Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 137

Thread: 3rd Episode - Tell it to the frogs

  1. #121
    Chasing Prey MoonSylver's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Oh
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,475
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by kidgloves View Post
    There's a shot in the preview of the next episode at the end of Tell it to the Frogs that gives away what happens to Merle


    I sit like this through promos so I won't spoil anything.

  2. #122
    Twitching
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ocala, Florida
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,109
    United States
    The thing is,
    I simply don't believe in Moral Ambiguity. It only remains seemingly ambiguous if no one acts in accordance with what they believe to be right. Now, you're going to say "That's exactly what Shane did!", and you'd be correct. However, the proper course of action I have tried my very hardest to follow throughout life is that in one of these supposed "gray areas" if someone acts in accordance with what they believe to be right, and what I believe to be right are in direct conflict, Conflict occurs. That would begin as a verbal attempt to persuade them to reconsider their course of action, but if they are resolved to continue doing what they are doing, and that decision infringes on what I feel to be right, I will oppose them with measured, situationally appropriate force of an escalating nature until either I bring enough to bear to FORCE them to stop, or I find I CANNOT bring enough force to bear to stop them for whatever reason, in which case I am left with the choice to divorce myself from everything to do with them, or to accept their decision.

    Most people's Morality is untested and therefore suspect. Unless you have placed yourself in harm's way to uphold your values when necessary, you CANNOT by definition KNOW FOR A FACT whether or not when the time comes if you will adhere to what you know to be right, or whether you will allow other factors to cause you to do what you know is wrong.

    Right and Wrong are decided by the INDIVIDUAL. My ENTIRE LIFE has taught me that relying upon the Social Contract we call Law is foolish and a good way to see yourself or those you care for harmed. Part of being an adult is exploring your values, deciding where you stand on various practical real-life situations that those values reflect on, and how far you're willing to go to defend those values.

    That doesn't mean I have some kind of inside track on the ONE TRUE WAY, but it DOES mean that I've found the One True Way FOR ME. I'm sorry, but while I am open to persuasive argument that may cause me to reconsider a facet of my values, at the end of the day I've decided that for me, lethal force is not an unacceptable level of force to apply if necessary to maintain my values/morality intact.

    There is no inherent Sanctity of Life in my world. Life is worth among humans what that individual has demonstrated their life to be worth, and animal/plant life defaults to a high value of "Not to be harmed/destroyed without good cause, such as providing necessities."

    Now, by my very own words this of course means I do NOT expect others to AGREE with my outlook, but UNDERSTANDING that this IS my outlook is not too much to ask IMO.

    It is from this outlook that my thoughts, feelings, opinions and decisions are derived after all.

    Just wanted to put that out there, as explanation for what some obviously feel were extreme positions of mine earlier.

  3. #123
    Feeding Tricky's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,639
    England
    Another great episode I thought! Even with less zombie action than previous ones. It was quite creepy to think of that zombie that got near the camp stumbling its way along for miles before it ended up there. The stuff with Shane is clearly boiling up as well, in some ways I feel sorry for him because of the way Lori just expects him to turn his feelings off etc, but at the same time he was a slimeball for telling her Rick was dead to get himself in there, although for all he knew Rick maybe was dead! he definitely exploded at Ed anyway, but that was deserved. I'll definitely be sticking with the series anyway, its passed the three episode challenge with flying colours for me, and I hope they keep it consistent for however long it runs

  4. #124
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    I have a theory...
    If you're sayin the Governator stepped in, or the predator, I don't share that theory. But if you think the choppa could have something to do with it, then I 2nd that notion...

    If you came over to my house and stabbed my grandmother in the face 40 times with screw driver unprovoked and just for giggles, took her her pension check and pissed in my fish tank on the way out the door... you would be wrong.
    Needless to say we are in 100% agreement in this scenario!! I'd never dream of pissin in your fish tank...

    The law is what it is breaking the law is wrong. Period, Even if you dislike it
    Really!? Even during an undead apocalypse?
    I think it's possible for people to be self governing, and responsible, and for rational adults to know the difference between true right and wrong. Words on paper are just words on paper. I trust my own sense of right and wrong more than I trust my government to tell me what's right and wrong. There's alot of laws and policies that I see as wrong. I can't see how anyone could allow a corrupt institution such as the US government to tell them what's right and wrong? I have to say, I don't think you've really thought that through to conclusion fully.
    That would make you an automaton, and based on other things you've said I don't believe that to be the case. Weren't you just making an argument for peoples right to choose?
    While I agree 100% on the issue of running over a bunch of kids and do not partake in such festivities, I don't see everything as right OR wrong. And I definitely don't allow laws created by corrupt politicians and corporate lobbyists in the interest of profit to tell me what's right and wrong.

  5. #125
    Chasing Prey MoonSylver's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Oh
    Age
    54
    Posts
    3,475
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by babomb View Post
    If you're sayin the Governator stepped in, or the predator, I don't share that theory. But if you think the choppa could have something to do with it, then I 2nd that notion...
    All's I knows is dat it's gots some people in dat dere, whadda ya calls it...suspense, yeah, suspense...




  6. #126
    through another dimension bassman's Avatar
    Zombie Flesh Eater

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    15,229
    United States
    See all that dried blood?

  7. #127
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,225
    UK
    Here be my thoughts:

    http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/11...ell-it-to.html

    After the extended first episode which introduced us to the key characters (but specifically Rick Grimes), and the wider world of the zombie apocalypse, and after the second episode which gave us a jolt of zombie destruction writ large, comes the third episode which fully chows down on the meat of the character interplay that is so central to the source material.

    Glenn continues to entertain and provide the voice of the average viewer, brandishing a pleasing mixture of wit, common sense, and moments of child-like wistfulness. The first two episodes were a bit light on several key characters, but episode three fleshes-out the likes of Lori, Shane, and Dale nicely. Jeffrey DeMunn brings an old school sense of class and intelligence to his role - a perfect match for his character in the comic books - while the whole Rick/Lori/Shane triangle is given a more satisfying angle here than in the original material.

    The characters here really think things through, and so much is left appropriately unsaid - merely written in glances and body language - and it makes for a satisfying viewing experience. If someone is thinking of doing something stupid or dangerous, someone else will call them on it, but then the reasoning will come through. Decisions are nicely thought-through, specifically Rick's reasoning for going back to Atlanta, which calls back to both of the first two episodes.

    Furthermore it's really starting to feel like The Walking Dead. The first couple of episodes do change things up quite a lot - perhaps more than some were expecting - but this third episode not only suggests why those changes were made, but it also gives us the vibe, that those of us who have read the first story in the comics, have already experienced. I'm talking about the sequence during the campfire - I really got a greater sense of this truly being The Walking Dead, after many differences along a similar path, as witnessed in the first two episodes.

    A couple of smaller observations would be the performance of Carl (Chandler Riggs) - which is impressive and not at all annoying (something that can easily happen with child actors). Specifically I'm referring to the nicely played moment between Lori and Carl, with few words, when Carl is heartbroken to not see (initially anyway) his father amongst the returning members of the group. In a few strokes we get a glimpse into the mother-son relationship, and a nice grounding for Carl.

    Furthermore the attack upon the zombie which is seen chowing down on a downed Deer was pretty damn cool. Lifted from the original material too was Dale getting to bring-the-awesome with a decapitation, and then the severed head still being alive and trying to get at them - a sight in the comics that was not only cool, but quite creepy.

    Finally it was interesting to see how they handled the moment, again from the source material, in which the women address the fact that they're the ones washing up after, and cleaning the clothes of, the men in the camp. This reversion to stereotypes was more of a throw away gag on one page in the book, meanwhile here it is handled head-on with Carol's unreconstructed chauvinist husband Ed. As an interesting aside, Carol's partner was dead before we're introduced to her in the book, and seemingly the TV adaptation combines Carol and Donna. In the books Donna had twins and a husband, Allen, who was a bit of a scruffy middle aged slacker, but a nice enough guy. There are still others wandering around the camp who we haven't been introduced to yet, so I'm not sure if that's actually the case - but it seems to be the case.

    Here, after some apparent fiddling around with the characters (Carol is pitched as older than her comic book counterpart, but still the mother of Sophia), Ed - a newly created character, seemingly de-evolved from generally-amiable Allen - is a right bastard. A perfect example of a male pig if ever there was one, whose overtly old school approach to gender roles is grotesque, but challenged by Andrea - as I've said, a throw away gag in the source material is here turned into a confrontation, and ultimately it's a better handling of the fact that the men and women have both regressed to their classic cave-man-era roles. The women look after the camp and the children, and the men do the hunter/gatherer/protector thing.

    Finally - I really dug the little cliffhanger at the end of the show - clearly The Walking Dead is working nicely, because I really wanted to see the next episode when the credits rolled. Roll on episode four!

  8. #128
    Walking Dead kidgloves's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,153
    England
    Some great imagery in this episode. When Rick and Lori are bumping some uglies in the tent the camera pans up and Shane is sat on the camper with his hat on and theres lightning going on in the background reflecting his mood. Methinks there's a storm a coming.
    The body is the instrument on which imagination plays.

    MY HOME CINEMA

  9. #129
    Twitching
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ocala, Florida
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,109
    United States
    Got one for you,
    This goes out to the men here. Notice how each time Rick kissed Lori (I don't mean the quick pecks or nuzzles, the long kisses) that she kept her eyes open?
    Something I've noticed in life, perhaps the experience of others have been different dunno, but when a woman receives a long involved kiss and her eyes stay wide open, something "significant" is on her mind, besides whats going on in the moment.

    Not editorializing about what that "something significant" was/could be, but I thought it was an interesting touch to add to the show. It had to be intentional, because a classic "stage kiss" of a long kiss is an eyes closed or at least heavy-lidded event.

    So, how about the rest of you. Especially the married men and the women. Do I have a point, or has my experience and therefore "read" of the scene been unique to me?

    No, this isn't the prelude to a rant. Was just curious, as I'm watching Ep. 3 again while waiting for the new episode.

    Comments?

  10. #130
    Rising rongravy's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,570
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyldwraith View Post
    Got one for you,
    This goes out to the men here. Notice how each time Rick kissed Lori (I don't mean the quick pecks or nuzzles, the long kisses) that she kept her eyes open?
    Something I've noticed in life, perhaps the experience of others have been different dunno, but when a woman receives a long involved kiss and her eyes stay wide open, something "significant" is on her mind, besides whats going on in the moment.

    Not editorializing about what that "something significant" was/could be, but I thought it was an interesting touch to add to the show. It had to be intentional, because a classic "stage kiss" of a long kiss is an eyes closed or at least heavy-lidded event.

    So, how about the rest of you. Especially the married men and the women. Do I have a point, or has my experience and therefore "read" of the scene been unique to me?

    No, this isn't the prelude to a rant. Was just curious, as I'm watching Ep. 3 again while waiting for the new episode.

    Comments?
    I didn't notice her eyes were open, but yeah, that's not a good sign.
    That, or you forgot to take the chewing tobacco out first... which I've done.
    She's probably thinking he's gonna give her a smackdown when he finds out what up and why her breath is all salty.

  11. #131
    Just been bitten Gryphon's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    112
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by rongravy View Post
    She's probably thinking he's gonna give her a smackdown when he finds out what up and why her breath is all salty.
    Ew...

  12. #132
    Rising Trin's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,685
    United States
    I liked espisode 3. I think they've done a great job of adding tension and plausibility to the situation and characters. It's a bit predictable in the foreshadowing, but I'm loving it.

    Shane. Wow, you guys tell me to lighten up. Lol!!! After Ep 2 I was really pretty checked out on Shane but Ep 3 has changed my opinion. I think he's added some depth as he tries to mull through the moral choices before him.

    I don't have enough information to question Shane's actions regarding telling Lori/Carl that Rick was dead. For all I know he was standing outside the hospital watching as the dead streamed into the place. What would you have concluded? Or it's possible he totally threw Rick to the wolves. I do think Shane had some ulterior motive for throwing Rick to the wolves, but not enough to believe he'd do so.

    I think he's getting off a bit on being the authority over the campers, but watching him pound Ed was worth it. I think Shane is trying to be a good guy and his situation and nature are battling him. But I like him.

    There's clearly some tension between Lori and Rick that Rick is unaware of, and we should not be surprised of that since we know Rick is less sensitive to Lori's moods than she'd like, per the cruiser conversation in the pilot. Lori has every reason to be tense since she's got some splaining to do.
    Last edited by Trin; 22-Nov-2010 at 05:04 AM. Reason: optional?
    Just look at my face. You can tell I post at HPOTD.

  13. #133
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    After Ep 2 I was really pretty checked out on Shane but Ep 3 has changed my opinion.
    Quite the difference 1 episode makes...

    Something I've noticed in life, perhaps the experience of others have been different dunno, but when a woman receives a long involved kiss and her eyes stay wide open, something "significant" is on her mind, besides whats going on in the moment.
    You mean like in the tent? I assumed they were trying to make that point clear, that yeah she had something on her mind, the ordeal with Shane. I don't think it goes any deeper though. Do you?

  14. #134
    Twitching Thorn's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Albany, New York, United States
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,136
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by babomb View Post
    If you're sayin the Governator stepped in, or the predator, I don't share that theory. But if you think the choppa could have something to do with it, then I 2nd that notion...

    Needless to say we are in 100% agreement in this scenario!! I'd never dream of pissin in your fish tank...

    Really!? Even during an undead apocalypse?
    I think it's possible for people to be self governing, and responsible, and for rational adults to know the difference between true right and wrong. Words on paper are just words on paper. I trust my own sense of right and wrong more than I trust my government to tell me what's right and wrong. There's alot of laws and policies that I see as wrong. I can't see how anyone could allow a corrupt institution such as the US government to tell them what's right and wrong? I have to say, I don't think you've really thought that through to conclusion fully.
    That would make you an automaton, and based on other things you've said I don't believe that to be the case. Weren't you just making an argument for peoples right to choose?
    While I agree 100% on the issue of running over a bunch of kids and do not partake in such festivities, I don't see everything as right OR wrong. And I definitely don't allow laws created by corrupt politicians and corporate lobbyists in the interest of profit to tell me what's right and wrong.
    My hypothetical fish thank you.


    As for the bolded part above I was speaking in terms of the real world with that bit. When it comes down to the "zombie apocalypse" that I firmly believe will never happen, or any other catastrophe "laws" have to kind of go out the window and need replaces that. We would at that point be left with judgment calls, and doing what we had to so we could survive. That does not to me mean "Hey free for all". To some it would and if your idea of the new reality conflicted with mine and your actions stood in the way the survival of my family or group then things would happen that would cause us both to make decisions that would test our morality.

    I can assure you though, and you well know this right and wrong do exist and you have a voice in the back of your head telling you that all the time. People who lack that, the ability to empathize, to view other humans a people with rights that are not there for their fun, profit, satisfaction, or advancement are known as sociopaths and I would rather not associate with them...

    And yes there are shades of gray, I of course get that.

    A few scenarios to explain my position.

    My group of survivors is hungry and we need food.

    1) You see a store that is un-looted, breaking in to take what is there is criminal by an old world mentality. That law goes out the window in the face of survival. I break in and take the food.
    2) Same store a man is in there with his family. I would have to kill him to take the food. I do not break in and take the food, and kill him. If I can negotiate with him, or we can band together great. If not I move on (making note of the location for future reference)
    3) A person comes to my shop where my family is holed up and tries to take my food, I kill him using whatever "force" I deem necessary. Murder is wrong, self preservation in that situation is not. Laws as we know them go out the window. In New York anyway we have to use :equal force" in the eyes of the law, and we can not chase people down. So if you break into my shop at night and have a gun I can not kill you with a flame thrower. Then I can not chase you into the street to get back what you stole or dish out justice barbecue style. If I do I am in violation of the law. This law I would abide by in REALITY, in the "world of the dead" that goes out the window.

  15. #135
    Twitching
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ocala, Florida
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,109
    United States
    Hmm,
    Being honest now. Whenever in Real Life "the Law" has conflicted with my morality, I simply IGNORE IT unless there happens to be too many witnesses or an agent of law enforcement about. So yea, I guess that by definition makes me someone operating from a "criminal mindset" in the eyes of society. I don't go around stealing, randomly assaulting, raping or killing, but if someone steals my stereo in the middle of the night and manages to get out the front door with it, I'm still going to stun-gun him, even if he gets out onto the street before my crippled ass catches him.

    To go into apocalypse scenario examples:
    Me and my band of survivors are hungry:
    1) I find empty store: Like Thorn, I break in and take what we need. I do NOT needlessly fuck up/waste things we can't carry/don't want to take with us. Caring for me and mine doesn't mean screwing others over needlessly, and the remaining food in the store could well save others once we've moved on.

    2) I find a man and his family in the store: Again, like Thorn, I attempt negotiations FIRST. However, UNLIKE Thorn, if negotiations fails I then move on to a critical question: Ie: "Just how hungry are my people, and how badly do we need what's in the store? If we're talking about haven't eaten in a day or two, I probably mark the place's location in mind and look elsewhere as well. If, ON THE OTHER HAND, my people are wearing down due to lack of calories to fuel our staying on the move, and whoever's in possession of the store won't share, I exercise the NECESSARY level of force to TAKE what we NEED. That does NOT MEAN shooting the primary defender, just because that's the most expedient thing to do. I'll try to temporarily incapacitate him/her first, but yes, if it escalates I WOULD be willing under those conditions to pull my weapon and shoot them dead. At that point the situation has become a decision between the value of the lives of strangers, and the value of the lives of my loved ones/friends/allies. My people automatically default to having a greater right to survive in my mind.

    3) Someone attempts to steal or otherwise harm members of my Group. I immediately apply the most expedient form of lethal force to permanently remove the potential FUTURE threat of that individual. Turning the logic inward, Ie: "The Merle Dixon Scenario", a member of my group becomes a WILLFUL danger to me and/or the rest of the group. My first action would be similar to Rick's on the roof. I would use sufficient force to end the threat the now-dangerous group-member has become. If possible, I would refrain from mid-to-long-term injury of that individual at first, but if knocking them down and giving them time to cool off (if possible) doesn't work, I make the hard choice and end the threat permanently.

    I believe the key difference between Thorn's and my methodology is that Thorn seems to place the same value on the lives of strangers and his loved ones/friends/allies. Conversely, I would operate from a perspective of Lives of Loved Ones/Friends/Allies > Lives of Others. That doesn't mean I place NO value on the lives of others, and it CERTAINLY DOESN'T mean that I would simply resort to sociopath-like expedience at the first hint of conflict. If push comes to shove though...bottom line is that I'd do what was necessary to keep my people healthy, sheltered and safe.

    I'm interested in your outlook Thorn. Here's three more hypothetical situations I'm interested in seeing where you draw the line on.

    1) A member of your group cut themselves on a piece of Plexiglass while crawling through a broken window during a scavenging run. Four days later they are running a significant fever, and the wound looks seriously inflamed and/or infected. One of the members of your group (let's say a former ER Nurse) recognizes Septicemia as the cause of your group member's illness, and advises you they need a broad-spectrum antibiotic, or even Penicillin, or they'll probably die. During the last scavenging run your group came across a CVS Pharmacy/Grocery Store inhabited by a man, his wife and teenager son, and a little girl, but the man refused to even consider letting you or any of your people set one foot inside. They rebuffed your every effort to barter or persuade them to join up with your group, and they rebuff you again when you return and explain your need for antibiotics and why.

    Now, you have a group member who will be dead in 2-5 days without those antibiotics and something sterile to dress the wound and keep it sterile. The Nurse in your group is confident that if your sick group member gets the antibiotics in the next few hours/today, that they'll make a full and speedy recovery. On the other hand, he/she warns you that even 24 hours delay is likely to mean a significantly longer period of recovery, and/or place them at risk of further complications. It's a small town, only had a clinic which has since been looted or otherwise taken out of the equation. Your group member can't be moved far very, since they're lapsing in and out of fever dreams, and if they happen to suddenly shout in the wrong place/wrong time while you're moving them, the noise could attract zombies or even simple looters.

    What do you do?

    2) You and your group are well-concealed in a secure building when a small horde (let's say a few hundred) zombies trickle, then pour into the area in pursuit of a man and woman struggling to support a third unconscious man between them as they flee. It's obvious from the way they move they can't go much farther and will be caught and dragged down within the next couple of minutes without help. However, it's equally obvious that if you move from your hiding place, you'll probably be able to get the trio inside your shelter, but you'll have a couple hundred zombies surrounding it and trying to claw their way in. The place seems reasonably sturdy, but you honestly aren't sure if it can withstand that many zombies trying to get in. Also, you've got food and water for about 4 days for you and yours, but the addition of 3 more mouths eating and drinking will slash that time nearly in half, and your experience so far has told you it may take as long as 5-6 days without any sign of human activity (assuming your shelter withstands the early rabid assault) for the bulk of the horde to aimlessly drift off somewhere else.

    What do you do?

    Genuinely curious. Goes no farther than that. I've wrestled with questions like these for quite some time.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •