TWD 2x06 "Secrets" episode discussion... **SPOILERS WITHIN**

[MinionZombie]

Off you go folks, and as always be careful discussing the episode outside of this thread. :)

[kidgloves]

Looks like my boy Dale is going to have something to do in this episode. He's been a bit of an annoying old git so far this season. It seems a long time since he decapitated that zombie in episode 3

[Sammich]

I was right about Andrea just needing hysterical paroxysm treatment. I watch Dr. Phil show everyday and have learned a lot about how chicks operate.

[babomb]

Now that was a great episode!!! Wow. They should all be like that. Pacing was perfect, the name of the episode is perfectly fitting. Had me on the edge of my seat.
They dragged all this shit out and then just dropped the bomb in 1 episode.
I hope to see more of the house to house searches, that's the kind of shit I like to see in this type of scenario. Andrea's getting to be a great character. Dale is fuckin hilarious! I'm bored as hell of the whole "Homestead" thing. Waiting for them to move on.
Shane might die this season!? Very possible...
The cats are all out of the bag now. We can finally move on from all the secrecy.

-- -------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------


I was right about Andrea just needing hysterical paroxysm treatment. I watch Dr. Phil show everyday and have learned a lot about how chicks operate. Dr. Phil???? Seriously?? I don't think she was really exhibiting signs of hysteria. All of her behavior seemed warranted under the circumstances.

[Wyldwraith]

Wow,
A lot of much-needed forward motion this episode. Lori coming clean FINALLY, Andrea and Shane getting together during the post-combat rush of being alive...which causes Dale to come out with his suspicions and what he's witnessed personally. Herschel locking it into stone that they have to leave....

That's a lot. Shane's response to Dale was so Shane, and made a lot of sense. On the other hand, Herschel's a trained vet....and his and his family's Muldoon-delusions about the Walkers flies in the face of that. I still can't relate to such a delusion...other than it being indicative of denial so deep that it's destroying the minds of Herschel and his people.

The preview from next week seems to indicate Herschel is finally going to go beyond implying and actually push them out...and further, what seems to be Rick and Shane squaring off over being banished from the farm.

Shane finally said it. Rick just isn't made for being a leader in this world. If he's willing to take a pregnant wife, a recovering son, still missing and not knowing what happened to Sophia...back out into the horror because a deluded old HYPOCRITE demands he must...I just don't know what to say to that.

Me personally? I hate that this seems to keep happening, but I'm with Shane as to the world being different now. Herschel plays at being this very moral individual, but it's rice-paper thin. When push comes to shove his morality disappears in the face of his need to control everyone and everything around him like some sick twisted hybrid of Rhodes and Muldoon. Shoot the old man and and the 3-4 others remaining.

Any man which would demand that people willing to peacefully coexist go back out into an apocalyptic ruin of a world that's killed 99.5% of the population is essentially a murderer. As such, and with jail not being a feasible alternative, Herschel should be executed for attempted mass-murder...and since it's a given that his little flock of brainwashed ninnies would become antagonists after said execution, do to them what Herschel intends to do to the group. Force them out, ill-prepared into a world trying to kill them.

When civilization collapses, law must give way to justice. It is NOT (IMO) just to demand people go back out and face near-certain death just to suit the sensibilities of a deranged, cold old control freak.

A lot of interesting issues brought to the fore this episode. Both in the actual episode and the sneak preview of the mid-season finale. Knew Dale was gonna call Shane out when he realized what had happened between Andrea and Shane. In his own way, Dale is just as bad as Herschel.

Actually, and to be fair, Dale isn't QUITE as bad as Herschel because he doesn't delude himself into believing the "Muldoon Denial-Derangement" of Walkers simply being sick people...he doesn't consider terminating Walkers to be "an atrocity"...and Dale doesn't dismiss the danger Walkers pose by likening them to paranoid schizophrenics.

Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Rick will force the group to move on to comply with the Old Madman's demands. It's insane, what with everything going on with his wife and Carl/Daryl/T-Dog still recovering from serious injuries (which Herschel doesn't seem to give much of a damn about)...but that is how it will play out undoubtedly.

Good, solid, INTERESTING episode. Loved the shootout at the Walkers in the community by Shane and Andrea. The way he covered and encouraged her, but insisted she calm herself, clear the jam and take out the nearing Walker herself was great stuff and obviously quite productive...It harkened back to the old-school throwing a kid into a pond to teach them how to swim if they didn't want to sink, and I really dug that.

Even Dale confronting Shane felt very real, as did Shane's response.

Thoughts?

Edit/Note: Just saw the additional sneak preview of Rick and Herschel having the actual conversation where Herschel is adamant in insisting they go back out there/leave his property, despite being told Lori is pregnant. Wow, just, wow.....Herschel is a cold, hypocritical, delusional individual. I can't even begin to imagine circumstances under which, were I in Rick's position..Ie: Responsible for the continued safety and peace of mind of people I love...a number of people 2 or 3x greater than those of this unfeeling hypocrite making the murderously insane demands that would cause me to just accept said demand, pack my loved ones up and lead them back out into the horror just so this old madman can have his way.

Honesty now: Who here is even somewhat convinced that in Rick's situation they would simply take their people and go on the say-so of one old unfeeling and delusional hypocrite? Not talking about what's "right" or "wrong" out here in our safe, non-apocalyptic civilized world. I'm talking about putting yourself in the shoes of a man thrust into a position of leadership and responsibility in the midst of a zombie apocalypse he regained consciousness in the middle of. A man with a wife who has a baby on the way, who just watched his son come within a hair's breadth of dying, and who knows most of the other members of his little family-group are either walking wounded or emotionally compromised on a deep level by Sofia's loss.

Seriously: An old man is telling you decayed, still-rotting undead are still people that are just sick....Is perfectly ok with turning down help offered to secure that rickety barn...and who's absolutely adamant about kicking you and yours back out into the nightmare of almost-certain-death. Would you simply accept that, and comply with the Old Hypocrite's demand even though you're CERTAIN that compliance puts the people you care for back into terrible danger that they're worse off to face now than when they first came near Herschel's property?

Yes, I can guess it's required to keep the group moving along the general arc of the comics...but I'm trying to relate to what I've seen on a personal What Would I Do level. Anyone?

[sandrock74]

I think I would move on, myself. I don't think I would remain comfortable essentially living outdoors. Remember that zombie horde from the first episode of the season? That was what, a mile or so away? (Maggie made mention the Green home was a mile down the road from the last exit) A simple change in direction and that army of zombies would be on top of them! It's quiet and peaceful there for the moment, but I wouldn't bet on that lasting longterm.

As dangerous as it can be on the road, I would prefer being mobile and occassionally shacking up someplace for a bit. Living out in the open like that doesn't say "safe" to me. It means you can be attacked from any direction, like in Night of the Living Dead. Then, to find out about the zombies being kept in the barn...no deal!

In short, hello road!

[babomb]

Shane finally said it. Rick just isn't made for being a leader in this world. I'd agree that RIGHT NOW Rick doesn't seem to have what it takes. But it's a toss up. Rick, like Herschel says, is a "man of conscience". As he comes to terms with the idea that he's "holding on to a way of thinking that doesn't make sense anymore" he'll become more of a leader. Shane, on the other hand, will continue to devolve. He's a selfish man who only gives a shit about Lori and Carl for selfish reasons.


Herschel plays at being this very moral individual, but it's rice-paper thin. Agreed. Totally. That seems to be how many religious zealots are.

Herschel should be executed for attempted mass-murder...and since it's a given that his little flock of brainwashed ninnies would become antagonists after said execution, do to them what Herschel intends to do to the group. Force them out, ill-prepared into a world trying to kill them. I see your point. I wouldn't go that far though. I don't think that Herschels little homestead would be as secure as it's being portrayed, in all reality. But the situation is that Herschel and his clan have been isolated from the rest of the world since before the apocalypse. Herschel is taking things too far, definitely. But the walkers in his barn are his family. It's a different story when you're encountering walkers out in the streets that are just walkers. But when your family members turn, it would be a bit more difficult. You have to remember too that nobody in TWD has a concept of zombies as we know them. The only reason that the group puts them down like they do is because they've been exposed to the carnage they cause and have had very many close calls. Herschel and his family haven't experienced it that way. Their exposure to walkers is from what they saw on TV and the walkers in the barn. So to them, walkers are sick people. I can see how that would happen under those circumstances. I mean, if my family came down with a fever right now and 1 of them became violent, I'm not gonna go shoot them in the head now am I? To us here it seems real cut and dry. But if we'd never heard of zombies, it would be an entirely different situation. Especially if we didn't routinely deal with people we didn't know, and the only exposure we had to this "sickness" was when our family members became infected with it.
I also don't think that Herschel's other family members are as into his delusions as he is.

[ProfessorChaos]

great episode. it's really starting to feel like the comics to me. it's also great to see some of those dramatic moments and conversations from the original source material played out on film rather than reading words in a panel. rick and lori's conversation about the baby and her confession of her time with shane was well done and my hat's off to both actors...

cool to see glenn and maggie's relationship develop; i still can't get over how spot-on yeung's portrayal of glenn is to me. the shane and andrea thing kinda took me by surprise. my gf called that one back in episode two, but i figured things would happen a bit differently. and dale's confrontation with shane over the type of guy he is was classic and helps set the scene for what's possibly coming soon for our group. not much daryl action in this episode, sadly. oh well, last week's episode was pretty much centered on him (not a bad thing, mind you), so i suppose that's fitting.

i was beginning to have a bit of concern as well over the pacing of this season, but i should have had more faith and known things would be built up like this and knocked down like a house of cards in just an episode or two, much like AMC's other amazing originals, breaking bad and mad men. i'm very excited to see what happens next week, i've got a feeling the writers will leave us reeling and sitting around all winter discussing where things will pick up in february.

[Mr. Clean]

Great Episode....Hope Shane gets whats coming to him before he destorys the group.

@Wyldwraith

Herschel is a nut job but killing him and his gang to claim the farm isn't the right answer. Well, it might be if you want to act like a savage but I gotta tell you if the leader of my gang made a move to stiff arm innocent people out of their farm for his own safety then I'd question his judgement on moral decisions for the rest of the group.

Think about it, you set up your own colony and others come wanting to join but by taking them in, you put a strain on your supplies and security. So by every right Herschel is justified by sending them away. Leaders get to make such decisions.

[bassman]

As mentioned before, wow they crammed a lot into this episode. The best thing I took away from this episode is Carl carrying a gun and wearing Rick's hat. When I saw that it was a real "oh sh*t, the comic has come to life" moment.

Although i'm sure some people will start the old "soap opera" complaint, I like that Andrea hooked up with Shane in the show. Dale really got defensive over her and it should make for good tv in the episodes to come.

[acealive1]

herschel is not crazy. he seems be one of those people who'd rather "leave things like they are", i think he took issue with maggie and glenn getting close because...well....its pretty obvious....look at glenn. and he has a heart i guess because after it is his wife in that wife, and he proibably didnt hear ANY of the zombie reports in the radio or tv.

maggie's hormones are seriously fucked up.



and once again something i say, comes true on the show. i saw dale's reaction to shane's "story" about how otis died...and man dale is really cerebral.
shane seems to not be crazy, but he put up an asshole front when confronted by dale. almost like he wanted to say something to get dale off his back and he didnt really mean what he said.



andrea seems to be really.....uhm...........desperate? LOL


end the sophia bullshit NOW.

[AcesandEights]

As mentioned before, wow they crammed a lot into this episode.
Did they ever!

But what a great episode to see so much come to a head.

I really like the pace they've taken with Andrea's development... I mean, it's taken a season and a half to get her to the point where she can even start the process of truly transitioning into a dependable badass character.
That's an enviable character track for tv.

I was also pretty sure they'd play up Shane teaching Andrea how to be comfortable with a gun and thus their connection to one another, which...
would make it all the more poignant when he dies, and she'd never forget how he helped her become a more capable person blah, blah, blah ;)
But I didn't know the writers would take it as far as they have. I did a double take when she groped Shane :lol:

I also have to agree with Prof. on how well Yeun handles the role of Glenn, but that's something that a lot of folks have been saying for a while...I still think it bares repeating.


Looks like my boy Dale is going to have something to do in this episode.
And how right you were! The all-knowing grandfatherly schtick could get old, if overplayed, but it worked well this episode and damned if Dale doesn't have some serious stones for calling Shane out, in private no less, the way he did.

I also think I prefer the way Lori came clean to Rick. I mean, it sort of seems like it could defuse some of the stereotypical baby/daddy love triangle tension, but will it really? It turns the expected dynamic on its ear somewhat and now we have to worry about how Shane and Rick will relate when the knowledge Lori is pregnant comes up. Lori coming clean was also the last thing I expected her to do at this point, so I was pleased.

[bassman]

maggie's hormones are seriously fucked up..

I don't think so. She got attacked by a walker for the first time and yeah, she overreacted a bit, but I think her reaction would be common amongst first timers. She risked her life to get abortion pills(something she's against because of her religion anyway) for someone else.

[kidgloves]

Very very good episode. I think its hit its stride now. Carl wearing the hat, shooting practice, zombies in the barn, eagle eye Andrea, Glen and Maggie, Herschel . Its starting to come together very nicely.
On the subject of Herschel, i really can't relate to his behaviour but i've met many many people like him who don't like change. It seems to be something that comes to people late in life. They get set in their ways and resist anyones attempts to change them. This is the problem the group are facing. Looking at the preview it doesn't look like Ricks attempts at mediation are working and the whole thing will come to a head in the next episode.
I had a bit of a problem with Carl being up and about while they are still searching for Sophia. Last episode he was bedridden and this one he's at shooting practice. Tv magic i suppose but it stood out being right at the beginning of the show.

[Thorn]

I think we have been down this road before, the debate about what you would do in an apocalypse and how it would change you. Who you would become, what you would want to become and where that starts and ends...

To answer Wyld first... In recent issues of the trade we see Rick debating mentally similar things. Take what you feel you need to protect your people or stay true to your ideals and values. My friend and I fro mthe industry were discussing between issues and praying to God that Rick did NOT sell out his own dignity and become one who just takes what he wants, and tosses aside his values at the drop of a hat. I would not only argue that he is a great leader, but it is his morals and decency in large part that MAKE hi ma good leader. For example... I would follow Rick. I would never follow a Shane. If someone told me they decided they were going to kill an old man, and his family for the crime of having created a good thing for themselves i nth zombie apocalypse and not wanting us around because we were a drain on resources, a a threat to their existence, way of life, or whatever.. .I would likely side with Herschel. He may be wrong for asking me to go, but anyone willing to murder an entire family and take what is theirs is clearly and without question more wrong.

It is hard because often these things come in conflict with each other. FOR ME personally I do not see this one farm as a place where I would sell out who I am, alter all that I feel is right, sacrifice my morals to take what I want because I feel it is best for me and my group.

If you did what would really make you different than the Bikers in Dawn? Ride in, ask nicely, if you don't get it take it by force. Kill all who stand in your path. That is not only a slippery slope but one that is a sheer cliff right into the pits of asshole-dom. I would NEVER dream of it. This is the first place they stopped on their trip, it is safe because the people there put up fences, a vet provided care to people and animals. Their hard work, food, fuel, and courage kept it safe and made it what it is. I am sure there are other farms that are secure, other places like it. I wouldn't sell my soul for it, they fought for it and earned it. It is theirs if they want me to go I go.

If that would kill my son, no I wouldn't go I would ask for more time. Ask for it nicely, and then arrange a compromise if needed. Carl is clearly able to travel, T-Dawg is clearly able to travel, and Lori is not 9 months pregnant and is clearly able to travel.. Sophia is the only question, but that is not Herschels problem, he cares about his and his own. Selfish? Maybe but if the argument is take what you want at all costs, isn't that more selfish?

Bottom line, no I do not just shoot the old man in the face, execute his family, burn the barn to the ground and declare myself king of the farm.

As to the episode, man what a great one ;)

Loved it from start to finish and while I dislike Shane he is still an amazing character, well written and acted. I loved him and Andrea getting it on. The stuff in the housing development was well done in every way. The conflicts, revelations, everything was just amazing.

[AcesandEights]

It is hard because often these things come in conflict with each other. FOR ME personally I do not see this one farm as a place where I would sell out who I am, alter all that I feel is right, sacrifice my morals to take what I want because I feel it is best for me and my group.
That's sort of the thing...it's just not worth it. If it was really an all or nothing we stay or my family dies scenario, sure you can only fault a man so much for trying to protect his family, but I just don't buy the limited choices presented in this case. In short, I agree with your points on this Thorn with the caveat that many, many people are realistically going to kill for their children past a certain point...I just don't see this as a realistic breaking point.

And as far as Hershel...hell, he's just gone a bit strange over the whole topic of the undead...but how many people aren't going to get a little strange at some point or develop their own particular sacred cows during the apocalypse?


Bottom line, no I do not just shoot the old man in the face, execute his family, burn the barn to the ground and declare myself king of the farm.

But we made a sign! :(
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j0qeBAJCW9U/S_ab7Btd5mI/AAAAAAAABlk/z3KRyufoAL4/s320/farm+king.jpg

[Ragnarr]

Good episode, and glad they closed some of the loop holes that have been lingering in the storyline.

-Rick knows about Shane & Lori, although his reaction to the news doesn't seem very realistic. Might be interesting when he conforts Shane about it though.

-Dale finally mentions the weirdness regarding Shane's story about Otis, although I think he's not very bright in confronting Shane about it so directly and so soon. Shane being Shane, he'll find the first opportunity for Dale to "die heroically" exactly like Otis did. I think Dale should have talked to e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e else first regarding his suspicions about Shane's character BEFORE confronting Shane. This way, if Shane ever tried to bump him off, everyone else would at least know who to blame and why.

-TARGET PRACTICE? Really? They have enough ammo for Shane to run target practice sessions?? Did I miss the trip to the gunshop or was there crap loads of ammunition right next to the condoms at the pharmacy?

I don't know about you, but after finding out that there's a horde of zombies in the barn, I wouldn't be sleeping very well on the farm at night. The shyte is gonna hit the fan really really soon I think. Time for the group to pack their bags!

[AcesandEights]

-Rick knows about Shane & Lori, although his reaction to the news doesn't seem very realistic.

I don't really have a problem with how Rick initially handled the news. I think hes a bit in shock over it, probably a bit in denial or a process of trying to swallow the emotions he's dealing with. I'm sure he feels responsible for everyone (as seems to be his M.O.) and knows both his marriage and the group as a whole are on delicate ground and pushing too much could destroy everything and literally put peoples lives at risk.

I would not be surprised if a scowly Rick, on the edge of violence, emotionally growls out an admission of how "hard it's been to deal with" knowing Shane has lain with Lori in a biblical sense, at some point in the not too distant future.

[acealive1]

Good episode, and glad they closed some of the loop holes that have been lingering in the storyline.

-Rick knows about Shane & Lori, although his reaction to the news doesn't seem very realistic. Might be interesting when he conforts Shane about it though.





i'd bet shane told rick about it on their long talk that rick strongly insinuated to lori which is why he wasnt pissed cuz everyone thought he was dead

[kidgloves]

Rick had suspected it anyway. TBH i would probably react similarly. I would be deeply hurt but would understand.
Loved the "last stand" discovery in the house and the boarding up of the hallway. Also the discussion of the last broadcasts with Dale. The acting was great all around in this episode. Im in zombie apocalypse nirvana with this show.

Did anyone else notice the guy standing outside the pharmacy having a smoke during the Glenn and Maggie walker attack?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6379245793_7f5e3f9ac2_z.jpg

[acealive1]

was it a platoon of army guys? it looked like fatigues they had on

[Legion2213]

Another very enjoyable episode, only just watched it so I am absorbing what I saw, but yeah, loads of good stuff happening in this one, as a few others have said, it feels like we did a lot of moving on in this one.

Ironically, this is the second to last episode of the year isn't it?

Edit: Anybody think well maintained and possibly beefed up RV's are the way to go in this universe? (so long as you can run them), seems WD walkers don't have "psycic abilities" like GARs shamblers, so simply being quiet and keeping a low profile seems to be a good, solid survival strategy in this universe.

[Moon Knight]

I found it interesting when Daryl told Andrea that the next time she shoots him he better be dead.

Foreshadowing perhaps?

[Mr. Clean]

Edit: Anybody think well maintained and possibly beefed up RV's are the way to go in this universe? (so long as you can run them), seems WD walkers don't have "psycic abilities" like GARs shamblers, so simply being quiet and keeping a low profile seems to be a good, solid survival strategy in this universe.

The RV was the reason they stopped in the first place. Besides the old thing needing alot of maintenance...I was thinking it was sorta big(hard to maneuver). A newer one MIGHT be a good base of operations but you still run into the issue of it being too big and not to mention difficult to find because of the lack of people able to afford one makes them somewhat harder to find.

Update: With all the abandoned cars on the freeway/interstate they might not be hard to find at all. :D

[Thorn]

That's sort of the thing...it's just not worth it. If it was really an all or nothing we stay or my family dies scenario, sure you can only fault a man so much for trying to protect his family, but I just don't buy the limited choices presented in this case. In short, I agree with your points on this Thorn with the caveat that many, many people are realistically going to kill for their children past a certain point...I just don't see this as a realistic breaking point.

And as far as Hershel...hell, he's just gone a bit strange over the whole topic of the undead...but how many people aren't going to get a little strange at some point or develop their own particular sacred cows during the apocalypse?



But we made a sign! :(
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_j0qeBAJCW9U/S_ab7Btd5mI/AAAAAAAABlk/z3KRyufoAL4/s320/farm+king.jpg


ROFL! Oh king eh very nice... and how'd you get that then? By exploitin' the workers!

No but really it was funny to watch the Talking Dead and see this as a poll and the host and guess all react wit ha laugh when this scored so high as an option, but we know how technically accurate internet polls are ;)

Usually I pick the most entertaining answer and go with that.

Meh, either way an amazing episode and to me that is what is most important, I agree too about wasting bullets as an issue, how do you justify that long term. Training more able bodies to defend your group with guns, but you are decreasing your ability to do so by burning ammo. That is a tough call... I guess you can always get more ammo but if you cant defend yourself you might not get that chance ;)

I dunno that is a hard one.

-- -------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 PM ----------


Rick had suspected it anyway. TBH i would probably react similarly. I would be deeply hurt but would understand.
Loved the "last stand" discovery in the house and the boarding up of the hallway. Also the discussion of the last broadcasts with Dale. The acting was great all around in this episode. Im in zombie apocalypse nirvana with this show.

Did anyone else notice the guy standing outside the pharmacy having a smoke during the Glenn and Maggie walker attack?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6379245793_7f5e3f9ac2_z.jpg

I noticed the guy, I thought it was a walker.

[Sammich]

herschel is not crazy. he seems be one of those people who'd rather "leave things like they are", i think he took issue with maggie and glenn getting close because...well....its pretty obvious....look at glenn.

It is obvious that he does not believe in miscegenation because he referred to Glenn as "that asian boy". T Dog knows what is going on which is why he is always staying far away from the house and hanging out with Dale. Herschel would have had no problem if it was Dale making the beast with 2 backs with Maggie.

[acealive1]

is there a glitch in this episode? cuz i coulda swore shane was doing the target shooting with andrea in the last episode? sorry.....deja vu all to hell

-- -------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------


It is obvious that he does not believe in miscegenation because he referred to Glenn as "that asian boy". T Dog knows what is going on which is why he is always staying far away from the house and hanging out with Dale. Herschel would have had no problem if it was Dale making the beast with 2 backs with Maggie.

beast with 2 backs? hilarious lol. yea its funny aint it? thats how it is here. a girl i know married a guy 10 years older than us.......yea....if it was me, her parents woulda had a cow but we're the same age

[babomb]

Rick had suspected it anyway. TBH i would probably react similarly. I would be deeply hurt but would understand.
Loved the "last stand" discovery in the house and the boarding up of the hallway. Also the discussion of the last broadcasts with Dale. The acting was great all around in this episode. Im in zombie apocalypse nirvana with this show.

Did anyone else notice the guy standing outside the pharmacy having a smoke during the Glenn and Maggie walker attack?

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6226/6379245793_7f5e3f9ac2_z.jpg I don't know if I'm just not seeing it or if you guys are joking. But all I see is a horse. It looks sort of like a guy with a jacket on and a fur hat. But if you look real close it's actually just the horses head. What looks like the pocket on a guys jacket is really the horses eye, and what looks like a guys white shirt is really the stripe down the front of the horses head.

[acealive1]

I don't know if I'm just not seeing it or if you guys are joking. But all I see is a horse. It looks sort of like a guy with a jacket on and a fur hat. But if you look real close it's actually just the horses head. What looks like the pocket on a guys jacket is really the horses eye, and what looks like a guys white shirt is really the stripe down the front of the horses head.

just bad camera angle,bro

[babomb]

I have the episode on my computer and went back through to see if I could see it. That still is from 00:25:43, but at 00:25:40 you can see the horse from a slightly different angle.

[Neil]

As fun as the scene was with the walking in the chemists, I thought it was daft as hell from the point of view of:-
a) How did it get in there? The place looked secure!
b) Why didn't they notice it on earlier visits if it was there all the time?
c) Why didn't it make any noise before, or at least come into sight earlier. It sort of stinks of the stupid contrived stealth zombies in the Dawn remake. They know how to sneak up on people without being seen, and when not to make noise etc...



I thought the barn was explained well though. I sort of rolled my eyes a bit at the end of the previous episode. But when (and more importantly how) it was explained why they were keeping them, it seemed fairly viable!

[childofgilead]

Yeah, this episode was MUCH better than the last..and that makes no sense, as Daryl is pretty much the strongest character in the show..weird.

[Thorn]

As fun as the scene was with the walking in the chemists, I thought it was daft as hell from the point of view of:-
a) How did it get in there? The place looked secure!
b) Why didn't they notice it on earlier visits if it was there all the time?
c) Why didn't it make any noise before, or at least come into sight earlier. It sort of stinks of the stupid contrived stealth zombies in the Dawn remake. They know how to sneak up on people without being seen, and when not to make noise etc...



I thought the barn was explained well though. I sort of rolled my eyes a bit at the end of the previous episode. But when (and more importantly how) it was explained why they were keeping them, it seemed fairly viable!

I liked the barn explanation as well, and wondered where the pharmacy zombie came from as well. I kind of dismissed it as maybe he was in a store room and finally managed to bust out or someone else looted the place in between their run and left the door open... maybe Sophia she is pretty useless so that makes sense :)

As for the "guy" in front of the pharmacy, if you watch it it certainly catches your eye even if it is just the horse and other stuff at an angle that makes it look like a person, it had me going "here we go... walkers" of course nothing came of it so I dismissed it until the post here. Still not sure what it is.

[bassman]

As fun as the scene was with the walking in the chemists, I thought it was daft as hell from the point of view of:-
a) How did it get in there? The place looked secure!
b) Why didn't they notice it on earlier visits if it was there all the time?
c) Why didn't it make any noise before, or at least come into sight earlier. It sort of stinks of the stupid contrived stealth zombies in the Dawn remake. They know how to sneak up on people without being seen, and when not to make noise etc...


A) We've seen that the walkers can open doors, so maybe he came in after Glenn and Maggie's first trip to the pharmacy?
B) Same as above, I suppose.
C) As always, the main reason is to startle the audience. Much like the screwdriver zombie calming posing as a mannequin in Dawn. :lol: In terms of the story, one could probably argue that he was at the back of the store and came up on the other side of the shelf so she never noticed....


In the end it's all just to give the audience a "boo", really...

[shootemindehead]

As fun as the scene was with the walking in the chemists, I thought it was daft as hell from the point of view of:-
a) How did it get in there? The place looked secure!
b) Why didn't they notice it on earlier visits if it was there all the time?
c) Why didn't it make any noise before, or at least come into sight earlier. It sort of stinks of the stupid contrived stealth zombies in the Dawn remake. They know how to sneak up on people without being seen, and when not to make noise etc...



My thoughts exactly.

Also, I'm getting kind of sick at how blasé some of the characters are in this zombie apocalypse. It doesn't seem to be that bad in many areas. In fact, there's nothing happening at all in some places.

But, Andrea just getting out of a car a WALKING?

WTF?

Wouldn't happen in GAR's universe.

[Neil]

My thoughts exactly.

Also, I'm getting kind of sick at how blasé some of the characters are in this zombie apocalypse. It doesn't seem to be that bad in many areas. In fact, there's nothing happening at all in some places.

But, Andrea just getting out of a car a WALKING?

WTF?

Wouldn't happen in GAR's universe.

Yes, it's a common problem across many zombie flicks. In the real world you'd go to the n'th degree to be careful. Yet we have characters taking needless risks, or not seemingly caring they are taking risks... It sort of bursts the believability bubble a bit...

[acealive1]

i knew there was a geek in the pharmacy for the jump......the scene was just too quiet.....props to them for prolonging before when he jumped out at maggie. it was pretty cool

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,
There's a saying that encompasses what a lot of you that are "pro-morality" are saying. "It's easy to be a saint in Paradise." The morality we've all grown up with is a direct product of us being the most spoiled human beings who have ever lived. All the necessities of life are available to us with next to no difficulty. Food? 10 minute drive to the grocery store or fast food place. Water? Comes fresh and sanitized from the tap. Shelter? All but the utterly destitute have homes that would be the envy of 99% of the humans who have ever lived, and even homeless shelters are of vastly higher quality than the shelter(s) of 99% of all the humans who have lived since we developed on this planet. Safety and Security? Interconnected, overlapping law enforcement agencies with the wherewithal to deter the vast majority of individuals from committing any serious crimes. Health? Modern medicine is able to deal in the short-term with all but the most serious of health problems.

NONE OF THIS has been true for 99% of humanity's history. Modern society in the "first world" is the exception to human behavior that proves the rule of savagery. For thousands and thousands of years humanity saw no need to move beyond the tribe structure. Even when it did, it was only essentially expanding the tribe into what amounted to a very large extended family. Only in the most recent 5% of human history has our species decided to form social structures more advanced than the tribal, and this as a DIRECT RESULT of life's necessities becoming easy to obtain for almost everyone.

If you take away these necessities you'll quickly discover that there has been next to no real development morally speaking in the last 20,000 years. The most moral woman alive who also happens to be a mother will kill without qualm, as often as she needs to, to provide what her child/children need. Right or wrong won't even enter into it. Same goes for most men that are fathers, and most men and women in regards to looking after the people they personally care for.

We're not talking about a temporary interruption in society's continuity here. Society is OVER in TWD world, for good...or at least the next 200-300 years. Yes, at first the very apocalypse that winnowed down the population to 1% of its pre-apocalypse size will allow the survivors to live by scavenging off the remains of the fallen civilization. That won't be the case 6-12 months after the fact though. The antibiotics and modern medical supplies will have been used up, canned good/other non-perishables will have been stripped clean from stores etc etc.

To be blunt, I simply DO NOT BELIEVE that 99.999% of the people here would, in the situation Rick and Co. find themselves in, would perceive any problem with a leader whose decisions are made using the sole criteria of what is in the best interests of the group said leader is responsible for.

It's easy to SAY you'd have a problem with a leader who killed an old man and exiled said old man's family to take their resources after the old man and his family prove adamant in their refusal to peacefully coexist. In reality, I believe most of us would actually find our belief in the strength and quality of our leaders INCREASED by witnessing them make whatever decision is necessary to look after us and everyone we care about.

To be correct about your morality arguments you are in reality stating the following:
1) I choose for myself, my friends, and my loved ones to die of starvation and/or dehydration rather than take food and/or water that belongs to the stranger(s) I've encountered.
2) I choose for myself, my friends, and my loved ones to die of treatable medical issues rather than take medical supplies belonging to others, or forcing an unwilling medical practicioner to treat me, my friends or loved ones when suffering from life-threatening illness or injury.
3) I choose for myself, my friends, and my loved ones to die of exposure to life-threatening weather, or hostile actions by others we're forced to face and are helpless against, rather than take a secure shelter belonging to strangers.
4) I choose for myself and the people I care for to be raped, killed and/or eaten by hostile entities because we lack the means to effectively defend ourselves, and are not willing to seize said means of defense from strangers we've encountered.

See what I mean? Over and over and over again, "Modern Morality" = Suicide. Modern morality is a product and inseparable part of Modern SOCIETY. Far from losing confidence in or not trusting the leadership of one willing to take what is needed from others to provide for the people he's responsible for, for the vast majority of human history (where subsistence/survival was a personal responsibility not provided by civilization) we as human beings have actually lauded and made immortal the names of leaders who had no qualms about destroying outsiders to provide for THEIR people.

In a world where the 99.5% of the 6 billion people who just died are now cannibal corpses, I contend that since such an environment is far more lethal/dangerous than what our ancestors faced, we would respond with a greater degree of what modern society would call "savagery, brutality etc etc." than the most brutal civilizations of the past.

Why? It's HUMAN NATURE to take care of the people we care and feel responsible for, and everyone else be damned if necessary for that to happen.

Take a modern person, strip away the fat reserves easy living has deposited beneath the skin of their abdomen. Take away water until their tongue swells, their lips crack and bleed....Take away health, security, stability...and you will INVARIABLY find a "savage" that, even if they wouldn't do so only on their own behalf, will have NO QUALMS about taking whatever action is necessary to preserve the ones they love.

How is it even possible to contend otherwise, when 99.999% of everything we are, have been, and remain as a species cries out our capacity to destroy the outsider to preserve "OUR" people?

[AcesandEights]

To be correct about your morality arguments you are in reality stating the following...

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/castle-umm.gif

[Ragnarr]

Hmm... I think it's the horse smoking a cigarette. I guess zombie apocalypses tend to make horses feel uneasy too.

[kidgloves]

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/castle-umm.gif

Lol :D:cool:

[Legion2213]

Wyld, you think the likes of Glen, Dale and Carol, will be okay with this sort of taking by force and murdering anybody who gets in your way?

Shane might be up for it, but let's be honest, he's becoming a bit of twat who was at one point willing to murder his best friend to take his wife and kid, has murdered Otis and threatened to murder Dale.

Hell, I think even Daryl would have problems with this. People with your attitude would make any PA situation so much worse for everyone involved. You'd be Merle in this sort of situation. :D

[botc]

im with wyldwraith on this one... to a degree! in a shtf or wrol situation it would not hurt me to take what i needed if there was no other choice. i have my family to look after and im sorry but rick is weak if he makes everyone leave. though we already know what is going to happen its the fact of the matter. wraith i need permission to copy and distribute that text of yours.... its powerful stuff and i agree with it about 85 percent!

[Legion2213]

im with wyldwraith on this one... to a degree! in a shtf or wrol situation it would not hurt me to take what i needed if there was no other choice. i have my family to look after and im sorry but rick is weak if he makes everyone leave. though we already know what is going to happen its the fact of the matter. wraith i need permission to copy and distribute that text of yours.... its powerful stuff and i agree with it about 85 percent!

Everything they need is around them, plenty of isolated farm houses around, the way some of you guys are going on about it, you'd think it was the last standing building near a watersource on the planet. Seems the only reason it's so clear of walkers is because the ocupiers operate in a totally different way than our travellers. Or let me put it another way, how many children would you "survival at any cost" types kill or steal food from to "protect" your own loved ones?

[botc]

good question good one... hmmm i actually have to think about this one. if someone is an expendable loss at the survival of my loved ones then i guess it would need to be done. kids... i dont know if i could bring myself to slaughter children. no i couldnt. but "SOMEONE" else could see it as a mercy killing in a world like that. hell it would be better to be dead then let any sick fuck child molesters get their hands on them. thats just the only answer i could come up with. in all honesty i dont think i could take from another family unit in a shtf situation. i would find myself possibly trading with them or i dont know. there is this gray area there that a decision would be made then and there.

i live my life every day hating to help other people. i work in auto parts retail so im always dealing with helping people even if our moto is "do it yourself"! i guess in my ventures day to day i pick and choose who is worthy of assitance like i could see someone picking and choosing who lives and who dies. but its not my place to pick someones elses fate thats why i said about 85 percent kid!

i just know that when push comes to shove and i need to lift my hand i wont be weak. ive been weak all my life and i wont let a little thing like someone having what i need stop me. youd do the same given the situation. youd feed your family and you know it AND BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

if that statement makes me evil then you tell that to your nagging wife or husband thats bitching at you becasue she and the kids havent ate for days. love of your family makes you do crazy things. and above all my son will live no matter if an army of insert your creature, person, or godly figure says other wise!

editing i guess i really wouldnt know what to do because i contradicted myself several times... i guess we will see when the time comes!

[Wyldwraith]

@botc: Sure, you can copy what I wrote if you like. Nice to know there are at least a few people who understand personal priorities would be profoundly changed by a long-term apocalyptic subsistence-level survival situation.

In response to the question about the likes of Glen, Dale or Carol going along with whatever actions need to be taken to provide for their group:
At this moment in the survival situation as its currently portrayed as of the Secrets episode, no. I don't think Glen, Dale or Carol could bring themselves to either make such difficult choices or allow others to make such choices on their behalf. YET!

Glen, Dale and Carol have had the necessities of life up to this point equivalent to modern people on an extended camping expedition. This said, that fact in no way invalidates the points I make. At the moment, despite numerous close calls, significant injuries and moderate hardships which have gone on for what's becoming a protracted period of time, the Survivor Group hasn't yet been denied either necessities or even a not-insignificant amount of modern conveniences.

Put more simply: Right now, they aren't hungry, thirsty or terrified in an imminent sense. Mostly because the majority of the group is well on the way to believing they're settling in on the farm for an extended period. Rick and Lori have both made that point more than once. Rick has, so far, made the decision to (for the most part) conceal from most of the group just how intent on seeing them gone Herschel really is while he (Rick) continues to try and persuade Herschel to change his mind.

The point has been made that Herschel's farm is by no means the only potentially viable location that Rick's group can/could base themselves just as well as they have at Herschel's farm. While I agree with this point to an extent, especially about the farm's seemingly secure nature being the product of chance and relative isolation from major population centers, this point just DOESN'T invalidate the points I've made.

I have been accused of being a "Merle"...all right. I've tried to be clear that my first choice would be peaceful cooperation that benefits both "my people" AND any sane, healthy individuals we might encounter in a survival situation, the fact that I am honest enough to admit that when you strip people of the opportunity to meet their needs (both real and perceived) they WILL do whatever is necessary to see those needs get met has been construed and distorted into some notion that I would be gleefully pillaging and murdering out of convenience in a long-term survival situation. While I find that distortion distressing, mostly because it obscures the point I'm making, it doesn't change the truth.

People are not, and HAVE NEVER BEEN so altruistic that they will allow the needs of themselves and their loved ones to go unmet, so as to maintain the validity of an external social code of behavior. The weight of history just doesn't support that notion. Even here in the "first world" it's been a SHORT two hundred and thirty years since we maintained huge slave populations for the sake of economic advantage, NOT necessity. At the same time, as well as both before and after, the United States lied, manipulated, cheated, stole and mass-murdered women, children and elderly Native Americans in huge numbers so as to seize their ancestral territories for a variety of advantageous reasons both social and economic, which had nothing to do with necessity or survival. Even now, our awareness of the "immorality" of those actions amounts to a few chapters we listen to lectures on, and are tested on our knowledge of a few times as bored, disinterested adolescents.

Do I even need to touch on issues of discrimination ranging from the socioeconomic, to the religious, to the racial that are still alive and well in modern society?

Guys and Gals, it's NOT like I'm overjoyed that this is human nature, because I'm really, REALLY not! It's just that I recognize that if the majority of people who have ever lived are (and in many cases remain) willing to do such terrible things simply out of avarice and/or malice, how much MORE will people do when they're actually faced with situations as black and white as: "Do the RIGHT THING and me and mine suffer for it, and may not survive. Or, do whatever is necessary to see the needs of me and mine are met?"

What basis, evidence....FACTS are there to support the notion that in the last few generations of ultra-convenience, luxury and the lowest effort ever required to survive and prosper that humanity has suddenly outgrown base instinct, a nearly unlimited capacity for violence and savagery honed over millennia of use, and the ubiquity of moral relativism and self-justification of man's inhumanity to man even when our needs are being met?

Herschel's farm not being the only place the group COULD go is immaterial to the moral implications of a long-term survival situation in a world grown vastly more violent and terrifying than even the darkest chapters of real-world human history.

[Thorn]

Wyld we have disagreed about this before it is really just a waste of energy to go over it again, but there are a number of errors with your assumptions and statements. Just to address one you jump to the worst possible conclusions, and create the worst case scenarios to make your arguments. If they leave the farm they are not for certain going to to starve to death. No one is so hurt they can not travel down the road a ways and set up shop... in fact they do so in the comic for quite a while.

What you are doing however is in fact and reality killing a man and his family to take what is theirs. There really is no gray area there.

You are okay with this, I am not. Some are, some others are not. We can agree to disagree and move on from it I am not trying to change your opinion, I fundamentally disagree with it and how you are constructing your argument also in your telling me how I feel, or how I am out of touch with how i would change in the post apocalyptic world. I say over and over again on these forums (these and going back years to the older forums) I do not know what I would do, and I would like to think I would retain my morality.

I don't know what I would do, but you know me even less so I really do not think you can presume to know me or claim I am out of touch but you somehow have clarity on the subject I just can't seem to grasp..

I get it just fine, in Japan when the shit hit the fan people gave their lives to save others, there was no looting, old people wanted to take the place of young people so the young could live full lives as they did. People doing the right thing in the face of disaster.

In New Orleans.. bad shit happened. People doing the worst things possible in the face of disaster.

I rather like to think I would not be one of the later, and knowing me as well as I do I am pretty sure I would be leaning that way and I know for a fact if any man killed another man in cold blood and took what was his in my eyes there would be no respectign him that is not a respect worthy action.

In the new world a lot would change, but you still have your moral compass intact, you have to change with the world or be left behind true but somethings are worth hanging onto or what is the point of rebuilding? Seriously becoming a taker like the bikers... I could not identify with them, nor justify their actions. It is a time we as humans would need work together to make it or we would lose. The farm is safe now, wouldn't be safe forever. Giving up all you are, and losing the respect of half of your group or so does not seem like a smart play for any leader to make.

Pick up, move on find a vacant farm and make it safe. You have the guns, the numbers, and the experience. Or find another group that is not so different than you and merge with them if not Herschel or stay close by and support each other fro ma separate location. There are so many better options than just becoming a taker.

Do people die when they leave the farm in the books? Sure they do, but you know what no place is safe and the price tag on my morals is a lot higher than a short break from the shit storm on the road.

Anyway again, it is a case of agree to disagree.

As to human nature it is the nature of some individuals not all individuals, and to be honest the ability to not be a savage and make decisions and keep your base instincts in check with reason and logic is what separates us from animals.

[babomb]

To be blunt, I simply DO NOT BELIEVE that 99.999% of the people here would, in the situation Rick and Co. find themselves in, would perceive any problem with a leader whose decisions are made using the sole criteria of what is in the best interests of the group said leader is responsible for. Personally, the problem I see with this is that a leader who easily discards morality and his own conscience would not feel any responsibility for an entire group of people as Rick has. He would feel a responsibility for Lori and Carl, and that's it. That morality is required in order for him to look out for the group as a whole. So in that case you don't have a group at all, you have a ticking time-bomb where everyone is out for themselves and their immediate family only. So if Rick were to take that route the logical thing for him to do would be to ditch almost everyone else, keep Dales RV and lock Herschel in it as a makeshift cell so that his medical skills could be used whenever needed, attach an explosive dog collar to Glenn to force him to go on supply runs, hoard the weapons water and food for himself and Lori and Carl, kill Shane and Darryl because you can't have other alpha males around. What you're talking about is a very slippery slope that leads to absolute paranoia and betrayal.


It's easy to SAY you'd have a problem with a leader who killed an old man and exiled said old man's family to take their resources after the old man and his family prove adamant in their refusal to peacefully coexist. In reality, I believe most of us would actually find our belief in the strength and quality of our leaders INCREASED by witnessing them make whatever decision is necessary to look after us and everyone we care about. Not really because that would mean that at some point if I were hurt or became a liability in any way that I would be easily discarded. It would come down to who that leader cares about most.
Herschel is actually a peaceful man. So it would make much more sense to just setup camp on Herschels land and refuse to leave. I don't think killing Herschel and exiling his family is necessary for the groups survival. So to have Rick take such drastic action would actually do much more harm to the groups cohesion.
I see what you're saying Wyld, I'm not saying you're wrong either. I just think that battles like this one have to be chosen well. Morality in a scenario like this only has so much significance. But if you're assuming a leadership role for a group you want to make sure not to alienate others by making hasty decisions. IMO, Herschels farm isn't worth it at this point in the timeline.

[Wyldwraith]

First,
@Thorn: I have NEVER failed to respect your right to your own opinion. While I don't believe I've done anything to give that impression, if I did I apologize for that. Personal choice, and the responsibility for one's choices comprises a large portion of what I'm talking about here, and is something I value a great deal.

In regards to your assertion that I "jump to the worst possible conclusions, and create the worst-case scenarios to make my arguments" I would describe that as an extremely unfair, and even more inaccurate depiction of my statements.

I've been speaking in general terms, that are supported by the weight of both historical and contemporary realities. It isn't manufacturing some sort of false/deceitful statement to say that far more humans have, and still do, prioritize self-interest over altruism.

I agree with you that, here and now in the comfort of our modern society, behaving in a violently self-centered manner isn't something anyone would respect. IF that's what I was advocating, you would be correct in assigning a negative judgment to such a statement.

This time I'll try even harder to make my position clear. The point I'm making is that if so many people, from so many cultures, nations and historical eras have proven willing to "be a taker" as you call it simply out of greed and self-gratification, what reason is there to believe when actual NEED-DRIVEN desperation is the motivating factor behind people's choices and corresponding actions that the majority of individuals will not behave in an even more base, selfish and savage manner?

I wholeheartedly agree that human beings have an absolutely amazing capacity for self-sacrifice and compassion. Such positive facets of human nature can be described as the Yin to the equal and opposite Yang represented by avarice and a capacity for violence and self-interest equal to the human capacity for altruism and heroic conduct.

Further, I agree that in many modern disaster situations the "common man" has in many cases demonstrated that capacity for self-sacrifice, compassion and heroism. The aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina was indeed an excellent example of this.

HOWEVER, the mistake you make here Thorn is drawing a direct comparison between human behavior in a serious, even life-threatening disaster that is ultimately a short-term calamity, and human behavior in an apocalyptic situation where the survivors are aware that civilization/society has collapsed and won't be returning in their lifetimes.

The short-term disaster and the long-term post-apocalyptic situation are so different as to be "apples and oranges" so to speak. Trying to draw a parallel between a man who, up until 36 hours ago was well-fed, healthy and safe, and a man who hasn't eaten in a week, is sick/weakened due to a combination of dehydration and illness from drinking tainted water, and who knows that no matter what, the situation is NOT going to get any better anytime soon just doesn't hold water. The man rescuing people trapped on the roofs of their flooded homes in a rowboat knows that civilization still exists, and can be (to one degree or another) sustained by a reasonable belief that help is on the way for him and those he is trying to help.

The man who can't remember ever being so hungry, despite being sicker to his stomach than he's ever been (sicker in general in many cases), and whose nerves are rubbed raw by jumping at every unidentified noise or startling movement out of fear its someone trying to take what little he has, or do even worse....this man, knowing that help IS NOT on the way, and likely never will be again, is experiencing an intensity of desperation unmatched by the victim of what is, ultimately, a short-term disaster.

Now, increase that desperation exponentially due to the hard-wired impulses and desires to take care of those we love and feel responsible for.

Everything I pointed out about people's capacity for savagery is in regards to the man (or woman) in the long-term survival situation.

Finally, the idea that members of a group cannot or would not make a distinction between a leader's conduct and decision-making towards people not a part of the group is, IMHO, erroneous. People can easily understood the need to take care of their own. In a situation where it's become necessary to make an "immoral" decision regarding strangers to meet the group's needs, the members of that group would not (again, IMO) consider their leader's actions in relation to outsiders to be any sort of reflection on how he will treat them.

A mother who robs another mother of their last scraps of food at gunpoint as their child watches isn't going to cause that child to think his mother would shoot him for misbehaving because of the theft he witnessed. To me, that's a more accurate likeness to the differences in perception and distinctions people make about an authority figure's actions towards the group versus that authority figure's actions towards outsiders.

I'm not trying to tell any individual how they would behave. I'm just pointing out historic and contemporary examples of human nature that support my position about the majority reaction, morally speaking, to an apocalyptic environment, zombie or otherwise.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding concerning my statements/contentions. Thorn, I'm sorry this has become something antagonistic for you. I've always had a good deal of respect for your thoughts expressed here...which is why it truly bothers me how aggressively you went after me personally, as opposed to the thoughts/philosophical differences I put forward.

I maintain that people will cross almost any line to see to the needs of those they care for. Again, I feel history is on my side here.

[babomb]

Finally, the idea that members of a group cannot or would not make a distinction between a leader's conduct and decision-making towards people not a part of the group is, IMHO, erroneous. People can easily understood the need to take care of their own. In a situation where it's become necessary to make an "immoral" decision regarding strangers to meet the group's needs, the members of that group would not (again, IMO) consider their leader's actions in relation to outsiders to be any sort of reflection on how he will treat them.

A mother who robs another mother of their last scraps of food at gunpoint as their child watches isn't going to cause that child to think his mother would shoot him for misbehaving because of the theft he witnessed. To me, that's a more accurate likeness to the differences in perception and distinctions people make about an authority figure's actions towards the group versus that authority figure's actions towards outsiders.

I maintain that people will cross almost any line to see to the needs of those they care for. Again, I feel history is on my side here. The group isn't all blood related though. No, a child isn't gonna fear that its mother will shoot them in the scenario you describe. Of course not. But we're not talking about parents and children here specifically. We're talking about a group of people that for the most part didn't know each other prior to the apocalypse. The group trusts Rick immensely because he displays great moral character. On the other hand, Shane displays more ability, both in terms of combat effectiveness and willingness to make the same type of hard decisions we're talking about. But the group doesn't trust Shane like they trust Rick. They don't look to Shane like they look to Rick.
If Rick were to kill Herschel, exile his family and claim his homestead, the rest of the group is just not gonna look at him the same way. If I were in the group I wouldn't look at him the same way. I wouldn't be worried that he's gonna suddenly declare me a liability and exile me. But I would recognize that things have changed, and I would start to scrutinize his actions more and wonder about his motives. This is what most others in the group would do, even Lori because that just isn't the Rick she knows. This would effect group cohesion. They don't have to fear that Rick is gonna kill or exile them for morale to be effected. They just have to become concerned.
However, this all changes if the situation changes. If Herschel were to become aggressive or violent in his insistence that the group leave, and if leaving were more immediately threatening than it is at this point in time then those actions might be justifiable by the group.
I'm not arguing on your points that most everyone would abandon morality in favor of survival under the right circumstances. Not at all. All I'm saying is that under the circumstances taking place in the show, on Herschels farm, that things aren't that desperate. So if Rick were to take such drastic action, things just wouldn't be the same between him and the group. People would start to question his decisions and actions alot more. Because leaving the farm at this point isn't certain death.

[Thorn]

First let me say babomb two posts up says it quite well, a leader willing to kill in cold blood for the good of his people would in a second most likely do what was needed for his smaller group(family/close friends) if it came down to it, and it would be hard to trust them. It is why leaders who actually lead their men into combat earn more respect from the rank and file than those who lead from behind pushing pieces about like players on chess board. Sacrifice the pawn to save the rook? Certainly.


First,
@Thorn: I have NEVER failed to respect your right to your own opinion. While I don't believe I've done anything to give that impression, if I did I apologize for that. Personal choice, and the responsibility for one's choices comprises a large portion of what I'm talking about here, and is something I value a great deal.

Same here, I enjoy your posts a lot and enjoy even that we seem to have opposing views on a number of issues. I find it is quite possible to enjoy that even more at times because it challenges you to think, to look at both sides, reconsider your own position to see how it stands up in your own mind under the information presented from the other side. I am not offended at all the only point I really took issue with was the assertion that somehow you had more clarity than others as to what they would do. Or that somehow only you and a select few really got it. We all get it, we would just react differently but that is "people being people". Specifically...


@botc: Sure, you can copy what I wrote if you like. Nice to know there are at least a few people who understand personal priorities would be profoundly changed by a long-term apocalyptic subsistence-level survival situation."
We pretty much all understand that not just a few of us, we just would not handle the changing priorities the same, that does not make us less informed, blind, or unable to comprehend things as you do, it means our values are different and it shows a fundamental difference of opinion and approach. Not lack of comprehension.


In regards to your assertion that I "jump to the worst possible conclusions, and create the worst-case scenarios to make my arguments" I would describe that as an extremely unfair, and even more inaccurate depiction of my statements.

I've been speaking in general terms, that are supported by the weight of both historical and contemporary realities. It isn't manufacturing some sort of false/deceitful statement to say that far more humans have, and still do, prioritize self-interest over altruism.

I am referring to comments like these (there are more in other threads but I will just use these two examples), and not to give offense I am just using your own statements here and taking them at face value...


"Shane finally said it. Rick just isn't made for being a leader in this world. If he's willing to take a pregnant wife, a recovering son, still missing and not knowing what happened to Sophia...back out into the horror because a deluded old HYPOCRITE demands he must...I just don't know what to say to that."I pointed out the wife is barely pregnant, the son is up and shooting guns, and T-Dawg is perfectly fine, and pulling people out of wells. Sophia is still missing but they can base anywhere and look for her. They do not NEED to at Hershel's farm to look for her. You painted this as a scenario that justified shooting a man in the face and killing his whole family if they didn't get in line. That is the point I was talking about.


"Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Rick will force the group to move on to comply with the Old Madman's demands. It's insane, what with everything going on with his wife and Carl/Daryl/T-Dog still recovering from serious injuries (which Herschel doesn't seem to give much of a damn about)...but that is how it will play out undoubtedly."Again none of these people are unfit for travel and there is no death sentence being cast down by Herschel, you seem to have a problem with the Herschel decision to send the group away but not shooting him the face and murdering his family. That is the part that confuses me. One is certain death, one is just added difficult to your struggles where you could and likely will be able to start over.


I agree with you that, here and now in the comfort of our modern society, behaving in a violently self-centered manner isn't something anyone would respect. IF that's what I was advocating, you would be correct in assigning a negative judgment to such a statement.Agreed, I also feel the same holds true in the other scenario of course, again the let's agree to disagree comment. I just would not kill the guy and take his farm because he asked me to leave. If the situation was reversed and you asked a group who was on your land to move on for whatever reason do you think them shooting your family in the face is okay? Would you morally support and justify their decision to just kill yours, and take what you fought for and earned?


This time I'll try even harder to make my position clear. The point I'm making is that if so many people, from so many cultures, nations and historical eras have proven willing to "be a taker" as you call it simply out of greed and self-gratification, what reason is there to believe when actual NEED-DRIVEN desperation is the motivating factor behind people's choices and corresponding actions that the majority of individuals will not behave in an even more base, selfish and savage manner?Honestly your point was quite clear and well made, I understand it I just do not agree with it. I do not agree with roaming bands in Africa raping and killing, and burning villages to the ground. They are wrong. The village that lives peaceably and just asks them to leave them be is right. What you are doing here is saying that because other humans do it, and it is part of man's base instincts that it in some way justifies it? I argue higher thought and common decency should always over ride that and because we are intelligent human beings we know this. I would choose to not be a roaming band of murderers and rapists that pillage and take. If I encounter those that are those sorts I would defend my people from them with passion, determination, and all the might in my limbs. I would not become them.



I wholeheartedly agree that human beings have an absolutely amazing capacity for self-sacrifice and compassion. Such positive facets of human nature can be described as the Yin to the equal and opposite Yang represented by avarice and a capacity for violence and self-interest equal to the human capacity for altruism and heroic conduct.

Further, I agree that in many modern disaster situations the "common man" has in many cases demonstrated that capacity for self-sacrifice, compassion and heroism. The aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina was indeed an excellent example of this.

HOWEVER, the mistake you make here Thorn is drawing a direct comparison between human behavior in a serious, even life-threatening disaster that is ultimately a short-term calamity, and human behavior in an apocalyptic situation where the survivors are aware that civilization/society has collapsed and won't be returning in their lifetimes. I do not think I have made a mistake, I think we see it differently. You are saying because there are long term implications from this disaster with world or game changing implications that man would have the right to do as he pleased, take what he wanted, revert to his most base form. I am saying, and I cannot say so strongly enough that people who do that are part of the problem, and if you are trying to save ANYTHING of what was, and you are rebuilding the world or trying to that becoming a butcher, a murderer, and a taker will not get it done, Bands will fear each other, kill each other, rape each, and treat each other like resources. When that happens we stop being humans as we have come to be and we revert to some primal form of man that is worse than a walker, and I would not be that man. Not easily, not willingly, and I would never ever follow that man in the situation described above and as said I would side with anyone who opposed him.


The short-term disaster and the long-term post-apocalyptic situation are so different as to be "apples and oranges" so to speak. Trying to draw a parallel between a man who, up until 36 hours ago was well-fed, healthy and safe, and a man who hasn't eaten in a week, is sick/weakened due to a combination of dehydration and illness from drinking tainted water, and who knows that no matter what, the situation is NOT going to get any better anytime soon just doesn't hold water. The man rescuing people trapped on the roofs of their flooded homes in a rowboat knows that civilization still exists, and can be (to one degree or another) sustained by a reasonable belief that help is on the way for him and those he is trying to help.Again we have to agree to disagree. Long term yes there are greater concerns, and it is different in many ways... but in many ways it is the same. You say no help is coming but help did come Herschel saved his son, helped T-Dawg, gave them shelter, allowed them to enjoy the safety of his land, food, water, company, a man who accidentally injured Carl risked his life to fix that and died at the hands of one of Rick's group. Help is still there unless you slaughter them all.

Which is my point, long term we only have each other, we need to be able to count on each other, trust each other, defend each other, and share when able. Herschel did that. He now needs them to move on, and they should.

To me this would set up a wild west where you had wide open and dangerous country with pockets of civilization that offered shelter and support. There were takers then too, bandits, train robbers, and murderers, wild natives... and so on.

I do not want to go on and on, as again I respect your right to your opinion I just disagree with it despite your explanation and justification, assertions, and assumptions. Especially about what people who think of a leader who killed people who gave them aid in cold blood to take what they wanted from them. I can say this because I would feel this way so you saying it wouldn't happen is clearly incorrect. To my dying breath I would know it was wrong, and I would never trust nor follow a leader of that nature because to me they would not be worthy of that kind of respect and trust from me as a follower. I follow well despite being a leader, and it is said you must first follow to know how to lead. I have done both, and can assure you that leading men is hard, but you lead short term when you make decisions based on what you think is best without carefully weighing the impact to each and every member of your group, working to minimize the impact, and then moving forward carefully. If not that leader is eventually alone and you are only a leader while people are willing to follow. Other than that you are just one man. Or to quote Ash "You ain't leading but two things right now: Jack and Shit. And Jack just left town".

Just my thoughts, and no hard feelings at all so sorry if I gave that impression. Just a good passionate discussion.

[Ragnarr]

I've seen human beings act like blessed angels and I've seen human beings act like wild animals. I think that one can become the other more easily than the reverse. The plane that crashed in the Andes where the survivors turned to cannibalism in order to stay alive. I'm sure that they didn't WANT to do what they did, but well... (hom nom nom burp). Then of course you have that poor store employee who unlocked the store doors at the beginning of a BIG sale and was immediately trampled to death by hordes of stupid greedy people so very desperate to save a few bucks. A disgusting display of the humanity in anyone's book.

What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to predict what anyone would do or should do in a dangerous situation. Morality is a higher brain function that can easily be overpowered by base survival instincts. The TWD characters "should" tip their hats and leave the farm. While it seems safe at the moment, there's absolutely no reason to believe that it will remain so.

If one of those wandering hordes of walkers happens upon Herchel's farm, they'll be facing a NotLD 68 seige scenario.

[Legion2213]

I've seen human beings act like blessed angels and I've seen human beings act like wild animals. I think that one can become the other more easily than the reverse. The plane that crashed in the Andes where the survivors turned to cannibalism in order to stay alive. I'm sure that they didn't WANT to do what they did, but well... (hom nom nom burp). Then of course you have that poor store employee who unlocked the store doors at the beginning of a BIG sale and was immediately trampled to death by hordes of stupid greedy people so very desperate to save a few bucks. A disgusting display of the humanity in anyone's book.

What I'm trying to say is that it's difficult to predict what anyone would do or should do in a dangerous situation. Morality is a higher brain function that can easily be overpowered by base survival instincts. The TWD characters "should" tip their hats and leave the farm. While it seems safe at the moment, there's absolutely no reason to believe that it will remain so.

If one of those wandering hordes of walkers happens upon Herchel's farm, they'll be facing a NotLD 68 seige scenario.

I think you are bang right, the target practice with their new found unlimited stocks of ammo :rolleyes: the heavy use of vehicles and stiring up that hornets nest at the little housing estate is going to bring the hammer down IMO.

Herschels people have been living quietly, using horses, not using guns being low profile and have done well out of it, our travellers have turned up and started being noisy and generally causing a stir. "This will not end well", as they say.

[Wyldwraith]

Fair enough Thorn,
We can agree to disagree. Sadly, morally speaking I even agree with much of what you said, and I "put my money where my mouth is" and lost my health forever to stop an attempted gang-rape, that I believe wholeheartedly would have quickly escalated into a murder once those animals were "done" so to speak.

For the sake of humanity, and all the people that do survive whatever sort of civilization damaging/destroying catastrophe that will eventually occur on this planet (The super-volcano under Yellowstone is about 150,000 years overdue for a massive eruption according to the geological record, and astronomers have calculated that if the Near Earth Object dubbed "Apophis" passes through the "keyhole" in space when it makes its pass in 2029 so close that it will be beneath the altitude of our communication satellites then 7 years later when its orbit brings it round again it will strike the Earth in 2036. Either event will/would destroy modern civilization and threaten our survival as a species, if one of these two events or another event similar in destructive scope doesn't simply bring about a Permian-scale mass extinction) I hope that you're right and I prove mistaken in my belief that mankind will, as it so often has in the past, resort to atavistic savagery and pack-like tribes of the strong preying on the weak.

Morally, even philosophically, your conviction is my hope. Perhaps it's due to my unusually (and tragic) frequent exposure to examples of human savagery, beginning with being terrorized by a literal psychopath or sociopath (not sure which, to be honest) of a biological father who regularly abused both my mother and myself from my earliest recollections, before culminating in him trying to strangle my mother to death in front of my 7yr-old self. Even that early I fought against such monstrous behavior, and struck him across the back of the knees with a length of PVC-pipe with every bit of strength in my then-little body, causing him to overbalance, fall, and strike his head on the edge of his work table in the garage...which allowed my mother to regain consciousness before he did and make good our escape.

Then there were the subsequent years of being terrorized and abused daily from 5th to the beginning of 10th grade (had a major growth spurt over the summer and sprung up almost seven inches and put on over 50lbs) by a succession of bullies immune to the consequences of their actions due to all three principals (elementary, junior high/"middle school" and high school), vice principals and school resource officers turning a blind eye due to their parents' identities. (Again, the abuse didn't end until my hard-working and very supportive/loving mother found the money to get me into Karate (Shito-Ryu), and I took to it like a duck to water. Only after turning the tables on said bullies more than once did they leave me and my friends in peace. Incidentally, their reason for repeatedly assaulting me and my friends? We were in the habit of reading the paperbacks we brought from home for pleasure to fill up the copious amount(s) of free time left over in each class after completing both class and homework. Oh, and we all got good grades. Terrible crimes on our parts, eh?)

Moving on into adulthood, I found myself more than once interceding on behalf of one of my female friends (always had far more female friends than male ones) with bad taste in abusive men. The culminating event being the intercession on behalf of a young woman who was a stranger to me, wherein I lost my health (at least in part, I have other unrelated health issues as well).

Time and again, the systems/mechanisms of society that at best were supposed to deter such violence and at worst redress it with legal consequences failed to do so, over and over and over.

So yes, I will admit to the possibility...perhaps even the likelihood, that I've developed a biased view of human nature based on all the violence and abuse I've either been subjected to, fought to protect myself and others from, or borne witness to.

The thing that troubles me the most when I think back on these experiences is a) The realization that if such inhumanity and violence was occurring in middle-class suburbia, how much worse must it be beyond the confines of the First World. And b) These things have happened at the supposed apex of human civilization. What must it have been like for our ancestors of only 3 or 4 generations ago?

However, we've moved well beyond the implications and views of this TWD episode, and I'm sure that no one wants their valuable free time wasted on the ruminations of an old-before-his-time and rather..shall we say scarred, individual. So I'll conclude here.

[Neil]

Wyldwraith - Wow! Thanks for that very candid, heart on sleeve post!

[Zombie Snack]

Some friends new to the show said it just didnt give them the feeling of really being an apocolyptic situation, not when you can stroll into town on horseback to go shopping, take time out of your shopping to do the bump uglies, hang out around the farm house with no security, the place lit up like a roman candle at night, Heck they encountered more walkers way out deep in the woods than they have in town or at the farm. just some observations from some friends I recommended the show to.

[Neil]

Some friends new to the show said it just didnt give them the feeling of really being an apocolyptic situation, not when you can stroll into town on horseback to go shopping, take time out of your shopping to do the bump uglies, hang out around the farm house with no security, the place lit up like a roman candle at night, Heck they encountered more walkers way out deep in the woods than they have in town or at the farm. just some observations from some friends I recommended the show to.

Yes, it does feel a litle too safe at times. You'd think they'd put some thought into their camp. I mean a walker could just come straight into a tent at night surely!?

[Thorn]

Fair enough Thorn,
We can agree to disagree. Sadly, morally speaking I even agree with much of what you said, and I "put my money where my mouth is" and lost my health forever to stop an attempted gang-rape, that I believe wholeheartedly would have quickly escalated into a murder once those animals were "done" so to speak.

For the sake of humanity, and all the people that do survive whatever sort of civilization damaging/destroying catastrophe that will eventually occur on this planet (The super-volcano under Yellowstone is about 150,000 years overdue for a massive eruption according to the geological record, and astronomers have calculated that if the Near Earth Object dubbed "Apophis" passes through the "keyhole" in space when it makes its pass in 2029 so close that it will be beneath the altitude of our communication satellites then 7 years later when its orbit brings it round again it will strike the Earth in 2036. Either event will/would destroy modern civilization and threaten our survival as a species, if one of these two events or another event similar in destructive scope doesn't simply bring about a Permian-scale mass extinction) I hope that you're right and I prove mistaken in my belief that mankind will, as it so often has in the past, resort to atavistic savagery and pack-like tribes of the strong preying on the weak.

Morally, even philosophically, your conviction is my hope. Perhaps it's due to my unusually (and tragic) frequent exposure to examples of human savagery, beginning with being terrorized by a literal psychopath or sociopath (not sure which, to be honest) of a biological father who regularly abused both my mother and myself from my earliest recollections, before culminating in him trying to strangle my mother to death in front of my 7yr-old self. Even that early I fought against such monstrous behavior, and struck him across the back of the knees with a length of PVC-pipe with every bit of strength in my then-little body, causing him to overbalance, fall, and strike his head on the edge of his work table in the garage...which allowed my mother to regain consciousness before he did and make good our escape.

Then there were the subsequent years of being terrorized and abused daily from 5th to the beginning of 10th grade (had a major growth spurt over the summer and sprung up almost seven inches and put on over 50lbs) by a succession of bullies immune to the consequences of their actions due to all three principals (elementary, junior high/"middle school" and high school), vice principals and school resource officers turning a blind eye due to their parents' identities. (Again, the abuse didn't end until my hard-working and very supportive/loving mother found the money to get me into Karate (Shito-Ryu), and I took to it like a duck to water. Only after turning the tables on said bullies more than once did they leave me and my friends in peace. Incidentally, their reason for repeatedly assaulting me and my friends? We were in the habit of reading the paperbacks we brought from home for pleasure to fill up the copious amount(s) of free time left over in each class after completing both class and homework. Oh, and we all got good grades. Terrible crimes on our parts, eh?)

Moving on into adulthood, I found myself more than once interceding on behalf of one of my female friends (always had far more female friends than male ones) with bad taste in abusive men. The culminating event being the intercession on behalf of a young woman who was a stranger to me, wherein I lost my health (at least in part, I have other unrelated health issues as well).

Time and again, the systems/mechanisms of society that at best were supposed to deter such violence and at worst redress it with legal consequences failed to do so, over and over and over.

So yes, I will admit to the possibility...perhaps even the likelihood, that I've developed a biased view of human nature based on all the violence and abuse I've either been subjected to, fought to protect myself and others from, or borne witness to.

The thing that troubles me the most when I think back on these experiences is a) The realization that if such inhumanity and violence was occurring in middle-class suburbia, how much worse must it be beyond the confines of the First World. And b) These things have happened at the supposed apex of human civilization. What must it have been like for our ancestors of only 3 or 4 generations ago?

However, we've moved well beyond the implications and views of this TWD episode, and I'm sure that no one wants their valuable free time wasted on the ruminations of an old-before-his-time and rather..shall we say scarred, individual. So I'll conclude here.

Great post, and love the honesty. And been there myself, come to the defense of the damsel in distress, only to have her jump on my back and claw at my face while I beat down the boyfriend who was slapping her around. People are screwed up man ;)

Again enjoy your your posts, they come fro man educated point of view that is well thought out. Sometimes we agree sometimes we don't, but I never think ill of you or your points of view and always take the mas intended honest looks at the situations in theoretical.

[mpokera]

What I dont understand is that in all the arguing back and forth it seems that the only two choices being considered are: a: Leave meekly and hope to find another safe place or b. "shoot him in the face and kill his whole family and take over"?

As one of the ones early on who said I cant see the group being willing to leave, I have to say, I never proposed killing and stealing the farm. And while I agree with Thorn who has several times pointed out that there would be plenty of other farmsteads just the same as this one that might be deserted and available I actually dont think that would be something you would take into the equation because of one thing (and this is one of the problems I have had with this season, I love the show but I think they are really losing the stark terror and feel of the apocalypse). In the situation as it would really be, they have (or at least should have) been so frayed and worn down by the sheer terror of seeing the world die and living every minute in mortal terror of being killed and eaten for so long now, remember two people elected to die in a firebomb rather than face existing in the world as it is, and Andrea wanted to herself.
Now they are in a situation where the farm seems to be virtually safe, they have power, lights, and can sleep relaxed! I dont think you could convince any group of people to just 'move on' from that. Now I am NOT saying you kill the people and steal their home! Why cant they survive the way they are? Make Herschel see that they actually can make his own family safer with more people to patrol and help if any walkers do find them, heavily armed, trained people! People who can help work the fields and would gladly do so in exchange for the haven. I am not going to kill him but if he refuses I am not above refusing to leave and making him aware he has not the power to make us do so. Again this doesnt mean we kill them, I let him keep his house, keep charge of his people, and even make the decisions on how the farm is run, we just are going to be part of it. Hell, I would even let him keep his zombie barn, as long as we help make it secure. If a gaurd is posted, their really would be no danger, I make it clear to H that if they get out they are getting a lead lobotomy right away regardless of his feelings.

Again, I dont think the farm would anywhere near as secure as they have made it out to be, but if it is, I am not taking my loved ones back out into the world where violent sudden death lurks.

[krisvds]

(and this is one of the problems I have had with this season, I love the show but I think they are really losing the stark terror and feel of the apocalypse). In the situation as it would really be, they have (or at least should have) been so frayed and worn down by the sheer terror of seeing the world die and living every minute in mortal terror of being killed and eaten for so long now, remember two people elected to die in a firebomb rather than face existing in the world as it is, and Andrea wanted to herself.
Now they are in a situation where the farm seems to be virtually safe, they have power, lights, and can sleep relaxed! I dont think you could convince any group of people to just 'move on' from that.

Again, I dont think the farm would anywhere near as secure as they have made it out to be, but if it is, I am not taking my loved ones back out into the world where violent sudden death lurks.

Agreed. It's the main problem with a series I am enjoying quite a bit. Not as much as 'it's the best thing since Day! people', but still ...
As a fan of the comic I have no problem with them changing things around a bit and i am well aware that the books have their fair share of 'hooking up' moments. It's just that the format is leading them down television soap opera road just a bit too much; they shouldn't make a carbon copy of the comics but they should try and capture it's overall atmosphere a bit more. The books are way more tense and grim than the cosyness of some of these past episodes. It took more risks with what is considered 'good storytelling.'
I crave some human drama in this genre but what we have now is just a bit too much. I don't need zombie action every five minutes but characters dealing with this apocalypse should be, I don't know, more scared. I could do with more horror in my zombie show, and that is more than just gorey moments every episode and shoot-outs.

[shootemindehead]

Agree with everything that's said about the safety of whole situation. In fact, the zombie apoc in 'The Walking Dead' seems quite pleasant at times.

Even if they had the odd walker (or two) drift by the farm, it would go some way to inject a bit of unease into the "farm sequence". At the moment, the lack of threat is a bit silly. Even if the characters mentioned the fact that farm seemed to be unusually safe, it would at least be an acknowledgment of the, seemingly, extraordinary situation.

[AcesandEights]

Agree with everything that's said about the safety of whole situation. In fact, the zombie apoc in 'The Walking Dead' seems quite pleasant at times.

Even if they had the odd walker (or two) drift by the farm, it would go some way to inject a bit of unease into the "farm sequence". At the moment, the lack of threat is a bit silly. Even if the characters mentioned the fact that farm seemed to be unusually safe, it would at least be an acknowledgment of the, seemingly, extraordinary situation.

It is odd that when the show has teeth, it goes at it with pretty grisly abandon, but then they lull it down, one would assume for the sake of the audience and to be able to tell an actual story, but in so doing they go a bit too far, get lax in the writing and take the realistic fear out of their own world. When they go into this mode it almost reminds me more of the cosy catastrophe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalyptic_and_post-apocalyptic_fiction#Cosy_catastrophe) brand of the apocalyptic genre, as opposed to a grim zombie apocalypse.

Still, the show as a whole blows most of what we've seen on film and certainly TV (of course) the last 10 + years (maybe 20+???) out of the water for zombie goodness.

[bassman]

Maybe it's because I live in the area that the show takes place, but the lack of walkers on the farm makes sense to me. There are totally isolated farm houses around here. True, a few could trickle in or even a herd in a worst case scenario(which we will see eventually), but this is a rural country farm.....it's not the city. Nowhere near the city, for that matter. They may make Atlanta and surrounding areas seem huge on the show, but in reality it's actually very small and not over populated, imo.

Plus the lack of walkers gives the show time to furter develop the living characters. Many people complained about a lack of character development in the first season and this season seems to be doing that in spades. Also as Rick says....the farm is seemingly a miracle.

[Wyldwraith]

Agree that the "fluctuating safety levels" can be a bit atmosphere-eroding,
As someone who lives in a rural suburban area, I can understand how an area could become rather isolated even if common sense might SEEM to indicate it wouldn't be. For example, my house is only 9 miles down a side-road that leads directly onto one of the main thoroughfares through Central Florida. However, as you travel along that side road, you notice right off the bat that there are 3 and 4 mile gaps between housing subdivisions. That may not seem like a huge amount of distance, but on the other hand what would cause a herd of Walkers to become stimulated to shamble en masse up a slight incline for 4 miles of empty wooded lots on either side of the 2-lane road? Sure, it could happen, but its not nearly as likely as say, a herd moving along an Interstate area adjacent to a major metropolitan area's limits.

You don't need to go forty miles as the crow flies from my house to get to horse farm country, where you have 1 house sitting on 10-40 acres every few miles down mile-long gated driveways that open out onto a gravel road running past these farm properties. Out in that area, I would have a difficult time believing that a mass of zombies might actually make it all the way down the mile-long driveway in more than some very unusual circumstances. So, the idea that a farm could be simultaneously "isolated" and (relatively speaking) near a major thoroughfare (traveling by car I mean) isn't a major stretch for me based on my own personal experience living in this area to believe that other than the occasional 1-3 isolated zombies popping up now and again, months could easily go by without a significant influx of Walkers. The bottom line of all this being that I agree sprawling, spread-out farms could easily end up mainly undead-free for significant periods of time even if said farms weren't really far off the beaten track.

[MinionZombie]

Another good episode. Thoughts:

1) We don't know specifically how many geeks are in the barn, but as Maggie says two of them are specifically in her family, then at least two are neighbours, so it would never have been a mass of zombies together - it would have been people they've lost over the weeks, and random shamblers that happened by the place.

2) Regarding Lori's pregnany and Rick - hmmm ... there's two ways to read the scene. Either Jenner did tell Rick that Lori was pregnant and his conversation with Lori in 2x06 was more about the issue of trust between him and Lori ... or Jenner said something else. It could be that he saw what Shane tried to do in that room ... but then why has Rick done nothing about it thus far, and why has he been on friendly terms (most of the time anyway) with Shane? Perhaps he doesn't want to believe it? Or could it be something else?

3) Glenn - more great Glenn moments - he provides a nice bit of comic relief, but not overtly so, rather he makes for a very accessible character amidst all this craziness.

4) Drug Store zombie - awesome.

5) Dale vs Shane - oooooooooh.

6) The housing estate - a basic theory for future episodes:
Perhaps they have to move there after 2x07 - the preview suggests that the zombies are unleashed and all hell breaks loose - I'd think therefore that Herschel would demand they leave and so they head there (bringing Maggie with them at least) and try to make a go of it there and clear the place out a bit. However they'd find that they can't stay there and then they have to move on - and that brings them to the prison by the end of the season.

7) The house estate in general - very cool - some spiffing horror moments in there, and hooray, we finally get Andrea the gunslinger. :)

8) Speaking of which - blimey - Andrea's forward, isn't she?! :lol:

9) Goddamn, Sophia's still missing ... they must surely conclude this arc in 2x07 - surely?!

10) I don't know about you folks in America, but here in the UK the announcers kept saying "Darryl tries to make it back to the farm alive" in episode preview statements - so I don't know what went on there, but someone messed up the info for the announcers - you're only a week late, mate. :rolleyes::p

...

I'm going to watch the mid-season finale ahead of my usual schedule - I want to avoid spoilers as much as possible, plus being a mid-season finale you know it's gonna be huge. Although I'd still end up watching it on Friday again anyway to register my official support.

[bassman]

It could be that he saw what Shane tried to do in that room ... but then why has Rick done nothing about it thus far, and why has he been on friendly terms (most of the time anyway) with Shane? Perhaps he doesn't want to believe it? Or could it be something else?

If Jenner did indeed tell Rick about Shane and Lori's talk in the CDC, maybe Rick is playing it as a "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" kind of thing? Or maybe it's exactly as Rick says. She thought he was dead and he can understand why they hooked up?

Kevin Smith nailed it on Talking Dead, though. He thought (paraphrase)"No guy would ever respond like that after his woman says she was sleeping with his best friend! I immediately had to rewind the episode to the opening credits and sure enough....it was written by a woman." :lol:

[MinionZombie]

Haha! Didn't even notice that it was written by a woman. :p

Although it does ring true to Rick's character from the comics...

In Volume 7 or 8, can't remember which, Lori finally confirms to Rick that she and Shane got jiggy way-back-when, but he already figured as much and didn't want her to actually say the words ... Volume 8 being as far as I've gotten through the trade paperbacks.

Now - if that Kirkman quote you spoke of earlier could be indeed true, then it might have something to do with Shane. The pregnancy thing has already been handled - well, in terms of revealing it anyway - and it was more of a 'dun-dun-dun' moment a few episodes ago (at least, for those who haven't gotten that far in the comics) ... and it sounds like he seemed to suggest that it will change the show, or have a big impact on it - which might suggest, well, I'm not entirely sure.

I do love this anticipation of finding out though - it's great that the show itself has plenty of surprises for those that have read the corresponding comics.

[erisi236]

You'd kind of think they would have stopped sleeping outdoors after what happened in their last encampment where they lost like 30% of their crew.

Being mobile seems to me to be the ideal solution, you stay in one spot too long and you end up like in Resident Evil: Afterlife, the remaining people were in one place while the entire cities worth of ghouls were right outside the door forcing them into an inescapable situation. At least in that movie they lived in a pretty good stronghold, just living in a tent in the same spot night after night seems a bit insane.

[Ultra Magnus]

If anyone wants to read what happens on tonights show here is the link. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TheWatchtower/news/?a=50184&t=New_Info_Surfaces_Revealing_MAJOR_Spoilers_for_T he_Walking_Dead_Episode_207

[Wyldwraith]

I've given this episode some more thought due to the Season 2 marathon today,
Here's what I can't get past. Even if one agrees that violence isn't a suitable response to Herschel's unwavering demand(s) that Rick and Co. leave, then what IS an appropriate response? Other than simply capitulating to Herschel exiling the group from his property. I just CAN'T accept that anyone who has been through everything this group of TWD-survivors has gone through would willingly just go: "Oh OK Herschel. We'll take off in the morning."

Rick's repeated pleas for Herschel to reconsider his decision have obviously been truly sincere, deeply heartfelt, and more than a little tinged with the desperation Rick is experiencing. Being able to honestly say to himself that he's exhausted every "diplomatic" option, and despite this Herschel is absolutely adamant, how is Rick supposed to react to that completely unfeeling ultimatum's effect on the group if not with violence?

Responding "Then move on" just seems like a cop-out to me. Lori has made that desperate "YOU NEED TO FIX THIS!" declaration to Rick about Herschel's not-subtle statement that "you'll be moving on soon." Rick has so far only really confided in Lori about Herschel's intentions, and then only because of Herschel pushing the issue with her. If Rick is finding it very difficult to even broach the subject of leaving the farm with the other members of the group, how much MORE DIFFICULT would/will it be to essentially "blindside" everyone but Lori with the "sudden" (to the members of his group) announcement that they have to leave, and they've got to leave NOW?

I'm genuinely trying to relate to the reasonable thought-processes of those who see these circumstances so differently than I do. These people are having enough trouble keeping it together AT THE FARM, and I feel that's directly attributable to "apocalypse fatigue". Simply put, they've been through more terror in a few weeks than in their entire previous lives. Then the farm became the proverbial lifeline thrown to people "drowning" in their fear of the future, the horrors they know all too well are waiting for them back out in the world, and their sheer exhaustion at alternating between keyed up anxiety and complacency that keeps getting them nailed, and hard.

Some have said they wouldn't do anything violent, but they'd simply refuse to leave. How would that work, practically speaking? Herschel already perceives everyone who was at the well to be a "murderer" because of his delusion that Walkers are simply sick people. How do we know this? He SAID SO to Dale! Comparing what he called the "atrocities" he saw on TV (of Walkers being put down) directly to what happened with the Walker at the well. Would it be that much of a jump for a man who a) Literally does not care if the group lives or dies, and b) Considers them all to be "murderers" or accomplices to said "murdering" to be the one who resorted to violence if his obsessive need to control was challenged by the group's refusal to leave?

Bottom line, I just don't get how one can make a supposedly "moral" argument that one group can demand another group throw themselves back into a more dangerous environment/situation than their (currently) safe environment. "First come, first serve" doesn't strike me as terribly moral. And for the record: Yes, if I was demanding that another group increase the danger to themselves on my say-so, because it's my property, I would expect such a group to do whatever they thought necessary to avoid being thrust back into danger. My idea of morality doesn't include being in a half-full lifeboat and not going back to rescue people on the brink of drowning "because they might overturn the lifeboat."

That's just me though. I don't understand this, but I'm really trying here.

[Ragnarr]

What helps to confuse the situation of the characters remaining on Hershel's farm is that Rick and Hershel seem to be acknowledging basic property rights that in my opinion no longer exist. It WAS Hershel's farm before the collapse of society, but what is it now considering that there is no longer law? The farm has basically become a conflict between a moralistic point of view versus a survivalist one.