

I think it was just taking a long time to die.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 10, 2015, 03:59:49 AM
IIRC, back at the CDC, the scientist said that only humans carried the zombie virus.  That explains all the rabbits and whatnot milling about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 04:02:47 AM
CHAPS, I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT WAS AN ACTUAL ZOMBIE HORSE, MERELY THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS MADE ME LOL 'ZOMBIE HORSE'.

 :grin:

We can stop the zombie horse speculation if you like.  It's been loooooong established by Kirkman that this is a human only thing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 05:24:05 AM
I do have a serious question, however :

Where ARE the group right now ?  I'm looking at a map of the US and trying to figure out where they've gone and been and all that jazz and as far as I can tell, despite the Washington trip being mega important, they've been going round in circles.  

Help ?


There's a real Alexandria in Washington.  But wasn't the hospital in Atlanta ?  Wtf. I'm more confused now.  Annnnnd, Noah's home was in Richmond, so ok, they've wandered that far up.   But what the fuck with the massive detour back down.  Arg.  I hate geography.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 10, 2015, 07:39:22 AM
What is Rick up to with Jessie then? Was that some weird part of a test of the community and the people in it, or did he just think it would be cool to try it on with a woman whose husband was on the other side of the room? I can't believe it was simply a moment of poor judgement, he has more self-control than that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 08:20:37 AM
Oh Come On.  Blokes been wandering around for ages with no-one but Carl and the NutSquad for company.

Also, she's really, really hot.  Also, she probably smells great.  Also, she cut his hair.  Also, she's clearly into him.

I'm fine with it, even though it's possible echoes of 'Bad Rick' to come.  Not sure I'm particularly interested in 'Bad Rick' because we had him and he was called Shane.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on March 10, 2015, 09:15:47 AM
They're up near Washington, they've mentioned the long travel a few times. "only 70 more miles" etc. It's filmed in Georgia for the tax breaks/free money, so it's going to look the same as ever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 10, 2015, 09:34:33 AM
They are currently in Virginia, as far as I can tell.

Yes, the writers are clearly trolling the gay-haters on the Internet about Darryl, though if he did turn out to be gay, it wouldn't be that far-fetched.

I'm not sure about Rick getting kissy-face with the blonde MILF. There is clearly something not fucking right going on between that couple though why Rick wants to stick his dick in the middle of it, I don't know.

Also, something is most definitely going on with the "A" stamp on the hand, as well as the W cut into the zombie's head. Are there multiple competing communities around that brand their people so that they know who is who?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2015, 09:38:32 AM
For reference, I have not been wandering around the zombie apocalypse with the Brute Squad for several years like he has, and I totally wanted to bang hot MILF lady.  Because hot.  He 100% wants her, and she's game.  Yum.

And the horse scene was not CGI, no way.  The part where they shot it was obviously some big muppet, but that was a totally real horse they were pulling down.  Unless we have crossed so far over uncanny horse valley that I am just talking out my ass.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 10, 2015, 10:30:17 AM
Rick messing with the married girl is just another step towards turning into Shane. Also, yeah not CGI, if you look closely you can actually see one of the zombies gently lowering the horse's head to the ground as they swarm him.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 10, 2015, 10:47:46 AM
One of the zeke extras was a horse trainer, he was the one that got it to lay down. As for the Ws,

(http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/screen-shot-2015-02-09-at-11-59-05-am-5-things-you-might-have-missed-in-the-walking-dead-what-happened-and-what-s-going-on.png?width=834&height=469)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 11:18:17 AM
Interesting.  Good catch.


Although it's a little on the nose.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 10, 2015, 12:20:51 PM
Interesting.  Wonder if there is an "A" egg in there somewhere to find.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2015, 01:08:39 PM
Surely, that'll just be boring old 'Alexandria'.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 10, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
Surely, that'll just be boring old 'Alexandria'.


Pretty sure it's supposed to mean Alexandria.  Cuz the kid stamps Rick and Jessie tells him he's "one of us" now.  It's also a Scarlet Letter type thing as well.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 11, 2015, 08:05:29 AM
When I was watching the horse go down, it looked like cgi zombies were around it. My best guess now is 1 zombie was really there... the trainer... and the rest in that moment were cgi.

As for Jessie... Breckinridge was on talking dead and said a lot. She painted a pretty clear picture of what is going on...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 11, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
No, I get that the A is Alexandria. The question becomes not what it says, but what it means. Who out there is looking at the stamp and going "Yep, that's them Alexandria folks. They don't belong to us." Which, I assume, is the "Wolves" with W.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 11, 2015, 02:39:54 PM
Other than the scarlet letter meaning.  I think people are reading too much into it and I think it was just the kid being a kid.  My younger sister used to like to put stickers on everyone for example.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 11, 2015, 02:55:44 PM
I thought the A was for Alcohol - as in you can drink at the party.  However, that is kind of dumb considering who was doing the stamping...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 11, 2015, 04:30:24 PM
Other than the scarlet letter meaning.  I think people are reading too much into it and I think it was just the kid being a kid.  My younger sister used to like to put stickers on everyone for example.

We wouldn't be reading so much into it other than they spent a lot of shots focusing on it.

Super slow episode.  At least they look like they shoot stuff in the preview.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 11, 2015, 05:24:05 PM
Other than the scarlet letter meaning.  I think people are reading too much into it and I think it was just the kid being a kid.  My younger sister used to like to put stickers on everyone for example.

We wouldn't be reading so much into it other than they spent a lot of shots focusing on it.

Super slow episode.  At least they look like they shoot stuff in the preview.

Once again, it's a tease for comic fans more than it is a OMG MUST BE IMPORTANT thing.  I am pretty sure if it was a bigger deal they would have shown more than Rick getting one.  Hell the kids only other interaction with the group was Carol.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 16, 2015, 03:45:50 AM
Fantastic episode.  I hope it keeps this pace for the last couple episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 16, 2015, 04:55:12 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 16, 2015, 11:17:49 AM

Gotta make room for Morgan!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 16, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
I would love it if Lenny James were a regular for a prolonged period, but I have a feeling they're not going to get to keep him for long.  I expect him to make it to Alexandria, be there for a few episodes... and then die.  I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm sure they've been all but begging him to join the show on a regular basis ever since season 2....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 16, 2015, 03:39:54 PM
I really enjoyed large parts of the episode but at the same time I feel like the writers try to emotionally manipulate me into being ok with whatever atrocities camp dinner bell might inflict on Alexandria by being really heavy handed with giving them just cause to do exactly that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 16, 2015, 05:27:46 PM
I too am vaguely disquieted by it all.  Just doesn't add up.  Also, Priest is just stupidity we haven't seen since War of the Worlds (also wholesale stolen from there..)

Further, that revolving door scene was just fucking stupid.  Really, really fucking stupid.  Also, if you're gonna be violent and horrendous, that's fine,
I dunno.  It's better than the farm, but oddly not as believable.  I'm getting pulled in too many stupid directions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on March 16, 2015, 05:39:18 PM
All I know is that was some Tom Savini level shit there. Was not expecting this episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 16, 2015, 08:08:00 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on March 16, 2015, 08:54:25 PM
As long as the writing remains good, the other actors keep their acting up to par and the scene is believable and pushes the story forward, I don't mind main characters popping their clogs.  In fact, I know it sounds just horrible, I kind of dig it when shows do something unexpected like killing off a favourite or main actor.  I like the shock.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 16, 2015, 09:01:23 PM
Are we really complaining about characters dying on a zombie/apocalyptic show?  Besides Rick and Carl I am pretty sure everyone is game to die.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 16, 2015, 11:07:31 PM
All I know is that was some Tom Savini level shit there.

Greg Nicotero worked on Day of the Dead with Savini and it absolutely showed in this episode.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 17, 2015, 06:20:02 AM
Just want to say that I also



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 17, 2015, 06:27:00 AM
In fairness, Rick hasn't actually DONE or said he'll do anything yet...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on March 17, 2015, 09:15:20 AM
In fairness, Rick hasn't actually DONE or said he'll do anything yet...


True, but the innuendo is pretty strong. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 17, 2015, 09:19:59 AM
Agreed, but that's not what our system of TV Justice is based on.  Innocent until proven guilty !!!!



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 17, 2015, 09:39:15 AM
I'm willing to give the writers a fair bit of leeway with the Alexandria storyline because for the past two seasons, these guys have absolutely been killing it. I also think there's a whole shitload more to Alexandria than just "the good guys turn bad." I'm almost positive that A/W stamp/brand thing I mentioned is going to be important to whatever the fuck is going on in Alexandria. If this was the season in Farmville, I would say yes, we've seen all we need to see this shit is just going to be stupid. But I do not think we've seen everything we need to see to make up our mind about Alexandria. I've not read the comics, so don't know if there's a spoiler to be had there or if I'm reading the signs wrong but I just think there's more.

The violence got turned WAY up in this episode, and I don't think that was unintentional either.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 17, 2015, 09:45:59 AM
The trailer for next week contained some rather specific information about that.  Do you chaps get them ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 17, 2015, 09:54:12 AM
Sometimes my DVR cuts off the trailer parts, so I rarely get a full picture of the upcoming episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 17, 2015, 10:04:34 AM
I've been loving this season so far, even with the oddities in the latest episode.

One thing that struck me this week - and also last week when Rick was standing by the wall at the end - is whether we are supposed to think that maybe Rick is going a bit mad? Which would be understandable obviously.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 17, 2015, 10:23:11 AM
To be fair thats just a thing Ricks sanity does every once in a while - going on holiday. This would be the third time I think, the only question ever is how much damage he does before his mind returns from its happy place.  :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 17, 2015, 10:38:06 AM
Why is Rick the way he is?  Because it is what he needed to be.  He couldn't be deputy Rick and survive as long as he has.  He had to be the guy willing to kill Shane and ready to flee the prison without everyone that he loved.

Now, in Alexandria, he is amongst a bunch of people that have been mostly spared the horrors of the apocalypse - so far.  There is a real question in my eyes as to whether Rick and his group would be doing wrong by taking control and telling these people, "Look, you don't get it.  You've been incredibly lucky, but that is going to change and you're going to have to harden up.  We can't abandon people that can be saved because we're scared, and we can't throw our lives away trying to save someone beyond saving.  The dead are a threat, but the real threat are people that will want to take what has been built here.  Those walls won't stop them.  If you listen to me, I can help you survive.  If you don't, you're going to die when the enemy comes.  Noah's family didn't live too far from here.  They had a walled community.  Someone attacked it and burned it to the ground - killing everyone."

The leader seems smart - she may get there by herself.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on March 17, 2015, 11:40:11 AM
I suspect Deanna will lose her shit when Glen gets back. And that will be the start of bad things happening. Then the ice wolves come...

I think Glen's story arc has kinda finished, so he'll be the next regular killed, but not by the dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 17, 2015, 12:49:35 PM
One thing I will say is that, while I have mixed feelings about what happened to Noah...that was one amazingly well done bit of CGI/Make-up/Whatever.  He totally looked like he was getting his faced ripped to shreds, and it was utterly disgusting in a way that none of the other deaths have been.  Between this scene and the horse last week, they outdid themselves on the pure realism.  It might be for the best that they don't have a bigger budget, not sure if I could stomach it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 17, 2015, 04:49:25 PM
I bet abusive husband doctor ends up savings Tara's life.  That would really split the group's loyalties up.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on March 17, 2015, 06:06:11 PM
More likely he'll be drunk when they arrive, he won't be able to help Tara as a result, and Rick's group will have more reasons/excuses to kill him.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on March 17, 2015, 11:26:38 PM
Man, fuck that death. Tired of stupid killing the people I like. Ol Nick would have caught one in the leg. Fuckin fratasses.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 22, 2015, 02:42:27 PM
Finally watched the last 2 episodes. The only thing I'll say right now is that I initially thought Gabriel was talking about himself (I still think it was deliberately written that way). I was going to write that he's a hypocrite but what I really think is that he's a poor excuse of a human being and should be left out in the woods with Carol for a few days.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 23, 2015, 05:08:38 PM
Zombie Horde ?  Sure, let's hide in a tree.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 23, 2015, 05:15:36 PM
Zombie Horde ?  Sure, let's hide in a tree.

 :uhrr:

No different when they've hid under cars and stuff.  The walkers are pretty oblivious unless they see or hear something on the show. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 23, 2015, 05:15:55 PM
Zombie Horde ?  Sure, let's hide in a tree.

 :uhrr:
Hey, when I was 15, if that girl hopped in a confined space and wanted me to follow, I was going in... period.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 23, 2015, 05:33:16 PM
Zombie Horde ?  Sure, let's hide in a tree.

 :uhrr:

No different when they've hid under cars and stuff.  The walkers are pretty oblivious unless they see or hear something on the show. 

you ever wonder what part of a zombie is dead? They can walk, eat, see, smell, and hear.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on March 23, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
But couldn't they smell sweet human flesh in Season one?  That's why at the interstate the survivors covered themselves in walker-goo right?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2015, 07:31:26 PM
Why you guys want to keep cockblocking COR-EL?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 23, 2015, 08:14:58 PM
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/b87554cfbb3c5749df6759b20101e015/tumblr_ndkcsyfxed1tncuifo4_500.png)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 23, 2015, 10:15:22 PM
But couldn't they smell sweet human flesh in Season one?  That's why at the interstate the survivors covered themselves in walker-goo right?

Well the difference in that instance was they were trying to walk among them.  Michonne didn't smear guts on herself either, she just had two walkers with her in proximity.  The kids were far enough away, where unless those zombies have super smell, they aren't going to notice them.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2015, 03:56:25 AM
Being fair, the fucking tree was the LEAST of my issues with this episode.  It felt very, very forced and wrong.

But the Tree thing Bugged me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 24, 2015, 04:24:46 AM
Rick has gone full circle and is essentially Shane now. And yet I have the distincive feeling I am supposed to root for him because the Alexandrians are idiots.

They could at least let him say "I was a Police Officer, if you want to pretend you are civilized, sanctioned spousal abuse is something a sane society doesn't abide. So fuck your order if it doesn't uphold basic rules of decency" instead of "U r hot, he bad, u wanna be my woman now?" Thats just insulting to the Rick of previous seasons.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 24, 2015, 07:18:01 AM
Yeah, I don't like how that played out.  Rick is often on the verge of cracking, but it doesn't make sense to me that he goes totally bonkers as a result of that fight.  I sorta understood and agreed with everything he did up until the end of the fight.  Then he starts flipping out and shrieking at everyone?  No.  It didn't fit his character, hot MILF notwithstanding.  Would have made more sense with a cold, calculated coup in the immediate aftermath, not that hissy fit that he threw.  And then Michonne clobbers him, and it wasn't an "oh snap!" moment so much as it was a "why the fuck did she do that?"  Even if she didn't like what he was doing (she clearly wanted to make it work in that place), it didn't feel like she'd do something like that.

I dunno.  I am confused.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 24, 2015, 07:27:28 AM
Yeah, I don't like how that played out.  Rick is often on the verge of cracking, but it doesn't make sense to me that he goes totally bonkers as a result of that fight.  I sorta understood and agreed with everything he did up until the end of the fight.  Then he starts flipping out and shrieking at everyone?  No.  It didn't fit his character, hot MILF notwithstanding.  Would have made more sense with a cold, calculated coup in the immediate aftermath, not that hissy fit that he threw.  And then Michonne clobbers him, and it wasn't an "oh snap!" moment so much as it was a "why the fuck did she do that?"  Even if she didn't like what he was doing (she clearly wanted to make it work in that place), it didn't feel like she'd do something like that.

I dunno.  I am confused.

I just gathered from the last couple episodes that Rick was already on the path of "wtf is wrong with these people".  They made it a point to show him struggling with control over Feral Rick. I think that's what the show has been trying to show us, just the difference between Rick's group and the Alexandrians is that struggle between eating someone who died so you can live and 'civilization'.  Hell, Rick's group has been arguing all season about "being out too long". 

So, I sorta get the fight and the exposition, but it was a bit much.  As for Michonne, I just figured that was her way of saving Rick from himself.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 24, 2015, 07:39:38 AM
All of that would have worked fine without the central piece being Ricks obsession with that married woman that materialized out of nowhere like he is a teenager that wants to get laid for the first time. This part makes the whole arc utterly ridiculous.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on March 24, 2015, 07:47:45 AM
All of that would have worked fine without the central piece being Ricks obsession with that married woman that materialized out of nowhere like he is a teenager that wants to get laid for the first time. This part makes the whole arc utterly ridiculous.

Ya I agree.  That whole part where she said "would you do it for anyone?" and he was like 12yo "no".



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2015, 08:12:34 AM
Michonne was the only part of this episode that I liked and worked for me.

She's the part of the Law that Rick has forgotten and she's done without for far too long, as evidenced by the flashback scenes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 24, 2015, 09:01:11 AM
It's as though Walking Dead has a whole different set of writers this season.

Characters are not being true, and everything is being dragged way out.

Every week, there is the obligatory zombie porn - zombies eat somebody/something, zombies are killed in new and inventive ways.

This show has become one that I'm watching out of habit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 24, 2015, 09:26:27 AM
Michonne was the only part of this episode that I liked and worked for me.

She's the part of the Law that Rick has forgotten and she's done without for far too long, as evidenced by the flashback scenes.

She can be conflicted about it all she wants, but to knock him senseless like that?  She may have fucked him and their whole group over.  It doesn't seem like something she would do.  Just like his flip out doesn't seem like something he would do.  And let's talk about Glen getting all weepy all of a sudden about everything. 

I mean, I am not going to ragequit the show or anything, it is still the best thing on TV.  Just not sure I understand where this is going.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Signe on March 24, 2015, 10:51:06 AM
I thought last weeks episode was really good.  I don't think this one was all that bad, either... they may have stumbled a wee bit... I still thought it was good.  BUT - Carol, Carol, Carol... she's the same.  A little bit mean but in a cool, interesting way.  Some times I think she should be the leader, especially when Rick has his little insanity moments. 

But then, again, you know me and zombies.  I thought Z Nation was brilliant!   :vv:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 24, 2015, 01:22:16 PM
Rick has quite clearly fucking lost it, and Michonne saw that. Since they came back from hiatus, it's been clear her character is the one that's the voice of reason - it's just that she's been conflicted about it because she knows how much Rick has sacrificed to get them somewhere safe. But Rick has so blatantly lost it - all the things that he did to make the prison workable are the same kind of things the folks in Alexandria are doing only now he's being all Shane on them because the Governor's attack and the assault by motorcycle bad boys and then the Fine Young Cannibals at Terminus have utterly pushed him back over the cuckoo cliff. The season finale will be 60 minutes of agonizing over whether he can come back from that, followed by 30 minutes of "THE WOLVES ARE HERE!!!! DUN DUN DUHHHHHH!!!!" cue black screen cliffhanger and the angry raging of millions of fans.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 24, 2015, 05:56:19 PM
I could go with Rick losing it due to the pressures of the job and always looking out for his people. I could even get him paralleling the governor so that we could watch a good man become broken. But not over some new love-interest - that was the most pathetic bit of writing I've seen and it just doesn't fit with his character at all. Rich has always been about the group, not his individual needs.

Michone I got - that worked well as someone who wanted peace and order after all they had been through.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 24, 2015, 07:41:19 PM
They could at least let him say "I was a Police Officer, if you want to pretend you are civilized, sanctioned spousal abuse is something a sane society doesn't abide. So fuck your order if it doesn't uphold basic rules of decency" instead of "U r hot, he bad, u wanna be my woman now?" Thats just insulting to the Rick of previous seasons.
This is exactly my thought as well.  I just felt his little flip out at the end was... misplaced.  A bit more "law and order must be preserved" would have made it considerably more believable (especially considering the other guy started beating on him first) than losing it like that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2015, 07:44:04 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 24, 2015, 07:46:16 PM
I was wondering the same thing too... "there's got to be a reason for showing that level of detail..."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2015, 07:51:23 PM
I was wondering the same thing too... "there's got to be a reason for showing that level of detail..."



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 25, 2015, 08:57:53 AM
I don't think Rick spazzed out because of wanting to lay the pipe on hot blonde milf. I think that was just a trigger for the anger that he barely keeps beneath the surface. We've seen it all along in this show - when he killed Shane (but only when Shane threatened to kill him AND did something that endangered the group), his stabbing of the head motorcycle guy (after Carl was threatened), the slaughter in the church of the FYC (after they managed to get some prime Bob meat) and his attempts to get the Governor to stop being a dick. He manages to barely control the rage until he can't anymore but when he lets it out for whatever reason, he's unable to dial it down at all.

Rick was totally right to do all the things he's done that I mentioned above - he just shouldn't have done them all with such ferocity, using more force and violence than necessary. There's an escalation of psycho going on based on how bad he's seen the world become.

EDIT: And really, looking at how it went down, why didn't Rick just shoot the guy (either in the head or the leg) instead of having this knock down drag out Neanderthal punch up? Because he can't control his anger once he lets it out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2015, 10:25:23 AM
No, I get that.  He even says it "I'm trying not to kill you."

But I dunno, it's not coming across well.  The episode hit just a huge run of bum notes.  Except Michonne.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2015, 11:49:02 AM
The whole premise of the season was "Were they out there too long"? and "Do they get to come back?"  They grinded these folks to the point where the answer was supposed to be in question.  When they find civilization, should they join it, or protect people by teaching them that is isn't possible anymore? 

Hypo: What if Rick and company had encountered Jessie, Pete and the kids on the road to Alexandria rather than in Alexandria.  Would Pete's abusive nature be a threat worthy of getting him killed?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 25, 2015, 11:57:57 AM
Yeah, it woulda.  Only it would have been death by accidental zombie.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2015, 12:20:27 PM
My point there - if Rick is seeing Alexandria as not being realistic about the world in which they are living, rather than seeing them as a last bastion of civilization that needs to be built upon, seeing him act as he would out in the world makes more sense...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 25, 2015, 03:43:49 PM
It's strange because this season has generally been really good, so I still have hopes for the finale.

A story which showed how everything Rick has been through finally caught up with him might be good but in this story did seem a lot as if Rick was trying to get someone out of the way because he wanted to shag the guy's wife. Obviously I know the guy was an abusive dick but while I'm sure Rick genuinely wants to stop that it also looked like he saw that as an opportunity for him to step in.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 25, 2015, 04:47:52 PM
It's strange because this season has generally been really good, so I still have hopes for the finale.

A story which showed how everything Rick has been through finally caught up with him might be good but in this story did seem a lot as if Rick was trying to get someone out of the way because he wanted to shag the guy's wife. Obviously I know the guy was an abusive dick but while I'm sure Rick genuinely wants to stop that it also looked like he saw that as an opportunity for him to step in.

it wasn't that he was trying, he does want him out of the way.  He doesn't necessarily want to have to kill him though.  I saw it more as Rick was really trying to keep himself in check, then Pete just went buck wild and in the process hit Jessie.  At that point "nice" Rick left the building and he went pure survival mode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 29, 2015, 09:00:24 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on March 29, 2015, 10:11:58 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on March 29, 2015, 11:46:59 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2015, 10:01:20 AM
That did not go like I expected.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on March 30, 2015, 10:06:16 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on March 30, 2015, 12:10:39 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 30, 2015, 12:37:33 PM
I'm surprised they didn't bang on it before popping it open.  I assumed they were all doing that all the time...

To be honest, I've always been curious why they never figure out how to set remote control distraction tools.  I still feel like mindless undead should be a lot less of a problem if you tried some real solutions rather than cowering behind walls.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2015, 01:21:17 PM
Well, Enid did have the trick you could use in State of Decay - she set a cooking timer and threw it the other way.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 30, 2015, 04:25:20 PM
Oh Come On.

How did his White Jumper stay that White ?

Seriously ???


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on March 30, 2015, 05:49:27 PM
Yeah, I asked the same question. Rick gets bloody from looking at zeds, Father Dickweasel stays pristine popping heads off.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Raguel on March 30, 2015, 08:56:36 PM
Yeah, I asked the same question. Rick gets bloody from looking at zeds, Father Dickweasel stays pristine popping heads off.

Maybe it's a metaphor? :awesome_for_real:

I mean the preacher wants to put up a front to the new people that he's a good person, but Rick's all in with blood and guts.

I like this episode even though I think the creators blinked at the end.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 30, 2015, 10:43:46 PM
With so many people gone, God has time to grant laundry miracles.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 31, 2015, 08:34:09 AM
Just realized the significance of the wolves killing someone in a red poncho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2015, 09:37:53 AM
Wife and I got that straight off.   :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on March 31, 2015, 09:54:28 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 31, 2015, 09:57:18 AM
I'd wager they mean in a Red Riding Hood sense.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2015, 10:09:53 AM
Yeah, that's what i meant. If there's summat deeper let me know.  In our defence, we watch a lot of Grimm.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 31, 2015, 12:28:23 PM
Nah, that was it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on April 02, 2015, 02:47:43 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Strazos on April 06, 2015, 09:03:39 PM
Yup, Daryl is quite the beast.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on July 11, 2015, 06:24:46 PM
Season 6 Comic-con trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va1UPrFXHKA)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on July 11, 2015, 08:37:43 PM
Yep, that looks like Rick is on the way out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on July 12, 2015, 03:00:52 AM
Looks good, but I still want answers.  Maybe a small government cell knows more background or factions that are working toward a cure or more details on what happened to spark this.  Is the rest of the world affected?  And so on.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on July 12, 2015, 03:44:43 AM
Looks good, but I still want answers.  Maybe a small government cell knows more background or factions that are working toward a cure or more details on what happened to spark this.  Is the rest of the world affected?  And so on.

The last question I would assume might be answered by the spinoff which also got a trailer. Everything else is pretty unlikely.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ruvaldt on July 12, 2015, 03:20:04 PM
Is the rest of the world affected?

We already know that it is from the first season.  While they were in the CDC the scientist there told them that France was close to a cure before they lost the ability to continue due to losing power.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on July 12, 2015, 06:04:35 PM
Looks good, but I still want answers.  Maybe a small government cell knows more background or factions that are working toward a cure or more details on what happened to spark this.  Is the rest of the world affected?  And so on.

Kirkman said that we would probably never too much more info on the outbreak and disease than we have now.  He meant that for the show and comics.  He may change his mind and use Fear the Walking Dead to give more info, but who knows.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on July 13, 2015, 04:34:07 AM
Ok thanks.  I was figuring that since the group got to Alexandria, they would stumble upon the answers some where in the capitol wasteland.  I'm tiring of the show in general and if they never get any more answers that just makes me less enthused.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on July 13, 2015, 04:39:51 AM
I'm curious as to what type of 'answers' might in any way interest you.

I could, for example, spin off a million different explanations in my head.  It doesn't matter at all.  It's not like having a resolution to the why affects the outcome in any way shape or form...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tannhauser on July 13, 2015, 06:22:32 AM
Is there still a government in some form?  Are they still trying to find a cure?  What caused it?  Are nation working together or are some taking advantage?  What about the world's navies? Are they island sanctuaries?  Will the zombies eventually fall apart or will there be a 'War of the Worlds' salvation?  Is there an end to the story or does it just keep going on and on like American Idol until it's finally put down?

I completely understand if this is just a survival horror story but if that's all it is I won't be interested in that forever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on July 13, 2015, 06:28:24 AM
1 - Yes.
2 - Probably.  But I suspect most of the energy is being devoted to, well, not being eaten.  Even The Governor had a chap working on it.
3 - Rage Infected Monkeys.  Or possibly that's complete bollocks.
4 - Yes.
5 - Some are.  Some sank when the infected got onboard.  Some are floating palaces of zombie delight.
6 - Yes.  This will take much longer than eradication of living populace, however.
7 - Yes.  Rick Grimes will eventually Die.  It's his Story.


Now, if you want to take all those answers at complete and total face value, you must now ask yourself a question :  What the hell does it matter ?  In terms of Rick and Co, NONE of these things will be important until, Oh, I dunno, Season 18.  That's what this story is. It's Rick's story.  Until it becomes Daryls story.  Or Chorals story.  But, basically, these questions Do Not Matter and you'd be better off re-reading World War Z.

I think you may end up being more interested in Fear TWD tho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on July 13, 2015, 07:39:31 AM
A little Google will reveal what Kirkman told to his comics guys to get them to make the comic... nothing contradicts that far out explanation... but I think everyone will be happier with no explanations. The only things I would like explained is how did so many people  end up changed, but not eaten to the point their zombie was not immobile. We've already seen 1 zombie eat one entire person..


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on July 14, 2015, 11:20:33 PM
Yeah, not only are there too many zombies, there are also way too many just aimlessly wandering the country side.  Sightings should be rarer and rarer all the time, considering how much empty land mass we are talking about.

Not to mention the fact that most of the survivors that are still around have about a 50,000 to 0 K/D ratio.  Once the weak have been culled from the human population, the tide shoud quickly turn in the other direction and human would start to re-assert itself.  I guess the zombies never go away, because anyone who dies can become one, but killing them is so easy that it would eventually be a trivial problem.

All of which ignores the fact that this is a zombie apocalypse story and who gives a fuck.  Just please don't kill of hot milf too early next season and I'll be happy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on July 15, 2015, 03:56:31 AM
Never look at the science or logic of a zombie situation that lasts more than a few days. It all requires you to shut off your brain more than a Bay Transformers movie.  Accept that there are zombies everywhere and they eat people.  End of backstory now on to the "humans are the REAL monsters" survival part.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on July 15, 2015, 09:35:22 AM
^ THIS. ^

Goddamn logic trying to fuck up all the fun.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on July 15, 2015, 09:42:01 AM
...but ... but ....http://www.zombiesurvivalcamp.com/ (http://www.zombiesurvivalcamp.com/)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cheddar on July 15, 2015, 07:21:41 PM
New trailer was awesome.  Darryl 4 prez.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 12, 2015, 12:06:47 PM
Pretty good way to start the season, essentially heading immediately into the No Way Out story arc.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2015, 01:16:23 PM
Yeah, solid start.

However, I can set aside a lot of nonsense, like the impossible physics & biology of zombies, etc, but where did they get the bloody helium balloons from?!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 12, 2015, 01:41:23 PM
... but where did they get the bloody helium balloons from?!
1.)  It isn't exactly like someone rushed out to use up all the helium tanks in flower shops when the apocalypse went down, or 2.) Not terribly hard to fabricate helium if you know the science. 

I've always thought they'd start making a bigger deal out of finding good uses for the stuff that was left behind after the first wave of looters passed through an area...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 12, 2015, 01:45:06 PM
Such a good episode and makes for such a stark contrast with the disappointment of Fear the Walking Dead. I swear they must have blown their entire effects budget on all those made up extras but it was worth it. The scale of the zombie parade was insane.

The black and white for the "flashbacks" kind of irritated me - and this from someone who loves black and white as an artistic choice. I think it was because it just looked like something shot in color that was turned into black and white post. It seemed to lack the kind of stark contrast that true black and white should have had.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2015, 01:49:34 PM
1.)  It isn't exactly like someone rushed out to use up all the helium tanks in flower shops when the apocalypse went down, or 2.) Not terribly hard to fabricate helium if you know the science. 

Wait wait wait wait wait wait right up now goddamnit. You're telling me that they went hunting for florists or, I dunno, clown supplies shops? Or set up some kind of electrolysis or whatever Rick Sanchez style helium extraction doohickey? Instead of using, I dunno, *rags* or something?

[skepticism intensifies]

Anyway. I swear I'm starting to recognise some of the zombies. Wife & I had to go back and re-watch the last episode of last season because we'd forgotten wtf was going on and there was one zombie in particular who was gnawing on the window of the car that Daryl & the bloke from Ah-Ha were trapped in that I just know I've seen in it several times before.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Nevermore on October 12, 2015, 01:56:20 PM
2.) Not terribly hard to fabricate helium if you know the science.

Is there a practical way of 'fabricating' helium that doesn't involve liquid natural gas or slowly capturing helium from decaying uranium?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on October 12, 2015, 01:59:20 PM
2.) Not terribly hard to fabricate helium if you know the science.

Is there a practical way of 'fabricating' helium that doesn't involve liquid natural gas or slowly capturing helium from decaying uranium?
No. That's why it's a problem the US is selling it off like it's not as rare and valuable as it is. Once it's gone, shit's gone and we need it for things like MRI machines.

I believe he was thinking of Hydrogen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 12, 2015, 02:41:04 PM
My mistake on the helium fabrication: Harder than I thought.  I was off base there...  They "make helium" at my wife's school as a science project, but I just looked up what they do and.... it is not making helium.  My bad. 

However, regarding hunting/finding helium tanks: Every grocery store with a floral department, every card store, etc... have them.  Off the top of my head, there are at least 8 places within a mile of where I'm sitting right now where I know they have helium.  Is there anyone reading this that couldn't put their hands on a helium tank within 10 minutes if your life depended upon it?  If so, you wouldn't make it to this point in the zombie apocalypse anyways. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 12, 2015, 02:46:48 PM
Anyway. I swear I'm starting to recognise some of the zombies. Wife & I had to go back and re-watch the last episode of last season because we'd forgotten wtf was going on and there was one zombie in particular who was gnawing on the window of the car that Daryl & the bloke from Ah-Ha were trapped in that I just know I've seen in it several times before.

They hire like 2-300 people to be zombies before the season starts and those people go to zombie school.  So it is generally the same zombies all season long.  I am sure some people have come back for multiple seasons as well.

Also I can go to my grocery store and they sell those balloon party pack things that comes with a helium tank and a bunch of balloons for parties.  Something like this:
(http://www.1partysuppliesandfavors.com/resize/images/products/80440.jpg?lr=t&bw=250)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 12, 2015, 03:47:07 PM
Damn fine start.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 12, 2015, 11:10:28 PM
Y'all are far too serious.   :why_so_serious:

And totally agree that it showed up just how lackluster FTWD was.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on October 12, 2015, 11:19:56 PM
That massive Zombie horde almost looks like a "Fuck you Fear the Walking Dead, THATS how you use them."

Loved this episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 19, 2015, 04:15:16 AM
Episode 2 just upped the ante. Pretty damn impressive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on October 19, 2015, 07:43:26 AM
Really liked this episode, and definitely   :drill: :grin: :ye_gods: worthy.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 19, 2015, 08:02:23 AM
I'll be vague enough to avoid spoilers.

Apparently that person left early last episode (I'd have to go back and look) and we've seen people turn almost instantly at times lately, so who knows.

I'm just trying to decide in my head what sound carries further, an air horn or pistol shots. That horn sounded awfully loud in episode 1.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on October 19, 2015, 08:28:40 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 19, 2015, 09:51:08 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2015, 11:31:20 AM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 19, 2015, 11:56:42 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2015, 12:06:24 PM



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 19, 2015, 12:35:08 PM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 19, 2015, 03:03:43 PM

You're right, I'd totally forgotten about that. So another character who is going to be wracked with guilt. Yay?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 19, 2015, 03:28:16 PM
Good episode, but too much of it was 'off' for me to enjoy it properly.

 :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 19, 2015, 04:42:18 PM
I just find Morgan annoying.  I like the actor and wish they were using him better, but the character just seems so impractical and contrived.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 19, 2015, 05:56:11 PM
I just find Morgan annoying.  I like the actor and wish they were using him better, but the character just seems so impractical and contrived.

Until we get his back story where he runs into Mr. Miyagi who teaches him how to defend himself with a staff and implants some "life is precious" mantra onto Morgan.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 19, 2015, 06:16:42 PM
I think part of the problem with Morgan is that in some ways it's retreading what they did with Tyrese (and it got old pretty quick there also).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 20, 2015, 12:10:09 AM
I find it hard to reconcile this Morgan with the season 1 Morgan. I really wish they'd flesh characters other than the untouchables out a bit more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 20, 2015, 09:26:36 AM
Well that escalated quickly. Despite the criticisms, I think it was a really good episode. The one thing they didn't do right was give us a better sense of how much time is passing between scenes. It all felt a bit disjointed and oddly paced, with Morgan getting back in time but no one else. The attack was over too soon, but I figure it's just a probe anyway instead of an actual attempt to take the place over.

Morgan's reluctance to kill must have some basis though we haven't been told what. I think it's a bit forced to create conflict with Rick over the course of the season because clearly Morgan needs to see that leaving these dinks alive is going to come back to bite them in the ass.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 20, 2015, 10:02:41 AM
I would imagine Rick kept people to deal with the actual Walkers, knowing Carol was back at home.

She's Carol.  She's got it covered.

So, just send Morgan.  It'll be cool.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on October 20, 2015, 05:15:39 PM
I would imagine Rick kept people to deal with the actual Walkers, knowing Carol was back at home.

She's Carol.  She's got it covered.

So, just send Morgan.  It'll be cool.



In the previous episode, he told Morgan to go back to the base and tell everyone what happened with that guy that got his face bit off. So, Morgan was already on his way back when the horn started honking.

Well that escalated quickly. Despite the criticisms, I think it was a really good episode. The one thing they didn't do right was give us a better sense of how much time is passing between scenes. It all felt a bit disjointed and oddly paced, with Morgan getting back in time but no one else. The attack was over too soon, but I figure it's just a probe anyway instead of an actual attempt to take the place over.

One thing they pointed out in the Talking Dead is that the attack started when Carol put the casserole in the oven and set the timer. It ended when the timer went off and Carl (I think) shut off the timer and pulled out the casserole. All told, it was 45 minutes of mayhem.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 21, 2015, 01:12:20 AM
That only makes my explanation more plausible.  There were hundreds of walkers heading towards the town.  Rick would have needed everyone he had, especially considering Daryl and the two suicides were busy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 21, 2015, 10:13:34 AM
If w bother to look to see if the story lines up, Rick and company could be a couple miles away.  That air horn, blasted against a wall that faces the herd, could be herd from quite a distance under the right conditions.  I was curious and did some research and found that the horn should easily have been 110 decibels or more, which could be heard miles away under the right conditions.  Conditions play a huge factor in how far sound travels (obstructions like those trees, wind levels, humidity, heat) can make a noise that sound muffled after a few hundred yards or allow it to carry five or more miles.  If there are less trees closer to Alexandria, no wind, a hot day and a lot of humidity.... Sure. 

Regardless of whether the horn should have been heard, the quarry was not right next to Alexandria and they were not moving the heard towards Alexandria, although it looks like the bunch in the front of the herd was traveling along a road that wasn't aimed away from Alexandria anymore - likely running north south instead of East and away from Alexandria. .  In any case, they started out moving away from Alexandria.

Walkers seem to amble at 'up to' about 3 miles per hour (no faster, but most travel slower).  That seems to indicate that ~ 45 minutes would be the minimum it'd take for the herd to reach town.

Episode 3 will likely show the people outside the walls in the 45 minutes between when the horn sounds and the herd reaches Alexandria.   


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 21, 2015, 10:38:15 AM
Guns are a lot louder than 110 db though aren't they?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 21, 2015, 10:43:32 AM
Guns are a lot louder than 110 db though aren't they?

140-190 but there are truck horns that also go above 140.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 21, 2015, 01:38:34 PM
Guns are a lot louder than 110 db though aren't they?

140-190 but there are truck horns that also go above 140.
^This: A cheapy truck horn is 110, but they go much higher - which is why I said easily 110 or more.  If you've ever stood near one of those horns when it was sustained, it gets very loud.

Also, percussive short sounds and sustained tones work differently - primarily because of the timing of the sound.  If I hit a drum or shoot a gun and you stand next to it, the sound you hear is a quick burst followed by vibrations in the drum skin or the ringing of the metal in the gun (not easy to hear for hand guns, but fire a canon and you can feel the metal vibrating...).  If you move away, the snap becomes less focused and you lose the ability to hear that softer following vibration.  If you go far enough away, the percussive sound lasts much longer as it diffuses before it reaches you.  If there are echoes involved due to walls, hillsides, etc... the percussive sound fades before it overlaps with an echo.  However, a horn that blares and persists goes on long enough that all those echoes to overlap....  Making a 110 db horn potentially sound a lot louder than a 180 db gunshot at longer distances.  When that horn blared right next to a large wall....





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 21, 2015, 01:50:18 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1739972/web-images/seriously.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 21, 2015, 04:08:47 PM
Sorry... forgot my audience.

HORN LOUD. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Hayduke on October 21, 2015, 04:59:16 PM
I actually appreciate the explanation. Movie or television magic says that guns aren't very loud and I was willing to accept that pretense until you guys brought it up. Figured with the guns being so much closer they would attract more zombie attention, but I had thought of the wall as well and was unsure.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 22, 2015, 07:28:00 AM
You don't have to go into the decibel level of the gun vs. horn to understand why that scene worked the way it did. The horn was loud and SUSTAINED. A gun shot is going to be a series of pops (loud or not depending on the caliber) that might distract for a minute. However, zombies are easily distracted especially when the location of the sound is loud, sustained and unmoving (or moving slowly). The 2 suicide watch drivers in the car have a better shot at drawing at least some of the zombies away with their car horn than firing repeated gun shots.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 22, 2015, 07:30:03 AM
I suspect most of you are putting more thought into this show that it's writers do.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 22, 2015, 09:22:06 AM
I suspect most of you are putting more thought into this show that it's writers do.
I suspect you have not watched Talking Dead or read interviews with the writers and show runners. 

They put this much thought into the show.  They're not perfect, but they try.  I don't think it was an accident or coincidence that the horn was blaring up against a wall.  I don't recall them hearing the gunshots that came before the horn either - and if that is correct, I do not think that is an accident, either.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 22, 2015, 11:47:01 PM
No, I haven't watched TD or read interviews. That's actually really good to hear that there is that much consideration given to that kind of thing, I'm impressed and a little surprised.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on October 25, 2015, 06:51:47 PM
Holy shit!!!!!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 25, 2015, 06:52:32 PM
Did NOT see that coming.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on October 25, 2015, 07:29:32 PM
BUT.. BUT..

Maybe he survived?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2015, 07:45:28 PM
BUT.. BUT..

Maybe he survived?

That would be total bullshit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Stewie on October 25, 2015, 07:56:16 PM
Really doubt it. He was screaming and was at the bottom of the pile.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: angry.bob on October 25, 2015, 08:33:16 PM
Not dead. I haven't watched the show in a year or more but they're not dead, despite Kirkman hating the person playing them.

They'll show up alive later on, probably to be killed a worse way the very same episode or the next.

I don't even know what any of you are talking about but i bet I'm right.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on October 25, 2015, 08:48:02 PM
I like how everyone who talks shit about Rick & his plans has been getting theirs... sometimes within minutes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on October 25, 2015, 09:42:59 PM
I actually agree with Bob, despite evidence to the contrary.

Either way, we won't know for two weeks. Next week is a 90 minute Morgan flashback episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 26, 2015, 12:28:47 AM
Talking Dead tried to walk a fine line, but I think they made his fate clear.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 26, 2015, 04:44:56 AM
It's clearly being left ambiguous intentionally, we just don't know if it's for the purposes of a surprise survival or for it to hit harder when the other characters find out the person in question is dead. They didn't appear on Talking Dead as is usually customary for an outgoing major character.

Regardless, another strong episode in that they're keeping the momentum going. I'd almost like a Battlestar Galactica-esque survivor counter though because much like the Woodbury people that were brought into the prison, it almost gets ridiculous sometimes how many Alexandria people seem to pop out of nowhere for the purposes of getting killed. Nothing we saw last season suggested the number of people living in Alexandria we've seen so far this season (you'd think there would have been a lot more people present for the meeting regarding whether or not Rick was going to get kicked otu).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on October 26, 2015, 05:50:55 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 26, 2015, 06:43:04 AM
That's my guess too. Great episode regardless.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on October 26, 2015, 07:00:14 AM
I hope so. Otherwise one of my last reasons to keep watching poofed.

I alternate between being irritated and interested at this show. Irritated because it seems that the writers just throw in shitty story arcs for no good reason, interested because of some of the characters.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 26, 2015, 07:04:02 AM
They've become quite good at creating tension, to be fair.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 26, 2015, 04:02:00 PM
Okay, caught up.  It wasn't him being eaten and there was a bin he could hide under.  Unlikely he's dead.

That episode had soooo many zombie clichés, it was a bit distracting.  Nice tits tho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2015, 05:25:22 PM
I didn't think there was any ambiguity in that scene and if there was, I'm thinking that's a serious bullshit red herring. No way he escaped that shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 26, 2015, 09:35:53 PM
I'd like him to survive, meet up with the group and 2 minutes later follow the comic'c conclusion to his arc. Just to watch the tears as a result.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 28, 2015, 01:13:31 AM
Ugh, really? This whole 'is he, isn't he dead' thing is poor story telling, plus they've done it to death (haha) already.

Trying to create dramatic tension like that is unnecessary and cheap exploitation of the medium. Ambiguous camera angles and episodic cliff hangers are such a cop-out. There are ways to use visual limitation and reveal restriction well - Breaking Bad did it superbly with the plane debris floating in the pool for instance, but 'whose guts were those?' doesn't fit that description.

The thing that really annoys me about it is that this season has been great so far. I like their attempt at telling events from multiple viewpoints simultaneously, which they'd started doing quite well last season. There's already plenty of dramatic tension without this lazy tweet-farming bullshit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 28, 2015, 02:25:48 AM
I didn't think there was any ambiguity in that scene and if there was, I'm thinking that's a serious bullshit red herring. No way he escaped that shit.

While I agree 'real world' there's no fucking way, there was TONS of ambiguity in that scene, if they want to be dickheads.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on October 28, 2015, 03:34:02 AM
I am hugely entertained either way, tbh.  Initially I bought it hook, line and sinker, but I think the evidence presented here makes me believe he is still alive.  His cries of agony were actually cries of grief over Nicholas offing himself when Glenn was so close to "saving" him from himself.  And beyond that, in hindsight it doesn't seem the way for a character like Glenn to go, in episode 3 no less.

Why is nobody talking about Rick's hand?  What the fuck even happened there?  He paid it more attention than a throw-away injury deserved, so are we supposed to believe he may have been bit?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on October 28, 2015, 03:41:40 AM
Why is nobody talking about Rick's hand?  What the fuck even happened there?  He paid it more attention than a throw-away injury deserved, so are we supposed to believe he may have been bit?

I don't think he was bit; just hit a walker so hard he busted something.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 28, 2015, 03:55:15 AM
His knife snapped on a walker.  Looked like the knife cut him. 

I keep waiting for him to lose his hand, to be honest, so who knows.  Gangrene anyone ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 28, 2015, 04:16:06 AM
His knife snapped on a walker.  Looked like the knife cut him. 

I keep waiting for him to lose his hand, to be honest, so who knows.  Gangrene anyone ?

I've always figured that the reason they wouldn't do that is because at that point it's committing to having to do special effects a lot of the time when your main character is on screen (and having to work around that by filming him with his arm out of frame when you're trying to save effects money). You can do it with characters like Merle and Herschel who aren't going to be around for too much longer, but Rick will likely be prominent in the series for the duration. A quick search just now confirmed that this is the reason Rick didn't lose a hand to the Governor.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 28, 2015, 04:22:15 AM
Yeah, I get that.  But it's a bit like Hot Tub Time Machine;  I keep waiting for him to lose the hand and get giggly when he doesn't.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on October 28, 2015, 04:27:33 AM
Rewatching that bit on the dvr, it looked like he grabbed the machete that was stuck in the walker by the blade with that hand.

Also: From (http://comicbook.com/2015/10/27/the-walking-dead-showrunner-gives-definitive-answer-about-ricks-/)
Quote
showrunner Scott Gimple finally gave in and threw TVLine a bone on the Rick mystery -- arguably the less signfiicant of the two, since nobody really believed that he would die as a result of any potential infection.

"It’s entirely possible, but we haven’t really gotten into it on the show," said Gimple of the possibility that walker blood in an open wound could prove fatal. "I’m going to go out on a limb here and say something definitive: Rick is OK regarding that cut. His hand will survive. There will be a bandage. There will be some ointment involved. But he’s going to walk away from it."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 28, 2015, 05:24:59 AM
Loving the sarcasm.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2015, 08:47:39 AM
Yeah, I noticed the thing about Rick's hand too but it meant fuckall compared to Glenn. I really love that character and don't want him to bite it, but as a writer, I see no good explanation for him escaping that scenario unbitten.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2015, 10:06:54 AM
I'm imagining it'll be something like: While the walkers eat the corpse on top of him, he guts a walker and is covered by walker guts.  He then crawls away to some safe location (fire escape, stairs, etc...) and makes his way back to the group - just in time to meet a certain young lady...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: luckton on October 28, 2015, 10:12:25 AM
What surprises me is, aside from the theory that zombies are a thing, if the zombies carry the virus that burns out a person from sickness via bites, how has everyone not gotten sick from blood splatter exposure to their eyes?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2015, 12:05:28 PM
What surprises me is, aside from the theory that zombies are a thing, if the zombies carry the virus that burns out a person from sickness via bites, how has everyone not gotten sick from blood splatter exposure to their eyes?
They have not explored it in depth on the show or comics, but Talking Dead  addressed it (indirectly) as follows:  Bites kill you, but it isn't because the bites give you the virus.  Everyone has the virus.  There is something unique delivered via the bite that kills you. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 28, 2015, 12:20:18 PM
Or in other words, just shut the fuck up and go with it, because that makes no more medical sense than anything else on the show.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 28, 2015, 12:25:23 PM
Think of it like a Komodo dragon.. get some of their blood on you or whatever.. nothing.  Get bit and die horribly.

edit:  I know that its their venom that is dangerous, but til a few years ago we thought it was just the saliva.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 28, 2015, 01:41:59 PM
I'm imagining it'll be something like: While the walkers eat the corpse on top of him, he guts a walker and is covered by walker guts.  He then crawls away to some safe location (fire escape, stairs, etc...) and makes his way back to the group - just in time to meet a certain young lady...

I'm kinda hoping they just quietly drop the whole thing about masking your smell with Walker parts because there's so many times they could have used that to avoid or get out of bad situations. They could have used it this episode in the pet store for instance to cover the two cripples with the two walkers they killed in there making it easier for them to survive without slowing down the others. The writers clearly know it's a lazy solution to use so they try to avoid it, but then you get Carol doing it at Terminus which made for a cool visual but then they just kinda drop it again after that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2015, 03:10:59 PM
Agreed - but Kirkman does have a storyline in the comics (not yet addressed on TV) that pretty aggressively takes that idea to one messed up potential conclusion. Covering yourself in walker too often can't be good for your health  - physical or mental.

NOt saying I agree with these, but... http://www.blastr.com/2015-10-28/walking-dead-10-ways-redacted-might-survive (http://www.blastr.com/2015-10-28/walking-dead-10-ways-redacted-might-survive)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on October 28, 2015, 03:35:39 PM
I think they'll find a way to make him live through it, because the other (canonical) way of going is just too juicy for the writers to pass up, and this is an elaborate head-fake to keep it from being obvious they are going there.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 28, 2015, 04:22:39 PM
Agreed - but Kirkman does have a storyline in the comics (not yet addressed on TV) that pretty aggressively takes that idea to one messed up potential conclusion.

I feel like that storyline works though because it is taken to such an extreme. It makes a lot more sense for that to work as opposed to something like Michonne having a couple walkers on chains.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 29, 2015, 11:21:59 AM
The rules do not make a lot of sense... As the sense organs degrade, it seems like they should have no ability to detect the difference between living and dead - if they can even sense anything at all.  On the other hand, complaining about the realism of the zombies is kinda self defeating logic. 

As noted, there are about a billion problems with the zombie logic, and a few hundred great ideas for eliminating huge numbers of walkers in a relatively safe manner (loud horn suspended over the edge of a cliff, loud horn leading them into a bonfire, herd them into a meat processing plant, lure them down a mine shaft, etc....)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on October 29, 2015, 01:47:53 PM
It's not so much complaining about the realism as it is complaining about some of the rules they went out of their way to establish and how they're inconsistently applied. A lot of it is easy to let slide, but if they end up using something like walker guts to keep a major character from dying it would come across as a bit of a cop out. If the writers found that covering people in walker parts was too easy of a solution that would negate too many threats, it's ok to just drop it entirely or show that it doesn't work consistently enough to be a big help.

Anyway, it's a minor nitpick and I'm only currently making it in the context of speculation on how the character in question might survive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 29, 2015, 02:15:37 PM
I think there is some advantages to having them ignore those things.... it gives their fans things to yell about... and to give them fodder for smugly thinking, "I could totally survive the zombie apocalypse because I would (cover myself in zombie guts / use the horn to lead them away / kill the Priest / etc...)"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 29, 2015, 02:36:12 PM
Now you've got me thinking about designs for wind-powered zombie disposal devices.

Like these things, where you just throw 'em out in a minefield and let them roll around on their own exploding mines:
(http://hyperallergic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/minekafon2_illustration.png)

but I'm envisioning some sort of windmill-powered thing that makes a noise to lure roamers in from miles around, and then mashes them to a pulp.  Set up a wide perimeter of those traps around your camp and not only are you fairly well protected, but over a long enough span of time you eradicate the zombie menace over a very wide area.

I guess the thing of just digging a big pit and putting a horn over it is good too, but the pit eventually fills up...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on October 29, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
This from a guy who spent years perfecting his Goblin/Mant Squasher.

Be Afraid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on October 29, 2015, 03:51:17 PM

While there are more simplistic, realistically possible, and roughly equally effective methods (like Woodberry's large wind chimes leading walkers to pits making them vulnerable), that wacky-wall-whacker equivalent of a giant rolling ball of death would definitely be more fun.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 29, 2015, 04:30:50 PM
This from a guy who spent years perfecting his Goblin/Mant Squasher.

Ha, I was actually thinking of those Minecraft contraptions people use to harvest monster parts.  But yes, also that.    :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 30, 2015, 12:05:32 AM
I literally started planning such a thing in my head after reading your post, using these (from a mod called Immersive Engineering):


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 30, 2015, 07:38:55 AM
I'm sensing a new tower defense game in the making...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on October 30, 2015, 06:12:09 PM
Unlike some of the actors, this has been picked up for another season.  Shocker. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on November 02, 2015, 09:56:05 PM
Morgan episode...... Zzzzzzzzzz


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 02, 2015, 10:07:17 PM
Morgan episode...... Zzzzzzzzzz

The goat was the best part of the episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 02, 2015, 11:42:34 PM
Morgan episode...... Zzzzzzzzzz

That had to be the most boring, pointless episode that really didn't add to the character at all. Fuck Zen Morgan. I fell asleep twice during this episode and not even Season 2 did that to me.

I really hope they invested all that effort to kill him the fuck off next week George Martin style.

Bad episode was bad


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 03, 2015, 12:30:38 AM
Morgan episode...... Zzzzzzzzzz

That had to be the most boring, pointless episode that really didn't add to the character at all. Fuck Zen Morgan. I fell asleep twice during this episode and not even Season 2 did that to me.

I really hope they invested all that effort to kill him the fuck off next week George Martin style.

Bad episode was bad

I have a feeling his new morality is gonna get a bunch of people killed before he gets his.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 03, 2015, 01:11:13 AM
Since we are supposed to take Ricks side I would almost be willing to bet money that it does. Another construct to validate Rick, however unhinged he becomes.

Thats not my problem with this episode though, thats valid drama, even if a bit heavy handed. My problem is this episode being boring as fuck.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 03, 2015, 06:55:25 AM
I'm not sure I really get it, do you guys want 13 straight hours of non-stop zombie fighting? Like just a giant gorefest with 10 random humans hitting zombies in the head, a few get eaten, a few new ones replace them, repeat ad naseum?

That's the impression I get after hearing the comments about every episode that doesn't have at least 50 zombie deaths in it.

I found this episode to be interesting, well acted (especially by the guest actor), and a nice change of pace. Mind you, I'm weird - I even enjoyed the farm season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 03, 2015, 07:55:48 AM
Eh, I liked it. Nice change of pace & gives us a little backstory to what happened to him.

I have a feeling his new morality is gonna get a bunch of people killed before he gets his.
I think this is a pretty good assessment and setup. In this new world you just have to kill sometimes even if you don't like it. To do otherwise gets people killed anyways.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 03, 2015, 09:01:21 AM
I enjoyed it as well - a good palate cleanser after the first three weeks. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 03, 2015, 09:19:28 AM
I found this episode to be interesting, well acted (especially by the guest actor), and a nice change of pace.

This. I thought it was one of the best episodes of the last few seasons. Well-acted, well-scripted, well-shot and gave a good bunch of reasons for why Morgan is the way he is. I also liked the tie-in with the couple from a few seasons ago (the ones that gave him the can and the bullet - weren't they the ones from the episode when Rick banished Carol?). I think the reason most people are pissed about it (and rightly so) is that it came after the maybe-death of last episode and the "ambiguity" surrounding whether the character is dead or not.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 03, 2015, 10:25:13 AM
... I also liked the tie-in with the couple from a few seasons ago (the ones that gave him the can and the bullet - weren't they the ones from the episode when Rick banished Carol?)...
I don't think so - IIRC, Penguin on Gotham was that guy (which made it hard to bring him in at the start of tghe Terminus episode and off him as he was busy with Gotham - but they managed to pull it off).  I just checked IMDB and the actor and actress in this most recent episode have no other Walking Dead credits to their name. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on November 03, 2015, 10:58:59 AM
Yeah, I thought the same at first, but the injuries were reversed. With the Carol couple, she had the bad leg.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 03, 2015, 11:54:23 AM
This guy I know was in the episode that you guys are speculating about (I still can't spot him through the makeup) and despite ignoring him (and the fact that he doesn't watch the show!) ... I'm led to believe several of us will be angry.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 03, 2015, 11:56:22 AM
I thought it was a great episode, one of the best in a long time.  Strange how so many of you have such totally invalid opinions about stuff  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 03, 2015, 01:24:10 PM
Well, I liked the Morgan episode after watching only about 50% of it.  I was actually talking about the previous episode.  Context is hard.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 03, 2015, 03:40:33 PM
I have no idea what you're all talking about.  That was brilliant.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 03, 2015, 06:36:24 PM
Yep, very solid episode.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 03, 2015, 06:44:17 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/1AVt4yK.png)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 03, 2015, 07:04:01 PM
Sadder to see Tabitha go than Andrea, Dale, Lori, Mika, and Lizzie.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on November 03, 2015, 08:52:11 PM
IDK, just kinda predictable. It changed absolutely nothing. I still find the non-killing in this world to be a massive weakness, not a strength. Rick should be dead cause of his hippie bullshit (but the guy had bad guy aim). At this point, he is as dangerous as the preacher was to the safety of the group.

The dude showed Morgan exactly what ya get for being nice to someone in this world. You get bit, and ya get dead. All life is precious...except your own I guess.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 03, 2015, 10:19:58 PM
Well, I liked the Morgan episode after watching only about 50% of it.  I was actually talking about the previous episode.  Context is hard.

I was responding to the general you and not the specific you.  I'm not even sure what your post was referring to.  Context indeed.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 03, 2015, 11:24:56 PM
I thought about it and maybe its just the "Ricks new outlook is right" anvil that sours the episode for me after the fact.

This guys and Morgans viewpoint shouldn't be shown as completely wrong (if it was tempered with some reality checks now and then), but it is carried to such ridiculous extremes in this episode that it is tainted and invalidated by it.

While the same happend with Glen, at least you were distracted by the action. Here you had a whole quiet episode to contemplate over the fact that everybody that disagrees with Rick this season leads to the death of one or more persons.

Without that in the back of the head I maybe would have enjoyed the show more, too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 04, 2015, 01:31:42 AM
I don't really get that.  Eastman was a huge contradiction;  taking everything else out and looking Solely at this episode, it's quite clear that his ethos doesn't work.  Serial killer killed his family.  There are some things you simply can't avoid.  The question is WHAT you want to avoid.  Eastman would rather die than kill, fair enough.  Morgan has been suicidal since Duane, so his choice was really, really easy.

But Eastman kept saying how everything was connected and he's right.  Shirking a responsibility makes the consequences your responsibility (Just look at Spiderman, for example).  When that Wolf breaks out and eats people (and he will), that will be on Morgan.  He knows that.  But they've been banging the drum about Hope since episode one.

Rick doesn't have any Hope.  And maybe that's right, I don't know.  But it's a shitty way to live.  Eastman and Morgan have/had hope and it got them killed.  But we all die anyway.

I'm actually really, really glad they put a thinky episode in here to break it up.  It also wasn't terribly light on the undead carnage either, so I don't get the complaints. 

Finally, Morgan met two sets of people during this episode.  The first one he killed brutally and the second one he left alone.  It'd be interesting to see what the effect of the ones he let go were, since the ones he killed came back to bite him in the ass.  Well, bite Eastman in the ass anyway...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on November 04, 2015, 05:26:59 AM
Thats the point I tried to make and thats what bugs me.

Eastman and Morgan don't work because they stretch their philosophy to ridiculous extremes, a bit toned down their philosophy would work better.

Basically they are strawman pacifists to show everybody what a bad idea nonviolence is. Coupled with Glens redemption failure I get the feeling they want to tell me that Shane was right so long ago.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 04, 2015, 05:37:12 AM
Well, of course Shane was right.  Jesus!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 04, 2015, 08:26:57 AM

weren't they the ones from the episode when Rick banished Carol


Were they ?

EDIT :  Not according to IMDB. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2015, 08:27:34 AM
Thats the point I tried to make and thats what bugs me.

Eastman and Morgan don't work because they stretch their philosophy to ridiculous extremes, a bit toned down their philosophy would work better.

Basically they are strawman pacifists to show everybody what a bad idea nonviolence is. Coupled with Glens redemption failure I get the feeling they want to tell me that Shane was right so long ago.

I don't think you're correct about that. Watching that episode in a vacuum might lead you to believe that, but we don't know what's going to happen with the wolf. We think Morgan is keeping him alive without telling anyone else that, and maybe what he's actually doing is the same thing Eastman did to the serial killer - starving him. Or Morgan's doing what Eastman did to him - giving him a chance to walk through the door, to redeem himself the way Morgan believes he's redeemed himself.

As far as the show going out of its way to make it seem like "Rick is right and everyone who doesn't agree dies," I'm not so sure about that either. We're looking at it in the middle of the season and there's a lot that's still not resolved. Hell, Rick may be dying for all we know at which point he couldn't have been very right about his plan. Hell, his plan has been dissolving all along by unforeseen circumstances, crumbling a little bit at a time. If anything, I think the show is actually trying to say that absolute, rigid adherence to a philosophy without the ability to adapt is the real killer in this new world. ALL life is precious is just as wrong as kill or be killed. I mean, if all life is precious, that means you have to make some kind of accommodation for cannibals who obviously can't believe that all life is precious. But if you just start killing everyone who might threaten you, eventually there's only one person left alive against the horde.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 04, 2015, 08:30:18 AM
I think it's clear he's told no-one and it's clear he's trying to redeem him.

Both are mistakes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 04, 2015, 09:02:10 AM
One thing to note: Alexandria is potentially the start of a community.  Just as in the prison, they're trying to live a life behind the relative safety of those walls.  That requires a different approach than trying to survive on the road.  The Ruthless Rick approach is what you need when survival is the only goal - but when the goal is to create a community, help it grow, protect it in a unified fashion, create a sense of peace, etc...  Then the old world rules start to become necessary again. 

I don't think this story ends with Rick showing Morgan that new his way is wrong.  I think it ends with Morgan convincing Rick that - eventually - his (new) way has to be right. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 04, 2015, 12:20:18 PM
No, because they're both too extreme.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2015, 12:35:16 PM
No, because they're both too extreme.

This. I think we're coming down to a "lesson" that the new world isn't always one thing or the other, it's that you better be willing to adapt to changing circumstances quickly before you get killed by them. Failing to act is just as bad as acting too violently if the situation demands something else.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 04, 2015, 12:46:23 PM
No, because they're both too extreme.
I don't think Rick will adopt a rule of absolutely no killing.  I do think he'll adopt a rule of not killing unless absolutely necessary - basically a return to the old rules.  Outside war and necessary for defense of life, no killing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 04, 2015, 01:38:46 PM
weren't they the ones from the episode when Rick banished Carol
Were they ?

EDIT :  Not according to IMDB. 

The guy from Banished Carol showed up in Terminus and got the slice at the bleeding trough.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 04, 2015, 02:09:17 PM
Yeah, apparently I was totally wrong about those two.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 04, 2015, 02:35:22 PM
weren't they the ones from the episode when Rick banished Carol
Were they ?

EDIT :  Not according to IMDB. 

The guy from Banished Carol showed up in Terminus and got the slice at the bleeding trough.

Yes, I remember him.  I liked that wee touch.  Though that scene is STILL the most brutal thing they've ever done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 04, 2015, 02:42:32 PM
Yes, I remember him.  I liked that wee touch.  Though that scene is STILL the most brutal thing they've ever done.
You've obviously blocked out the scene where they executed the Littlest Serial Killer.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 04, 2015, 02:54:22 PM
You've obviously blocked out the scene where they executed the Littlest Serial Killer.

--Dave

I didn't find that brutal because they didn't seem to have a choice there, and they were reluctant, conflicted, human. Terminus? Yeah those fuckers were brutal and cold and psychopathic.

I really enjoyed this episode, but I also found it upsetting - a testament to how well done it was I think. I thought one message from it was that black and white approaches, e.g. kill/don't kill, aren't always going to work. One size doesn't fit all. And that the survivors aren't always making their choices based on objective analyses. They're humans, they've got baggage, they've seen and done some shit, sometimes the choices they make are just so they can live with themselves.

Edit: Also, played a lot of 7 Days To Die yesterday, then watched TWD. Totally had zombie dreams all night.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 05, 2015, 05:48:37 AM
Eastman was also shown killing left right and centre.  He also starved a man to death over a period of time.  His 'I don't Kill Now' was total, total bullshit and he knew it.  He was STILL unable to get through his own 'door'.  He'd put up a wall instead with some mantra of non-violence, but it was shallow and bullshit.  And he knew it.

That's the real take away.  Morgan is going to 'try' to uphold a life that's literally impossible without suicide and that wolf is going to show him a few home truths.  Mostly about how EASY it is to get to the point of starving some cunt to death.

It's The Killing Stroke all over again.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sir T on November 06, 2015, 07:19:17 AM
Killing does not make you manly and tough. Killing is actually fucking easy. Living and nurturing is hard.

That's why these idiots are the walking dead.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on November 06, 2015, 08:04:18 AM
There is also the underlying question of what is the real value of staying alive if you have to do horrible things? Pure survival is animalistic. Humans are supposed to strive for more. The zombie apocalypse is a real test of that.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 06, 2015, 09:00:00 AM
That's how I am seeing it as well.  Rick's approach might be effective for pure survival, but if you are going to be like that, then what's the point?  Morgan's way is probably too soft, but at least he is trying to respect human life, which would be just about the most important thing if you, you know, want your fucking species to survive.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 06, 2015, 09:00:32 AM
It is a fun game to try to figure out who has read the comics and who has not.  Sometimes it is quite clear.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 09, 2015, 03:36:41 AM
So... are they setting up a Maggie/Glen reunion to reflect Rick/Lori... sans Shane?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 09, 2015, 08:39:47 AM
My guess for what we see is that we're headed back to the comic storyline: 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 09, 2015, 10:44:44 AM
Yeah... that's not going to happen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 09, 2015, 02:10:51 PM
Yeah... that's not going to happen.
Just to be clear: If you're read the comics, you'll know what I meant.  If not, I tried not to spoil what happens in the comics, so there is a double meaning to some of what I predicted.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 10, 2015, 08:05:54 AM
Negan cast - Jeffrey Dean Moragn: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-negan-jeffrey-dean-836243?facebook_20151110 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/walking-dead-negan-jeffrey-dean-836243?facebook_20151110) - Comic spoilers and potential show spoilers in article.  One of my top choices that I heard thrown around, but I'd have liked Olyphant. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 11, 2015, 12:08:47 AM

Love your work :)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 11, 2015, 02:52:58 PM
Caught up with the latest one.  Was ok.  I still hate that Deanna looks more like a zombie than half the special effects.

Hilarious 'Coming up Next Tho'



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2015, 10:41:40 PM
Yeah, that Deanna lady is real-life spooky looking.

Episode was ho-hum filler.  Best part about it was the increased screen time of hot milf.  There was otherwise too much camera time for characters I don't give a shit about.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 11, 2015, 10:49:00 PM
I'm actually really impressed that they're going for such a low/no-makeup look for most of the female characters. We've got so used to what women look like buried beneath makeup that we forget what real people are like.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on November 11, 2015, 10:53:25 PM
Um, what?  They may be doing that with the superfluous no-named characters, but the main cast females are made up to the hilt.  They are avoiding colors that make it stand out, but these women look nothing like natural.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 17, 2015, 09:58:11 AM
A decent Darrell episode, and well written but not remotely what I want to see or know about. They are seriously going to keep us hanging on this shit until next year.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on November 17, 2015, 12:36:38 PM
I wish the deaths to the zombies weren't so stupid. In the last two episodes, the deaths have been sooo stupid.


Prediction:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 17, 2015, 03:04:40 PM
I think we get a resolve of the Glenn cliffhanger in the last 5 minutes before the break...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 17, 2015, 03:28:27 PM
Didn't like that one much.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 17, 2015, 05:04:50 PM
OOC: How would we (you) rank the seasons now that we have some distance from the early ones?

1.) Atlanta
2.) The Farm
3.) The Prison / Woodbury
4.) The Prison / Terminus
5.) On the Road / Alexandria
6.) Alexandria (current)

3,1,6,4,5,2 is my ranking right now...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 17, 2015, 06:17:41 PM
4, 5, 1, 6, 3, 2


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 17, 2015, 06:38:11 PM
I'm just going to say, to anyone who puts 2 in anything but last place: Keep your mouth shut and go watch Downton Abbey. The only good thing that can be said about the Farm is that it wasn't quite so terrible it got the series canceled.

4, 6, 5, 1, 3, 2


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 17, 2015, 09:25:53 PM
OOC: How would we (you) rank the seasons now that we have some distance from the early ones?

1.) Atlanta
2.) The Farm
3.) The Prison / Woodbury
4.) The Prison / Terminus
5.) On the Road / Alexandria
6.) Alexandria (current)

3,1,6,4,5,2 is my ranking right now...

You really like ranking stuff.

For me I just think the stuff that's been done with Gimple as shownrunner (season 4-current) as a whole has been better and more consistent than the early stuff. That's not to say that Darabont or Mazzara were bad. There's a lot of good stuff to come out of the early seasons. In particular the cast from the beginning that have stuck around this long are all doing great jobs. Also it's hard to know exactly how much AMC screwed them over with budget and creative control stuff early on which is likely what bogged season 2 down. The character development in the last few season has just been so much better than the days when they managed to just completely fuck up Andrea and Dale. Lori was already kinda bad in the comics but she was even worse in the show.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 18, 2015, 12:08:20 AM
Atlanta
Prison/Woodbury because Merle was my favourite character and the episode of his death was a probably the best almost-redemption story.
Terminus
On the road
Alexandria
Worst was The Farm except for Sophia and Shane getting taken down.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 18, 2015, 01:21:21 AM
This episode... "Just walk it off"   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on November 18, 2015, 05:23:28 AM
I really liked it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 18, 2015, 08:07:05 AM
....
You really like ranking stuff.
...
My 7th favorite pasttime. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 18, 2015, 03:13:16 PM
 :grin:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on November 23, 2015, 06:13:50 PM
So it really was the old switcheroo. I still think that was a bit of narrative bullshit, but hey, I like the character so I'm not minding too much.

Also, holy shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: TheWalrus on November 23, 2015, 06:16:08 PM
Catching a break does not happen for these people.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 29, 2015, 10:47:08 PM
And the midseason goes out with a "Meh."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 30, 2015, 01:47:16 AM
Mostly it just seemed like an odd place to cut things off, especially if you read the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 30, 2015, 11:24:44 AM
Right.... it seems like there should have been one more episode and then the midseason break if you want to get to all the action.  It seems like they realize that there are a lot of people that know the comics and they want to leave off right before several major beats....

The next episode that shows anything going on in Alexandria is going to be insane... although they could do an episode (or multiple) about the trio on the road before we see Alexandria again.  Or maybe they'll just mess with us massively and do a multiple episode arch on the Morales family that went to Alabama in Season 1. http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Morales_(TV_Series) (http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Morales_(TV_Series))


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 30, 2015, 12:52:22 PM
I'm half expecting them to skip ahead a bit, and then go back and show stuff in flashbacks. It's quite possible that they felt that things would have been too brutal to play out on the screen in real time.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 30, 2015, 07:06:59 PM
Man was that ever a snoozer.  I can get behind the character development and slow pacing of other episodes, but this was a real drag. I don't expect it to be non stop action but it just felt like it was stretched out to accommodate an hour as opposed to a fully fleshed out episode simply to leave on a cliff hanger that wasn't exciting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on November 30, 2015, 07:13:38 PM
As someone who kinda knows where this is headed from the comic books.. the episode needed 5 more minutes and it would have been a solid ending.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 30, 2015, 07:45:44 PM
As someone who kinda knows where this is headed from the comic books.. the episode needed 5 more minutes and it would have been a solid ending.
I'm wondering if they stopped right there because it diverges from the comics substantially in the next 5 minutes.... and they thought that ending there would build expectations....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on November 30, 2015, 09:41:33 PM
They teased the eyeshot like a million times. Also, the new big bad should have appeared....would have made for a better end. Just so meh on so many levels the way that it played out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 01, 2015, 12:57:48 AM
That was a very bad and very boring episode.

Just all kinds of wrong.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on December 01, 2015, 05:24:00 AM
Was Morgan's character as terrible in the comics?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 01, 2015, 05:27:39 AM
No idea, but the whole basement thing was just ultra, ultra retarded and required all the characters present to act entirely contrary to previous nature.  Well, except maybe Doctor Good Hair.

The idea of reforming a wolf was bad enough, but to have Morgan be even more stupid, Carol to be less than clever and the gruesome threesome just hand over the weapons to Mr McKnifey was all roll-eyes daft.

And THEN Mr McKnifey took a hostage out into a zombie swarm.

Also, the whole episode was really, really badly edited with continuity all to fuck.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on December 01, 2015, 09:03:56 AM
I can forgive Carol being a dumbass because she had a concussion. Rosarita or Tara not pegging Wolf Boy in the eyeball was a bit of WTF since we saw Tara at least headshotting the shit out of zombies with a pistol from farther way in the last episode.

Did no one watch the 2-minute thing they showed during Into the Badlands? Darrell, Abraham and Sasha got pulled over in the truck by Negan's peeps, so we won't see Negan until February.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on December 01, 2015, 10:00:48 AM
Yeah, out of character shittiness. In addition to Tara's incredible aim when the plot calls for it, Rosita is military trained with a gun aimed at a dude's head from less than 10' away....wtf. Then, after their stupidity kicked in and they tossed wolfdude the guns, wtf is keeping him from doing what he does by killing everyone in the room? Sure, it would bring more walkers around but that doesn't seem to matter to him.

I think that basement scene is the only thing more stupid than blond chick's son calling for mommy in the middle of the herd

As for the Negan thing, they showed that in the after-credits or w/e for the episode. It was so poorly placed I can see how people would easily miss it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 01, 2015, 10:38:10 AM
Yeah, it was where 'Next Time On' usually is in the UK, so we saw it.

T'was pish tho.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on December 01, 2015, 11:02:10 AM
I'd imagine that we do not see Negan with residents of Alexandria until the last 5 to 10 minutes of the season.  I'm thinking more and more that they'll build it up to play out just like in the comics ... and then switch up who ends up where in the last three minutes (I'm betting that scene will be very drawn out).

Sasha is part Andrea from the comics - they want someone to fill that sharpshooter role.  It must be more of a key story element somewhere down the line that they need someone that can make an incredible shot.  I'm not remembering anything from the comics where you had to have a sharpshooter.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on February 14, 2016, 08:13:12 PM
Really good start to the second half of the season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 14, 2016, 08:14:13 PM
That could be my favorite episode of Walking Dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 15, 2016, 03:23:45 AM
Yep - I'll rate it at the top - it had a bit of everything from all the key characters.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 15, 2016, 06:29:17 AM


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 15, 2016, 03:14:43 PM
I'm going to disagree, that was some serious bullshit.


That was awful.  But whatever.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on February 15, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
Thing I mostly had problems with was:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 15, 2016, 06:19:42 PM
Generally, I'm with critics on this one. They'Re trying a lot of stunts this season with 'twists' and spectacles that are not true to the story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 15, 2016, 06:22:40 PM
I dug it. Yes the Wolf's turn was a bit much but I think it sets up some good story bits for later in the season. Also, they had to thin the crowd in Alexandria a bit somehow.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: CmdrSlack on February 15, 2016, 08:08:11 PM
My biggest beef is that loud kid was loud way later in the episode than he was at the end of last.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 15, 2016, 10:09:54 PM

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 15, 2016, 10:36:50 PM
For those that have not read the comics: I'd say this is a place where the comics executed the story significantly better than the show. What worked on the show was also good in thecomics, and what failed for me in the show either did not exist in the comics or was executed much better.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 01:34:30 AM
Was just browsing the AVClub reviews and, damn, if they didn't hit the nail on the head for me.  It's like my review, except coherent.

http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/walking-dead-returns-and-everything-works-out-ever-232232 (http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/walking-dead-returns-and-everything-works-out-ever-232232)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 16, 2016, 02:49:03 AM
Nobody yet complained about


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 03:01:55 AM
Yes, it bothered me, but less than the rest because COMICS !

Also, no obvious exit wound.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on February 16, 2016, 06:22:25 AM
Yes, it bothered me, but less than the rest because COMICS !

Also, no obvious exit wound.
Pretty sure what we saw of his eye *was* the exit wound, the entrance would have been in the back of his head.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on February 16, 2016, 06:30:18 AM
Do we really have to spoiler when a new episode airs?  Who is going to read this thread before watching the latest?


I'ts an episode that was alright right after I watch it but more blah the more I think about it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 06:44:48 AM
Yes, it bothered me, but less than the rest because COMICS !

Also, no obvious exit wound.
Pretty sure what we saw of his eye *was* the exit wound, the entrance would have been in the back of his head.

--Dave

Hmmm.  Ok.  Um.  Right.

Fair enough.

Also, to answer Kall, Europeans don't get this till 24 hours minimum after you and some tape that shit.  So.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 16, 2016, 06:50:01 AM
They were facing the kid when he shot at them, Carl then turned around and faced Rick.  The shot went in his eye and out the side, not straight into his head.  Like in Fight Club except in his eye socket instead of mouth.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 06:55:24 AM
I feel the need for a Zapruder Diagram.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on February 16, 2016, 07:14:42 AM
Talking Dead had Greg Nicotero explaining that the bullet hit the bone at the outside edge of the eye, ricocheted out. The bone fragments were what destroyed his eye. Neato prosthetic shots too.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 07:17:08 AM
Cool.  That's all cleared up.  Now, can you strangle someone with an AK with no-one within 10 meters hearing you ?

Coming up next on Fox Report.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Bunk on February 16, 2016, 08:07:31 AM
Good episode despite many of the legitimate nitpicks people have made here. Couple things that urked me the most though:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 16, 2016, 08:35:54 AM
For the nitpicks:



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 16, 2016, 08:40:46 AM
The trouble with that is it's all just a variation on 'Bloody Poncho Syndrome'.

Why the fuck isn't everyone wearing them all the time.  Why have the all not adopted that lovely fashion accessory the 'Michonne' where you cut off jaws and arms and then carry them about on a chain ?

Why not, when you see a massive group of zombies in a quarry, just set that fucking thing on fire and watch them all die ?

It's not nitpicks.  It's massive great bloody inconsistencies and bad writing.

But, to repeat, whatevs.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 16, 2016, 08:47:45 AM
Why?

DRAMA, MY GOOD CHAP! DRAMA.

There are inconsistencies like that all up and down the line. At least we aren't still down on the farm.

I've actually been reading the comics and I just got to the part where Rick shot Pete in Alexandria. In almost 100% of the cases, the TV show has done it better.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on February 16, 2016, 11:31:58 AM
I liked almost all of it despite the nitpicks that have been raised. I'll accept a little dispersal of reality in my zombie apocalypse TV show provided it isn't completely eye-rollingly bad. Considering how well the guys doing this show have done over the last 3 seasons, I'll give them some leeway.

Except the rocket launched at the lake, because that's Not How That Works.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on February 17, 2016, 07:41:01 AM
One of my gripes that no one mentioned, is even if you hit them with a rocket launcher...you are just gonna high five and assume everyone's dead? I know its TV, and in TV and movies an explosion means instakill on everything...but if I'm in the zombie apoc I'm sure as shit gonna finish anyone off...or question them, then finish them off. Then take any weapons and ammo I can salvage.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on February 17, 2016, 08:59:20 AM
One of my gripes that no one mentioned, is even if you hit them with a rocket launcher...you are just gonna high five and assume everyone's dead? I know its TV, and in TV and movies an explosion means instakill on everything...but if I'm in the zombie apoc I'm sure as shit gonna finish anyone off...or question them, then finish them off. Then take any weapons and ammo I can salvage.

They where all in chunks, did you expect something like this. (https://youtu.be/j9spLa86gLY?t=45s)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on February 21, 2016, 07:18:21 PM
Having now read the first 100 issues of the comic...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 23, 2016, 04:08:36 AM
I think I'm done with this now.  Last two episodes have just been chock full of stupid.  I can't abide the Stupid.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on February 23, 2016, 05:29:00 AM
I think I'm done with this now.  Last two episodes have just been chock full of stupid.  I can't abide the Stupid.


Welcome to the "Walking Dead has insulted my intelligence one last time" Club.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on February 23, 2016, 08:20:27 AM
I'm disappointed in a couple of the recent decisions that went a bit too big, but my hope is that they get it right soon. 

Unfortunately, I think the adherence to the comics is setting us up to expect a certain big moment is going to go one way - only to swerve and change who ends up getting the short end of the stick at the last minute.  We'll see.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on February 23, 2016, 01:09:43 PM
How can you hate the Walking Dead with stuff like this! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUkYepOl0Jg)   :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on February 23, 2016, 07:14:01 PM
I think I'm done with this now.  Last two episodes have just been chock full of stupid.  I can't abide the Stupid.


So does this mean that you find Walking Dead worse than Dr. Who? That thread is just as long as this one (although started one year earlier) and you still haven't managed to stop torturing yourself by consistently watching it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2016, 01:20:07 AM
Zing, good one, etc.

Elena's mad Dr Who fan, so it gets watched in the house.  Christine won't miss Darryl for love or money, so it'll get watched too.  Much like Dr Who, you'll find I comment on it less if it keeps up the retardery.  Bear in mind that my background would have me commenting like a fanboi on every Dr Who episode if, you know, they were any good.  I skipped an entire season of Smith because of Moffat and didn't comment on it.  You're welcome.

I found last weeks kinda insulting to my intelligence and this weeks even worse.  I know the comics and I know who these chaps are and I know what it's working up to.  If the TV series can put a better spin on it than the comics did, it's not long for my commenting.

For which relief, no doubt, you'll give much thanks.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on February 24, 2016, 03:34:01 AM
Just to be clear, I don't actually disagree with any of the things you complain about (on either show). I'm just imagining you being forced to watch them as some sort of Hades-imposed punishment.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2016, 04:30:56 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/IezpNpm.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MrHat on February 24, 2016, 06:59:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/IezpNpm.jpg)

Holy hell that's hilarious.  Thanks.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on February 25, 2016, 01:06:15 AM
For entertainment, I enjoyed the last episode. If you are watching TWD for deep meaning then you are kidding yourself.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on February 25, 2016, 01:30:04 AM
For entertainment, I enjoyed the last episode. If you are watching TWD for deep meaning then you are kidding yourself.
For entertainment, I enjoy Z Nation more than Walking Dead since the former doesn't take itself so seriously while the latter is getting weighed down by the need for serious drama (especially as the seasons pass).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on March 09, 2016, 02:46:38 PM
Nobody had anything to say about the latest episode? Oh well, I had a good time. I like their deftness in making you think the story might completely stray from the comics, then bringing it right back.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 09, 2016, 03:33:54 PM
Nobody had anything to say about the latest episode? Oh well, I had a good time. I like their deftness in making you think the story might completely stray from the comics, then bringing it right back.

I've liked it so far.  They've stuck pretty close to the comics this whole season.  They are totally teasing with Glen though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 09, 2016, 11:16:43 PM
I enjoyed it - in fact I think this half season has a lot going for it as long as you suspend belief and remember that it's fiction based on a comic book. Glen came a long way in the episode and you can still see the humanity in him.

I think they can leave off the bat references though... we get it


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 10, 2016, 09:29:40 AM
The bat references are what made me really cringe. I really hope they keep that whole thing off screen, or change its outcome because fuck this show if they follow the shitshow the comics became at that point.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 10, 2016, 12:29:37 PM
They're making it fairly clear that it's going in that direction.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 15, 2016, 02:24:52 AM
Nice Carol episode - I wonder if they are setting her up for the meeting with the new antagonist. I'd love it if he saw straight through her act.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 15, 2016, 02:54:39 AM
What I liked about it is we're no longer sure what's an act and what isn't.

Fast becoming the most watchable person on the show.  She's at least consistent in her inconsistency.

I thought that was a better episode, but the kicker is it was entirely drained on tension for me.  You knew that all was going to end well.  I think they need to shake that up sharpish.  It's really making what should be tense episodes like that into 'Farm' episodes.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 15, 2016, 04:34:33 AM
I disagree about that actually, from my point of view - having *not* read the comics - it was incredibly tense. It feels to me like they could well kill anyone off at any time, except for Rick ofc. It kinda feels overdue for them to bump off a 'main' character, so I keep expecting it.

I totally agree about Carol though, she's definitely the most interesting character this season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 15, 2016, 04:52:42 AM
It's not so much about the comics, per se.

It's more the bullshit we've seen this far with Glenn and the fact that there's a main 'core' of characters that I just don't see as likely for the offing.  For example, Darryl isn't even IN the comics;  I'm fairly certain the character is made of Teflon for the purposes of the story.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 15, 2016, 05:24:07 AM
Killing off characters to add tension is a bit of a crutch and one that's been used dozens of times in the series already. As it is they've been killing off characters at practically the same rate they introduce new ones to the point where the only arguably interesting character introduced in the last two seasons who is still alive is Aaron. Heath hasn't really been given much to do yet (and with his career taking off might not be long for the show anyway), Denise and Enid don't really do much for me, I couldn't have even told you Tobin's name until I looked it up just now, and Jesus has potential but it's too early to say so far.

In fact the tension for me in that last episode is that I was hoping Alicia Witt would get to stick around for more than one episode as Paula (alas, it wasn't to be).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 15, 2016, 02:05:17 PM
Well, at least she proved on the talk show that she really, really does love the cocaine.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on March 16, 2016, 02:16:37 AM
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over the red hair.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 21, 2016, 02:53:44 AM
Tonight's episode had me wondering if they were channeling MASH with the photos and "hush". Once again I really enjoyed it - plus they switched out a certain death for a bonus. Abe and Eugene have the best lines in the show I swear.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 21, 2016, 08:25:36 AM
Nice fakeout death, substituting one unnecessary death in the comics with another. I'm sad to see that character gone, but not as sad as I would have been if they'd followed the comics. Makes me hope for the season finale to not be the gut punch I'm expecting.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 21, 2016, 08:26:21 AM
Oh it will be.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 21, 2016, 09:03:35 AM
It may not be the gut punch we're expecting, but it will be a gut punch.  I'm personally thinking that people saying Carol and Daryl are "safe" because the characters they're portraying are not in the comics (Carol is a different Carol at this point) puts one of them in the lineup to meet their maker.

Actually, given the substitution we saw last night, I think we'll get two deaths at once - one that finishes off the character that had their death stolen last night, and one that gets someone that has been with the show a lot longer.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Cyrrex on March 24, 2016, 12:33:53 AM
I think they know that if they kill Darryl, there will be a sudden ratings drop as the 30 to 49 year-old female demographic immediately stops watching the show. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2016, 03:01:24 AM
Yeah, I've never, ever, ever understood this whole 'Darryl is sexy' but I'd be a fool to deny it exists.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: KallDrexx on March 24, 2016, 05:45:18 AM
I think I"m done with this show.  Each episode seems to be getting worse and worse writing.

Carol's sudden "I can't stay here because I'd have to kill, even though I've proven over 6 seasons that I will have to kill while I'm out there alone" is utterly stupid and is just coming out of no where.  It's so obvious that something will either happen and she'll come back to save the day or they'll find her out there captured, neither of which seems interesting.

They seem hell bent on making people in situations where they should die live (glen being a bullet ninja when someone is shooting the walker pile on top of him, actually Glen in general) and yet they do sudden stupid deaths in just for the shock factor like the doctor.  It would have been so much more believable if they just came out of the woods aiming their guns and the doctor was killed in the crossfire, because it's also stupid that no one on their side was killed and the only issue was Eugene getting grazed by a bullet. 

And what is up with the whole biting the guy in the dick thing.  Eugene was latched on forever and the guy just stood there being dumb instead of stabbing him with one of the arrows from the bolt in his head or shooting him with the pistol he had with them.

I haven't read the comics, so if it's true that the comics are even more stupider than this then I'm glad I was very reluctant to pay the crazy expensive price for the comics.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2016, 06:19:47 AM
I personally think the writers just hate the actor.

"What can we get him to do this week ?"
"Oh, I know, how about a long and lingering 5 minute shot of him buried in another guys crotch ?"
"Bingo."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 24, 2016, 07:33:06 AM
In the comics, I think this era was a bit of a bridge era... a valley in quality of story. It was setting up something. It looks like the show is doing something similar... and I'd finish this season and watch the next premiere to see if it pays off before then.

They've thrown a few inside sliders and we're not swinging on them. We're due for some heat... and one solid hit will really get the game going.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 24, 2016, 07:41:35 AM
I haven't read the comics, so if it's true that the comics are even more stupider than this then I'm glad I was very reluctant to pay the crazy expensive price for the comics.

The comics are SO MUCH WORSE. Like "Fear the Walking Dead" bad. The FARM season from the TV show was better than just about all of the writing in the comics.

Just to give you an example, Carol dies in the comics about 30-40 issues in because 1) she tried to kill herself but was saved by the rest of the group and then 2) she wants to marry Rick and Lori (as in some kind of 3-way marriage since there are no rules anymore) because they've been nice to her and she's that needy and 3) finally, she walks up to a chained up walker that one of the doctors from Woodbury is experimenting with and lets it bite her in the neck, screaming "YOU REALLY LIKE ME!" as she gets jugged.

I wish I was making ANY of that up, but I am not. The comic is good in spite of the writing, not because of it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 24, 2016, 08:17:52 AM
To put it another way. Remember the governor? Ok his arc was the best arc in the franchise. It goes really downhill from there. Basically to be a true fan of the walking dead you have to continue slugging through this dreck long after


The comic was good only because it appealed to our cynicism. We like the walking dead because a part of our monkey brains wants the walking dead to happen.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 24, 2016, 08:31:03 AM
Even the Negan stuff in the comics was dreadfully dire and very badly written/plotted.

Not going to go into any spoiler territory, to be honest, but the trouble that the whole story really has is that PEOPLE ARE THE REAL BADDIES only really works in two or three instances.  You have the 'fuck it, out for what we can gets' the 'tinpot dictators' and the 'religious nutbags'.

And that's really it.  We've had the Dictators (now on to our second), we've had the selfish and amoral, all the way down to Cannibalism and all we need now are a bunch of Zombie Worshipping Freaks out to save souls by sacrifice to the zombies.  Oh, no, wait, that was the wolves, wasn't it ?   :uhrr: :oh_i_see:

Once you've DONE those, it's hard to be interesting. Which was why FEAR TWD was something that could have been good because it would have been the breakdown of society, but instead they just went 'oh, right fascist soldiers and government coverups hooray' on us and that, frankly, is hugely boring.

But anyway.  I still wanna know where that Helicopter Rick saw was actually going...



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Triforcer on March 24, 2016, 07:18:56 PM
Fear the Walking Dead should have been centered on the White House, or maybe some badass but ethical general, trying to hold things together while congressman or corporals in the same bunker plotted coups and stuff.  Basically, BSG with zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2016, 07:26:30 PM
Fear the Walking Dead should have been centered on the White House, or maybe some badass but ethical general, trying to hold things together while congressman or corporals in the same bunker plotted coups and stuff.  Basically, BSG with zombies.

Well I mean the reason they didn't continue on to Washington on TWD is cuz there's nothing there.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 24, 2016, 08:25:57 PM
Yeah, but they could have done something really interesting with "Why?", like the President, VP, and Speaker all becoming zombie chow before they figure out what's going on, and the Cabinet going into a spiral of plot and counterplot that has "nonessential" officeworkers for various departments swarming each other while zombies run amok, and the military attempts to figure out WTF to do, with the pathetic remnant at the end retreating north in hopes that colder winters will be a defense against zombies.

That would have been really interesting. Instead we went straight from SHTF in LA to 28 Weeks Later warlords, and nobody cared.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 24, 2016, 08:44:00 PM
That would have been really interesting. Instead we went straight from SHTF in LA to 28 Weeks Later warlords, and nobody cared.
Yeah, this.  FTWD really annoyed me with how poorly done it was.  I am not even sure I care enough to tune in for the 2nd season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2016, 08:50:04 PM
They fucked up by constantly stating that these shows will never intersect.  If there was an eventual bridge between the two shows I would probably try to keep interested, but hell I can't even remember much from the first season.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on March 24, 2016, 09:38:24 PM
Remember that opening shot in the first season of the walking dead. When the military is lined up, tanks and sandbags and mounted machine guns. Yet the zombies over ran them? Yeah no. Don't expect a real explanation for why the shit went down hard. Hell our monkey brains don't want one. FTWD skips right to the part we semi like, human dickiery because society is over and you all get to live in the fascist amoral wonderland.  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 25, 2016, 07:05:02 AM
Actually, the season finale of FTWD probably offered a good explanation for just that when the zombies overran the military-controlled hospital. It's just unfortunate that it happened because of literally the dumbest fucking plan ever presented. "I found us a way IN but to get out we'll have to fight the military AND the horde of zombies I just unleashed on them. AREN'T I SMART?"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 25, 2016, 11:31:58 AM
AMC is just scared shitless of actually spending any money on their best franchise for some stupid reason.  That's why we got the farm season and the planned fall of Atlanta mini series (blackhawk down but with zombies according to the creator) never happened even though the main character was already cast and made a zombie cameo in season 1.  Fear the walking dead was supposed to show the fall of civilization, cept that costs money so nope, can't haz.  Instead we get to skip the week where everything interesting happens and we only hear battles through the radio.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 28, 2016, 03:52:36 PM
Let's create tension with out of character retardery.

Blarg to it, I say.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 28, 2016, 07:03:37 PM
Yeah I'm kind of over "let's do stupid stuff because it makes tension/advances the plot!"


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 28, 2016, 07:31:25 PM
Yeah, that's two episodes in a row were the entire plot/danger revolves entirely around people being incredibly stupid and doing things completely out of character.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 28, 2016, 11:59:38 PM
I was preapered to defend last week's episode but this week's was shit. A total rehash of the last 2 episodes with Carol being a chameleon and the other characters being dumb. That had to be the laziest script writing I've seen in a while.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on March 29, 2016, 12:13:07 AM
I'm going with "The Food from Hilltop is laced with a Stupidity drug".

Because the people in this episode wouldn't have lasted this long in a Zombie Apocalypse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 01:58:56 AM
On the other hand, I do like that they have finally clarified Carols thought processes.  Yes, she is having panic attacks and breakdowns and is NOT putting it on, but once shit starts she's a death machine and can't stop herself.

Somehow, this is the only thing on the show I'm actually liking.  The arrogance of the Saviours swiftly cut short made me laugh my ass off.  The swift move with the car spike was also something we'd expect from The Punisher, not this little old lady.  It's like Granny Weatherwax in one of the Deathwish movies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2016, 09:58:21 AM
Carol's crisis of conscience would be good but it's just off to me somehow.

What I'm really getting tired of is "oh look, the Saviors just crept up on our intrepid heroes YET AGAIN with no one seeing a goddamn thing." That shit only works two, maybe three times before it gets old and annoying instead of menacing and creepy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 29, 2016, 10:25:45 AM
Specially when the one getting creeped up on is their best damn tracker.  And Carol's crisis on conscience  would be a great plot development and perfectly in line with having had to burn a bunch of people alive, the problem is her fucking idiotic decision to run off on her as the solution.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 29, 2016, 10:31:22 AM
They baited a trap and sprung it. Not silly at all... This is the first time Rick's group has faced off against competent enemies that plan and have skill. The Saviors know what they're doing and are winning some battles against Rick's group, especially when Rick's team makes mistakes.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2016, 11:27:39 AM
There's knowing what they are doing and there's "How the fuck did these guys continue to get the drop on these fucking people?" It's almost like they are using goddamn Viet Cong tunnels.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 12:03:33 PM
Yeah, it's not good.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on March 29, 2016, 03:31:53 PM
Then again, Dwight has fought Daryl enough times to maybe learn how to get the drop on him? I dunno.

I'm still enjoying it very much, as a dose of mindless entertainment.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on March 29, 2016, 04:02:08 PM
This is the first time Rick's group has faced off against competent enemies that plan and have skill. The Saviors know what they're doing and are winning some battles against Rick's group, especially when Rick's team makes mistakes.
This is what I'm hoping they are going for.  But as stated earlier, I would expect that to work maybe twice, not the 3-4 times we're on it so far.  I'd be thinking long and hard before rushing off to make rash decisions like following some idiot who isn't thinking straight.  I understand that for plot purposes they have to do it, but it strikes me as simple convenience more than fitting the narrative.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on March 29, 2016, 04:04:45 PM
Except we've been watching Rick's group mow down this guys like dogs for most of the season, their kill count is in the 50s at least. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2016, 06:02:19 PM
Most of those were sleeping and caught by surprise.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on March 29, 2016, 10:54:04 PM
And yet even after them getting jumped over and over again they still wander around in pairs, clearly paying no attention to anything around them, deep in conversation instead. It's a fucking war zone guys, have your deep, but vague, conversations about whether or not it's right to kill people when you're safely back at base, not out in the field where you should be keeping an eye out for VC, er, zombies etc.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 30, 2016, 01:06:14 PM
I'm pretty sure the theme of the finale will be: "You $#@s pissed on the wrong bear.  Meet claw."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 03, 2016, 07:43:54 PM
Oh fuck that bullshit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: EWSpider on April 03, 2016, 07:47:55 PM
That was by far the worst episode of Walking Dead in all of the seasons.  I was bored for almost the entire episode and listening to that Neegan clown drone on was the worst of it.  I will not be watching this show any longer.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 03, 2016, 07:50:54 PM
I liked Negan, but I agree that they didn't really need to do a 90 minute episode here.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: rattran on April 03, 2016, 07:54:29 PM
I'm totally done with the show now. Even the wife is unsure if she'll bother next season, and until the second half of season 6 she was a rabid fan.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 03, 2016, 08:06:29 PM
Yep, fuck this shit. I'm out. Negan was clownshoes in the comics and this one is even worse. I like the actor and he was clearly told to chew scenery (just like the idiotic comic version), but fuck this. The Saviors being that coordinated is just "Magical Negro" levels of bullshit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on April 03, 2016, 08:16:45 PM
Yup. 90min for... 15 minutes of monologuing & a cliff hanger, with maybe 5 minutes of introductions for Carol & Morgan's side quest to meet new people. Wife is PISSED. I think it's all pretty much expected that the world knows what the comics did at this point in the story by now but to have the show follow it so closely and end without something of a resolution is quite annoying. They could have done this as a mid-season cliff hanger and it wouldn't be so annoying. They really need to step up their game next season if they expect people to still be into the show...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: EWSpider on April 03, 2016, 08:28:02 PM
I liked Negan, but I agree that they didn't really need to do a 90 minute episode here.

Was the actual show even any longer?  Seemed like we just got twice as many commercials as normal.

I don't buy that it's even remotely possible for that many people to be living nearby and for our peeps to have no clue.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on April 03, 2016, 10:34:15 PM
... The Saviors being that coordinated is just "Magical Negro" levels of bullshit.
Massive numbers, knowledge of the terrain and enough surveillance to track a mobile home goes a long way.

Bye to those that will not be watching anymore.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 04, 2016, 03:44:55 AM
Let the "The walking dead has insulted my intelligence for the last" number in legions.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 04, 2016, 04:40:27 AM
I liked the Negan portrayal and I didn't mind the monologue at all - it allowed the audience the chance to see Rick fall to pieces (again). I'm a big fan of Carol but fuck that was pointless other than to introduce The Kindom which was totally unnecessary anyway at this point. Too muchg driving around was tedious. If Aaron was along just to step up to the plate then fuck the show because no-one cares about Aaron.

At least Farmville had the balls to run with the Shane and Sophia arcs and to not hold back but the use of a cliffhanger? That was shitty storytelling at its worst.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: slog on April 04, 2016, 05:28:16 AM
7 seasons is a long time for a TV show.  Everything needs to end sometime.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 04, 2016, 07:02:13 AM
... The Saviors being that coordinated is just "Magical Negro" levels of bullshit.
Massive numbers, knowledge of the terrain and enough surveillance to track a mobile home goes a long way.

Not that long. Even the goddamn Viet Cong had radios and past the satellite tower episode, we haven't seen one use of radios to justify this shit in the least. Not to mention the whole "We can totally sneak an army up on people who have been surviving in the wild like this for almost 2 years."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on April 05, 2016, 12:37:30 AM
Meh. There was no reason to make that a 90 minute episode, it was tedious. They did a decent job of creating tension but it simply wasn't sustainable for that long. And cheap cliffhangers don't create tension, just frustration.

Scott M. Gimple cited Lost in attempting to justify it (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/03/walking-dead-season-finale-robert-kirkman-scott-gimple):

Quote
“I would say, when they opened up the hatch [on Lost], we had to wait and see who was in the hatch. I liked thinking about that. I liked talking about it. … We have to do an episode that justifies it to you. We have to do something so great and so intense that you’re like ‘Okay, all right, fair play.’ That’s the challenge we have and we’re going to do it. We’re going to deliver you something fantastic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on April 05, 2016, 01:40:29 AM
TWD is not Lost. TWD is flawed writing (even in comic book form) that occasionally comes good. This episode was flawed writing that had one monment in the sun: Negan's monologue. They then destroyed the impact of it and took away from some of the best acting in the season/series in the form of Rick and Negan and destroyed the impact. The rest was shit - every single bit of it. It weas mediocrity at its best.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2016, 07:27:21 AM
When I start talking about the Saviors sneaking up on the crew constantly, I really got stuck on the goddamn log fire/bridge hanging scene. I keep looking at that and thinking, "Ok who the fuck set the fire? Who's up there tossing the body off the bridge?" Because surely the people there would fucking SEE OR HEAR those people either before or after the body gets tossed. That scene really stuck in my craw and it was the cherry on the top of the shit sundae that was the whole magical disappearing Saviors thing. The "we know exactly the route they will take on foot" trap at the end just made it worse.

We're talking about heavily forested country with a range of 23 something miles. You would need THOUSANDS to cover that much ground and there's no way you can convince me that the Alexandria folks wouldn't have seen that many people before unless they were hiding in goddamn caves. Seeing as how DC was built on a fucking swamp, I'm not holding a lot of hope that there's enough caves or an underground tunnel system that could hide these people's settlements. There's just too much coordination with too much mystery to make that work.

As for the hatch in Lost, I can't say that the revelation of what was in the hatch necessarily paid off the wait. Considering what was in the hatch was just a goddamn countdown computer that did... something sort of unexplained when left alone, there really wasn't a great payoff there. And I say this as someone who LIKED the series finale of Lost.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 05, 2016, 07:54:46 AM
We were supposed to think it was an elaborate production meant to herd them in the right direction so they could scare them into behaving.  Which is a pretty fucking ridiculous plan to begin with.  Rick's group has already wiped out about 50 of the saviors, the entirety of Alexandria doesn't even make up for a third of that.  You don't kill one guy to make the others behave in that situation, those people are fucking dangerous and should be utterly wiped out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2016, 08:20:18 AM
Exactly. I mean, why bother letting Hilltop survive when you quite obviously can just kill their defenders, take the survivors as slaves and set up an outpost there? It's sort of the same setup as they had, except the Saviors leave no oversight there (a few guys with guns as foremen/overseers) to prove the Hilltop residents are holding up their end of the bargain or not plotting to fight back. It's a completely idiotic set up. Woodbury made more sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 05, 2016, 03:21:29 PM
You guys trying to make sense of escapist fantasy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on April 05, 2016, 03:30:29 PM
Just because there are zombies doesn't mean there shouldn't be some internal logic. And things that take me out of the story and make me say "Wait, how did that happen?" kill the internal logic.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on April 05, 2016, 04:04:30 PM
That rule only applies to the zombies. When the humans act dumber than the zombies any arguments toward internal logically starts to rapidly fall off a cliff. At this point this show pure escapism since everyone still alive has been shown to be consistently less intelligent than the brain dead zombies they kill. Negan shows up and kills just one member of ricks group. Why? Because rick is the good guy so his people are worth 50 of theirs. Sounds about right to me.  :awesome_for_real:

At this point the only intellectual reason you watch the show is if your imagining yourself in the walking dead universe and enjoying the vacation. No amount of cartoon physics will scare you away.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 06, 2016, 05:54:23 AM
I was fine with it all. Standard recent TWD season. Some meh bits,  some outstanding bits, cliffhanger ending.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Segoris on April 06, 2016, 08:28:52 AM
Kind of 'meh' episodes lead-in episodes capped off with a mediocre finale to finish off the season. Sad that the best part of it was Trevor from GTA V.

On the plus side, fuck yeah! It's Trevor! :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on April 06, 2016, 10:52:09 AM
On the plus side, fuck yeah! It's Trevor! :drill:

No way, he's the creepy locksmith (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPW_lwU_Hwc) from Broad City.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on April 08, 2016, 11:18:01 AM
What a pile.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Evildrider on April 08, 2016, 07:11:10 PM
Well they must be doing something right.  #1 watched show four years in a row now.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: johnnymoore on September 05, 2016, 04:36:01 PM
Do there have to be zombies in it?

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/28/walking-dead-producer-zombie-crime-show-nbc (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/28/walking-dead-producer-zombie-crime-show-nbc)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on September 05, 2016, 06:37:54 PM
The "zombie crime procedural" is actually a better show than this one to be fair to those producers.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on September 05, 2016, 06:40:40 PM
Do there have to be zombies in it?

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/28/walking-dead-producer-zombie-crime-show-nbc (http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/28/walking-dead-producer-zombie-crime-show-nbc)


Quote
NBC then submitted a different take on the concept: a procedural drama focusing on the protagonists solving “a zombie crime of the week,”
Pretty sure that show wound up on CW as iZombie.

(http://ultraimg.com/images/2016/09/06/Si9A.jpg)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tebonas on September 06, 2016, 04:57:04 AM
Nah, that show is "Veronica Mars as a Zombie" and is actually good.

Nothing against Daramont, but I doubt he can be as funny and clever as Rob Thomas.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ard on September 06, 2016, 09:50:40 AM
Which was also based on it's own comic book series.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: eldaec on September 26, 2016, 09:02:30 AM
I finally got to the end of s6, after having been about 18 months behind, usually I couldn't watch more than a few episodes without remembering how awful the writing could be and putting it on hiatus for months.

But watched from arrival at Alexandria to the end in a couple of weeks. Then the last episode reminded me why I found the show before Alexandria so fucking annoying.

In general though, s6 I enjoyed far more than anything before it.


But damn that last episode was bad.

That is such a textbook example of how not to do a cliffhanger.



Exactly. I mean, why bother letting Hilltop survive when you quite obviously can just kill their defenders, take the survivors as slaves and set up an outpost there? It's sort of the same setup as they had, except the Saviors leave no oversight there (a few guys with guns as foremen/overseers) to prove the Hilltop residents are holding up their end of the bargain or not plotting to fight back. It's a completely idiotic set up. Woodbury made more sense.

I was ok with all the saviour stuff on the same basis as any protection racket.

Sure they *could* take it over, but they they'd have to manage it, organise rubbish collection, make trains run on time. To do that they'd have to take time out from shooting arrows through people's eyes and hitting people with baseball bats.

The only thing that crunched gears for me was Hilltop managing to run out of bullets. Seriously, this show needs to never draw attention to the logistics of ammunition or gasoline. 'Saviours took our guns' would have been fine.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 19, 2016, 10:45:18 PM
Season by season recap of TWD with John Cleese (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU0eizwlejs).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on October 23, 2016, 07:25:46 PM
Well, shit.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on October 23, 2016, 07:28:45 PM
Yeah. I've been trying to figure out why I don't like the whole Negan thing and I can't put my finger on it. Maybe it's because they left the huge cliffhanger?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 23, 2016, 07:32:54 PM
Because he's a one note bad guy.  It's like making Joffrey the big bad in GoT.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 24, 2016, 03:17:38 AM
Was that it? Was that the build up all last season? Because if so then it was pretty damn pathetic. They could have done half of it for the finale and given us something better to kickstart this season.

The comic book did the whole thing a lot better ... and that's not saying much. At least the writing was better.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on October 24, 2016, 04:44:40 AM
This was so bad. I can't take this dude monologuing any more. And to cliff hanger the cliff hanger of the last 6 months.....I think I'm done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 24, 2016, 06:05:01 AM
Yes, yes let the hate flow through you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on October 24, 2016, 07:01:28 AM
I have to say that I'm a far bigger fan of Z Nation than the Walking Dead when it comes to zombie tv-serieses (and comparing the latest episodes of both just makes it more clearer than ever)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 24, 2016, 07:21:14 AM
Couldn't get very far with Z-nation but iZombie definitely beats walking dead.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 24, 2016, 08:44:06 AM
This was so bad. I can't take this dude monologuing any more. And to cliff hanger the cliff hanger of the last 6 months.....I think I'm done.

Haven't watched it yet, but are you telling me that they didn't actually resolve the "who got batted" question?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on October 24, 2016, 08:46:58 AM
No, it's resolved...they just had to cliff hanger it through the first half hour some more.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 24, 2016, 08:48:39 AM
Oh OK. Sounds tedious.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 24, 2016, 10:11:02 AM
I didn't watch it, I'm sticking to my vow. I did read the recap and holy shit, that sounds infinitely worse than the scene in the comics. And the scene in the comics was one of the worst written pieces of shit I've ever had the misfortune to read. Just thinking about that comic scene in the shower this morning actually made me angry.

In short, I told you motherfuckers. Ditch this piece of shit now. You'll thank me. The comic is like 60 issues ahead of where the TV show is now and Negan IS STILL THERE. Meaning, get used to one-note bad guy doing a soliloquy every goddamn time he kills someone.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Rasix on October 24, 2016, 11:13:52 AM
I kind of lost interest last season and didn't watch the last half. Read the synopsis because apparently everyone still loves this show.  

Uhh, yah. No thanks. Let me know if this gets good outside of just shocking people with over the top brutality.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 24, 2016, 12:01:27 PM
I thought the over the top brutality was absolutely necessary.  The whole point was that Rick and his group thought Negan was just run of the mill bad guy like the guys from Terminus or the Governor, they were extremely overconfident about the whole thing because they've dealt with the same shit over and over again.  That brutality was what was needed to break them, and they had to be broken or the story would just be a repeat of the past few seasons.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 24, 2016, 12:39:22 PM
Except everyone knows that as the protagonists, they can't be broken.

Comic book did it with one badly written death. This was just mediocrity at its best.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 24, 2016, 12:59:05 PM
I'm still struggling to figure out WHY I hate that scene so much (besides just being fucking horrible writing). It's not just like I really liked the character of Glenn - matter of fact, I loved the TV Glenn but thought the comic Glenn was a really flat, uninteresting character who only seemed to exist to be a counterpoint to whatever the dilemma was at the time. And it isn't like I'm squeamish, or don't enjoy some mindless brutality. It may just be that it seemed so goddamn unnecessary to be that brutal, that almost exploitative - like it was trying to manipulate my emotions so I hated Negan when I really didn't need the manipulation. I was already on the side of the main characters, I was cool with them chopping up the Terminus cannibals and killing the Governor. It's not like I was going to be sympathetic to Negan. So why go so brutal? To show how much more powerful he was? Just showing the sheer numbers of whatever his group is called was enough to do that.

You don't kill main characters without a reason, or just to demonstrate brutality. It needs to be done with a purpose that makes sense and doesn't make the viewer/reader feel like you are just looking for an opening to punch them in the nuts.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 24, 2016, 10:59:53 PM
Here it is done over and over to maintain the belief that any character can die at any time. It is a more extreme version of Eddard, Rob and Catelyn Stark. The book, and show, are far from the best written entertainment ever, but you seriously never know who will die, when it will happen and why. And before you say you know that Rick won't die, let me ask you a question colon if Andrew Lincoln decided to quit the show, do you think they would cancel it? Or do you think the show might evolve to be around a different character? I could see them killing Rick on TV. Heck, it wouldn't shock me if they killed Rick in the comics either. I don't consider it likely, but I think it's something that Kirkman has probably considered at times to prove that any character can die.

As for the stupid level of violence and gore: this is a zombie show. That is entirely expected. Complaining about gore in a zombie show is like complaining about tits in porn.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: eldaec on October 25, 2016, 12:24:56 AM
For me, the first problem is thematic. The last season had a relatively interesting question about at what point Rick becomes Shane, and how rick responds to challenge from the more peaceful end of opinion. This doesn't feel like consequences of those decisions or an outcome of those questions. It feels like "oh we've done that now here is the Governor again".

The other problem is the cliffhanger. There are two rules of a cliffhanger, firstly it should set up fhe next story not resolve the previous one, second the payoff has to be interesting enough to justify having the audience think about it until it is resolved. Clearly, this is neither.

And this is nothing like a Stark death.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 25, 2016, 12:31:53 AM
It is a more extreme version of Eddard, Rob and Catelyn Stark. The book, and show, are far from the best written entertainment ever, but you seriously never know who will die, when it will happen and why.

I'm not buying that - it was pretty well established in seasons 1-6. This is just cock-slapping the audience in the hope they gobble it down. GoT do it well, with backstory and depth. This was amateur week. Yes GoT loses major players, but if TWD wants to play that game then Rick, Carl or Darryl should have gone out. TWD wants to be GoT edgy but it has no idea how to do it. As for the violence, I doubt they were using that to shock the audience because the show has demonstrated worse, it's more because it was the setup for the mini-cliffhanger... which was a fail because after the first, the impact was lost when the second went out.

The only time the episode succeeded was the constant motif of the axe... I really thought they'd go back and do what the comics did with the Governor and amputation... THAT was better written than anything else in the script.

Having said that, I like that the title was a throwback to the line from the scientist in the CDC.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2016, 07:45:41 AM
It feels like "oh we've done that now here is the Governor again".


But it's the opposite of that.  That was exactly what Rick thought and why he was so overconfident last season.  That's the part that bothers me actually, Rick and his group managed to take out at least 50 or more of Negan's goons.  Unless his army is in the thousands, his actual army not the people he has oppressed, those are some massive losses that should have made them wipe out Rick's group completely.  That's not a "kill two of you to teach you a lesson and leave the rest of you alive as slaves" situation, those fuckers have shown they are way more dangerous than your standard group.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Slayerik on October 25, 2016, 08:21:36 AM
Not that I'm disagreeing with you (I think you are totally right that realistically Rick's group should have been decimated, also keeping the women around for pleasure pieces - cause let's face it...it would happen), but I guess Negan has done this to enough groups he knows he will always be a target, he just doesn't give a fuck cause...Oh you want some more?

Once you establish that you have vast numbers combined with brutality and power....the illusion of it would work almost as well (and less mouths to feed)





Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2016, 08:26:16 AM
Here it is done over and over to maintain the belief that any character can die at any time.

Problem is, we already KNEW that from six goddamn seasons worth of characters dying. TDog. Hershel. Beth. Just those three characters alone were pretty prominent important characters with larger arcs, and we saw them die. Viewers of the show and readers of the comic know full and goddamn well any character can die any time. So to kill two very well-liked characters and to basically kill them "like punk bitches" in an over-the-top sadistic way - it's horribly lazy, uninteresting writing. It tells me the creator doesn't know where to go from here or how to bring any sort of meaningful resolution to the world's story (because it will end eventually). That Negan is also an incredibly boring character with patently Tarantino-ed "I'm so clever, look at me, Mr. Clever Clogs" dialogue makes it even worse.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on October 25, 2016, 08:50:37 AM
TDog? that guy barely had any lines in the entire time he was around, he was only "prominent" because he happened to be around from the start.  As soon as they hired another black actor he was a goner.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2016, 08:52:20 AM
TDog was there from the beginning. So was Shane, so was Lori. All characters that were pretty prominent at one time or another that got killed. Just because the writers forgot TDog existed in season 2 doesn't mean he didn't have a prominent enough part to make people realize "anyone can die."


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 25, 2016, 12:55:59 PM
Watched the episode. Nothing new to add really, found it very uninteresting, probably not going to bother with the rest of the season. If they've got nothing new to tell in the way of story, just a repeat of previous ones, then what's the point?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 25, 2016, 01:03:49 PM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1739972/web-images/make-it-rain-dollars.gif)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 25, 2016, 01:33:20 PM
I miss Eastbound & Down. That was entertaining!


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 25, 2016, 03:21:45 PM
Hey, if you're out, you're out.  Not everything is everyone's cup of tea.  I see a different plan in their execution and it doesn't bother me.  I liked the premiere.  I know where the core of the story goes and I'm interested to see it play out with these actors.

Besides: They did the horrible violence thing for 6 seasons.  That means it is a part of the show.  It is a core element.  It is there for the purposes discussed above - to establish AND MAINTAIN that any character can go at any time.  But if you object to bloody gore in a show where people are eaten alive, where we've seen people torn apart... I just don't get it. 



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on October 25, 2016, 03:33:32 PM
Just waiting for this fall out for disney star wars films.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 25, 2016, 11:05:14 PM
I don't have a problem with the violence, as you say that's not new. I just didn't find most of last season, nor this 1st episode, interesting. I'll wait until the season wraps up and gauge reactions from here etc. before deciding if it's worth the time or not.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on October 26, 2016, 07:49:32 AM
Besides: They did the horrible violence thing for 6 seasons.  That means it is a part of the show.  It is a core element.  It is there for the purposes discussed above - to establish AND MAINTAIN that any character can go at any time.  But if you object to bloody gore in a show where people are eaten alive, where we've seen people torn apart... I just don't get it. 

No one is objecting to bloody gore in a fucking zombie show, you clueless munch. Stop being a willful fucking idiot and try reading what is written for a fucking change of pace.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 26, 2016, 12:18:07 PM
I thought the over the top brutality was absolutely necessary.  ...
The violence of the scene was discussed above.  Further, there has been a lot of talk - and objection to - the level of violence in that scene in media coverage and in places like Twitter.  

Regardless, you vow not to watch this show, but feel the need to come back, months after giving up on it, to discuss stuff you refuse to see.  If this show is horribly written, why the heck are you still here?  I don't get being so invested in trying to prove how uninvested you are.  


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on October 26, 2016, 04:14:52 PM
I honestly don't get the complaints here, and the violence wasn't my issue with this show or this episode. My issue is the pacing, the way they manipulate the audience, and how many bad choices they keep making for the series (+bad writing). Waiting halfway through the ep for the "death" by Negan, and then it being turned into additional drama (with stupidity), along with "envisioning" everyone getting the Lucile treatment, shows how little they care about the characters, but more-so the audience. The cheesy happily ever after "sitting around the dinner table" thing during the most emotional moment I felt was in the entire premiere was total pandering, kinda make me groan.

There were some really amazing acting performances in this ep tho... but Andrew Lincoln and Lauren Cohan won't get acting nods for a scene and show like this.


This also made me laugh waaaay more than I should've


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 26, 2016, 11:01:36 PM
I honestly don't get the complaints here, and the violence wasn't my issue with this show or this episode.

Um, nobody - literally nobody - in this thread has complained about the violence in that episode. And you say you don't get the complaints here and then you say:

My issue is the pacing, the way they manipulate the audience, and how many bad choices they keep making for the series (+bad writing). Waiting halfway through the ep for the "death" by Negan, and then it being turned into additional drama (with stupidity), along with "envisioning" everyone getting the Lucile treatment, shows how little they care about the characters, but more-so the audience.

...which are exactly the complaints that we have been making here.

I'm confused.  :headscratch:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: satael on October 26, 2016, 11:18:31 PM
I think that the previous time


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: taolurker on October 27, 2016, 01:33:16 AM
I honestly don't get the complaints here, and the violence wasn't my issue with this show or this episode.

Um, nobody - literally nobody - in this thread has complained about the violence in that episode. And you say you don't get the complaints here and then you say:
I didn't mean "here" as from you or the forum but "here" regarding the show itself.


Quote
...which are exactly the complaints that we have been making here.

I'm confused.  :headscratch:
and... I was basically agreeing with you and others in the thread (I almost used "here" again to further conflate the issue) about the ep... but that's ok because you're confused, and I hastily type things that are hard to understand without taking them personally. I mostly posted because of the fucking image though, and you just want someone to argue with (but that isn't me).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on October 27, 2016, 02:50:08 AM
Yeah it was the use of 'here' that confused me.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: eldaec on October 27, 2016, 07:12:36 AM
It feels like "oh we've done that now here is the Governor again".


But it's the opposite of that.  That was exactly what Rick thought and why he was so overconfident last season.  That's the part that bothers me actually, Rick and his group managed to take out at least 50 or more of Negan's goons.  Unless his army is in the thousands, his actual army not the people he has oppressed, those are some massive losses that should have made them wipe out Rick's group completely.  That's not a "kill two of you to teach you a lesson and leave the rest of you alive as slaves" situation, those fuckers have shown they are way more dangerous than your standard group.

I can forgive this. Primarily because Negan is not yet a character. He is a plot device.

If he were a character he might be one who gets off on cowing Rick. Moustache guy and blonde dude might be telling Negan to burn Alexandria to the fucking ground.

FWIW I also think pruning Glenn and Abraham is a good choice regardless of the comic. They both take a lot of airtime with no real arc left.

If the last two episodes were compressed into one, and presented more as a consequence of the gang's rambo shit I'd probably be more or less OK with it.

How Rick is going to react to the events in this episode would have been a much better cliffhanger.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Samwise on October 28, 2016, 10:11:05 AM
That's the thing, we know the show doesn't end here, so seeing what happens next should be interesting even if it'll probably take too long to get there.  My money would be on Rick just collapsing and somebody else (possibly Carl) taking Negan out in a really spectacular way.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 28, 2016, 01:46:22 PM
Oh lol.... another season of farmer Rick? :D

The question is how far are they prepared to deviate from the comics?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Xanthippe on October 28, 2016, 03:03:21 PM
I got 2/3 through the episode, got angry and quit watching - then was convinced to go ahead and finish watching it, which I did.

I don't know how anxious I am to watch any more, though. Not much.

TWD lost me last season or the one before, for the most part. Things happening that don't make sense other than to jerk the audience around. I don't like feeling manipulated. I don't mind being manipulated but if I feel like I'm being manipulated, I do mind, if that makes sense.

I am not fond of the violence in TWD. It became a gratuitous how to off zombies show a long time ago. I generally turn away and don't watch those parts.

For me to find a tv show compelling, I either have to have people to root for, or it has to be entertaining or thought-provoking, and I struggle to find any of that in TWD. I just don't care about any of the characters enough, except maybe Carl, and only because he's the kid (or man, now, I suppose).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on October 28, 2016, 03:07:57 PM
Only as far as they've deviated before.  They take different routes, but the destination will be the same.  If they kill off a character early, someone else fills the shoes.  The only reason I think they could deviate with regards to this storyline is


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on October 31, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
*grown snarl*

"I forgot to mention that Ezekial has a tiger"

*cut to tiger*

Quality fucking writing that  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 15, 2016, 09:23:39 AM
Thread gone quiet. Have episodes 2-4 been any better or is this show a zombie itself now?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Mithas on November 15, 2016, 09:33:39 AM
I haven't watched last Sunday's episode yet, but it feels stale so far. How much torture of main characters can you take before you get tired of it?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on November 15, 2016, 11:31:37 AM
How much torture of main characters can you take before you get tired of it?

One episode was enough for me, which is why I've not watched the rest. Will continue to stay away then.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MahrinSkel on November 15, 2016, 12:49:38 PM
Introduction of the King, further humiliation of Alexandria (taking all of their mattresses as tribute, then burning them on the side of the road), breaking Daryl, they're rubbing our noses pretty hard in just how nasty Negan is as a feudal lord. Not as much gratuitous brutality, but a lot more psychological torture backed by the threat of it.

--Dave


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on November 15, 2016, 01:23:29 PM
I like this season. I am really going to enjoy Negan getting his. I know that is how I am supposed to feel, but fuck it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on November 15, 2016, 02:54:55 PM
Thread gone quiet. Have episodes 2-4 been any better or is this show a zombie itself now?

I haven't watched any of this season. This was a low point in the comics for me. I like the stuff that comes after a bit better, but Negan is an even more cartoonish supervillain than the Governor, and Ezekiel and his tiger feel out of place also.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: eldaec on November 15, 2016, 03:13:55 PM
I haven't watched last Sunday's episode yet, but it feels stale so far. How much torture of main characters can you take before you get tired of it?

This week's episode was about eight and a half hours long and had about 12 minutes of content.

Much worse than the last two.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 15, 2016, 09:04:33 PM
Not hating it but I'm certainly not inspired to comment on the plot either.

They need to deviate from the comics, kill Rick off and make Coral take over


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: eldaec on November 16, 2016, 02:42:32 AM
It's frustrating in part because you occasionally see potential. Contrasting the kingdom/alexandria/hilltop approach to the problem seemed ok. I'm kind of interested in the idea of 'Fallout, the TV Show' which you could do if Negan wasn't so absolutely central to every damn thing.

The kingdom episode was good enough for me to accept both the Tiger, and Carol's ridiculous decision to live in that house. It still included the threat of Negan but Morgan and Ezekial's responses were handled so much better.

And Andrew Lincoln is really watchable in this. But badly needs a better editor. I get why they wanted to show Rick actively enforcing Negan's will but holy shit it went on too long and in the end 'give me a second' did it better anyway.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 16, 2016, 03:49:08 AM
Not hating it but I'm certainly not inspired to comment on the plot either.
Exactly. I'm kind of over watching a group of internet trolls come to life be as big of dicks to everyone else as they can be. It just isn't fun or entertaining.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Yegolev on November 21, 2016, 08:05:54 AM
I'm done.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: MediumHigh on November 21, 2016, 12:36:51 PM
yes the hate, let it flow through you  :drill:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on November 21, 2016, 03:44:37 PM
So it turns out Jesus is Keanu Reeves in the Matrix.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on November 21, 2016, 04:40:38 PM
I don't think it's been this boring of a season since the second season...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 21, 2016, 11:45:11 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Farmville 2.0


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 22, 2016, 08:19:10 AM
I much prefer my karate Jesus to fight vampires (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311361/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_55), not zombies.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 23, 2016, 01:00:32 AM
The show is more of the same for a long time. If you hate it now, you'll hate it for a long time. If you hate it and keep watching... all on you.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on November 23, 2016, 01:01:32 AM
I swear the comics move at a faster pace


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on November 23, 2016, 01:38:14 AM
I swear the comics move at a faster pace
We just hit the story from issue 100 and we're around 90 episodes in the show...Some parts move faster, other slower. However, generally, about the same pace on average.We'Re a few years from the next major shift, I'd say.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 28, 2016, 03:19:46 PM
God, that episode was worthless.  Getting harder and harder to slog through it.  It's not Legends of Tomorrow bad yet, but pretty close....


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on November 28, 2016, 04:23:16 PM
Tara is one of the few people in this show i actually like so i honestly rather see more of her than whatever the rest of the jackasses are doing.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on November 29, 2016, 01:46:40 AM
It wasn't really Tara that was the problem, as such.  I don't think it would have worked for me with anyone in the main role.




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: shiznitz on December 14, 2016, 09:56:38 AM
I liked the ending of this half of the season. Lays out expectations for some serious violence in the fall. I assume the core go guerilla. It seems the only tactic that makes sense.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 14, 2016, 10:35:31 AM
I liked the ending of this half of the season. Lays out expectations for some serious violence in the fall. I assume the core go guerilla. It seems the only tactic that makes sense.

I assume they are going to join forces with the Hilltop and the Kingdom and maybe the crazy bitches for a big fight.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on December 14, 2016, 11:55:26 AM
About the only good thing in this episode was Rick's look when Negan told him what was going on while he was out risking his life collecting things.

The rest was just boring and shock death writing which just isn't shocking any more.

The last 3 minutes was cringeworthy.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 14, 2016, 03:56:46 PM
Too much misery. Perhaps they had to end the run of Rick's group steamrolling over everyone else, but it went so far the other way that it's just unpleasant.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 15, 2016, 12:21:48 AM
They haven't ended that at all.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 15, 2016, 04:20:49 AM
The past half season has not seen Rick's group steamrolling over other people, has it? Two of them had their brains bashed in, Daryl was locked in solitary, they handed over all their guns etc.. ??


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on December 15, 2016, 04:27:17 AM
The comics tell us what's coming. Maybe a surprise with daryl or carol, but the bare bones is there. No pun intended.

I'm of the view that once the saviour war is over the show should end. Maybe that's just me.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on February 13, 2017, 02:20:20 PM
No ?  Y'all really done ?


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: apocrypha on February 13, 2017, 02:25:33 PM
Yeah, I stopped watching after a couple of episodes of the last season. Lost all interest in it, no longer cared at all about any of the characters or the story (or lack of).


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Merusk on February 13, 2017, 03:15:17 PM
Glenn died and the ratings cried.  I didn't even see more than 1-2 people excited about it on Facebook.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Velorath on February 13, 2017, 03:27:50 PM
I haven't watched since the episode before the cliffhanger "who is going to get beat to death episode". I thought this story arc wasn't particularly good in the comics and it's even worse here. Maybe I'll come back when they get past it, but probably not.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Selby on February 13, 2017, 06:03:13 PM
I watched.  It's more of the same: talk for 30 minutes, 5-10 minutes of zombie "action" followed by another 10-20 minutes of talking with a "surprise" cliffhanger at the end.  It's really not that horrible compared to the other dreck on TV, but it's not must-tune-in TV.  It's the kind of thing I wish was already released so I could just marathon it in a weekend without annoying commercials.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on December 11, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
Midseason finale was last night. The war still drags on. The idiots on Team Rick screw up the plan and now everyone is scrambling. The traitor is revealed. And a *shocking* reveal at the end of the episode. (*SPOILER* it's not really that shocking*SPOILER*)



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 11, 2017, 09:28:10 AM
Midseason finale was last night. The war still drags on. The idiots on Team Rick screw up the plan and now everyone is scrambling. The traitor is revealed. And a *shocking* reveal at the end of the episode. (*SPOILER* it's not really that shocking*SPOILER*)



There was a perfectly good reason for that:  .


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on December 12, 2017, 02:19:50 PM

Honestly, this season has felt more like an action movie than the Walking Dead.  They've strayed from their roots.  There was a way to do the current storylines - even with characters as vivid as Negan - and not have it feel like Die Hard: Zombageddon.  They needed this to feel more gritty and less heroic.  Rick's solo mission, rocket launchers... that is not what the story needs.



Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on December 12, 2017, 02:34:59 PM
That leap forward was obviously a delusion since


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 17, 2018, 06:05:38 PM
My guess is that the leaps forward represented Carl's hopes for a peaceful future.

Now, Negan seems to think that injuring someone with a bat coated with zombie goo is going to have the same effect as a bite.

It's possible he might just be proved wrong, but leaving that aside - we've seen people covered in zombie goo many times in the past, for one reason or another, and it stands to reason people sometimes got that stuff in their eyes or mouth or whatever... plus people are liable to have the odd cut or scratch on their hands even when they don't live in a post-apocalyptic society ... yet up to now it's seemed clear that no amount of zombie blood and guts has any effect if you don't actually get bitten.

I'm still enjoying this show though.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: slog on June 04, 2018, 11:25:11 AM
Even with Fuel Stabilizer, all the Gas would be bad by now.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on June 04, 2018, 11:30:30 AM
Yes - lots of logic problems. 

Cast changes are going to make this a very different show in the next year.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2018, 02:58:41 PM
This has run its course, they should be filming a damn series finale.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on June 04, 2018, 03:36:34 PM
I agree.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 04, 2018, 05:31:42 PM
Bet they are wishing they hadn't killed Carl now, if there was going to be a series without Rick it would have to have been about Carl.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: slog on June 04, 2018, 06:02:31 PM
This has run its course, they should be filming a damn series finale.

Yes, but AMC is going to run this shit into the ground to make every last dollar they can.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2018, 03:29:49 AM
Hell, putting out FtWD was the first step in that.  I didn't survive that one beyond about 5 episodes.  Such garbage.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 05, 2018, 08:02:41 AM
Hell, putting out FtWD was the first step in that.  I didn't survive that one beyond about 5 episodes.  Such garbage.


Was that the episode when they skipped right over the collapse of civilization with a bullshit "seven days later" or something? cause that was literally all i wanted to see and I instantly noped the fuck out.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2018, 08:42:17 AM
That was the one. Completely ignored all the interesting aspects of the WD story that had not been told, so they could go do more Walking Dead stories on a boat with less interesting characters.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Ironwood on June 05, 2018, 10:08:19 AM
Yuuup.

We clearly didn't need a … prequel.

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Surlyboi on June 05, 2018, 10:50:11 AM
They bumped up Fear to be contemporaneous now too and moved Morgan over. It's been the better show of the two this season. Not that that's saying much, but hey.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sir T on June 05, 2018, 02:20:40 PM
I thought it was part of the lore that everyone had the Zombie Pathogen dormant in them, so getting more goo on you would go fuck all, you would rise when you died regardless.

Anyway, the problem with the show is that its pretty pointless.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 05, 2018, 07:11:09 PM
I thought it was part of the lore that everyone had the Zombie Pathogen dormant in them, so getting more goo on you would go fuck all, you would rise when you died regardless.

Anyway, the problem with the show is that its pretty pointless.

There is more than the pathogen that turns you into a zombie when you die, there is the lethal zombie infection that comes from bites also, which they extended to also include zombie juice. It does make more sense that if a zombie bite always kills you getting zombie blood/guts into your body also would... but it's been like nine fucking years of that not happening.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Sir T on June 05, 2018, 07:22:28 PM
In that case, yeah, makes no sense whatsoever. I guess they wanted their actors covered in Gore scenes without immediately losing the actor.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on June 06, 2018, 09:55:18 AM
If the gore gets inside a wound, you get sick and die.  If it just gets on your skin, in your mouth, etc... not so much.  It is unclear if you need a substantial amount of gore to get sick and die, or if the body can fight off a bit.  You might think that is slightly unrealistic, but ... then you're talking about realistic zombies. 

I think the show could continue on and do fresh stories.  There is a lot of interesting places to go.  I just don't have confidence they'll do it. 




Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 06, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
If the gore gets inside a wound, you get sick and die.  If it just gets on your skin, in your mouth, etc... not so much.  It is unclear if you need a substantial amount of gore to get sick and die, or if the body can fight off a bit.  You might think that is slightly unrealistic, but ... then you're talking about realistic zombies. 

No, it absolutely makes perfect sense. The part that doesn't make sense is that this never happened in the entirety of the show until the plot suddenly required it.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on June 06, 2018, 10:44:39 AM
Do you recall a moment when someone with an open wound was covered in gore?  I seem to recall the department store scene in Season 1 featuring a discussion of not getting it in your mouth or eyes...


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on June 18, 2018, 03:47:11 PM
Hell, putting out FtWD was the first step in that.  I didn't survive that one beyond about 5 episodes.  Such garbage.


I was done with FtWD when they pied-pipered 3000 zombies from the stadium to the hospital with no escape plan to try to save 2 people in the season 1 finale.

I watched the FtWD season premier with Morgan and none of it made any sense. Haven't wanted to see any more of it since.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: HaemishM on June 19, 2018, 07:10:36 AM
That was my audience arc with Fear almost to a T. The fucking zombie march into the military base was both badly filmed and super-duper stupid from both a story and character perspective.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Threash on June 19, 2018, 07:23:11 AM
They also forgot that back then the zombies could run.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on June 19, 2018, 10:01:13 AM
This season was better.  It is essentially a slow reboot keeping only a small amount of the original cast.  I'm going to give it one more chance with the next half season release, but both of these WD shows may be headed for my scrap heap if they do not do something more interesting with them. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on March 30, 2020, 11:19:27 AM
I don't know if anyone is still watching this show, but the season finale has been delayed due to the coronavirus. This coming Sunday is the second to last episode and then the finale is delayed with no estimated date because of inability to complete the special effects.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/entertainment/walking-dead-finale-delayed/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/entertainment/walking-dead-finale-delayed/index.html)


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: jgsugden on March 30, 2020, 11:36:29 AM
No, nobody is watching. 


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Setanta on March 30, 2020, 12:59:43 PM
Season 1. Season 1 was pretty damn good.

The rest? Meh.

Classic case of "the books were better"

I can't believe it's still running.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on September 24, 2021, 03:30:26 AM
Still nobody watching? I wasn't. Then I had a three-month lockdown and started bingeing what I could. Now I'm getting towards the pointy end of season 9.

I actually found it refreshing when Rick left and they had to reinvent the show. Badass little girl Judith is a good character. The show gets pretty silly too often, and the slow zombies are barely threatening, but it's a big post-apocalyptic binge and... whatever. I'm continuing my journey.


Title: Re: Walking Dead
Post by: Tale on April 24, 2023, 06:01:48 PM
LOL. I just finished The Walking Dead. It's been my occasional lightweight trash binge, because it went on and on and on.

The last season or two were absolutely terrible. They even brought old characters back specifically so they could die (guess the actors were like please make sure I can't return!).

If you don't care about spoilers...
This death scene was pure comedy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_T6A2gVZk
Most preposterous scene (while carrying a baby) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KuRX9WZC4