3rd Episode - Tell it to the frogs

[thxleo]

Today I was able to watch the 3rd episode of the series, entitled "Tell it to the frogs". For those wondering if the series will keep up the pace and quality set with the pilot...don't worry. It's fantastic!
I wish that I could give out some details but I can't, plus I'd never want to spoil anything for those who have yet to watch it.
So far the first three episodes I've watched have been great and I can't wait for the next 3 episodes. :)

[ProfessorChaos]

i need to start hanging around with you, lee.

i've been re-reading the hardback collections, just finished the first and currently midway through the 2nd.

saw another site had a synopsis for each of the six episodes of the first season. i have a hunch about what's gonna go down, but from the pilot alone, i can tell they're mixing it up quite a bit.

and those plot synopses i read earlier referred to a place that wasn't ever visited in the comics, so i'm very curious to see how this first season pans out. darabont has gave a few hints about what the second season might bring and what characters he's looking forward to introducing.

i hope this show lasts for at least 5 or 6 seasons, there's so much in the comics that i'd love to see adapted to film.

EDIT: and lee, since you're in such good graces with the people behind this show, i was wondering: have you heard anything about when we can expect the 2nd season? 6 episodes is gonna leave a very crazy itch for more TWD, and i really hope we don't have to wait till this time next year to pick the story up again...

[bassman]

"Tell it to the Frogs"? :rockbrow:

Seems like a strange name. Nice to hear at least the second and third episodes keep up with the pilot. It's going to be a long 2-3 week wait.

Speaking of.....Have we heard whether or not the show will play every sunday after Halloween? I thought maybe they would switch it to another day, but on the other hand I think AMC always plays their shows on Sundays...

[thxleo]

EDIT: and lee, since you're in such good graces with the people behind this show, i was wondering: have you heard anything about when we can expect the 2nd season? 6 episodes is gonna leave a very crazy itch for more TWD, and i really hope we don't have to wait till this time next year to pick the story up again...

Professor, I have no information about a second season. Honestly, I think they will do a second season, but that's just me guessing.
I would assume that AMC is waiting to see what kind of reception it gets. We have to hope the ratings are pretty strong. At the NYC Comic Con that was something that the entire cast/crew kept reiterating to fans - make sure that you tune in.

[ProfessorChaos]

bassman,as far as i know, AMC always has played their original shows on sunday night, can't imagine they'll change it for this one.

and lee, i don't have cable, but trust me, i've been telling everyone i know about this show, and will be making a final push while back home, doing my best to convince all my friends and family members to spend their halloween night having their mind blown by the best new tv show out this fall.

[thxleo]

and lee, i don't have cable, but trust me, i've been telling everyone i know about this show, and will be making a final push while back home, doing my best to convince all my friends and family members to spend their halloween night having their mind blown by the best new tv show out this fall.

Professor, I've been doing the same thing. In fact, my Mom came here to Pittsburgh to help me after my surgery and I let her watch the show and she enjoyed it a lot. And believe me my Mom does not care for horror films at all, but she really enjoyed the show. So I take that as a good sign that mainstream viewers might have the same reaction. I certainly hope so. :)

[kidgloves]

Jusf thought i'd bump this thread in anticipation for tonights (tomorrow for me) episode. Can't wait. I love this show.

A FREAKING ZOMBIE SERIES ON TV
and a well received and good one as well .

WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO.
GOOD TIMES

[AcesandEights]

Wow, completely slipped my mind that we have a new episode tonight! Time to get psyched for some more zombie goodness.

[Wyldwraith]

Yep,
Time to find out if Shane (and/or Lori) deserves that bullet from Rick. Oh, I know he's too goody-two-shoes to do more than deck Shane at the worst, but still I wanna know. Though on the other hand something occurred to me after rewatching the first episode tonight.

Follow me here: Rick goes through HELL trying to find Lori and Carl, with the high points being getting nearly entombed alive in a tank by the hordes of Atlanta, and then playing "Let's Remake Dawn of the Dead: This Time Its For Real". AT THE SAME TIME. Shane and Lori are slipping off into the woods to hump like horny teens while Lori is just palming responsibility for THEIR SON off on to some old guy way out of arm's reach if something happened, JUST SO SHE CAN SCRATCH HER ITCH with her new boy-toy.

Then, to top it ALL OFF, when Lori sees the look on Shane's face, she cares more about that look than, oh say, grieving the husband she only "lost" A MONTH AGO.

If I was Rick and I ever, EVER found out about that shit, they'd both be put on their knees, facing each other so they can look at their hump-buddy while the bullet passes through the back of one's head and into the face of the other.

Rick has been BETRAYED with a Capital B-for-Booty-Call. By his best friend and partner, and by his wife when he's only supposed to have been dead and cold for about a month. That's EVEN IF they really "believed" he was dead, or just assumed it and went off to set up shop.

Whatever he does, its my opinion that Lori is the kind of woman that will throw over whatever "Love" she professes the moment her "beloved" isn't temporarily available to attend to his "Man duties".

Edit: Scratch the Headshots for Shane and Lori. Shoot em in the guts, let em die slow and reanimate, and be gone and playing house w/ Nadine by the time they start to twitch.

[ProfessorChaos]

jesus, man, your past relationships have really got you fired the hell up about this....not to make light of getting burned by women, but holy fuck, i sense some major animosity in the posts you've made regarding lori and shane.

in all seriousness, though, have you read the comics?

[Wyldwraith]

Haven't read the comics,
And yes, I've been burned. Everyone thinks they've been burned the worst, but to give you an idea of mine: First love comes back into my life after 8yrs looking for help and fleeing an allegedly abusive (allegedly sexually and otherwise) marriage. Being honest, at this point was in friends mode. She took care of that fast enough once we met in person and she realized I still had feelings for her. "Jumped my bones" is the term I believe. Played it real well, had me thinking it was a forever thing. Then she bolted on me, on Xmas EVE.

A month and a half later, she's back on my doorstep. Fool that I was, I accepted her B.S and took her back. Things were GREAT for 8 months. Not even a squabble. Then one day she wakes me up and tells me her childhood friend (actually an old mutual friend I'd lost touch with but she hadn't) had tried to kill herself, and she was going up to Maryland to spend time with her and make sure she'd be all right. I argued, I suggested I should go with, particularly because my beloved had a bad cold at the time. No dice. Finally, set off to take her to the bus station, but my mom caught us before we left my Grandmother's house, which we'd been kindly lent since it had been empty since my grandfather passed and my grandmother moved in with my Mom.

End result, Mom ends up driving us to the bus station. I've at this point finally figured out something is "off" by her goodbye kiss, but don't wanna think badly of her. She goes inside, presumably to wait for her bus, and we're all set to leave and head out and away from the station.

Then my Mom swings the van around the corner and surreptiously parks in the fenced business next door to the bus station, where we can't be seen, but where u can watch the entire bus station parking lot through small cracks in the fence. She DEMANDS I go to the fence and watch for fifteen minutes.

I go, hoping to God not to see anything, cuz her bus doesn't leave supposedly for another hour.

Ten minutes later, she leaves the bus station and gets into the car with an older/middle-aged woman I didnt recognize, crying and arguing with her. I'm flabbergasted and brokenhearted.

We go home. Bad enough. Right?

The cops show up. Courtesy of my beloved's mother, who she'd called and told I'd been holding her prisoner against her will, and the police were there asking to search the house because they believed I was STILL holding her prisoner.

My Mom calls through the house "Shawn, the police are here, and they're saying (Insert her name) has been kidnapped. Now, I'm thinking the strange scene in the parking lot, and I'm officially her next of kin on the hospital's paperwork etc. That they're there to inform me. So I come bounding through the house at a dead run.

I end up on my stomach, a 9mm behind my car, getting my arm damned near pulled out of the socket as they cuff me, then damn near give me a concussion bouncing my head DELIBERATELY off the top of the cruiser door. They search the house, of course find nothing, but meanwhile the female cop is SCREAMING AT ME to "Tell her what I've done with her!" Which of course was when my ex-beloved calls, and explains her lil deception.

Ooops.

Uncuffed, let go back inside. I cried for about a week.

Bad enough. Justify that animosity?

[ProfessorChaos]

sorry, bro. you didn't have to go into all that....i think you posted about the same deal in another thread a while back...i was just slightly amused by how much anger you were spitting out through the keyboard about lori and shane.

in the comics, lori and shane had a one-night thing on the way to ATL, lori decides once rick gets back that she'd made a mistake by leaving rick behind and with what she did about shane...not sure how they're gonna play this out on the tv series.

but it's like i've mentioned, we don't know how much they knew about rick's condition, and with 90% (or better) of the population dead/reanimated, it's gonna end up that people start pairing up, regardless of whether they'd just lost their spouse/significant other a few weeks prior. i mean seriously, the world and life as you know it is fucked, you gotta adjust to a whole new world, who's got time to sit around and mope about the past? i'm not currently in a serious relationship (hope you're not reading this julie, but we're taking it slow this time, remember?:o) but even if i was, i couldn't see the point in moping and grieving over their death the same way i would in a world without zombies were everything was normal.

and if you were in their shoes, wouldn't it be better to be with somebody you already knew? if you were shane, would you want some stranger tapping your (assumed?) dead buddies widow? or if you were lori, would you rather be hooking up with some random stranger or a friend of your (presumed?) dead husband who was looking out for you and your son?

again, sorry for making you drag all that shit out of your psyche, wasn't trying to get you all riled up. if the tv series sticks to the comics, you will be pleased about what awaits certain characters...

[Gryphon]

Wow, yeah.

Let's blow Shane's guts out, then leave him on the department store roof, then he can have a snack with the reneck chained to the pipe ;)

[JDFP]

There are currently six members looking at this thread during commercial breaks. Enough to bring a smile to my face and make me laugh.

That's what a great zombie show will do for us!

They better be making ol' Merle and his brother more human (if they live). This one-dimensional cliched beyond words description of them so far is really interfering with the enjoyment for me of this show. It's like the producers intentionally sat down and said: "Hey, this is Georgia! We need a one-dimensional redneck here without any need to have any other meaning to his character!" -- as being a Southerner myself it's about as insulting as portraying everyone south of Maryland as having the EXACT SAME accent

j.p.

[Wyldwraith]

Thanks,
And it isn't on you that I chose to go into all that, just like it was my choice to go into it before. Here's what I DIDN'T SAY before.
A month later, in sheer desperation because I wasn't eating, was barely hydrating (just enough to avoid mouth swelling/bleeding lips), and wasn't sleeping more than 40 mins here, 30 mins there (because just lying in a bed alone made me remember)...

My Mom and Grandma called Samantha (my beloved). She came, back with her husband and all. Meant to just try and set me straight and explain herself. Ended up spending the night, enraging her husband. Long and the short of it was we started this illicit on again/off again thing. Would go for 10-11 months solid, then her husband would catch us, yell awhile, she'd calm him down and stick to phone/web sex w/ me in the meantime, then pick up where we left off a couple months later.

Finally ended for good about 7-8 months ago, when she left me and her husband both, moved to Maryland and hooked up/moved in with some Jason guy.

My point is, regardless of how unwise it was, that I'm not the kind that stops loving EVEN WHEN I'M BUTCHERED FOR IT.

So no, I would NEVER EVER forgive a woman I loved not for hooking up with someone else, but for not even waiting a decent interval. I mean for Fuck's Sake, hold out some against-all-odds hope for my ass for a couple months. Not like she'd die of not being fucked in 60 days. Worse yet, letting another man, even WORSE, my BEST FRIEND try to take over and just step in as my child's father a MONTH AFTER I'm GONE?

You haven't even seen the TIP of that Iceberg, of what I would do in Rick's place. I'd feed them to the zombies alive, by a chain I could lower then down to the zombies a few inches at a time, feet first.

Try to wipe me away like I never was 30 days later? Capital Offense.

Simple as that. I TOTALLY understood Rick's "I'll search the entire damned planet for them, until I find em or see their dead/undead bodies with my own eyes" kind of sentiment. I'm that way. Loyalty is what I believe in ABOVE ALL.

[ProfessorChaos]

well, as bassman just informed us in the shoutbox, apparently shane led lori to believe that rick was dead....hrmm....looking forward to watching this one.

[Eyebiter]

Plot spoiler

Robert Kirkman regretted having Rick's hand chopped off in the comic book as it hindered the story going forward.

http://thewalkingdeadpodcast.com/2010/07/12/tfaw-interviews-robert-kirkman/

[MoonSylver]

*HERE THERE BE SPOILERS. I'M TOO LAZY TO TAG 'EM. THE THREAD ITSELF SAYS "SPOILERS", SO IF YOU DON'T WANNA KNOW, GO AWAY* :lol:

Great episode, but not perfect. GREAT opening w/ Rooker. Really loved the slow build of tension throughout the episode, the uncertainty of "who-did-what-to-who" (lots of :shifty: 'round the campfire). Last 10 minutes REALLY cranked it up. Not sure 'bout that ending, leaving Merle's fate that way...:rockbrow: (seemed a bit cliched. Gonna have a hard time buying that he survived...)

As for the Lori/Shane thing, we KNOW that Shane's motives wern't pure, & it's easy to say what Lori did wasn't right, but traumatized people under stress, emotionally vulnerable, with the world ending around them?...well, they're likely to act in ways they might not under other conditions.

(I will say that I had a hard time deciphering how Loru really felt for the longest time in the episode. If this was intentional, a fault from the performance, or the script, I'm undecided. I THINK it was calculated...) I will also say that in the comic, they played it more as a "one night stand/mistake" on the way down to Atlanta. In the 1st couple episodes they played it more like giggly teenagers, which I think was a mistake.

Not sure how I feel about Reedus' character. Normally I like the guy, but had a little trouble buying him here. Rooker could sell the racist asshole, cliched as it is, a little better.

Overall though I really enjoyed & am looking forward to the next one, as I have NO idea what's going to happen now. Promo looks interesting...:)

[Wyldwraith]

All right,
Lori did what she could do to make shit right. Now it comes clear. It WAS Shane that pushed the "Rick's DEAD, time to move on" theory.

Lori said it pretty well, in response to Shane's "He's my best friend, don't you think I'm glad he's alive" bit. "How dare you, you sonuvabitch, you're the one who told me he was dead!"

Of course the end of the episode was sorta odd. I happen to know for a FACT that a hacksaw will either A) go through the midline chain-link of the cuffs, or B) Go through enough of that somewhat corroded pipe to use one of the other even closer-than-the-hacksaw tools to finish breaching the pipe.

Beyond that, why the HELL did Dixon Cut through his damned hand ANYWAYS? The door is chained, and there's zombies out there anyways. How could he get off that roof one-handed, when they couldn't do it collectively as a group? Further, don't give a FUCK if he tied that belt as tight as he possibly could with one-hand around whatever part of his arm he chose to tourniquet, NO blood other than what ended up on the handcuff loop?

BULLSHIT. This isn't just a minor caught-something-nitpick. It impacts significantly on the story, since we've established Walkers work at least partially on a scent-based tracking behavior. Just the process of Sawing through the meat, tendons and hardest of all, the BONES, would've resulted in trickles, spatters and maybe even outright splashes.

Plus, as predicted, the Dixon-related plot elements lead them deeper into the deep-deep shit. First it's going back through a city crawling with zombies to get him. Then, they get there, find him gone and judging from the scenes from next week's Episode 4, end up in a clusterfuck with TWD-equivalent of the marauding gang ala Dawn of the Dead. Plus, from the looks of the previews, they run into said gang trouble before they retrieve the Bag O' Guns, if they in fact ever do retrieve said guns and ammo.

I do love how they're compounding the challenges facing Rick in a believably tense way. It's genuine edge-of-your-seat stuff IMHO in places. Hell, I even found the quiet building entry creepy and tense.

(BTW, Merle Dixon's brother's Crossbow is an EXCELLENT CHOICE for Walker disposal. By the way it punched clean through that female zombie's forehead we know 2 things. 1) It's a 200+ lbs compound Xbow. 2) He must've reinforced his bolts in some way, and customized the heads, because the tip of a target bolt, while the right shape and free of obstructions that might otherwise prevent its easy pulling-back-out removal, is simply too soft to do the job through anything but the eye. Hit the forehead and it would lodge a bit, and hang there by the now-bent head under the bolt's weight. Hunting broadheads are flat-ass IMPOSSIBLE to remove from two layers of bone with soft matter in between ((a skull). Pushed all the way through, sure. Pulled out? Not in one piece, and CERTAINLY NOT one USABLE piece.)

All in all, I genuinely liked this episode even if I wish they might've gone in a bit of different direction with the whole Dixon thing. Then again, Rick brought up a great point about needing the walkie-talkie in the bag to save Duane and his boy.

Also going to declare my view that their stationary camp is a BAD IDEA. Others mention that canon seems to back that up, and They should've cut Dixon loose when they saw that Walker eating the deer the other Dixon brother had brought down. First one they'd seen up there they said. That's warning enough that where one can come and, perhaps more importantly, feel motivated to come so far out in the wilderness, others can and no doubt WILL FOLLOW.

As always, very eager to see what happens next, and hoping like everyone else that Season 2 won't be long in coming. The ratings for Eps #1-2 were astounding, and in and of themselves would indicate to the dimmest of executives that, coupled with its overall potential almost DEMANDS a second season, AT LEAST.

And Shane is still, to use his own word, a Douchebag.

[MoonSylver]

Then again, Rick brought up a great point about needing the walkie-talkie in the bag to save Duane and his boy.

Yeah, I was just coming back on to point this out. The guns too. I think the double emphasis of the bag was a wise move, as it gives another compelling reason to return rather than JUST Merle, which I could BUY given what a compassionate guy Rick is, but I know some people would find it a bit...:rolleyes:

As for Shane? Yeah, he's not as decent a guy as Rick, but he's somewhat believable. If the series follows the comic in this regard, and I suspect they will, then Shane's motives get spelled out. They're a compelling portrait of how a person can change & how far they can decend into madness at the end of the world

[Sammich]

What was the secret word for the contest tonight? I only saw the 8-9pm rebroadcast and they didn't say it then.

[ProfessorChaos]

dunno if i like dixon using the hacksaw to cut his hand off rather than attempting to saw through the chain on the handcuffs, but then again, he does appear to be an uneducated maroon....with very nice teeth:rolleyes:.


overall, though, i thought it was another great episode and i liked what i saw very much, i think i enjoyed this episode a bit more than the 2nd one. some great character development...rick's return is really gonna fuck shane up, and the dude playing him is doing a great job of portraying that....also, shane going off on ed was a nice touch of how pissed he is about the choices he made and how it's affected him and lori.

btw, ed was not in the comics, and carol is much older looking in the tv series. her husband was already dead, so that allowed her to pair up with another person who'll be introduced later on much easier. the abusive relationship she puts up with from her husband kinda fits into her character from the books, though, showing that she just wants to be wanted and can't stand to be alone, even if she's married to some pig asshole who likes to bruise her up from time to time.

very interested to see what dixon's up to and how he's gonna react when (if) he and rick (along with the rest of the rescue crew) meet up. i'm guessing that he's gonna be rightly pissed the fuck off, but his brother being there might help keep him grounded....or he and his brother could attempt to fuck rick, t-dog, and glenn over since the two of them probably aren't the biggest fans of minorities or cops, especially ones that handcuff rednecks to rooftops.

damn i love this show.

[Trencher]

I thought the episode was great except for the end with the hand that was clichéd. As for Lori being such a slut they really ramped it up for the TV show in the comics she got together once with Shane, and with her husband dead she needed a new one to protect herself and her son, in such a hard world both man and woman need a spouse as fast as possible. BUT also in the comic Shane never said to her Rick was dead! Looks like my hunch in the hospital thread still holds water. I think both Lori and Shane are coming off much worse in the TV series but the actors are good. Did you see the look of guilt on Loris face when they were at the fire LoL!

[Ghoulman]

Another great, intense, emotional episode!!
Lori's off the hook as far as I'm concerned. I can't fault the woman for doing what she did ESPECIALLY believing her husband to be dead all along. And isn't marriage "till death do us part"? As far as Lori sharing her juicebox once with good ol' "Reverand Shane", I can't fault her for that either. Who the hell knows what any of us would do in that goddamn doomsday scenario. Shane doing what he did though? He'll get his. The show is already following in Kirkman's footsteps in that regard. Curious though, how early did Shane tell Lori? Is that why there were no flowers from her, or perhaps suffed animals or balloons from Carl in the hospitol room?

[DjfunkmasterG]

What was the secret word for the contest tonight? I only saw the 8-9pm rebroadcast and they didn't say it then.

WORD FOR CONTEST: FEVER


My thoughts on Episode #3. I have to admit I enjoyed much more than Episode #2. While #2 was a bit more action, it lacked a lot of the humanity aspects of Episode #1.... #3 came more back to the humanity aspect, and we really get to see how much compassion Rick really has, which i think is superb stuff. The entire discussion around the campfire and how to tell Daryl was really great and having characters willing to take the blame for their actions was something I thought was a nice touch, especially in a world like we have today where people sooner pass the buck than admit to their mistakes and choices.

What I find great about TWD right now is that Darabont is exploring many themes Romero did in his early zombie work, something we all wish he would have continued, but for some reason he, at least to me, has gotten extremely sloppy with in his writing.

I am still extremely impressed with this show and hope it continues to be as solid as it has been for the remaining 3 episodes and I am definitely drooling for what season 2 has in store for us all.

[Wyldwraith]

I suspect it was a couple weeks after Rick got shot,
As Lori said, she was aware of them wanting to Medivac the non-ambulatory patients to Atlanta, but "It never ended up happening." So, she knew Rick didn't like, die of a staph infection days after surgery to either root out bullet/jacket fragments, or to simply close him up/repair the damage done. I'm guessing that shortly after Lori found out that the Medivac-to-Atlanta didn't happen, she wanted to go to Rick herself, but Shane probably popped in with "You need to stay with Carl, where its safe. You know Rick wouldn't want you to leave Carl without a father AND a mother by dying trying to get to him. I'll go and try and get Rick out, but you stay here."

Then, he comes back with a sad face and says to Lori "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry. I tried to get to Rick, but by the time I got there the military had almost finished their rout of an evacuation and the hospital was already crawling with Walkers. There just...wasn't any way. He never had a chance Lori, I'm sorry. We've gotta get everyone MUCH further away from town, and now. What's happened, happened. Nothing we can do will change that, but we have to go on. Rick would've wanted it that way....you know he would."

How do I know Shane really worked the Rick's Dead angle? Lori would've been upset and feeling guilty and confused when Rick had reappeared anyways, but she wouldn't have been so angry she wasn't even willing to hear one more word from Shane if she didn't feel like listening to Shane was severely foolish on her part, and connivingly manipulative on his.

From what others have hinted at, Shane apparently gets his. I want to see that, a lot. Not just for his sleazy betrayal of his best friend and partner, but for the way he's obviously savoring exerting power/control over the survivors. He was OBVIOUSLY smugly enjoying forcing Ed to back down over that fire. Shane's a petty tyrant. The kind of man that power in ANY AMOUNT corrupts in a HURRY.

Shane is scum. Nothing's going to change that in my eyes, with the only possible exception being a posthumous reprieve from Evil Lying Selfish Douchebag Tyrant status if he, say, sacrificed himself to die a horrible death at the teeth of Walkers to save Rick/Lori/Carl.

Not much room here for shades of gray IMO. I simply do NOT buy the "It's the apocalypse, human emotion is now abridged/abbreviated." At least not mere WEEKS into such a catastrophe. Banding together for mutual protection and to help each other through the shock of the world/society unraveling, sure. Pairing up inevitably, all right. I just don't buy the need for comfort having anything to do with behaving in a way which indicates you've already put lost loved ones behind you. Rick's reaction rung much truer for me. It's not that I didn't expect Lori wouldn't be under Shane's protection along with her son, and maybe even hints of the pairing to come, but not a full-blown regular giggling and humping like horny teenagers relationship. The comment Lori made to Rick when he looked over at their sleeping son as he was putting the sex-moves on Lori said it all. "He won't wake up." How would SHE KNOW THAT UNLESS SHE'D ALREADY BEEN FUCKING SHANE WITH CARL SLEEPING SIX FEET AWAY.

It's stuff like that, and her caring more about what Shane thought of seeing her with Rick's wedding wrong on a cameo with a portrait of Rick/Lori/Carl inside than for what that locket and ring meant to her, that makes it ring somewhat "off" for me.

[kidgloves]

Yep. Superb episode. I enjoyed it more than the 2nd. I think it gives a better idea of how TWD will be as a tv show. Loved all the camp scenes and we've seen enough of the characters now that when one goes it's gonna be heartrending. Jeffery DeMunn is Dale. Great casting. That's 2 episodes now where I've been welling up and we haven't lost anyone yet. Jeez

[bassman]

Beyond that, why the HELL did Dixon Cut through his damned hand ANYWAYS? The door is chained, and there's zombies out there anyways. How could he get off that roof one-handed, when they couldn't do it collectively as a group? Further, don't give a FUCK if he tied that belt as tight as he possibly could with one-hand around whatever part of his arm he chose to tourniquet, NO blood other than what ended up on the handcuff loop?

Maybe we'll see more of it in the coming episodes, but the dude seemed pretty much off his rocker at the beginning. Talking as if he's telling someone about knocking someone else's teeth out and the time he spent because of it, having a direct conversation with God, etc. Maybe he just snapped and decided on the hand over the cuffs/bar.

Speaking of....how long was he left out there?? It seems to be the same day that they get back to the camp, yet Merle has sun BLISTERS and dried out lips? Wouldn't that take a few days? The guy had a bubble on his head, ffs.


Also going to declare my view that their stationary camp is a BAD IDEA. Others mention that canon seems to back that up, and They should've cut Dixon loose when they saw that Walker eating the deer the other Dixon brother had brought down. First one they'd seen up there they said. That's warning enough that where one can come and, perhaps more importantly, feel motivated to come so far out in the wilderness, others can and no doubt WILL FOLLOW.


Judging by next week's preview and IF they're following the comics, I think they'll be leaving in the next episode or two.



I think I probably enjoyed this one more than "Guts", as well. Much more of a human story. And this one once again pulled at the heart strings like the first episode.

[kidgloves]

It's interesting to note that the Shane losing it scene is something that's just happened in the comics but with different characters.

[LouCipherr]

All I'm going to say about episode 3 is...

:thumbsup:

[bassman]

It's interesting to note that the Shane losing it scene is something that's just happened in the comics but with different characters.

I'm not up to the new issues, but the way he kept beating with that one hand reminded me of Rick's confrontation in the prison.

It definitely looked like he could have broken a few bones...

[Mitchified]

To keep it somewhat vague and more or less spoiler free, Rick at one point beats the tar out of an abusive husband.

This episode was definitely stronger than the second one, although I have to admit that I'm not really all that intrigued with the Dixon storyline. It seems, I dunno, forced. This isn't just someone that loves the comics upset that it's not following the plot exactly; I love that the series is its own product. I just couldn't give less of a crap about Merle Dixon as a character.

[bassman]

The Dixon's are B or C characters. Hell...maybe even D, so they don't bother me at all. They're not important really. Just filler.

Rick isn't going back for Merle. He's going back for the Jones' and the guns. The Jones' being the most important, I believe.

[MoonSylver]

The Dixon's are B or C characters. Hell...maybe even D, so they don't bother me at all. They're not important really. Just filler.

Rick isn't going back for Merle. He's going back for the Jones' and the guns. The Jones' being the most important, I believe.

Yeah, I'm not TOO fussed about the "new" characters, even though they don't feel as well written, because I'm wondering if they arn't cannon fodder...;)

[babomb]

Personally, I don't think Shane lied to Lori just to get in her pants.
He seems to be extremely focused on doing what needs to be done to survive.
So I'm thinking he told her that because:
a) He assumed it to be the truth himself(which I understand).
b) He didn't want Lori to be stuck on whether or not Rick is alive because it would consume her and create a situation that would possibly put others at risk, namely himself and Carl.
I also don't think Lori is at fault for what happened between her and Shane.
She's a small woman with a young son.
The world they now live in is unforgiving to say the least, and Shane is an alpha male.
So being with SHane really improves the odds of her and Carl surviving because he'll put them first.
This itself is encoded in the female DNA and goes back to the days before civilization when people were hunter-gatherers.
Women are more domestic in that regard.
And this is seemingly a theme within the series and can be seen in ep-3 when the women are washing clothes and asking each other why they're the ones stuck doing all the chores while the men stand around or play.
That's seems to be the natural course of events with not only humans but animals too.
Watch a show about lions and you'll observe the same behavior.
Ricks reaction will initially be anger and betrayal but he's a thinking man so he should be able to see that and sort it out without any lasting effects on his relationship with his wife and best friend.
It was actually a logical thing for Lori to do.
Her and Shane would naturally form a bond after going through what they experienced.
And humans have a tendency to manifest affection in a sexual way.
Now, if they start sneaking away to be together, that changes everything.

[Mitchified]

They actually give a reason for the women doing the laundry in the comics. To make a long conversation short, they thought the men would just screw it up.

[rongravy]

I haven't seen this episode yet, but even reading all the spoilers doesn't deter me from wanting to catch it tonight. After we saw the last one, and how it ended, my wife was like WTF?!?!?
Pretty sure she's hooked on it now.

[MoonSylver]

Just a quick note on Shane: his motives aren't pure. His leadership is flawed. He's got a dark side that he's been able to hide in polite society, that's starting to show now that there are no rules. And it's because he's human. "An' dats what make him so DANGEROUS you know..." ;). There's no mustache twirling villain going "mwaahahah!"

Just because we may come to dislike or downright DESPISE some of these characters, doesn't mean we can't understand them. They're just like us, our friends, our family & neighbors. How do you think all of them, or we ourselves, would change if it all went away? Easy to say everyone would show their nobler side, harder to believe.

History has shown time & again that human beings are capable of doing terrible things to each other with very little provocation, & this is WITHOUT zombies, or the end of the world.

Trust me, there are plenty of people who have a face that we never get to, or want to, see, that if it all came off the rails, would show in a big way. :eek:

[kidgloves]

Aye ^^^^^^^

I'm warming to Shane a bit though (depending on how the escape from the hospital happened). He genuinely looked pleased to see Rick and his family back together. Great acting by everyone in this scene. Shanes obviously having mixed emotions at this point and we see how it all comes to a head later. I don't think Rick would hold it against Shane either. Goddamit. Tell us what happened at the hospital.
BTW when was the last time we discussed characters in this depth in relation to anything to do with zombies?

[acealive1]

when shane saw his partner come back....it was a mix of shock that he was alive and "omg i was bangin his wife and now i dont wanan give that up'

[rongravy]

Aye ^^^^^^^

I'm warming to Shane a bit though...
Just don't let him sneak up behind you in the woods. I'm just sayin'...

[Thorn]

I'm not up to the new issues, but the way he kept beating with that one hand reminded me of Rick's confrontation in the prison.

It definitely looked like he could have broken a few bones...

I saw Shane's over reaction to the situation him venting frustration over losing the woman he always coveted and lost, not a man snapping due to pressure or stress. He wanted to be hitting Rick, or at least needed a substitute.

He left his friend for dead so he could steal his woman, he is cold and calculating I feel as if his actions in episode three were not him losing it like Rick in the prison at all. Rather as I said the actions of an angry man venting anger and frustration.

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------


Personally, I don't think Shane lied to Lori just to get in her pants.
He seems to be extremely focused on doing what needs to be done to survive.
So I'm thinking he told her that because:
a) He assumed it to be the truth himself(which I understand).
b) He didn't want Lori to be stuck on whether or not Rick is alive because it would consume her and create a situation that would possibly put others at risk, namely himself and Carl.
I also don't think Lori is at fault for what happened between her and Shane.
She's a small woman with a young son.
The world they now live in is unforgiving to say the least, and Shane is an alpha male.
So being with SHane really improves the odds of her and Carl surviving because he'll put them first.
This itself is encoded in the female DNA and goes back to the days before civilization when people were hunter-gatherers.
Women are more domestic in that regard.
And this is seemingly a theme within the series and can be seen in ep-3 when the women are washing clothes and asking each other why they're the ones stuck doing all the chores while the men stand around or play.
That's seems to be the natural course of events with not only humans but animals too.
Watch a show about lions and you'll observe the same behavior.
Ricks reaction will initially be anger and betrayal but he's a thinking man so he should be able to see that and sort it out without any lasting effects on his relationship with his wife and best friend.
It was actually a logical thing for Lori to do.
Her and Shane would naturally form a bond after going through what they experienced.
And humans have a tendency to manifest affection in a sexual way.
Now, if they start sneaking away to be together, that changes everything.

Not only that but it was a tool to show contrast, as you look later at who becomes their best marksman ;)

Old world views, versus the new reality and the blurring of expected roles.

[bassman]

I saw Shane's over reaction to the situation him venting frustration over losing the woman he always coveted and lost, not a man snapping due to pressure or stress. He wanted to be hitting Rick, or at least needed a substitute.

He left his friend for dead so he could steal his woman, he is cold and calculating I feel as if his actions in episode three were not him losing it like Rick in the prison at all. Rather as I said the actions of an angry man venting anger and frustration

I see where you're coming from, but aren't those both sides to the same coin? Rick was venting the anger and frustration of the girls' murders, and Shane was venting about losing Lori and control over the camp. Both are "freak out" moments, imo. Not that they're related in any real way, I just noticed that Shane kept hitting with the same hand.

Could be foreshadowing. Like Rick holding his hand on the roof of episode two. Or it could be absolutely nothing and I'm trying to read too much into it. :lol:

[Mitchified]

Before everyone jumps on the "Shane is an ass" bandwagon, keep in mind that there's a completely different explanation for why Shane might have told Lori that Rick was dead. And it has nothing to do with lusting after his best friend's wife.

Say that they went to the hospital and retrieved Rick before fleeing to Atlanta. What then? Rick is in a coma; how are they supposed to care for him? Staying with Rick or being burdened with him would probably have been a death sentence for Shane, Lori, and Carl. Shane might have simply made the hard choice and chosen to protect the people that had the best chance of survival. The rest of it, stepping in as a father figure to Carl and getting into a relationship with Lori, could have simply come afterward.

[bassman]

Before everyone jumps on the "Shane is an ass" bandwagon...

Of course we don't yet know how exactly the show will play out, but I think most people feel he's an ass because of the character in the comics. What's to come.

They could change it all up for the show but so far he seems to be the same weak, power hungry, lusting-over-lori coward from the comics.

[Mitchified]

According to the comics, Andrea should be somewhat timid at this point, Glenn should always be working alone when he goes into the city, Dale should be always open to doing the right thing instead of wheeling and dealing over van parts to allow someone to borrow his tools, Carl and Sophia should be inseparable, Shane should still have delusions that he's the man Lori wants to be with, and half the cast shouldn't exist. I think it's fair to say that we can throw the comic characterizations out the window at this point.

The reason I'm doubting that Shane will actually end up the same way as in the comics is because he has no delusions that Lori wants to be with Rick. In the comics, he asks her when they should tell Rick about how they're together now, and Lori throws a fit at him. He seemed pretty much resigned to the fact that things were over (about pissed about it, sure, but still).

[Thorn]

Before everyone jumps on the "Shane is an ass" bandwagon, keep in mind that there's a completely different explanation for why Shane might have told Lori that Rick was dead. And it has nothing to do with lusting after his best friend's wife.

Say that they went to the hospital and retrieved Rick before fleeing to Atlanta. What then? Rick is in a coma; how are they supposed to care for him? Staying with Rick or being burdened with him would probably have been a death sentence for Shane, Lori, and Carl. Shane might have simply made the hard choice and chosen to protect the people that had the best chance of survival. The rest of it, stepping in as a father figure to Carl and getting into a relationship with Lori, could have simply come afterward.

True, thing is though he owed it to Rick and his wife and child to tell at least HER so she could make the decision. He decided to leave him there for her. Maybe there will be a twist and they will try to make us see another side I welcome that, but in the end I want to make my own decisions about my loved ones. NOT a biased third party.

Bass I see your point, and in a way yes it could be two sides of the same coin. However Rick was stressed and losing it for the right reasons in my opinion, I view this incident as a guy taking out his anger on someone else over impure motives. So to me anyway it is different.

Now the dude deserved what he got if he was indeed beating his wife and daughter so I ca not argue that point.

[Mitchified]

True, thing is though he owed it to Rick and his wife and child to tell at least HER so she could make the decision. He decided to leave him there for her. Maybe there will be a twist and they will try to make us see another side I welcome that, but in the end I want to make my own decisions about my loved ones. NOT a biased third party.

Lori would only have had two options: stay with Rick and probably lose her and Carl's lives in the process, or have to leave Rick behind, which would be the equivalent of murdering him. If Shane did make the decision to tell her that Rick had died so that she didn't have to make that choice, I hate to say it but that's pretty damn humane of him.

Whether it's in the comics or on the show, I've always been inclined to believe that, at the beginning, Shane's intentions were pure. He simply wanted to protect the wife and child of his partner; a cops take care of their own thing. Over time, though, the burdens of leadership, the constant need for both violence and vigilance, and the loss of the woman and son that he had ended up emotionally clinging to simply became too much. It's a harsh world they live in, and no one is immune to it. Keep in mind that, in the comics, Rick himself starts becoming a lot more brutal and a lot less human, and he's the stronger willed of the two.

That's why I've always felt a bit bad for Shane. He wasn't really a bad guy, certainly not as cut-and-dry awful of a human being as the Governor, but every man has his breaking point and he reaches his.

[BillyRay]

Think about Rick's culpability in all of this...

When he and Shane get into that roadblock shoot-out with the fugitives, and Rick gets hit in the vest, his first reaction is to adamantly tell Shane: "Don't tell Lori". Then he takes the bullet that puts him in a coma, etc, the series "proper" begins.

Let's look at his subsequent actions. He's not even reunited with his family (that he went through Hell to find) for one whole day before he's taking a squad back into ATL to rescue Merle and recover the Bag 'o' Rifles. A little reckless, wouldn't you agree?

Rick has a "hero Complex". Has to be the good guy, the brave and wise leader, the "New Sheriff in town". He's the first to ride into the fray, oblivious to the danger. That's all well and good for a single guy like Shane, not so much for a man with a wife and son.

Granted, as a Law Enforcement Officer, it's his job. But based on the roadblock scene, and actions he's taken since then, his bravado goes quite a bit further than his job, and that's the sticking point between him and Lori.

Rick's headstrong, and always tries to do the Right Thing, regardless of consequence. That's hard to deal with when you're keeping the Home Fires Burning, waiting for the worst phone call in the world to come.

[ProfessorChaos]

well, to be fair, it is his fault that merle is still on the rooftop when he decides to go back. he could have uncuffed him once he calmed down and talked some sense in to him, but chose to let him stay there while the rest of the crew found an way out. also, it makes his "there are no more (n-bomb)'s, no more white trash whatev's anymore, either. it's us vs. the dead" speech irrelevant if he's willing to let merle die on the rooftop of either exposure, dehydration, starvation, or zombie buffet.

and what he said to lori is also true, he owes his life to morgan and is hoping that he can repay morgan and duane the favor of helping them if they decide to come to atlanta.

so far, i think andrew lincoln is doing a superb job portraying rick. later in the comics, rick does get a bit macho and reckless, but from what i've seen so far, he's the moral compass of the group and a true team player.

i will concur, though, that having a wife and child is a bit of a drag on his hero routine, so to speak.

[BillyRay]

i will concur, though, that having a wife and child is a bit of a drag on his hero routine, so to speak.

That's why you never see a superhero driving a minivan.

[Thorn]

Lori would only have had two options: stay with Rick and probably lose her and Carl's lives in the process, or have to leave Rick behind, which would be the equivalent of murdering him. If Shane did make the decision to tell her that Rick had died so that she didn't have to make that choice, I hate to say it but that's pretty damn humane of him.

Whether it's in the comics or on the show, I've always been inclined to believe that, at the beginning, Shane's intentions were pure. He simply wanted to protect the wife and child of his partner; a cops take care of their own thing. Over time, though, the burdens of leadership, the constant need for both violence and vigilance, and the loss of the woman and son that he had ended up emotionally clinging to simply became too much. It's a harsh world they live in, and no one is immune to it. Keep in mind that, in the comics, Rick himself starts becoming a lot more brutal and a lot less human, and he's the stronger willed of the two.

That's why I've always felt a bit bad for Shane. He wasn't really a bad guy, certainly not as cut-and-dry awful of a human being as the Governor, but every man has his breaking point and he reaches his.

There are more than to choices, she may have opted to shoot him so he he wasn't eaten by zombies if and when the hospital was over run. She could have stayed with him to make sure he was evacuated. There are a lot of options some good some bad. The thing here is they are HER options.

If my daughter is in the hospital in that situation and you deny me the right as a parent to choose and instead choose for me you are not being humane you are being an ass. He may THINK he was being humane and making her life easier but the bottom line is he made a decision for her, not only was it wrong but it is insulting.

Put yourself in her place, if you would rather someone else make your important life decisions for you, no offense but I feel sorry for you.

[ProfessorChaos]

well, maybe these superheroes would travel in such a vehicle when they're not kicking ass:

http://codedmonkey.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/the_incredibles-family-photo-l.jpg

[Mitchified]

There are more than to choices, she may have opted to shoot him so he he wasn't eaten by zombies if and when the hospital was over run. She could have stayed with him to make sure he was evacuated. There are a lot of options some good some bad. The thing here is they are HER options.

If my daughter is in the hospital in that situation and you deny me the right as a parent to choose and instead choose for me you are not being humane you are being an ass. He may THINK he was being humane and making her life easier but the bottom line is he made a decision for her, not only was it wrong but it is insulting.

Put yourself in her place, if you would rather someone else make your important life decisions for you, no offense but I feel sorry for you.

You're missing my point.

I'm not saying that I want someone to make my decisions for me. I'm not saying that Lori shouldn't be pissed that the decision was made for her. What I'm saying is that if you look at it from a dispassionate place, Shane telling Lori that Rick was dead might have been the right call.

You said that there were some good decisions that could be made. What good decisions are those exactly? Rick is in a coma, you can't care for the guy in that state without proper medical training and equipment. You mentioned waiting for him until he was evacuated, but you have no way of knowing if that evacuation is coming. And even if there is an evacuation planned, you can damn sure bet that priority is going to be given to healthy people over patients near death and/or in comas in a situation where society is collapsing. What are the good decisions exactly?

Look at it from Shane's point of view (assuming that his motives were altruistic). Help may or may not be coming. The government is telling you that the only safe place is five hours away. If someone isn't functioning at one hundred percent, the odds of making a mistake that lead to death are hugely increased. The only realistic options that you can give Lori are to wait for help that may or may not be coming and thus jeopardizing her own life and her son's (or seperating Lori and Carl, which isn't exactly super happy time either), have her basically commit murder by either leaving Rick behind or euthanizing him, or bring Rick along and watch him die because they can't provide for him in the state he's in. Every single one of those options involve increasing the risk of death or causing severe personal trauma during a time that you have to maintain as much clarity and foresight as humanly possible.

Whether or not it should be Lori's decision is irrelevant. The option with the greatest chance of survival for their little group was for Shane to do exactly what he did. Does it suck? Hell yes it does. Would I kick the crap out of Shane if I found out that he something like that to me? Damn right I would. However, when you take emotion out of it and look at it from a purely logical standpoint...it makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't have been able to do it because I'm not the kind of person that can de-humanize a situation, but he is.

[MoonSylver]

Of course we don't yet know how exactly the show will play out, but I think most people feel he's an ass because of the character in the comics.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that. We can take it 100% for granted that things will play out a certain way just because they did in the comic. We're already pretty far into uncharted territory to a certain extent as is. Could be interesting...:stunned:

[Thorn]

You're missing my point.

I'm not saying that I want someone to make my decisions for me. I'm not saying that Lori shouldn't be pissed that the decision was made for her. What I'm saying is that if you look at it from a dispassionate place, Shane telling Lori that Rick was dead might have been the right call.

You said that there were some good decisions that could be made. What good decisions are those exactly? Rick is in a coma, you can't care for the guy in that state without proper medical training and equipment. You mentioned waiting for him until he was evacuated, but you have no way of knowing if that evacuation is coming. And even if there is an evacuation planned, you can damn sure bet that priority is going to be given to healthy people over patients near death and/or in comas in a situation where society is collapsing. What are the good decisions exactly?

Look at it from Shane's point of view (assuming that his motives were altruistic). Help may or may not be coming. The government is telling you that the only safe place is five hours away. If someone isn't functioning at one hundred percent, the odds of making a mistake that lead to death are hugely increased. The only realistic options that you can give Lori are to wait for help that may or may not be coming and thus jeopardizing her own life and her son's (or seperating Lori and Carl, which isn't exactly super happy time either), have her basically commit murder by either leaving Rick behind or euthanizing him, or bring Rick along and watch him die because they can't provide for him in the state he's in. Every single one of those options involve increasing the risk of death or causing severe personal trauma during a time that you have to maintain as much clarity and foresight as humanly possible.

Whether or not it should be Lori's decision is irrelevant. The option with the greatest chance of survival for their little group was for Shane to do exactly what he did. Does it suck? Hell yes it does. Would I kick the crap out of Shane if I found out that he something like that to me? Damn right I would. However, when you take emotion out of it and look at it from a purely logical standpoint...it makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't have been able to do it because I'm not the kind of person that can de-humanize a situation, but he is.


Honestly I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, you feel that Shane may have made the right decision, and I am saying I disagree with you and at no point is it right for a man to make a decision for another person regarding their family. There is nothing missed here just two people who disagree.

As for the rest of your post you are putting out a lot of examples and leading them to bad ends, that's cool I could paint a dozen scenarios with rosy happy endings. The bottom line, and the point of my post is not to suggest what might of happened it was simply to illustrate that there was more than two options as you said. Whatever option was selected would ultimately be the right one for Lori and her family if she made it and she would have to live with it.

Hypotheticals do no interest me we could invent scenarios all day. Bottom line it was not Shane's choice to make he denied her the right to choose for herself, he lied to her and this caused her to abandon her husband who was defenseless. As it was he awoke alone and lived through a miracle he did not die of infection, or being eaten alive.

As I said as well she might have opted just to put him out of his misery as they sat there with him at the end and it was flee or die. They might even have died in that flight, we don't know. What We do know is she was not allowed to make her own decisions for her family and that is what my point.

So I ask you, would you in her situation want to have say in what happened to your loved ones or do you want that decided for you by a man who might have ulterior motives?

Again to use a real life comparison if it was my daughter, and ANYONE lied to me and caused me to leave her to die alone there would be hell to pay. Even if my choice was to die there defending her alone. That Is my choice and no one on this earth has the right to take that from me.

[babomb]

Mitchified-You got the right idea.
Couldn't agree more...


As it was he awoke alone and lived through a miracle he did not die of infection, or being eaten alive.
So then you're saying that Lori and Shane should've counted on that miracle?
Going back to the hospital meant certain death.


If my daughter is in the hospital in that situation and you deny me the right as a parent to choose and instead choose for me you are not being humane you are being an ass. He may THINK he was being humane and making her life easier but the bottom line is he made a decision for her, not only was it wrong but it is insulting.
In normal circumstances you're totally right.
But under normal circumstances this choice would never have to be made.
The right to choose as a parent is gone with society.
You have the same right to choose in this scenario as an animal has to choose if their offspring becomes food for a predator.
Say Shane didn't do that, say he allowed Lori to make a decision knowing Rick is in a coma.
Lori would never be able to go rescue Rick on her own, Shane would have to lead that rescue mission and do most of the work to see it through.
So now, Shane Lori and Carl are storming a hospital overrun by the dead while the military is trying to hold it down, with inadequate weapons and really only 1 of them(Shane) is capable of attempting this.
If they could lay the situation out to Rick, and ask Rick what he would do, what do you think he'd say or do?
Would he say "yeah, risk the lives of my wife-son-partner/best friend to come and save me even though the likelihood of me being alive is miniscule"?
No! No way!
He'd say "do what you gotta do to save my fucking family"!
And ONLY Shane is capable of making that decision.
Lori would choose to go after Rick without weighing out the consequences because her love for Rick is clouding her judgement.
It's these hard decisions that allow people to survive.
And this very decision we're debating is certainly the only reason that Lori and Carl are still alive.
It's not like they could get a babysitter for Carl while they storm the hospital to save Rick who's probably already dead.
So what are they gonna do with Carl?
Press the B button and command him to wait in a dumpster?
If you notice, Shane is very protective over Carl.
Whether the motivation for that is pure or not, he's still making decisions with Carl in mind.
Which was probably a factor in the decision to leave Rick and tell Lori he was dead.
It's still pretty early on in the show to know what becomes of Shane, but at this point I don't see him as a seething maniac that's intensely focused on making Ricks family his own at any cost.
He seems like a control freak, he was probly a real "by-the-book" cop, and he definitely has an anger problem.
But there needs to be someone like that in the group when you have another person/s who act heroically on a whim.
Keep in mind the scene where Rick tells the blonde lady to go ahead and take the necklace because "those rules don't apply anymore".
Looting is immoral under normal circumstances, just like lying to someone about a loved one being dead.
But "those rules don't apply anymore" because the focus is survival.
Making the right moral decision all the time and striving to simply be a good, kind person, are luxuries that died with society.
It's probly something you'd have to be able to accept if you wanted to be a survivor.
Ultimately, it comes down to the intent.


Again to use a real life comparison if it was my daughter, and ANYONE lied to me and caused me to leave her to die alone there would be hell to pay.
But that lie didn't cause Rick to die alone.
It caused Lori and Carl to survive.
It's also different when your talking about your child.
The whole dynamic changes if it was Carl in the hospital because the decision to leave Rick was made primarily to save Carl.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that Rick stands behind Shanes decision to lie to Lori.
He already said that Lori had every reason to assume Rick was dead, and told Shane he couldn't thank him enough for keeping Carl and Lori alive.
Another real world example:
If your house was burning and you know your daughter is alive but the possibility of your wife being alive is miniscule, would you go in and get your daughter and bring her with while you enter the room engulfed in flames where your wife might be?
Or would you get your daughter to safety and go back for your wife?
And would you go in after your wife at all if it appeared that shw was almost certainly already dead?

As Mitchified said already, this decision is the only one that makes sense when you look at it from a non-emotional POV.

[bassman]

Why are you hitting enter after every sentence? :confused:

Kortick....is that you?

[MoonSylver]

Why are you hitting enter after every sentence? :confused:

Kortick....is that you?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jWGu50-htgE/So8Vi7qoWUI/AAAAAAAADDU/R8iEPQIEIdg/s1600/peter-cushing-e-il-dott-van-helsing-in-dracula-il-vampiro-116867.jpg

NO!!!!!!!!

:lol:

(I assumed maybe he's using one of those moblie device thingies? AH, the kids & their technology! :lol:)

[Thorn]

I find your post too hard to read so I will just address one point.

I am not saying they should count on anything. I am saying only one thing that no man has a right to decide for anyone else what is right for anyone else in that situation.

It does not matter what the mitigating factors are, in that situation you have every right to your own decisions and whatever the end results is irrelevant. You are saying that Shane made a decision that kept his group alive. I am talking pre-group. It is him, Lori, and her son. He lied for whatever reason to make her think she could just leave and there was no obligation to stay.

EVEN if it got her out of there and lead to her staying alive... I do not care. I am only addressing what is right. It is right that you or I make our own decisions and those decisions are based off the truth no matter the circumstance.

I do not see how that is so hard to understand, and any of you who think that is a great way to go through life are crazy and remind me not to count you as friends when the shit hits the fan because I want someone I can trust not someone who trusts that they make better decisions than me as it pertains to my loved ones.

Right or wrong it would be Lori's decision to make not Shane's. Stay go. Live die.

Some people choose to die with their husbands rather than take the life boats (women and children first), some captain's go down with their ship, some men throw themselves on grenades to save their comrades in arms. THEY make these choices and when you deny a human being that right you are overstepping your bounds.

Period.

[BillyRay]

Fair enough, but you gonna get 'et....

[babomb]

I hit enter after every sentence because it's the way I prefer to see text laid out.
Sorry if it's hard to read.
I'll start hitting enter twice to end paragraphs.
I assure everyone I'm not this kotrick fella!!


EVEN if it got her out of there and lead to her staying alive... I do not care. I am only addressing what is right. It is right that you or I make our own decisions and those decisions are based off the truth no matter the circumstance.
That's fine, not telling you what to think or judging you.
I just think that the survival of Lori and Carl is more important than Lori having the luxury of making her own choice, when in all probability from their POV Rick was already dead.

Why rush in to a losing situation that will likely kill everyone just to preserve some feeling of "fairness"?
Why is that fairness worth everyones life?
Ya think if Rick came out of the hospital only to find his wife/kid/best friend either covered in sheets or zombified that the idea that at least Lori got to choose would offer any consolation?

I don't know...
In my mind survival is the most important thing, not fairness.
I also think that's the difference between life and death in this scenario.
So hey, if you're more concerned with fairness that's fine.
I don't fault you for it.
But personally I'd rather be alive without a sense of fairness than a zombie that got a fair shake or a pile of grissle leftover from a feast.
And if someone has to lie to my family about me being dead in order to save their lives, I would hope they'd do so!

[kidgloves]

This series seems to be bringing a lot of emotions out of people.

[Mitchified]

Honestly I didn't miss your point at all. I get it, you feel that Shane may have made the right decision, and I am saying I disagree with you and at no point is it right for a man to make a decision for another person regarding their family. There is nothing missed here just two people who disagree.

Actually, I DON'T think Shane did the right thing. Morally I think it was a bastard thing to do, and if he ever pulled something like that with my wife and kids I'd do my best to make him swallow his teeth and pee blood out his ass. Then I'd get to the really unpleasant stuff.

But no matter which decision I would have made if I was in that position, I could have lived with the decision for my children's sake if nothing else. Could Lori have? Honestly, from what we've seen so far, I kind of doubt it. If that's the case and Shane knew this...well, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not sure what the right call is there. I guess it comes down to if keeping Lori and Carl alive was enough to justify lying to them. Comparitive morality wasn't never my strong suit in college.

I'm just saying that Shane wasn't necessarily wrong, or maybe more accurately, that there may not have been a right or wrong answer, just really muddled shades of gray.

[babomb]

This series seems to be bringing a lot of emotions out of people.
Funny how that happens...
I think it's a testament to excellent character development on the part of the writers.
They're invoking alot of emotion and it's working well to get people to actually care about these characters.


I'm just saying that Shane wasn't necessarily wrong, or maybe more accurately, that there may not have been a right or wrong answer, just really muddled shades of gray. Well said...
I'd just add that not only is it not right or wrong, but it's a difficult decision to make about a best friend, and there's not alot of time to make the decision.
You make it and deal with the consequences.

[Wyldwraith]

All beside the point,
Thorn is right. If at the end of having everything done FOR us (society/civilization) we do not retain whatever control over our destiny remains to us, and retain the freedom to choose as our hearts, minds and souls/essence/guts dictate, then SURVIVAL IS IRRELEVANT.

Ben Franklin said: "A society willing to exchange freedom for security is deserving of neither." This statement holds true on the individual scale even more so. If Survival becomes your Holy Grail, to the point you turn over all free will and personal responsibility to someone who you either give that responsibility to, or who takes it of their own initiative "for your own good" you are NOW LIVESTOCK.

In essence, anyone who looks at what Shane did and believes it to be Good because Lori and Carl are still alive, when it all comes crumbling down I wish folks like you were wearing some identifying insignia, so I'd know who to use as meatshields to bypass zombies, and who not to exert the tiniest effort saving, because you have zero worth as humans. Because, end of the day, you are no longer human in just as profound a way as the zombies.
-----------------------------------------------

Now, as for Shane: Shane is RELISHING his control over that group. In the name of "protecting them" he as assumed authority over 98% of every aspect of their entire lives. His confronting Ed over the fire was not a dirty job he recognized needed doing and did out of a sense of duty or moral obligation. It was a demonstration of his control, capped off with a twisted version of a phrase he used as a cop. "I appreciate your co-operation" means JACK & SHIT when the sentence before that was something along the lines of "Do you really want to get into it with me full-on right now Ed?" That was the bigger gorilla not-so-subtly reminding the less dominant gorilla "Comply or I feed you your guts."

Second, Shane was NOT happy to see Rick return. His face has a flat affect, and is very sulky, UNTIL Rick looks in his direction. As Rick begins his turn, Shane plasters what I'm sure was the old familiar "Hey Buddy" smile Rick would recognize on his face, lying to Rick with his very expression.

Need proof of this? How about Shane up on the RV roof staring daggers at the camper that Lori is inside of w/ Rick and Carl. That's an angry man, feeling wronged and bitter. Not a man feeling even the SLIGHTEST BIT good his alleged "best friend" is still alive. His focus was 100% on the "loss" of Lori and Carl to him.

More proof? When Lori tells him her and her family are off-limits to Shane from now on, he goes into the whole "That isn't really fair, Rick's my best friend bit." Only when his connection to Rick can be perceivably useful to Shane as Lori is slamming the door definitively to shut him out does Shane go there. Yes it IS FAIR, Rick his supposed best friend, that SHANE CHOSE to lie about being dead to Rick's wife, doesn't now want to accept the consequences of that lie coming back to cost him. All of a sudden "It's not fair."

Where was Shane's concern for how unfair it was to SEIZE the decision about the future of her husband and father of her child. Or how unfair it was of him to make her feel awkward and/or embarrassed or even ashamed that she was wearing the locket and Rick's wedding ring on a chain until she took it off? How about how unfair it was to Lori, that as a cop with every reason to understand that women that have suffered a spouse's loss to violence are vulnerable, does he take what MIGHT have begun as a one-time mistake in the heat of and pain of the moment and push it into an ongoing sexual/romantic relationship that includes stepping in as Carl's father-figure, less than a MONTH after Lori had suffered that loss?

How about how unfair it was to Carl? Shane's sneaking around with his mother, but behaving as his "Uncle Shane", a father figure he looks to for strength and stability in the wake of the most devastating thing that can happen to a child, the loss of a parent. Why were they sneaking around? Because even Lori knew Carl would never accept that, not yet anyways. We see how raw and open Carl's wounds still are when he sees loved ones and a father being reunited with his family upon the return from Atlanta and he begins to freely cry (something boys that age are LOATHE to do in front of adult men unless they are fucked up enough to wipe the thought of being embarrassed about their tears clean from their head.)

Unfair to Shane? No, actually it was EXACTLY what Shane deserved. To have his ill-gotten gains seized from his clutches, his position as tyrant eroded by the addition of a man able to stand up to him who won't stand for it for long, and his hopes and feelings crushed as surely as the hopes and feelings he crushed of his own free will.

Looks a lot more to me like justice than unfairness.

No, Shane doesn't have a shred of decency about him. Ask yourself this: Do you genuinely believe he would serve that group as protector had the group insisted on one of the other men (or women) being its leader?

In no universe can you credibly say you could swallow that. He'd strike out on his own, but more likely convince Lori and Carl to come with him and leave the group. If someone else was the leader, he wouldn't have his need for control and dominance fulfilled. What do we see within HOURS of something not going his way? Shane transfers his frustration, bitterness and jealousy onto Ed and savagely beats him as a stand-in for Rick. Again, he didn't much give a rat's ass about what Ed had been doing behind closed doors. Only the public setting allows Shane to exert the power he craves. Only when it suited HIS needs did he do anything about Ed.

Shane is more dangerous to that group than a few hundred Walkers right now. The only thing keeping him going is the cherished hope that this time Rick won't come back.

[MoonSylver]

You could be right Wyld. And you could not. That's what's great, is that there's enough subtlety & subtext that you COULD interpret the characters motivations a couple different ways. I don't agree with Shane's actions. I don't believe his motives are 100% pure. But I also think, IN HIS MIND, he thinks he's doing the "right" thing. "He protected Lori & Carl", "He provided protection & leadership for a group that would have turned on themselves if it hadn't been for him. Somebody HAS to be strong, to maintain Order." This is how I think HE sees it.

As I've already said, just because somebody is a bad guy doesn't mean they're a Bad Guy, capital BEE capital GEE, if that makes sense. This isn't Doctor Doom or Snidely Whiplash. It's a pretty compelling portrait, of a flawed, corrupt, unstable human being. Which makes it that much scarier IMO.

[Gryphon]

Rick's headstrong, and always tries to do the Right Thing, regardless of consequence. That's hard to deal with when you're keeping the Home Fires Burning, waiting for the worst phone call in the world to come.

Yeah Rick definitely has a hero complex, which is good for a leader in a world where the dead get up and wanna eat you. That's a guy I wanna have at my back.

As far as Lori, well... she did marry a cop. And if she didn't want to fear that "worst phone call in the world," she should have married an accountant ;) Cops' wives worth anything should already be prepared for that call, especially if their husband is as good and heroic a man as Rick is.

[Mitchified]

In essence, anyone who looks at what Shane did and believes it to be Good because Lori and Carl are still alive, when it all comes crumbling down I wish folks like you were wearing some identifying insignia, so I'd know who to use as meatshields to bypass zombies, and who not to exert the tiniest effort saving, because you have zero worth as humans. Because, end of the day, you are no longer human in just as profound a way as the zombies.

That's cute how you get to decide the worth of people based on reactions to a fictional character in a setting where not only is all the information not given, a lot of it is purposely hidden.

Here's the reality of war: wars are won by the people that are willing to de-humanize everything and look at it strictly by the numbers. They are won and lost on resources. Lives are knowingly lost to gain territory and number superiority, and the needs of the few are completely outweighed by the needs of the many. That's not conjecture, that's not opinion, that's history. He who makes the best decisions with the resources available to him wins the war. Sacrificing one life for two is logically the correct thing to do.

There is, however, a big difference between the "correct" thing and the "right" thing. I certainly wouldn't have made the same choice as Shane. Truth be told I'm not sure what I would have done, but I certainly wouldn't have told a woman that her husband was dead when that wasn't the case, no matter what the stakes. It's not in my personality, and it's one reason why I would never lead men into war (that, and nobody in their right mind would trust me with a tank).

One of the most prominent themes in The Walking Dead is how people like Rick can make decisions that are morally attrocious and yet are for the good of the group. For example, Rick coldly shoots a defenseless man in the head because he probably would be a danger to the group (in the comics, of course). Is that the "right" thing to do? Of course not, calculated murder is never morally right. Is it the "correct" thing to do to end the life of an individual to protect the group as a whole? One life for many more, yep, it sure is.

You quoted Benjamin Franklin, but for every Franklin there was a Washington sending men off to die in Virginia. The needs of the many put over the needs of the few.

Nobody said that what Shane did was "Good" simply because Lori and Carl survived. It doesn't exactly make him the spawn of Satan, either. If Shane made the choice to tell Lori that Rick was dead and it wasn't for alterior motives, if it was only because he judged it to be the only way to keep Lori and Carl alive, then you simply can't judge that act as bad or evil or wrong or whatever. There is no black or white in situations like that.

I want to stress that I'm arguing for this decision only. What Shane does afterward, especially when it's known that Rick is alive, isn't something that I support whatsoever. And if it's revealed that he told Lori that Rick was dead for any other reason than to keep her and Carl alive, then nothing I've been arguing applies. We won't know that for sure until the next episode.

[babomb]

In essence, anyone who looks at what Shane did and believes it to be Good because Lori and Carl are still alive, when it all comes crumbling down I wish folks like you were wearing some identifying insignia, so I'd know who to use as meatshields to bypass zombies, and who not to exert the tiniest effort saving, because you have zero worth as humans. Because, end of the day, you are no longer human in just as profound a way as the zombies. In other words there's only 1 way to see this, the way you laid out, and if you think otherwise you should be the 1st to die?
You're condemning folks with a differing POV over TV characters.
You're in essence committing the same atrocities you're condemning others for.
It's a capital offense to lie to someone to save their life, but it's perfectly OK to throw others to their death because they have a different POV than you?



Second, Shane was NOT happy to see Rick return. His face has a flat affect, and is very sulky, UNTIL Rick looks in his direction. As Rick begins his turn, Shane plasters what I'm sure was the old familiar "Hey Buddy" smile Rick would recognize on his face, lying to Rick with his very expression.That's your interpretation.
I didn't see the same thing.
I saw a man shocked to see his friend, and then a feeling of guilt washed over him over the decision he made regarding his friends life.
Like I said, you make the decision and deal with the consequences.



No, Shane doesn't have a shred of decency about him. That's another opinion.
I think you're making that judgement very prematurely.


Do you genuinely believe he would serve that group as protector had the group insisted on one of the other men (or women) being its leader?Yes, I do. Nobody is deciding on who's the leader, people are stepping up to offer what they can bring to the table. I don't remember a vote in the comics.
Shane is an alpha male, he's not a tyrant. There hasn't been anything to suggest that Shane has appointed himself protector, but he was a cop so that role probly comes naturally. Everything he gets on people about makes sense. He's trying to make sure everyone adheres to rules that they all probly agreed on.
Who should've been the leader before Rick got there? The Dixon bros?


Unfair to Shane? No, actually it was EXACTLY what Shane deserved. To have his ill-gotten gains seized from his clutches, his position as tyrant eroded by the addition of a man able to stand up to him who won't stand for it for long, and his hopes and feelings crushed as surely as the hopes and feelings he crushed of his own free will.
There's no evidence of this yet, only suspicion. And you're condemning a man simply because you have a hunch, or a pre-existing prejudice because of something personal.
How do you justify that?


Only the public setting allows Shane to exert the power he craves. Only when it suited HIS needs did he do anything about Ed.
Shane confronts Ed about the log on the fire the night before he beats his ass.
Ed needed to be put in check.


Shane is more dangerous to that group than a few hundred Walkers right now. The only thing keeping him going is the cherished hope that this time Rick won't come back.Yeah, that's reflected perfectly when Shane tries to talk Rick out of going, and when he gives him rounds for his handgun.

Yes it IS FAIR, Rick his supposed best friend, that SHANE CHOSE to lie about being dead to Rick's wife, doesn't now want to accept the consequences of that lie coming back to cost him. All of a sudden "It's not fair."
That rides on the idea that all of your assumptions about Shane are correct.
IMO, you're jumping the gun here.
It always sucks to pay the fiddler though.
And most people default to thinking it isn't fair, but you don't have to like the consequences you just have to deal with em.

No offense to you, it would be totally stupid to get into a big argument over TV characters.
But I really do think you're being way too emotional about this.

[ProfessorChaos]

*thinks of changing avatar pic to one of shane to see what sort of reactions he gets to his opinions...*

[mista_mo]

Yea, wow. Jesus Christ.

[bassman]

Noob fight!!!!

[shootemindehead]

Wow!

I was going to come on and bitch about yet more cliched characters being intoduced to the show. I don't think I will now. :D

[MoonSylver]

*thinks of changing avatar pic to one of shane to see what sort of reactions he gets to his opinions...*

http://www.gifanatics.com/files/l_c96cff9716ad2a8579fcde8d4791cce5.gif

:lol: :thumbsup:

[Skold]

hey guys thanks for ruining the only GAR-inspired tv show we'll ever see for me. :/

Offensive remarks removed by moderator. (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/faq.php?faq=conduct_item#faq_flame_item)

[MoonSylver]

hey guys thanks for ruining the only GAR-inspired tv show we'll ever see for me. ASSHOLES. :/

Why should a bunch of guys you don't even know ranting & carrying on some message board decrease your enjoyment of the show any less? :rockbrow: I'm not thrilled with the turns the conversation has taken either, but it's still the same great show regardless of who says what to whom. :)





And now, to lighten the mood: Boobs.

http://www.fuckjob.com/porn/albums/tits-animated-boobs-jugs/tits-animated-boobs-gifs-0143.gif

http://pictures.tuscl.net/4be627fa9bd4f-2070-sexy-girl-holding-bouncing-boobs.gif

http://i315.photobucket.com/albums/ll451/scottt39/bouncing-boobs.gif

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll256/darvinnelson/Yellow_top_bouncing_boobs.gif

http://www.animated-gif.net/wp-content/uploads/203/Younge-Girl-has-some-big-tits.gif

http://images.t-nation.com/avatar_images/f/7/f7713-bouncing.gif

;) :lol:

[ProfessorChaos]

And now, to lighten the mood: Boobs.

that's what lori said to shane the evil corrupt manipulative bastard as she ripped off her shirt and jumped his bones like the unfaithful evil whore she is....;)

[MoonSylver]

that's what lori said to shane the evil corrupt manipulative bastard as she ripped off her shirt and jumped his bones like the unfaithful evil whore she is....;)

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2009/04/ROBERT-DE-NIRO-GIF.gif

[Ghoulman]

Goddamn I loves me some big, bouncin' titties! My mood's lightened already. WHERE THE DEUCE IS THE "WOO HOO BOOBIES" SMILEY!?!?!

[CoinReturn]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1038/5183725137_0577f75121_z.jpg

:p

Also, episode 4 preview:

4Hbh3SUb5Sg

[darth los]

Noob fight!!!!

Laugh of the day dude. Thnx.


2 cents: Whether it's the right call or wrong call is not certain, for this is a subjective issue. One person's morals or "the right call" is different for all of us based on our life's experiences.

For example, some might not have a problem leaving a piece of shit like dixon on the roof to die of exposure or worse , as i wouldn't as well.

For some that's something that would weigh heavily on their conscience till the day they die as it seemed it would have Rick and T-dog.

One thing that is not ambiguous though is that each person must make that call for themselves.

:cool:

[Wyldwraith]

THAT is what I was saying,
When I said I wished people who agree with Shane's logic deserved to be used as meatshields and certainly not worth exerting one's self to save, it had VERY little to do with a TV show. How you handle your personal freedoms, what value you place upon them, and what you will endure to retain them says a great deal about you as a human being.

Conversely, it is my contention, for all to see, that those who throw that freedom away the moment day-to-day life gets dangerous ARE NOT HUMAN in the most important sense. They have decided to obey the herd instinct instead of listening to their own minds and instincts. How much clearer a separation between a man and a steer can there be?

You talk about Washingtons, sending men off to die. Yet you omit the fact that in each case, the bloodiest conflicts America has ever chosen to engage in have been to retain or defend essential human freedoms.

We're not talking about what people do in a moment of panic. Many normally reasonable people of great integrity succumb to panic and follow the crowd. That's not what we're seeing here. We're seeing a group making a lifestyle of deferring all significant powers of choice to one man, in the hopes that man will provide them with safety in exchange.

I see that as a fact, not a "personal bias".

And, if you condemn me for placing no value on the lives of people who place no value in anything BUT physical survival, how much integrity is there in such a decision?

Edit: Getting a bit tired of the personal attacks, when I certainly have not attacked anything but ideas and TV characters, so gonna take a breather to maintain that distinction before I get nasty in response to said attacks. Opting out before certain powers can drag the character of this dialog lower.

[babomb]

I apologize for any personal attacks or anything that I've made.
But I still stand by my original ideas.

All comments on my part will not include anything like that.
I'd still like to discuss this further, if everyone thinks it's safe to go back in the water??


They have decided to obey the herd instinct instead of listening to their own minds and instincts. How much clearer a separation between a man and a steer can there be?
IMO, the situation for them doesn't break down like that. You see it that way because your a person watching a TV show and analyzing the actions of those on-screen personalities. At this point, they aren't yet trying to pick up the pieces of civilization. They're trying to figure out what they need to do to survive in the short term, it's too early in their scenario to be talking about long term sustainability and retaining what it is that separates them from steer.
The small temporary camp they've setup isn't even secure. They're disoriented, hungry, scared, cold, and confused. And although they are in a group, they're still concerned mainly about their own. They're barely functioning as a group, they certainly don't have any confidence in the group yet because all that's happening is little fights and people lashing out at other people because of stress. They don't have anything they need, they don't know what's gonna happen next, or who's gonna die next.
Although they're not constantly in a state of absolute panic, they're still absolutely stricken with fear every second they're conscious. You have peoples family members seperating from the group on supply runs, making them even more on edge.
It's all about survival right now because it has to be!


We're seeing a group making a lifestyle of deferring all significant powers of choice to one man, in the hopes that man will provide them with safety in exchange.
This is where the discrepancy between our POV clash. I don't see that.
Outside of the decision to lie to Lori about Rick, what choices is Shane depriving the individuals of the group from making themselves?
It's to be assumed that the "rules" Shane mentions weren't forced upon anyone but rather agreed upon by everyone in the interest of safety and survival. But with all the differing personalities, people with less discipline or people who only think of themselves will disregard those rules for momentary comforts. So there has to be someone there to enforce the rules that everyone agreed upon or else most everyone will just do as they please. Like Ed and the log. He was cold and doesn't care about anyone but himself, so by putting that log on the fire he jeopardized the safety of the group. Shane stepped in because nobody else would've. You can't have everyone doing whatever they please.


I see that as a fact, not a "personal bias".That's one of the reasons why we had a small dispute. Because that is not fact, that's an opinion. By it's very nature.

I certainly have not attacked anything but ideas and TV characters Me neither.

[kidgloves]

You know that zombie that got decapitated and had the shit kicked out of him. That was Greg Nicotero. Way to go Greg.

[babomb]

That's hilarious!!!

[general tbag]

Watched it again and dont understand why he cut his hand off opposed to the thinner bolt the handcuffs are attached to? It being rusty should of taken less time than his hand.

[ProfessorChaos]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1038/5183725137_0577f75121_z.jpg

that's just one of the unnamed survivors of the camp shooting home movies...kinda like those stupid kids in diary.

[Skold]

hey guys thanks for ruining the only GAR-inspired tv show we'll ever see for me. :/

Offensive remarks removed by moderator. (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/faq.php?faq=conduct_item#faq_flame_item)

Crap! i don't even remember posting this - sorry everyone. :/

There's a reason i usually don't post when i've been drinking, and you've just seen it. Again, apologies to everyone who read this. Ugh... :/

Group hug? :)

Edit: Upon further review, based on Moonslyver's epic post, i may in fact post drunken belligerent rants more often! lol!

[babomb]

Keeping with the discussion and moving on.

Anyone think Merle's escape had something to do with the helicopter?

[general tbag]

Crap! i don't even remember posting this - sorry everyone. :/

There's a reason i usually don't post when i've been drinking, and you've just seen it. Again, apologies to everyone who read this. Ugh... :/

Group hug? :)

Edit: Upon further review, based on Moonslyver's epic post, i may in fact post drunken belligerent rants more often! lol!

If you play xbox live drunkard insulting is the norm past 2am

[MoonSylver]

Crap! i don't even remember posting this - sorry everyone. :/

http://wisegrasshoppa.com/wp-content/main/2010_07/warning-drinking-may-cause-memory-loss.jpg


Edit: Upon further review, based on Moonslyver's epic post, i may in fact post drunken belligerent rants more often! lol!

Let's combine the two, shall we?

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1001/a-universal-win-boobs-beer-babe-ftw-demotivational-poster-1264292785.jpg

[bassman]

So I watched this episode for the second time last night and I've got a question. People keep complaining that Merle's cut is too clean? WTF are you talking about?!? YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE CUT. We never see where he actually sawed it off. He just see his fingers and palm!

There's also blood all over the roof where he did it....

[MoonSylver]

So I watched this episode for the second time last night and I've got a question. People keep complaining that Merle's cut is too clean? WTF are you talking about?!? YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE CUT. We never see where he actually sawed it off. He just see his fingers and palm!

There's also blood all over the roof where he did it....

http://www.tgdaily.com/sites/default/files/stock/article_images/misc/jedimindtrickbenkenobi.jpg

"You did not see what you saw, instead you only saw what you THINK you'd seen..."

:lol:

[bassman]

"You did not see what you saw, instead you only saw what you THINK you'd seen..."


:lol:

I'm beginning to think people don't actually watch and pay attention to this show, but use the force to imagine it being whatever they like...

[MoonSylver]

:lol:

I'm beginning to think people don't actually watch and pay attention to this show, but use the force to imagine it being whatever they like...

http://3.media.tumblr.com/odOO2eRrLmlcizq0hrdYZJauo1_400.jpg

"This plaque is in memory of all of the brave pirates, robots, & ninjas, who gave their lives fighting the zombie menace."

:lol:

[Thorn]

I like the points Wyld made a lot.

I understand where everyone is coming from, and after stepping back a bit to look at it I think more information needs to come to light here. Not that I am changing my stance, I am not. Lori should have been told the truth.

If he told her this as the "crap" was hitting the fan, and it was either run or die and he made this decision to keep her alive I would hate him less. I would still feel he owes her the truth.

If he told her this because he coveted her and used this as a way to giver her closure to move so he could move in on her then he is more of a bastard than initially thought.

Yes in times of war people make hard decisions, human sacrifice is required to achieve an objective. But these are not people with families with them, and children in their arms. These are soldiers who signed up for the job. They opted in. They signed control and direction of their own lives away. In the Marines if your commander says jump you jump, if he says dig in you dig in, if he says make a tactical retreat... he isn't a marine (no I kid).

In this case it is a woman, and her family, not a soldier being directed where to go by a military general for the greater good of a nation. It is a man, telling a woman her husband (and his "best friend") is dead. They then ABANDON this man to die at the hands of zombies, be taken away from the hospital god knows where or if they will lever meet again), or to die slowly of lack of food and water.. a horrible way for anyone to go.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges here.

I would say I understand the idea that wrong decision is sometimes made for right reasons. Again we do not know where the hospital and defense of the city was when this went down which would be key in my mind anyway for deciding fully on how I feel about Shane.

I do feel however the message so far, starting back with he and Rick chatting in the opener about Rick's family has seemed impure and off throughout the show. It is entirely possible this is the writers trying to mislead us and that is great. I do not want to hate Shane. I like the actor, I like the character. I like his potential. However it does not look good and I say again, no matter what YOU feel is right or wrong in this situation I am telling you for ME. It is wrong, I would never do that to you (deny you the right to make hard choices for YOUR family) and I would take issue with any man who did so for me. It is not hard for me to extend that to Lori.

As for my survivability in such an event I am confident I would do just fine (So many of us do don't we?), and I would do so living and dying if need be with my values as intact as humanly possible while ensuring the life and safety of my family. We have discussed this around here for years, through several versions of forum software, with an ever changing cast of characters.

Some preaching kill the retarded and disabled, leave the challenged for food.. use children as bait. I have heard it all, and you know what I could not justify that in my mind NO MATTER the cost and if it was something that was done and I did not try to stop it I am not sure i could live with my self. Morales and values have a place in any reality, especially at the end of reality as we knew it.

"Live with honor, die with dignity"

If it came down to self preservation, hard decisions would be made. But they would not be made lightly, and those who have known me for any amount of time on this board know where I stand on the issue so I won't prattle on further.

[AcesandEights]

Watched it again and dont understand why he cut his hand off opposed to the thinner bolt the handcuffs are attached to? It being rusty should of taken less time than his hand.

I was wondering why no one else was really discussing this, but I guess the social theorizing is more tantalizing.

I do realize it's possible he was just losing his shit to such an extent that he went a bit crazy and started sawing and realized he had to finish. Sounds cheesy, but at the start of the episode he is clearly 'out of it' and doesn't even realize his circumstances till he 'comes back' to reality. It really seemed unnecessary for them to go this route with sawing the hand off, but meh.

I watched the episode again and I have to agree with a few of the other comments about the actual meat of the story being pretty thin in this episode.

[Deckard]

I'm surprised by how unimpressed many were with Michael Rooker's performance in the opening minutes of this episode. I actually thought this was one of the better scenes of the show so far. I just love how as soon as the zombies start peering their pretty little faces through the door, Merl starts crying saying "Oh Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I know I'm being punished, I deserve it, I deserve it I've been bad, help me now show me the way show me what to do. Then he starts laughing sadistically banging his head on the ground, becomes angry then sees the hacksaw and says "Thats ok, never you mind sonny Christ boy, I ain't begged you before I ain't going to start begging you now, don't you worry about me begging you ever, I'll never beg you!!! :thumbsup:

Maybe Merl's a little bit of a stereotypical redneck racist (although to me he seems to hate everyone) sure, but I would love to see the character add some depth as the show goes on and give Michael Rooker his due. Unfortunately, I think Merl's life span is only 1 more episode or 2 at the most. I would love a character in this show to be as good bad as our buddy from Day Cpt. Rhodes was because sometimes it's good to be bad and usually more fun.

Oh and I love Norman Reedus being casted as Merl's brother.

http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b456/Rhodes42/ghrehg/th_WalkingDeadReedus_1289436712.jpg (http://s1045.photobucket.com/albums/b456/Rhodes42/ghrehg/?action=view&current=WalkingDeadReedus_1289436712.jpg)

BOONDOCK SAINTS 3

[Mitchified]

I did the same thing that you did, Thorn. I stepped back and thought things through again from the other side of the argument. I know that some people find this particular discussion to be over the top or even downright ridiculous since it's just a television show, but personally I find it fascinating. Frankly, I think it's a testament to the show that it inspires such passionate and morally-grounded conversations.

I saw on another post that you read the comics, Thorn, and so do I. So we both know some of the decisions that the characters (namely Rick) have to make later on in the series. The question is raised if something is morally terrible but it's what has to be done to preserve the group, is it still wrong? That's an honest question, not an attempted point in my favor or anything like that. I'll be completely honest and say that I personally have no idea what the answer is to that question. Maybe there isn't one, at least one that's satisfactory.

As for the Shane situation, after thinking about it for a while I've decided that it's all going to come down to motivation. If he was attempting to do the right thing, I'm not sure that I could call it anything but the lesser of two evils. Obviously if it was just a way to get with Lori he deserves what he has coming. Where things really get muddled up is when Rick tells Lori that they did the right thing by leaving him behind, so if it turns out that it would have been what he wanted if he was able to communicate that to them, was Shane simply doing what he knew Rick would want him to do?

As for the whole Merle cutting off his hand thing, the words "He's insane" and "He's an idiot" strike me as possible answers..

[Thorn]

I did the same thing that you did, Thorn. I stepped back and thought things through again from the other side of the argument. I know that some people find this particular discussion to be over the top or even downright ridiculous since it's just a television show, but personally I find it fascinating. Frankly, I think it's a testament to the show that it inspires such passionate and morally-grounded conversations.

I saw on another post that you read the comics, Thorn, and so do I. So we both know some of the decisions that the characters (namely Rick) have to make later on in the series. The question is raised if something is morally terrible but it's what has to be done to preserve the group, is it still wrong? That's an honest question, not an attempted point in my favor or anything like that. I'll be completely honest and say that I personally have no idea what the answer is to that question. Maybe there isn't one, at least one that's satisfactory.

As for the Shane situation, after thinking about it for a while I've decided that it's all going to come down to motivation. If he was attempting to do the right thing, I'm not sure that I could call it anything but the lesser of two evils. Obviously if it was just a way to get with Lori he deserves what he has coming. Where things really get muddled up is when Rick tells Lori that they did the right thing by leaving him behind, so if it turns out that it would have been what he wanted if he was able to communicate that to them, was Shane simply doing what he knew Rick would want him to do?

As for the whole Merle cutting off his hand thing, the words "He's insane" and "He's an idiot" strike me as possible answers..

Great post, and glad I am not the only one who stews these things over in my mind as I drive around or wait for job to finish at work.

Based on the comics, and on real life. I feel that hard decisions do need to be made. Always there are these decisions, and someone who needs to make them. Generally in the comics Rick is the accepted and appointed leader. He bears the burden of making these decisions, and the group has signed on to follow him. It gets bad, and every decision he makes that leads to a misstep or tragedy he bears full on his shoulders. Life as a leader is hard for those of us who lead while keeping the human equation alive in that process.

So I guess I am saying in that situation, the survivors are like a group of survivors more than just a family, there is an accepted pecking order to leadership, and the decisions are based on life or death survival in the worst possible of settings.

When did he tell Lori this? Before the crap hit the fan? Before the planned evac? During? As the town was lost and people were fleeing in droves where running headlong into the think of it would likely be suicide?

I agree it will come down to motive for me as to how much I dislike Shane, I am as I said already not a fan of his decision but it would really go a long way to know his motivation and the timing/setting of the decision he made and how and when the went about it.

Then at one point even after he made this "bad" decision, would he not owe it to her to tell her the truth? Or do you think sparing her feelings trumps a wife knowing the truth?

Another question would be this. If you are a survivor following Shane and you learn of this decison and this particular action. Him lying to his best friends wife to get her out of town while abandoning him to the fates, would that not taint your view of him? Would you readily follow him going forward or would you doubt all of his decisions from then on in especially if you learned he was plowing his best friends wife he left to die in the woods.

I think it might well work against the unity of the group, and it might even lead to it splitting apart. Look at us some think it was what needed to be done, others think it was a horrible thing to do. You might even see the group split up and go two separate ways if this were to play out differently than in the comic.

[Legion2213]

I'm surprised by how unimpressed many were with Michael Rooker's performance in the opening minutes of this episode. I actually thought this was one of the better scenes of the show so far. I just love how as soon as the zombies start peering their pretty little faces through the door, Merl starts crying saying "Oh Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I know I'm being punished, I deserve it, I deserve it I've been bad, help me now show me the way show me what to do. Then he starts laughing sadistically banging his head on the ground, becomes angry then sees the hacksaw and says "Thats ok, never you mind sonny Christ boy, I ain't begged you before I ain't going to start begging you now, don't you worry about me begging you ever, I'll never beg you!!! :thumbsup:


I liked that bit, thought he played it well, showed us what sort of character he was.

Little bit of synchronicity as well, I watched an episode of CSI Miami only a few days ago, Michael Rooker was in it...playing the part of a guy who only had one hand. :cool:

[Thorn]

I liked that bit, thought he played it well, showed us what sort of character he was.

Little bit of synchronicity as well, I watched an episode of CSI Miami only a few days ago, Michael Rooker was in it...playing the part of a guy who only had one hand. :cool:


I think he is an amazing character actor, and he has a lot of depth. I agree he is often not given the credit he is due but I have always found him to be quite talented. Henry: Portrait of a serial killer was the perfect launching point for his film career and it really show cased his talents.

[MoonSylver]

I was wondering why no one else was really discussing this, but I guess the social theorizing is more tantalizing.

I think most of the calling shenannagans on that has been going on over in the OTHER Ep3 thread. *Sheesh* Mods...:rolleyes: :lol: :nana:


I'm surprised by how unimpressed many were with Michael Rooker's performance in the opening minutes of this episode.

Hurm. I know I said as much in the shoutbox the night of, but apparently forgot to mention it in my review.:duh::o



I actually thought this was one of the better scenes of the show so far. I just love how as soon as the zombies start peering their pretty little faces through the door, Merl starts crying saying "Oh Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, I know I'm being punished, I deserve it, I deserve it I've been bad, help me now show me the way show me what to do. Then he starts laughing sadistically banging his head on the ground, becomes angry then sees the hacksaw and says "Thats ok, never you mind sonny Christ boy, I ain't begged you before I ain't going to start begging you now, don't you worry about me begging you ever, I'll never beg you!!! :thumbsup:

Maybe Merl's a little bit of a stereotypical redneck racist (although to me he seems to hate everyone) sure, but I would love to see the character add some depth as the show goes on and give Michael Rooker his due. Unfortunately, I think Merl's life span is only 1 more episode or 2 at the most. I would love a character in this show to be as good bad as our buddy from Day Cpt. Rhodes was because sometimes it's good to be bad and usually more fun.

Oh and I love Norman Reedus being casted as Merl's brother.

+100% On all of the above. :)


http://i1045.photobucket.com/albums/b456/Rhodes42/ghrehg/th_WalkingDeadReedus_1289436712.jpg

BOONDOCK SAINTS 3

http://www.smileyhut.com/smileys/headbang.gif "An shepards we shall be, for thee my lord, for thee...." :D


Little bit of synchronicity as well, I watched an episode of CSI Miami only a few days ago, Michael Rooker was in it...playing the part of a guy who only had one hand. :cool:

:stunned: *starts searching the clouds for omens. Portents. Signs....* :lol:

[Legion2213]

This could be big spoilage about Merle...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A3VVClGhXdU/TBdBe97pivI/AAAAAAAADbg/3XhtRgsciyQ/s1600/ZombieKB_walking-dead-Merle-400.jpg

Note the lack of sawed off paw...

[MoonSylver]

This could be big spoilage about Merle...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A3VVClGhXdU/TBdBe97pivI/AAAAAAAADbg/3XhtRgsciyQ/s1600/ZombieKB_walking-dead-Merle-400.jpg

Note the lack of sawed off paw...

AaaHAAAAAaaaahhh.......hurrrrm...:rockbrow: :lol:

[bassman]

This could be big spoilage about Merle...


:lol:

Wow....his hair grows fast.




Also...

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0905/say-mallrats-brodie-stinkpalm-pretzel-demotivational-poster-1243368113.jpg

[babomb]

That's not a spoiler at all IMO. It leaves more questions...

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------


I agree it will come down to motive for me as to how much I dislike Shane, I am as I said already not a fan of his decision but it would really go a long way to know his motivation and the timing/setting of the decision he made and how and when the went about it.
That's the beauty of it though. You're left to make the decision without all the information you require. Otherwise if all that information is presented, the decision is pretty much already made for you.
I know what becomes of Shane in the comics, but Darabont is changing things up a bit and IMO, is giving more depth and humanistic qualities to Shane's character. So at this point in the *TV series* I don't see Shane as this seething manipulative bastard that wants Ricks family at any cost.

As has been said by several others, hard decisions need to be made under dire circumstances.
I also never saw Rhodes as the seething bastard everyone else did.
I'm not saying that I think these are outstanding individuals, and excellent examples of great and compassionate human beings though either.
I just hate when people act like things are black and white. Nothing is black and white, ever! And when someone sees things that way, they're choosing to ignore 90% of the information required to make that distinction.

Movin on.....
What kind of events could lead to Merle having a Hummer, both hands, a standard issue M1911, a bowling uniform shirt, and who's hand was on the roof???

[bassman]

Uhh.....babomb. I think that picture was a joke...

[babomb]

I hope so.....

[general tbag]

This could be big spoilage about Merle...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A3VVClGhXdU/TBdBe97pivI/AAAAAAAADbg/3XhtRgsciyQ/s1600/ZombieKB_walking-dead-Merle-400.jpg

Note the lack of sawed off paw...

Meteor - Michael Rooker as Calvin Stark

http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/michael-rooker/photos/166280/67805

[Thorn]

That's not a spoiler at all IMO. It leaves more questions...

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------


That's the beauty of it though. You're left to make the decision without all the information you require. Otherwise if all that information is presented, the decision is pretty much already made for you.
I know what becomes of Shane in the comics, but Darabont is changing things up a bit and IMO, is giving more depth and humanistic qualities to Shane's character. So at this point in the *TV series* I don't see Shane as this seething manipulative bastard that wants Ricks family at any cost.

As has been said by several others, hard decisions need to be made under dire circumstances.
I also never saw Rhodes as the seething bastard everyone else did.
I'm not saying that I think these are outstanding individuals, and excellent examples of great and compassionate human beings though either.
I just hate when people act like things are black and white. Nothing is black and white, ever! And when someone sees things that way, they're choosing to ignore 90% of the information required to make that distinction.

Movin on.....
What kind of events could lead to Merle having a Hummer, both hands, a standard issue M1911, a bowling uniform shirt, and who's hand was on the roof???

More than happy to move on, however life is black and while in many instances. 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.

The law is what it is breaking the law is wrong. Period, Even if you dislike it, you can not ignore it and expect to escape the ramifications of your actions "Yes your honor I drove over a group of children as the passed before my hummer but it was funny" that won't even buy you an insanity plea and even if it did it would still be wrong.

There are plenty of shades of gray, but in life there is in fact right and wrong. And black and white are indeed two totally different colors that exist.

---------- Post added at 08:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------


Uhh.....babomb. I think that picture was a joke...

I just want to know what the hell is going on here, how the hell did he have time to do this? Where was he? Is that a reanimated head?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kRuD6zV4Fqs/TNWGyVhfShI/AAAAAAAAF54/J-nR35gcTXs/s400/ishot-2181.jpg

The plot thickens.

[bassman]

I just want to know what the hell is going on here, how the hell did he have time to do this? Where was he? Is that a reanimated head?


:lol:

And how the hell did he join Nascar?!?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmNrWngTQqTFKJJdwd0kv779LOhpFXh iovr95IWF9GUJjsyMWcHA

Is Nascar even still running after the end of the world??!? Man this next episode is going to be a hoot!

[Thorn]

:lol:

And how the hell did he join Nascar?!?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRmNrWngTQqTFKJJdwd0kv779LOhpFXh iovr95IWF9GUJjsyMWcHA

Is Nascar even still running after the end of the world??!? Man this next episode is going to be a hoot!

Holy crap! That is a mystery!

You know what? I bet those "whacky nascar folks" would keep nascar up and running until there were no tires left to burn through.

[darth los]

Ah, those good ol' boys.

Never underestimate them.

:cool:

[Legion2213]

The pic was pulled from a Spanish site talking about Rooker and TWD...I thought it was from the show. :o

Still, it'll teach me not to post pics from sites wot speak in foriegn. :(

[Andy]

Sorry im always late coming into these topics but i always dodge them until the english showing and i know what you guys are talking about without reading any spoilers.

I loved episode 3, im so impressed with the series so far, my gf sat down and watched most of this episode with me and she isnt into the whole undead scene at all, it was a nice twist when they got onto the roof and murriel wasnt there, i never saw that coming.. i was a little disappointed with ricks lack of emotion when he finally came face to face with lori and carl again and the surpising lack of zombies in the department store and on the stairway up to the roof.

How exactly did murriel get off the roof if not through the door? im pretty they said in ep 2 they couldnt jump from roof to roof, do you think a man who had just sawn his hand off would have the stamina when healthy, younger people earlier on said it wasnt possible? I hope that is explained later on and i look forward to it.

[bassman]

How exactly did murriel get off the roof if not through the door? im pretty they said in ep 2 they couldnt jump from roof to roof, do you think a man who had just sawn his hand off would have the stamina when healthy, younger people earlier on said it wasnt possible? I hope that is explained later on and i look forward to it.

Maybe there was a ladder down the side of the building that they couldn't use in Ep 2 because the store was surrounded?

As you say....hopefully they'll explain that one...

[MoonSylver]

I have a theory...

http://www.gamesprays.com/images/icons/Choppa_icon475.jpg

[kidgloves]

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

[MoonSylver]

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

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/12/22/article-1100530-02E0E7D1000005DC-853_468x310.jpg

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

[Wyldwraith]

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.

[Tricky]

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 :cool:

[babomb]

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...:elol:


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?:confused:
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.

[MoonSylver]

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...

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2010/11/Walking-Dead-Dixons-Hand.jpg

:lol:

[bassman]

See all that dried blood? :p

[MinionZombie]

Here be my thoughts:

http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2010/11/walking-dead-episode-three-tell-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!

[kidgloves]

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.

[Wyldwraith]

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?

[rongravy]

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.

[Gryphon]

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...:eek:

[Trin]

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.

[babomb]

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?

[Thorn]

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...:elol:

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?:confused:
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.

[Wyldwraith]

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.

[Thorn]

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.

Great questions, and I have done a lot of going back and forth on these types of topics with people in the past we might have covered some of this ground before. My big thing was "Zombie hypothetical" and I would post a scenario and ask people to make the hard decisions. It was thought provoking, some people got upset, and some would want to change the rules of the game. (example: Zombies break through your defenses you can reach one person before you get out your wife or your child what do you do" Hard questions)

In the first situation I would not be willing to take by force what we needed to save the life of a survivor in my group if it means killing those people, our person hurt themselves it is our problem not the other survivor group. I find their being unwilling to barter frustrating, ignorant, and short sighted however that is on them and I would not want to execute them for it. In the end I would I think leave it open to democracy, and allow everyone in our group input into the situation.

However I would have to consider other factors. Would not saving this person lead to tension in the group that would make it splinter? Would it be possible (strongly) that I would lose control of the group based on that, and in turn jeopardizing my family.

What are the potential losses we would face by trying to take by force what we needed? Making a bad situation worse in a war and losing 2-3 people to save one makes little sense even if there is another long term benefit because you might not live long enough for that to pay off.

Would I be able to possibly subdue the person(s) in the drug store without killing them, take what we need and leave them be? A small town means there is risk of a revenge attack.

I is a hard question and I find it hard to answer with so many unknowns but at face value I say no I do not take what I want from the weak to keep one in my group alive.

NOW, If it is my daughter the equation becomes much more difficult. This is a very hard question. Neither option is appealing. Letting a member of our group die is a horrible choice, killing others and taking what they have is a horrible choice. I would need to find a happy medium to live with myself. However I think I could justify taking what we need by force based on the fact that they were condemning our person to death out of selfishness and greed if that was indeed the case.

Hmm so where does that leave me. I would exhaust every avenue possible to not have to kill them but in the end if we had to I would be okay with taking what we needed by force in specific situations.

As to the second question also a really hard one because basically you know the outcome up front. Help them and stay put you doom yourself to die of hunger and thirst for sure, do not help them and you are good for a few more days.

In either case the zombies might not wander off they might stay, in one case they know for a fact you are inside your little base of ops and will be laying siege to it and you lack the supplies to withstand the siege.

That said I would not of clear conscious be able to watch people die I could help, and being that short on food and water we would need to move soon anyway. I would I think help them.I would at least put it to a quick Q&A for diplomacy sake if not to the group as a whole to key members. Two more able bodies is a good thing to have a round, it makes fighting your way out a more likely option, and it strengthens you long term while impacting your supplies short term.

I think strongly I would lean towards helping these people. I would feel better if it was just my life I risked but in your scenario that is not an option.

So I help them, check the health of the guy they were assisting. Cut rations down to a minimum. Order everyone to remain silent and not move much, allow numbers of the horde to thin out as much as possible and with one days worth of rations left make a break for it with 2 more able bodied people assisting us. It is a catch 22. 2 more healthy people, one who is a burden if he/she still lives. A few more days alive in our cubby hiding like rats before we have to make a break for it, but we sacrifice our humanity watching others we could have helped die before our eyes.

I need to fix things, it is as my ex used to say a problem. I can not just listen to a problem I need to fix it. It is who I am. I have been in bad spots before and I have always error on the side of what is right in my own mind.

In that world there are no guarantees. I would take my chances on whats right I think... or like to think.

[SymphonicX]

ok saw episode 3 last Friday. Still not getting the fuss about this show.

Ep1 was OKish, Ep2 was much better but ep3 was boring as hell - and no I'm not adverse to character development, it's just disappointing that, like The Pacific, you wait a whole week only to get an episode of them shagging birds in Australia and starting wishy washy romances rather than living up to the point of the series. I know it's inevitable with a hard-to-segment idea like TWD and Pacific but bollocks, find a way cos ep3 bored the f**king shit out of me...!

Still its one of the best things I've seen on telly this year to be honest, just venting small gripes really.

---------- Post added at 11:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

Awesome ep4, totally amazing - finally winning me over