TWD 2x01 "What Lies Ahead" episode discussion... **SPOILERS WITHIN**

[Andy]

The little cough-and-you'll-not-hear-it revelation that Ed was perhaps edging towards kiddy fiddler territory with Sophia was a bit of a shock. It's a horrible thing that nobody wants to think about, naturally, but I don't think it ruined anything. The guy was a disgusting pig and I think it heightens Carol's sense of victimisation - trapped in an awful relationship, but she can't break free, and now she's blaming herself for losing Sophia because she wanted Ed dead - and the juxtaposition of 'can there be faith in a world like this?' Watching season 1 again this morning and the bit after shane beats the shit out of ed and hes in his tent sulking, and he grabs sofia and wants her to stay with him but carol stops him and says she wants to join in with everyone else... Suddenly alot more sinister than i remember it.

[MinionZombie]

Wyld - yeah, I'd plump for she either got lost (she was terrified, so she could have easily not heard Rick's instructions properly perhaps - indeed they did address that concern in the show itself) or someone found her. Now, I wonder if Herschel's lot found her ... or maybe some other people found her ... or maybe she's still lost in the woods, it's not impossible. On a different note, it seems that in episode 2 Shane (and another) have to go to Atlanta to get medical supplies, so I wonder if that's how the return to the Vatos lot works in? Watching season 1 again this morning and the bit after shane beats the shit out of ed and hes in his tent sulking, and he grabs sofia and wants her to stay with him but carol stops him and says she wants to join in with everyone else... Suddenly alot more sinister than i remember it. Indeed. It re-paints that scene, but in a way that still makes complete sense ... if anything it makes it make more sense ... and makes it really goddamned creepy. Poor Sophia. I should re-watch the bit where Carol is praying at the church, because the way I heard it made it seem to me that Ed was heading in the direction of kiddy fiddling, but hadn't crossed that line entirely ... or maybe they were just being subtle with the language. It's a show filled with tough situations already, so when you throw in incestual child abuse you've got to handle it subtly - not toss it in like a grenade. Re-watching that bit again, her exact words are "looking at his own daughter, whatever his sickness was growing in his soul" ... so I'd read that as Ed, as I've said above, hadn't yet crossed the line fully - but was without a doubt heading there soon. Perhaps he saw this fucked up world as his 'chance' or 'excuse'. *shudders* Furthermore, in that moment after she says that line, there's a nice little reaction from Lori in the background - so clearly she didn't know either. It's a revelation to the group (or some of the group anyway) as well as we the viewers. ... I see there's been a lot of talk about the Andrea/Dale situation - I think this is going to be a good source of character drama. Andrea had decided she was going to commit suicide - and yet here she finds herself still within this hellish world, so she'll clearly be in a very messed up headspace. Now, Dale's only reason for living - after the death of his wife - were/is Andrea and Amy (as he said in that bloody excellent moment in TS-19 - kudos to Jeffrey DeMunn for that bit, by the way, I saw it last night before 2x01 and it made me well up ... and I've seen that bit like 6 times now) ... anyway, Dale's reasons were in one-part selfish, but in another I'm sure he thought that Andrea was in a crazy headspace where perhaps she wasn't being (to him at least) rational. Andrea on the other hand might feel duped by Dale, that he played a dirty trick on her to get her to leave with him - but I genuinely think that Dale was, or at least in-part, actually not wanting to go on if Andrea wasn't by his side. There's lots of possibilities in there, and I think this could prove quite a fruitful character conflict. In terms of Andrea being a possible love interest for Shane - I don't think so - she sees him as an opportunity to leave the group. In a way Andrea thinks she's dead already, or perhaps being in the group reminds her constantly of Amy, or furthermore she's acting out of anger and frustration due to Dale's actions. I think that Andrea and Dale are both right in their actions, but for different reasons, and I think that's what makes it so interesting between them. Also - I dug that Dale had already fixed the hose but lied about it to keep 'the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few' conversations from starting. Dale is one of my favourite characters in the comics, and DeMunn has just made me love the character all-the-more - he's a gentleman, but he's also very aware of the people around him; he thinks into the future like a chess player in order to take the best course of action for the good of everyone. Dale's a man of experience who has lived longer than any of the others, so he'll know a thing or two that the other's won't yet, and again I think that's key to the overall group dynamic. Finally, indeed, Daryl is kicking all kinds of arse at the moment - I agree, he's becoming an integral member of the group now. I look forward to seeing the development of his character, with this motivation of the group becoming his family, and that he feels a part of a group for once in his life. His ties with Merle are severing and his ties with the group are pulling tighter - no doubt there will come a time when this newfound-and-developing loyalty is tested when Merle comes back at some point - but yeah, Daryl has really become an excellent character and I think Norman Reedus is doing a fantastic job in proving the worth of his character from initial, stereotypical perceptions, to that young sibling who has perhaps never really been needed or wanted by a group/family and now sees this as an opportunity to become his own man. As far as the motorbike, and the SS symbol, I'd assume that the bike belongs to Merle - the elder brother who is clearly racist, whereas Daryl strikes me as someone who's only a little racist/politically incorrect simply to fit in with Merle and the rest of his family - e.g. calling Glenn "Short Round". I think him saving T-Dog is a clear indication of what is truly in Daryl's heart ... he's been socialised into racist remarks simply to fit in, but I think he's never truly been racist ... I think the pack mentality and loyalty to the group are far more in his heart and mind. Merle, on the other hand, in his biker's leather jacket, is flat-out racist - so I'd wager the bike is his. Interestingly though, it was only the mention of the SS symbol in this thread that drew me to it - I never actually noticed it myself when watching the show last night.

[Wyldwraith]

In retort concerning the Andrea/Dale conflict: If Dale honestly didn't want to live if Andrea didn't, fine. Step outside the room and stick his rifle under his chin and pull the trigger. Just as painless as being thermobaric-bombed, and it wouldn't have been on Andrea's conscience because HE made the decision to end his life himself. Why didn't he? Because Dale didn't want to die, he just wanted to FORCE ANDREA TO LIVE. NOTHING he's done in relation to her makes sense to me. Pulling what he did in the CDC control room destroyed his relationship with Andrea, plain and simple. He compounds destroying that relationship via blackmailing her emotionally by betraying her via theft of her last security blanket, the gun her father gave her. In my mind, that pushed (or should've realistically pushed) Andrea's feelings for Dale from simple indifferent contempt to an active hatred for not only making her live a life she didn't want, but forcing her to life that unwanted life in a way he's "comfortable with" by, wait for it, turning STILL MORE MEMBERS of the group against Andrea. Is anything I just said untrue? How do ANY of Dale's actions increase Andrea's desire to live? Answer: They don't. All he's done is make Andrea want away from the people who have so betrayed her she can't stand the sight of them and is enthusiastically making plans to take a life-path that she HAS to KNOW dramatically increases her odds of being eaten alive! Way to go Dale. You say you won't live without Andrea, but hypocritically deny HER that right when Andrea says she doesn't want to live without Amy. My God, with the way the man behaves I wouldn't be surprised to learn his WIFE swallowed the nearest bottle of pills to escape his control-freakdom. I cannot articulate any stronger my conviction that Dale's actions were and remain 100% about what Dale wants and what Dale needs. There's simply no explanation for the inconsistencies if you begin from an assumption he's doing the things he's done to convince Andrea she wants to live. Not only has he failed 100% to convince her of this, but now in addition to the problems Andrea had in the wake of Amy's death we can add complete alienation from the group. Just my .02, your mileage may of course vary

[ProfessorChaos]

^ dude, if you're unfamiliar with the comics (can't recall), and if they stick to the storyline concerning this whole andrea/dale thing, you're gonna be shitting bricks and screaming bloody murder before too long....i'm calling it right now.

[Wyldwraith]

Oh I don't doubt it, Part of the problem is that my morality can only be described as abnormal. Some things that others consider optional (such as honesty and being loyal to those you care for) I consider absolutely mandatory. Other things, like retaliation for *serious* wrongs done to me or mine, are limited solely by the deterrence inherent in the legal consequences if I were to take it as far as my instincts dictated. So, while at times some of my perspectives may sound rather Khardis-ish, it's not that I don't have ethics....just that they're not....mainstream. In an apocalyptic situation where society is history and civilization has utterly collapsed except for a few small and isolated pockets, personal responsibility and self-reliance are all you have. Common cause is wonderful, but unlike the movies 99.999% of people won't even hesitate a split-second to abandon you to your death if trying to come to your aid would place THEIR life in jeopardy. Whatever others believe, *I* believe that. Believing that, I'm always going to perceive anything that diminishes one's capacity for self-reliance to be unacceptable, and if forced upon you by another person to constitute an attack with malice aforethought. That's where I'm coming from, so maybe that explains my reasoning about all this to an extent. Part of the fascination of Survival Horror for me is (like most everyone else, I imagine) putting myself in the place of the survivor-characters. When I apply my morality to those situations however, the conclusions I come to tend to be fairly absolutist, because surviving or not surviving is an absolute. As one who wrestles daily with horrible pain, I'm shaped to a greater or lesser extent by that absolutist mindset. Edit/Note: As proof of what I say, I point to the Poll taken during Talking Dead. The Question Was: "How long would you search for someone else's lost child? a) 1 Day, b) 1 Week, c) As long as it takes, or d) Not at all. 99.2% of people chose D) Not at all. The remaining . something % was 1 Day. Sure, it's idle talk. But over 99% of poll respondents? Must be at least SOME truth to that response, don't you think?

[MinionZombie]

Speaking of Talking Dead, I watched a bit of it on YouTube. Except for Hardwick, a brief few simple questions posed to Kirkman, and a bit of behind the scenes stuff, as well as some teaser footage, I thought it was pretty poor - too much 'comedy' and silly answers or comments, rather than actual discussion (like we see here on HPOTD). I'd hope they fix that follow-up show quick.

[kidgloves]

Speaking of Talking Dead, I watched a bit of it on YouTube. Except for Hardwick, a brief few simple questions posed to Kirkman, and a bit of behind the scenes stuff, as well as some teaser footage, I thought it was pretty poor - too much 'comedy' and silly answers or comments, rather than actual discussion (like we see here on HPOTD). I'd hope they fix that follow-up show quick. Yeah. Same here although they just seem to be trying to capitalise on the popularity of the excellent podcasts that support this show. I'll give AMC and Kirkman credit though. They always make production and cast members available for these podcasts and seem to understand the importance of the "nerd" culture that seems to be everywhere in podcast land. If anyone wants to follow up on the show by listening to podcasts the best ones are 1) The Walking Dead Cast 2) The Talking Dead (sound familiar?) 3) Walking Dead TV podcast and they are well worth your time.

[Mike70]

on the subject of morality, i'll say i have a very, very slippery sense of it. in a survival situation anything that serves your purpose and furthers your survival is good. anything that doesn't is bad. period. this would include taking care (by shooting them in head while they slept or simply bashing out their brains) of anyone i felt would be a future danger to myself or the people that i'm with. that is why i find most movies and tv shows on this subject so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable. during films like these, the number of times i've said, "i'd kill that guy/woman next chance i got because he/she is going to be a problem down the road", is immense. but yet, time and again in movies/tv these obvious turds are allowed to continue until their completely forseeable acts of idiocy kill someone. for instance: if it weren't for needing the ammo out of Andy's gun shop. that goofy broad who follows the dog over there would be on her fucking own. i'm not going after her and since you can't afford to lose anyone else in a stupid rescue attempt, hopefully no one else would either. real life is a fuck of a lot different than the movies. movies and tv are tame, pale, vapid imitations of the true horror and terror the world can hold. some might call it playing god but since i don't believe in gods/goddesses, ghosts, spirits or bugganes, i don't give a shit about such considerations. there is only self-interest or death in such situations. in reality, i'd probably just find a small group of people i can deal with, hide ourselves away somewhere far off the beaten path and just stay out of the world as much as possible. since my survival plan includes using the ohio river to stay far away from centers of population, i think that is doable. southern ohio/northern ky are very sparsely populated. i don't play well with others and would have absolutely no interest in re-building civilization, building new societies, or any of that kind of bullshit where you have to compromise and repeatedly deal with other people's ideas on how things should be. not interested in that. not at all.

[bassman]

this would include taking care (by shooting them in head while they slept or simply bashing out their brains) of anyone i felt would be a future danger to myself or the people that i'm with. that is why i find most movies and tv shows on this subject so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable. during films like these, the number of times i've said, "i'd kill that guy/woman next chance i got because he/she is going to be a problem down the road", is immense. but yet, time and again in movies/tv these obvious turds are allowed to continue until their completely forseeable acts of idiocy kill someone. While I agree with the thought of self and family preservation, you never really know about people. You could meet a perfectly normal person and they later turn out to be a hazard. At the same time, you could also meet a potential hazard that later turns out to be a valuable ally. Much like Daryl. Toward the beginning of the first season I thought he was no good for the group as a whole, but now he's proven himslef to be a huge help. He's now needed. Humans are a weird bunch. You can't judge them by first appearances.

[kidgloves]

Edit/Note: As proof of what I say, I point to the Poll taken during Talking Dead. The Question Was: "How long would you search for someone else's lost child? a) 1 Day, b) 1 Week, c) As long as it takes, or d) Not at all. 99.2% of people chose D) Not at all. The remaining . something % was 1 Day. Sure, it's idle talk. But over 99% of poll respondents? Must be at least SOME truth to that response, don't you think? That was meant to be a joke.

[Mike70]

Humans are a weird bunch. You can't judge them by first appearances. please keep in mind that, unfortunately, i have what the psych folks call "anti-social personality disorder." that's why i have such a sparkling personality (which i do when i want to) and play so well with others. i'm not dangerous or violent nor am i ever likely to be. i completely lack things like empathy & compassion for other people and there are emotions that you take for granted that i cannot even experience and probably wouldn't recognize even if i did. i also cannot feel the reciprocation of emotion back from other people most of the time. that's the worst part of the entire thing. now, i've shared way more than i intended (thanks klonopin)...

[JDFP]

This is going to be a lengthy post, but there's a lot of meat to what Wyld and a few others have said. I. Dr. Jennar Someone else mentioned that Dr. Jennar should have been knocked out and dragged out of the place if necessary. I agree and I applauded at the comment. Generally speaking, I'm extremely conservative on most issues (no surprise here to people who are familiar with me) and believe in individual rights (to an extent - being that those individual rights do not infringe on my being) as a paleoconservative. However, the situation the survivors find themselves in here is not a "general daily situation". Wyld, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you and usually agree with 90% of your thoughts, and even when I disagree you articulately and intelligently post your thoughts, so I hope you aren't taking any of my personal thoughts to a personal level, as that's certainly not intended. All in all, you're probably my most favorite poster around here and I respect you tremendously. With that said, the overall survival of humanity in the face of extinction must rule out the individual rights of a single person. Sometimes individual liberties must be placed on hold for the overarching importance of a situation. I'm against the death penalty in the U.S. and generally speaking on a moral ground I'm also against it period. However, in some situations it may be necessary. It's not necessary in the U.S. because we have the means to protect society from violent criminals to ensure they never hurt another person again. It can be done. However, this same assurance cannot be granted to society in a Third World nation where the same protection/defenses to protect society from a violent criminal are limited at best. Thus, while I'm morally against capital punishment if you have a violent criminal and cannot protect society from the violent criminal with highly reasonable means (i.e. federal maximum prisons) then it may be necessary to execute a criminal. I don't like it - but sometimes it is necessary to protect society when a reasonable alternative means does not exist. The individual right to life of anyone (especially a convicted violent criminal or a Typhoid Mary for example) does not supersede the reasonable protection of society from harm. I feel a bit like EvilNed in typing this which makes me feel a bit ill, but: Dr. Jennar as an individual should have the rights to live his life as he sees fit in a reasonable society. However, "The Walking Dead" is not set in a reasonable society - i.e. there is the potential that all of existence for humanity can be wiped out. His medical expertise and knowledge is too valuable to society in which extinction is a possibility (or moreso, a probability). His individual rights are superseded in such a society by the value of his knowledge in pertaining to the continued existence of humanity. Morally I believe in his individual rights and the sacred nature of them - but you must weigh individual rights against the overarching nature of ALL of humanity as it stands. Just as a violent criminal in a Third World society should be executed (even though I'm morally against it) so should Dr. Jennar be challenged by any means necessary from bringing about his end when it causes the greater damage to society as a whole (even though I may morally be against the curtailing of individual rights). You have to weigh the individual rights of an individual against the greater impact of the world itself. While it would have been impeding his individual rights to drag him out of there kicking and screaming, and I'd normally be against such a thing, in the predicament the survivors find themselves in to lose such knowledge and expertise in such a situation must also be considered against this as well. As much as I hate to say it, and in 98% of situations I am against it, sometimes the greater good of humanity must trump individual liberties and rights as a necessity (as it would in an extinction type event). I don't like it - I don't say it lightly either as it's ill for me to even consider - but it is what it is. II. Dale and Andrea After a great deal of consideration, I agree with others here that Dale was an asshole in keeping Andrea's weapon away from her and came across as being a condescending patriarch. He was wrong here. However, I cannot fault him for wanting to either die with Andrea or have her change her mind to leave the CDC. He made a comment that really struck me, and I'm paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of: "You don't get to do that! You don't get to come into someone's life and then check out like that!". I think he's right. Yes, it was her individual right to want to die - and I'm sympathetic under the circumstances (the alternative to which being a possibility that she'd be devoured, or still may be devoured, by zombies). I can certainly relate (in considering the world she lives in) to where she's coming from with her thought process. However, suicide is not only an individual decision as it affects EVERYONE around you. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Andrea had killed herself Dale would not have been far behind in following her decision in killing himself in his state of mind. Thus, directly or indirectly, Andrea's individual decision to kill herself would have resulted in the death of another individual - which means that her decision would have been higher than an individual right to make a personal decision as it was infringing on Dale's livelihood. Yes, Dale emotionally manipulated her and did what he had to do to ensure she didn't kill herself forthright. I do not mean to cast Dale as being a "Good Guy" in this respect. What he did can be seen, and I certainly understand where Wyld and others are coming from, as being wrong. However, her death would, in probability, have also resulted in the death of Dale. Who else could fix the R/V if it broke down? How would her death have impacted the group as a whole with both her loss and Dale's probable loss as well? Again, in an extinction type of event her individual liberties must be weighed against the greater good of the possible causation of the greater loss of humanity. If she had killed herself Dale's death, even if he may have held the gun to his head, would have still been blood on her hands. She would have been an accessory to murder if Dale had killed himself at best and at worst directly responsible for Dale's suicide. The individual right to make decisions for oneself does not supersede the greater impact of causing irrefutable harm on society (or what remains of it) as a whole such as the world the folks of TWD find themselves in. Wyld mentioned in another post that you should do all you can to persuade someone to not kill themselves but you should not use manipulation or coercion for the purpose. I disagree. Suicide is not a debate for "individual rights" in my book because it's not an individual right as it's directly affecting everyone around you to some degree or another. I don't have a child but if I did and my child was contemplating suicide I'd say fuck their individual choice in killing themselves whether it would be through persuasion or coercion because it's not an "individual choice" in this regard. I feel the same way towards my grandparents and parents. If my mom or dad tried to kill themselves they may not hold a handgun up to my grandparents head and kill them - but they are ultimately doing the same thing as their death would cause the death of my grandparents through the tragedy. If coercion is necessary in this regard - so be it. Dale may not have been righteous in the way he handled the saving of not only Andrea's life and his own, but I can't fault him for his argument that someone doesn't have a RIGHT (as it is not an individual right) in taking their life - especially in such a situation where Dale is almost essential to the survival of the group. Nor did Dr. Jennar for that matter - I would have dragged him out of there as well. These are merely my own musings and thoughts. I mean no offense to anyone in positing my thoughts on the matter. Wyld, as always I value your feedback and I'm glad you're here at HPotD as you make me think in a way really no other person here makes me think - and I thank you for it. j.p.

[shootemindehead]

on the subject of morality, i'll say i have a very, very slippery sense of it. Morallity is horseshit bu an large. People change their "morals" to suit the circumstances and/or themselves. -- -------- Post added at 03:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 AM ---------- While I agree with the thought of self and family preservation, you never really know about people. You could meet a perfectly normal person and they later turn out to be a hazard. At the same time, you could also meet a potential hazard that later turns out to be a valuable ally. Much like Daryl. Toward the beginning of the first season I thought he was no good for the group as a whole, but now he's proven himslef to be a huge help. He's now needed. Humans are a weird bunch. You can't judge them by first appearances. Yes, but Daryl has never exhibited the silly danger that Merle clearly posed. Frankly, I would have no problem with ending it all for Merle in a second, because his nature is obvious. Within two minutes of his appearance in Series 1.

[Mike70]

Yes, but Daryl has never exhibited the silly danger that Merle clearly posed. Frankly, I would have no problem with ending it all for Merle in a second, because his nature is obvious. Within two minutes of his appearance in Series 1. yeah, um, merle would've been shot in the head straight off. no handcuffs, no leaving him behind, simply bang! there is not a single human problem that a bullet or the proper amount of TNT cannot solve. oh and: "Brevity is a great charm of eloquence." Marcus Tullius Cicero

[JDFP]

If some people have problems with reading longer posts - don't read them. It's that simple. If I'm going to express my thoughts on something or give a response to other mindful posters on a subject I'm not going to half-ass it, I'm going to express my full opinion on it. j.p.