The Shane Topic..

[childofgilead]

Shane is an attack dog off the leash. He needs putting down in a bad way. All credit due to Jon Bernthal, I didn't think he could make me dislike the show Shane as much as the comic Shane. I was wrong. It's also really enlightening to see how far some people will go to excuse a television characters actions. Very enlightening indeed. I've had some serious misgivings about the show this season, but they've flat out emasculated Rick to the point where him putting Sophia down makes that the only action taken so far. Yes, I understand that this was supposed to take place over the course of no more than a week, but it DRUG the fuck on. Whole episodes where I'd dread the commercial breaks because nothing had happened yet. And no, I don't mean character moments, I mean ANYTHING. There have been ALOT of BS moments that had no place being in an episode. The scene where Dale wanders off while Daryl and Andrea are out. Someone made a rationalization that he was getting her pistol on these boards. Fair enough, good save. But that should have been on the fucking show! Show, don't tell! Do, don't say! Finding Sophia dead was to me, just the biggest slap in the face as a fan as I've had. Sure, it makes all kinds of sense "in universe" but I feel flat out insulted how Kirkman acted about the whole thing on the Talking Dead afterwards. He's pulling a serious George Lucas for no goddam reason and I really think that's going to come back and bite him in the ass. And it should. Do I want a panel by panel reconstruction of the book? Not really, no, because I already have all the comics. But I don't even get the same atmosphere anymore, watching this show. Previous guys were right, this doesn't feel dangerous anymore. It doesn't feel like they're doing without, like they have hardships. Season 1 felt genuine, felt like you were with these people on their way to try to find a better place. Then they get there and all they do is bicker and argue about trying to save a child. I..hell, I don't know what to think at the moment. I refrained from posting because I was just so..tired after watching the finale. It was cheap. Flat out friggin cheap. Alot of this is because this is a longer, overarching story, I understand that. But my time is precious. Getting on into week 4, I was feeling like I was wasting my time watching this, because I KNEW it wouldn't be resolved. I think now that I'm just going to start waiting until all the episodes have aired and watch them all at once, because this foreplay, back and forth, nothing getting resolved BS doesn't work for me.

[Thorn]

I had a long response typed up that poofed into the ether so I am going to suffuce to say you make some good points, not all I agree with some I do, and some points I was not making you spoke to... in the end it matters little I enjoyed reading your post. That said I STILL want to hear from Shane supporters. You are with him running from the horde of zombies, you are there instead of Otis do you support Shane's plan of shooting you (or your wife or kid) and leaving you/tehm to die? Seriously I want to hear that defended when it is you or yours on the ground being ripped to bits by walkers because Shane thought it was the best chance for a kid who is not yours. Is he still a great leader?

[babomb]

I had a long response typed up that poofed into the ether so I am going to suffuce to say you make some good points, not all I agree with some I do, and some points I was not making you spoke to... in the end it matters little I enjoyed reading your post. That's happened to me quite a few times on here. Now I always copy my entire post body before hitting submit, just in case. That said I STILL want to hear from Shane supporters. You are with him running from the horde of zombies, you are there instead of Otis do you support Shane's plan of shooting you (or your wife or kid) and leaving you/tehm to die? Seriously I want to hear that defended when it is you or yours on the ground being ripped to bits by walkers because Shane thought it was the best chance for a kid who is not yours. Is he still a great leader? 1st, let me clarify that I never said Shane was a great leader. My entire point on this boils down to the idea that I don't see him as inherently evil, and I see his deeds/misdeeds like 28,28,28-192,192,192 as opposed to 0,0,0/255,255,255. As to having me and mine in the sights of Shane's 590, how does a person even respond to that? I mean, it's not like anyone's saying that Otis himself should've understood or supported Shane's actions in that situation. Nobody wants to be on the business end of anyones weapon! Honestly, I don't see how that question or any answer to it even applies. That's like asking a soldier how he feels about being in the crosshairs of an enemies rifle. Being in the situation makes you unable to evaluate it from an outside perspective. Which is where we're all at on this. That would be like me asking the opposite of that. What if your child or a child you feel responsible to save was on his deathbed, and you were faced with a decision like Shane was? But I'm not asking that because there's no way you can answer that from the same perspective as Shane had in the situation. 1st, you can only see the situation in hindsight. So you have the luxury of exploring other options that you wouldn't have in the moments of extreme stress while actually dealing with the situation in real time. 2nd, your answer to that question now is gonna reflect the point of view you've already expressed here. So I understand that asking that question to anyone here in the forums is not gonna produce an answer that would ever accurately reflect the decision made if any Shane "opposers" found themselves in that specific situation for real. Basically what I'm saying is that I completely understand your position on this. You're making a moral judgement call on a characters actions in a TV show that you watched in the safety of your home. But the point I'm making is that things aren't that simple or black and white when you are actually the person in that situation who has to make that call. You might think you would deal with the situation according your particular moral code as it stands right now. But never having been in that situation you or I can't know that. I'd like to think that in that situation I'd make a better decision than Shane, and be able to see other options. But I recognize the fact that I can't know how I'd react in that situation because I have no similar experiences to draw on. So I'm merely reserving judgement on Shane's actions due to mitigating circumstances that are outside of my objective experience.

[Thorn]

That's happened to me quite a few times on here. Now I always copy my entire post body before hitting submit, just in case. 1st, let me clarify that I never said Shane was a great leader. My entire point on this boils down to the idea that I don't see him as inherently evil, and I see his deeds/misdeeds like 28,28,28-192,192,192 as opposed to 0,0,0/255,255,255. As to having me and mine in the sights of Shane's 590, how does a person even respond to that? I mean, it's not like anyone's saying that Otis himself should've understood or supported Shane's actions in that situation. Nobody wants to be on the business end of anyones weapon! Honestly, I don't see how that question or any answer to it even applies. That's like asking a soldier how he feels about being in the crosshairs of an enemies rifle. Being in the situation makes you unable to evaluate it from an outside perspective. Which is where we're all at on this. That would be like me asking the opposite of that. What if your child or a child you feel responsible to save was on his deathbed, and you were faced with a decision like Shane was? But I'm not asking that because there's no way you can answer that from the same perspective as Shane had in the situation. 1st, you can only see the situation in hindsight. So you have the luxury of exploring other options that you wouldn't have in the moments of extreme stress while actually dealing with the situation in real time. 2nd, your answer to that question now is gonna reflect the point of view you've already expressed here. So I understand that asking that question to anyone here in the forums is not gonna produce an answer that would ever accurately reflect the decision made if any Shane "opposers" found themselves in that specific situation for real. Basically what I'm saying is that I completely understand your position on this. You're making a moral judgement call on a characters actions in a TV show that you watched in the safety of your home. But the point I'm making is that things aren't that simple or black and white when you are actually the person in that situation who has to make that call. You might think you would deal with the situation according your particular moral code as it stands right now. But never having been in that situation you or I can't know that. I'd like to think that in that situation I'd make a better decision than Shane, and be able to see other options. But I recognize the fact that I can't know how I'd react in that situation because I have no similar experiences to draw on. So I'm merely reserving judgement on Shane's actions due to mitigating circumstances that are outside of my objective experience. Well I would disagree. This is not specifically directed at you either, those people and they are on here who are saying Shane is a better leader than Rick, and who are saying they would follow him. Those are the people I am talking to, and there is in my mind a huge difference between being in a snipers cross hairs who is your enemy and being in the cross hairs of the man you trust to lead you and yours. Major... HUGE difference.

[Andy]

Well I would disagree. This is not specifically directed at you either, those people and they are on here who are saying Shane is a better leader than Rick, and who are saying they would follow him. Those are the people I am talking to, and there is in my mind a huge difference between being in a snipers cross hairs who is your enemy and being in the cross hairs of the man you trust to lead you and yours. Major... HUGE difference. Now wait a second, i did not say shane would be a great leader or even a nice man, What i did say is that he's a interesting character with more depth and better written and acted than any of the others and that i can also see what he is doing and why he does what he does. I stand by that and i certainly dont think that he's evil or selfish. In terms of the overall group, he has not done anything to put them in danger, he has spoke common sense several times and helped shape the group. He has also been protective and a good fighter for the group, i really do think they'd probably all be dead long ago without him. I would have shane by my side in a zombie apocolypse, happilly. Rick has endangered the group many times on wild goose chases and is too emotionally unstable to be my leader, He is a nicer man than shane and definately has a stronger conscience and moral code. i am not arguing that, but he is not as wise to the new world they live in and repeatedly endangers himself and other members of the group with very questionable actions and quests. The question i was answering was between rick and shane specifically, who would i have as a leader? And the answer is shane. EASY. Dosnt mean he's perfect, dosnt mean i would pick him out of a different group. But given the choice and circumstances...

[Thorn]

Now wait a second, i did not say shane would be a great leader at all, but so far.. for the overall group, he has not done anything to put them in danger, he has been protective and a good fighter for the group, i really do think he'd be a great guy to have by my side in a zompocalypse. Rick has endangered the group many times on wild goose chases and is too emotionally unstable to be my leader, the question i was answering was between rick and shane, who would i have as a leader? And the answer is shane. Dosnt mean he's perfect, dosnt mean i would pick him out of a different group perhaps. So you are in a bad spot, he decides to shoot your wife in the leg so the rest of you survive because he feels she is the weak link you are still okay with him? Or he shoots you. It is a hard question to answer maybe but it is one I am very curious to hear people answer. See that is my point, I do not mind risking my life for the group, and especially if the motives are sound. My leader if compassionate and worthy of respect can screw up and get a pass. My leader can not become a cold blooded heartless killer sacrificing whomever he pleases because he sees fit to do so... you never know when you are going to b the other guy. The one on the ground being devoured so he can help out a kid he feels is more valuable than you because he is trying to earn his way back into the good graces of a woman he is trying to steal from his best friend. It makes me laugh how many people paint him as trying to save Carl as a great and noble thing his motivations are clearly biased. So when it comes down to you or a sick kid if it is furthering his agenda you can kiss your ass goodbye. I wouldn't follow him to dinner if he was the only cook in town.

[childofgilead]

While I don't think that Rick has really became a real leader yet, I can't fathom a circumstance where Shane would be considered for the job. The sooner he gets capped the better.

[Andy]

So you are in a bad spot, he decides to shoot your wife in the leg so the rest of you survive because he feels she is the weak link you are still okay with him? Or he shoots you. It is a hard question to answer maybe but it is one I am very curious to hear people answer. See that is my point, I do not mind risking my life for the group, and especially if the motives are sound. My leader if compassionate and worthy of respect can screw up and get a pass. My leader can not become a cold blooded heartless killer sacrificing whomever he pleases because he sees fit to do so... you never know when you are going to b the other guy. The one on the ground being devoured so he can help out a kid he feels is more valuable than you because he is trying to earn his way back into the good graces of a woman he is trying to steal from his best friend. It makes me laugh how many people paint him as trying to save Carl as a great and noble thing his motivations are clearly biased. So when it comes down to you or a sick kid if it is furthering his agenda you can kiss your ass goodbye. I wouldn't follow him to dinner if he was the only cook in town. What makes you so certain that is was shanes will or that he shot otis on a whim? Are you totally overlooking the fact that shane actually tried to give otis the bag and told him to go on without him, he tried to sacrifice himself but otis wouldnt do it. The fact is, they where both injured, they where both out of ammo, they where both a good distance from their vehicle and most importantly, the zombies are gaining on them. Watch the scene again. Shane understood they were not both going to make it and accepted that he tried to make otis go ahead and he refused, if shane had not done what he did, they both would have died and so would carl. The fact that he tried to make otis go ahead puts the situation in a different light than your seeing it for me, if shane had not have done that and just shot him outright, id be arguing by your side bro. Im not saying shane wasnt biased, he has shown alot of paternal care for carl so no doubt he was biased, but in the situation, he took 1 life to save 2 and if rick had gone instead of shane, no doubt we would be discussing the deaths of 3 characters now.

[childofgilead]

Shane is a serious danger to the group. The term 'loose cannon' has bad connotations for a reason. They usually get others killed. Shane is NOT selfless. He's gone too far south WAY too fast to have even been wrapped tight enough to begin with. The dead outbreak is just an excuse for him. Wait and see.

[Andy]

Shane is a serious danger to the group. The term 'loose cannon' has bad connotations for a reason. They usually get others killed. Shane is NOT selfless. He's gone too far south WAY too fast to have even been wrapped tight enough to begin with. The dead outbreak is just an excuse for him. Wait and see. OK but i dont understand why you think he's such a "loose cannon"? What specically is it he's done to give you that impression of him? What has shane done, so far, that has endangered the entire group?

[childofgilead]

Opened the barn doors? Taken Andrea out to a housing development for practice? Hahaha, don't get me wrong. The fact that this character engenders such conversation is just a testament to his awesome portrayal. But if I were in that situation, with my loved ones well being hanging on the line, there's no way in hell I would follow his lead. Shane time and again refused to place up signs warning people away from the city. I also believe that he had something for Lori before the end as well. The way he questions Rick in their squad car at the very beginning was just too felicitous. Just struck me as off, like he knew something Rick didn't. Could be me just putting things into it that aren't there in this rendition as opposed to the comics, but it just struck me as odd. Basically, after watching Rick and Shane banter in the woods, it's made clear that Shane is a ladies man (or sees himself as one), whereas Rick seems to have less experience with women. I don't want to think that it could be something as simple as a rivalry that this was a woman that Shane wanted only because he couldn't have her and once he had her he decided that she was his. I dunno. But his decision making leaves alot to be desired. Again though. That's the point. Shane is a valuable part of the group, he's good with guns and maintaining them, not afraid to fight. But his attitude of getting it done and damn the consequences is BAD news. I'd never follow him. I can excuse alot of his failings, but attempting to rape Lori is one I can't. You can excuse the moment in the woods where he almost shot Rick, that could be explained either way. But he was WELL on his way to raping her that night. What stopped him? I don't know. But if the situation comes up again, will he stop himself? That's the thing that bothers me. It seems like he's not worrying too much about where that path is leading him. He's not worrying about the strength of the group. If he had, Otis would still be alive. Otis was an EMT, and while overweight, could shoot, was apparently adept at wrangling walkers and could even play guitar! *natch* Otis was a man who made a mistake. He seemed genuinely contrite, and more than willing to put himself on the line, especially considering that he knew he'd be more of a hindrance in a raid to get supplies than a help. Yes, he could have taken the supplies when Shane tried to push them on him, BUT HE REFUSED. An artifice of telling the story, sure, but they could have made it out of that alive. Yes, I'm sure that Shane BELIEVED that his back was against the wall. I'm sure he BELIEVED he was doing what was right. But he wasn't. If he'd really wanted Otis to go on without him, he could have done it.

[Andy]

Absolutly right my friend and rape is inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, i aint excusing shane and i go back to my previous posts, i never once said he was a nice man. BUT I will say, lori treated shane like a peice of shit throughout season 1, fair enough she was angry and he was a dick and i think the situation in the CDC was a culmination of shanes anger, fustration and actual genuine feelings for lori.. and of course alcohol. She could could have spoke to him a little more than she did and ended things with him properly, what happened in the CDC might have been avoided. I get shes angry that shane lied about rick being dead and maybe she thinks he took advantage of the situation, but it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean and she is not without blame. That said, shane was totally out of line with her in the CDC and that was a real low point for the character.

[Thorn]

Andy, Not at all and I pointed that out myself in the thread where the episode was discussed, I did not forget it and I think it is worth noting. That said it in no way changes the fact he decided to kill one of the people who was counting on him, a guy who risked his life to save him more than once when shane would have been finished. Risking your life for another is courageous, taking someone's life so you can live is crap. He could have easily handed Otis the bag and charged the walkers.He didn't need Otis' permission to sacrifice himself, he clearly didn't look for it when he killed him. I see the whole thing quite clearly and like many here watched the scene a number of times there are always other options, and what I am saying is following any man who would pick that options is a fool's errand. You would be basically writing your life over to a man who would dispose of you the minute he deemed he had to. With Rick who is an imperfect leader as well you can at least reason with him, talk to him, and have a voice. Look at the farm, he was clearly willing to work with Herschel to try and make it work. To compromise and discuss, buy time, and negotiate. Shane just kills you. I can not say enough anyone who wants to follow him is a bit misguided if not outright crazy and or in denial in my opinion. Again if he shoots you or a loved one are you okay with it? Because he made the call that it had to happen? The answer is clearly no. Rick would have sacrificed himself after trying to find away for it to work where everyone lives going for the perfect and most ideal solution. When the chips were down Shane murdered an innocent man, he did not sacrifice himself. He offered sure, but no one could stop someone like Shane the dude is a force of nature... the only thing that stops Shane is Shane.   (Comic Book aside...) -- -------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ---------- Absolutly right my friend and rape is inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, i aint excusing shane and i go back to my previous posts, i never once said he was a nice man. BUT I will say, lori treated shane like a piece of shit throughout season 1, fair enough she was angry and he was a dick and i think the situation in the CDC was a culmination of shanes anger, frustration and actual genuine feelings for lori.. and of course alcohol. She could could have spoke to him a little more than she did and ended things with him properly, what happened in the CDC might have been avoided. I get shes angry that shane lied about rick being dead and maybe she thinks he took advantage of the situation, but it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean and she is not without blame. That said, Shane was totally out of line with her in the CDC and that was a real low point for the character. I guess for me the whole Lori and Shane thing is by and large miscommunication, Lori felt betrayed because Shane told her her husband was dead and he wasn't. She read a lot into that, and he denied her the right to go for her man, to do whatever she would have done. Ended his life while he slept? Stayed by his side? Tried to take him with them? And that is frustrating. Do I fault Shane? I did at first but when they showed the flashback no, he did in fact check for a pulse, tried to save his friend, and was genuinely conflicted. Then the crap hit the fan and he had to get out of there and he made a last ditch effort to save his friend which appeared to have worked to some degree. I don't think Lori gets that, she should watch the flashback. Also she was likely afraid to get caught, and she was nervous her looks or Shane's might betray her I imagine, so she pushed him away harder. Was this right? I don't think so but it might explain it a bit.

[Wyldwraith]

About Shane, These things I consider concrete. 1) Shane DID make an effort to a) Communicate to Otis 1 of them needed to make it out with the supplies, and b) They WEREN'T GOING TO MAKE IT under those conditions. You can say Shane could have flung the bag of supplies at Otis and leaped back into the oncoming horde, but then he'd be trusting someone he's known for like TWO HOURS to complete a life-or-death mission. A man who has shown at least SOME tendency to make very costly errors (not being sure of what was beyond his intended target). Delivering a head shot to Otis would NOT, in all likelihood, and BASED UPON SHANE'S EXPERIENCE divert 95-100% of the Walkers from continuing to pursue prey that is still alive/moving. Being realistic now, if Shane was going to sacrifice Otis at all it had to be in such a way that he could be **100%** sure the sacrifice would accomplish the necessary purpose. Put another way: How MUCH WORSE would it have been if Shane killed Otis to buy time to escape with the medical supplies, but because he killed him outright over half the Walker mob continued to pursue, and eventually overtake him before Shane could reach the truck? The killing of Otis would have been quite literally for nothing. Shane has a keen awareness of how Walkers cue off of sensory stimuli, and this awareness is something he keeps in mind CONSTANTLY. Remember his being a campfire-size nazi to Ed? Shane cited that the light of the fire could attract Walkers. Glenn coming barreling into the camp in a sports car whose alarm had been blaring the entire time, and continued to blare even after he'd exited/turned off said car? Shane ripped the guts out of the alarm to kill the sound immediately, and wasn't willing to accept Dale's speculation that the echoing nature of the surrounding mountains would prevent Walkers from finding them due to the noise of the car alarm. I can go on, but that point's been made. Shane had EVERY REASON to believe that AT LEAST 50% of the Walkers would choose to pursue fleeing prey over being Walkers 20-through-50 trying to dogpile in and get a hand-full of Otis's already-swarmed body. Motive is irrelevant since Rick gets a pass CONSTANTLY around here for group-endangering acts that are well-intentioned. Shane tried to make it clear to Otis both of them weren't going to make it, and that Otis needed to go on ahead with the supplies. Otis wouldn't accept that harsh reality. Shane couldn't FORCE Otis to go on and manage his escape as well as Shane himself would've done, because with relatively equal leg/muscle injuries, the seriously overweight man was obviously going to slow and tire more rapidly than Shane would. Shane knew this, he could hear Otis huffing and puffing along beside him and see the heavy sheen of sweat the man was covered in. It would've been OBVIOUS AT A GLANCE that Otis was tiring more rapidly than Shane was. So, in Shane's mind the combination of Otis's unwillingness to face harsh reality and the strikes against the man physically/health-wise, made it obvious that he couldn't be as sure that Otis would make it as he could be about making it himself if the large majority of pursuing Walkers were delayed even for a short interval. Even if you take all moral considerations out of the equation and strip it down to cold pragmatism, what Shane did to Otis was the gambit with the highest % chance of succeeding. It was a survival situation, yet Shane was CLEARLY WILLING to CONTINUE risking his life by struggling with Otis to secure the supplies the other man had been carrying. An act that reduced his chances of making it out alive, so that right there conclusively proves that FOR WHATEVER REASON, Shane was prioritizing getting the medical supplies to save Carl's life over his own best chance at survival. I find that I cannot condemn these decisions and acts by Shane in the slightest, and I will take it one step further. I suffer from SEVERE back trouble, that BADLY impairs my stamina due to pain-induced fatigue caused by any significant exertion. If *I* was the one who had accidentally shot Carl, AND I was the only one who could recognize the needed medical supplies for the procedure besides the medical practicioner needed to preform said procedure, I would go with Shane to get those supplies.....And if it played out as it did for Otis & Shane, and Shane could tell I was in about as bad a shape injury-wise, and in much worse shape fatigue-wise, my self-preservation instinct might well cause me to try and stop it if I knew it was coming, but...as I lay there watching both the Walkers approach inexorably and Shane recede into the distance, I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY SHANE DID IT, and while I would of course take it personally that I was being eaten because of his actions, were I able to still be rational and able to somehow observe his actions and the fact my death was in FACT buying back the life of a child my act put in jeopardy of losing their life....I would not judge Shane for what he did to me. I can't go so far as to say I wouldn't die enraged, but it would be a more general rage at how it all turned out...not personally raging at Shane and cursing him as a murderer. I was going to go on with a long and detailed response to the rest of the issues, but (silly as this is) I find I'm having an emotional reaction to typing all this that makes me want to stop for now.

[Thorn]

I just have a hard time beleiving that Wyld especially from you, you are telling me that your leader kills you without discussion denying you free will and choice and you are okay with that. You fight passionately on these boards for much less. I am not saying you are lying, or anything of that nature I just don't think in that situation it would be something you found peace with. Could I be wrong sure but man, come on... As to Rick getting a pass, Rick gets a pass on making mistakes because at no point does he force anyone to do anything including follow him. If you want to leave you do, if you want to live you do. He doesn't force it on you. That is the difference for me in the leadership styles. Rick would sacrifice himself not you, and if you or anyone else had issue with him he would discuss and debate... he does the job himself and if no one else wants to go along they don't. He doesn't force his will down your throat making you swallow it no matter how bad it tastes. It is about respect. I respect that in him as a leader of men, he will make mistakes all men do. They do not cover their mistakes through sacrifice of others, lies, and deception, they do not take what is not theirs or try to by force, they do not shove their will down the throats of people that do not even recognize them as a leader and who have provided them shelter and safe haven.A leader does not need to lie, because he has the courage of his convictions and if he is actions are just and true he does not need to lie to cover them up. If he does he is leading the wrong group of people and therefore should not be leading them. Those are the actions of a taker, and no one worthy of your respect. We have gone over it a lot, I guess at this point we all agree to disagree on the Shane versus Rick thing. No one is changing their minds here.