The Shane Topic..

[krisvds]

Great episode and great mid season finale, i cant wait until February now.

Agree with alot of the comments here except i find myself defending Shane again, i really don't think he's the bad guy and i don't know exactly why alot of you seem to think he is? To me, Shane is the most down to earth person out of the entire group, when they left atlanta at the end of season 1..

i was quite pissed off that they had kept shane and not run into tyreese, who i guess would be shanes replacement in the group in the comics..

..but ive really come to like him as season 2 has progressed and im with him all the way now, like i said, he is the most realistic and down to earth character out of the entire group, also id really like to see dale get it. He just really comes across as an arrogant prick who has on several occassions endangered the group just to fulfill his own selfish ends. I hope they write him out seeing as nobody is safe and id be satisfied to see shane do it.

Wouldn't some who haven't read the comics consider that to be a spoiler?

Anyways, people not liking Shane has probably got something to do with him considering gunning down his best friend in season 1. That and using Otis as live zombie bait. Shane isn't evil just yet but clearly has some 'anger management issues.' Wouldn't surprise me if he split the entire group in two over a 'follow Rick or shane' dilemma. Straight into classic Romero 'man's inability to communicate properly is a worse threat than the undead' territory. Let's hope they stop stalling and just ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEtm_Q2LK9g

[Andy]

Wouldn't some who haven't read the comics consider that to be a spoiler?

Anyways, people not liking Shane has probably got something to do with him considering gunning down his best friend in season 1. That and using Otis as live zombie bait. Shane isn't evil just yet but clearly has some 'anger management issues.' Wouldn't surprise me if he split the entire group in two over a 'follow Rick or shane' dilemma. Straight into classic Romero 'man's inability to communicate properly is a worse threat than the undead' territory. Let's hope they stop stalling and just ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEtm_Q2LK9g

Point taken about the spoiler, and fixed.. i didnt even consider that so sorry guys.

Anyway, i dont see shanes acts as evil, it has been a while since i sat down and watched season 1 i admit but i have to say i dont think shane had any real intentions of killing rick, there was a alot of conflicting emotion in there.. Shanes dedication to his best friend, his love for lori and his position as leader of the group which rick takes from him.. He's gonna be pissed off at rick, i can understand that and he points his gun at rick and thinks about it, but would he have pulled the trigger? I honestly doubt it. Look at the way he handled dale in 2x07.. He had him in a position in the swamp where they dont go, hella pissed off at him.. dale actually threatening to kill shane by pointing a gun in his chest and shane walks away, he dosnt even beat him.

Remember the discussion from the episode where shane kills otis, it was said that shanes act was of necessity and not malice, He and otis where both injured badly, both almost out of ammo and the zombies where gaining on them, they where still a good distance from their truck too. Shane knew the zombies needed to be slowed down and he actually told otis to go on ahead and leave him before, he even gave otis the bag but he refused to leave him so shane did what he needed to to survive. I honestly believe if he had not pegged otis and left him to be eaten then both of them would have been killed and carl would have died during his surgery. Not an evil act, not the most honorable act either but necessary and would i do the same to you if me and you where in that position? Hell yes i would.

At the end of the day, i dont get the cold blooded vibe from him at all.. He seems like a realistic guy doing what he thinks he needs to survive but also quite vulnerable at times, unlike daryl who just seems to be some kind of robot or any of the others who seem almost as deluded and unwilling to do the nesscessary as herschel.

[Trin]

At the end of the day, i dont get the cold blooded vibe from him at all.. He seems like a realistic guy doing what he thinks he needs to survive but also quite vulnerable at times, unlike daryl who just seems to be some kind of robot or any of the others who seem almost as deluded and unwilling to do the nesscessary as herschel.Shane is definitely one of the most interesting and layered characters in the series. I've enjoyed his character progression. But I can't agree that he's a good guy just doing what needs to be done. That's part of it, but there's more to it than that.

Shane is at times duplicitous, aggressive, and self-serving. At other times he is brave, loyal, and selfless. I think he genuinely cares for Carl more than anyone in the show, and would do just about anything to protect him. I also think he is trying very hard to be a good and loyal follower of Rick, often supporting him in spite of his violent disagreement with Rick's choices. I was actually very encouraged that they had the big argument in the forest. That needed to happen to blow some of Shane's steam off.

But Shane is cracking at the seams and that makes him unpredictable and risky. His allegiance to Rick is the ONLY thing keeping him from making really cold hearted choices. Rick is the only one Shane will defer to in any way. And Dale is right in that Shane is surviving by sacrificing too much of his humanity.

If you take every character's actions and have complete 100% disclosure to the group of everything they've done, Shane comes out very badly. I think the group would see the actual events surrounding Otis' death as horrific and intolerable, but more than that, the fact that he lied about it would cause so much distrust of Shane that it would tear them apart. If the actions were justified (even if they were horrific) then he wouldn't have to lie about it.

On the flip side, Dale would have some explaining to do, but his motivations are more in line with the group's, his actions less easily condemned, and he will look you right in the eye and tell you what he did and why when he's called on it.

[Wyldwraith]

While I don't believe Shane is "evil", I DO believe the man has a growing capacity for violence and the justification of "immoral acts",
Not inherently evil, but it demonstrates a worrying predisposition and vulnerability to BECOMING evil if the pressure doesn't ease off. Shane is a mirror in a lot of ways, reflecting back the immoral decisions of other group members as tangible consequences.

For instance, a lot of people point to Shane's veiled (and not so veiled in the swamp) threats made to Dale. Yet it seems like the same people are inclined to forget that Dale has aggressively come at Shane with some hardcore accusations and judgments, followed by Shane being confronted with Dale's hypocrisy as he does something that could have very well seriously endangered the group, but at the same time is judging Shane as a monster because he's insistent on countermanding Dale.

Dale hiding the guns....the various ways that could have gone wrong had Shane not tracked him down and taken the guns back.
1) (Most obvious) Dale is OLD. Given the constant pressure and emotional roller-coaster they're all on 24/7, Dale could suddenly have a massive heart attack or stroke. Men far younger than Dale, and in MUCH BETTER health have dropped dead jogging (something they did every day, that was that individual's "normal"). What if Dale had been given the opportunity to announce that "for the good of the group" he's hidden the guns & ammo, and will only reveal the location when the danger of being evicted from the farm is past? They live in a VERY dangerous world, and it's not unreasonable to say that Dale might very well seem fine one minute and be gone the next. Just recently a dear friend's childhood friend of 15yrs, a 25yr old woman in perfect health, not overweight, and with no preexisting medical conditions played a major role in the setup for her own baby shower that day (she was 7+ months along)...and was bright-eyed and bushy-tailed the entire shower. Even after helping with the extensive clean-up, my friend's pregnant friend still felt well enough to drive my friend the 40 mins back to her place, and 40 mins back to her own home.

7 hours later, said pregnant friend awakened her husband and hurriedly informed him he needed to take her to the hospital because of the severe pain which had awakened her and the spotting that was happening. Inside of 15 mins they were at the hospital, where she was rushed into preparations for a C-section after a quick ultrasound and fetal heart monitor indicated her unborn child was in distress. Tragically...beyond tragically, her son was stillborn...and my friend's friend was moved to Recovery to wait for her to wake up after the anesthesia wore off.

She never woke up. It was a massive cerebral hemmorhage that came out of nowhere. Nothing anyone could've done to see it coming, and nothing they could do once she coded.

That was a woman in perfect health, young and strong, and in a modern hospital...and still she passed on. ;(
My point is that survivors of a global catastrophe after all infrastructure has collapsed are vastly more vulnerable than my dear friend's friend was to a lethal health complication occurring. When you add the ADDITIONAL vulnerabilities/complications brought on by age it isn't an exaggeration to say that Dale could simply not wake up ever again after any given day. Then where would the group have been with the location of 95% of their guns and ammo having died with 1 old man...in the face of the major invasion the previews seem to be indicating?

Shane had EVERY RIGHT to be FURIOUS with Dale for taking such a chance with all their lives. Yet (as someone else pointed out) Shane did nothing but mouth off a bit and take the guns/ammo back from Dale. Hardly the hallmark of a bloodthirsty psychopath...

[SymphonicX]

Shane's actions in ep 7 were obviously justified but let's not forget poor Otis - he shot the dude and left him for zombie food - that is evil in itself.

[Andy]

Shane's actions in ep 7 were obviously justified but let's not forget poor Otis - he shot the dude and left him for zombie food - that is evil in itself.

Would you rather shane had allowed himself, otis and carl to all die by trying to do the "right" thing?

I Honestly dont see his act as evil. It sucks for otis but it was nesscessary and shane knew it.

[Wyldwraith]

Agreed,
What Shane did to Otis was (partially) self-serving, but because Shane tried first to get Otis to take the supplies and go on without him, Shane's subsequent shooting/using Otis as a decoy IS justifiable with a young boy's life hanging in the balance and the emotional/psychological stability of the group's leader and his wife tied to that precariously-hanging life. As someone else implied, I will outright state: Shane doing the so-called "right thing" and just hobbling onward as the zombies continue to close the intervening distance ends with Shane, Otis & Carl all dead, and Rick/Lori shattered. Shane TRIED to exercise his only other alternative, by trying to said Otis on ahead. When Otis refused, Shane was left with no other viable choice (besides DEATH) than to do what he did. I tend to judge an action morally based upon its outcome, and believe that in certain desperate survival situations the ends can indeed justify the means. Shane's decision saved 2 lives that otherwise would've been lost, and preserved Rick & Lori's emotional/psychological stability, at a net loss of one man who was offered an alternative but refused to make the difficult choice the circumstances demanded.

Put more simply: What Shane did to Otis isn't admirable, but neither is it evil. Intent decides the moral context of any action taken. Shane's intent was to get the desperately-needed medical supplies to the man who could save his friend's son's life...a son that Shane has paternal feelings of his own for. Had Shane not made the offer to Otis for him to go on ahead, I might perceive Shane's ultimate decision differently. Yet he DID make the offer, so I view it as a terrible choice borne of grim necessity. Shane's actions at the barn are much the same. He TRIED to let Rick work it out. When his anxiety rose, Shane took his concerns back to Rick and renewed his voicing of those concerns. Again Rick told Shane to essentially sit tight and let him handle things with Herschel.

Then, after days of inconclusive back-and-forth, the stressful and very screwed up events that precipitated the barn being opened went down. Here again we saw Shane trying to let the other man make the hard choice so he doesn't have to do something extreme. Like Otis, Rick refused to make the tough calls. Wrangling Walkers across the grounds of Herschel's farm after everything that had so recently happened seemed to me to be Rick's way of saying he was willing to abdicate pretty much any and all authority to Herschel to purchase a place on the farm for him and his.

I think a lot of us would have found ourselves, were we in the situation the survivors find themselves in, and having experienced what they've experienced, affected deeply by the revelation that the barn a stone's through from where they're camping out has almost as many Walkers in it as the deadly assault on their earlier campsite. Under those circumstances, what doesn't make sense to anyone here? Accepting a firearm with which to defend yourself in case something goes wrong with Rick and Herschel's zombie-wrangling, doing away with said zombie threat rather than adding to it? I think most people couldn't and wouldn't, having experienced the previous campsite attack, be comfortable under ANY circumstances with a rickety barn full of zombies very near where they sleep outside of any secured shelter.

[Andy]

http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/65.gif

Could not have explained the situation better myself Wyld.

Imho shane isnt evil at all but he is the most realistic character out of the entire group, also by far the best written and deepest character too. He has quickly become my favourite character this season.

[babomb]

Would you rather shane had allowed himself, otis and carl to all die by trying to do the "right" thing?

I Honestly dont see his act as evil. It sucks for otis but it was nesscessary and shane knew it. That's my take on it as well. I don't see Shane as an "evil-doer" either. His ways are hard-edged. When you look at it through Shanes eyes, Otis shot Carl so if someone had to die to save Carl it should've been Otis. It's not like Shane and Otis were in a position to stop and discuss the situation. In all reality, Otis didn't have much of a chance to make it on his own even if Shane had sacrificed himself. Not a gamble Shane was gonna make. If they were to make it back with the medical supplies it was gonna be up to Shane to make that happen. Otis would've likely fallen behind anyway before they got to the truck. Then Shane would've had to go back and get the pack that Otis was carrying, and the chances would've been great that Shane would've been taken down as well. Which would've meant Carl would've died also, in all likelyhood. So Shane was forced to make a decision during an extremely stressful situation where there wasn't time to weigh out every option and no room for error. So Shane did what he felt he had to do. It's not like he smile killed Otis. He also apologized before he shot him. Not that an apology means much in that situation. It just shows that it wasn't something he wanted to do or liked doing. Then in the next episode he tells Andrea that during those types of situations you fall back on instinct, and when someone's gonna die you better make sure you're the one that's making that decision, you "flip the switch" and then deal with your decision later. He also says he hasn't gotten the "deal with your decision later" part down so well. Which means his conscience bothers him.
I also keep seeing people say that Shane is "coming apart at the seams" or "falling off the deep end". I don't see that either. IMO, seeing Shane as evil or coming apart at the seams, sounds more like a knee jerk reaction to the characters actions rather than an honest assesment of the man himself...

[Neil]

Shane is breaking, but he's breaking out of the shackles that aren't necessarily applicable in the new world order!

[MinionZombie]

I see Shane as a character who is done/nearly done evil things for selfish/psychotic reasons, and who has done evil things for the right reasons.

In the extreme harsh reality of the situation, sacrificing Otis did save both him and most importantly Carl, and if he hadn't all three would have died. On the other hand, that action has taken away a piece of his soul and a piece of his conscience that I don't think he'll ever get back. That harsh practicality fed into him flipping his lid at the end of 2x07 - the lesson he was teaching Herschel was right, but the method was wrong, but then again sometimes you need a bulldozer to knock down a wall - and that harsh practicality was challenged when he saw 'Zophia', who was the very embodiment of his harsh words and thinking. His reaction spoke a lot about his inner being at that point - he saw the reality of his own words, and you saw the humanity return to his face (and in turn Rick's belief system and dedication to a cause - that of Sophia - was completely challenged and forced him to be the only one to put the poor girl down).

Shane's attempted rape of Lori in 1x06 - now that's a strange one - he was coveting his best friend's wife, he didn't inform her that he was still alive in the hospital (a convenient white lie), and he folded to temptation to get what he wanted (Lori) ... then he's very clearly rejected by Lori, and he gets all in a state and does something very foolish, stopping just short of crossing the line entirely.

The breaking point in Shane is coming. It hasn't arrived yet, but it will soon - perhaps by the end of the season (something big must surely be coming after the sucker punch in 2x07) - and so we're witnessing this internal struggle. He isn't the evil one ... yet ... but he's done numerous things for selfish reasons, and bad things for right reasons, or right things in the wrong way. His moral code is much more confused than that of Rick - who is doggedly sticking to an old world ideology, which is both a help and a hindrance. Rick is trying to keep an important part of them alive, while Shane doesn't realise that in all his fighting for survival he's losing everything that's worth fighting for in the first place. In a way his reaction is somewhat animalistic - meaning is becoming absent, and it's turning into pure instinct ... ... pure motorised instinct, if you will. :sneaky::D

In summary - it's wrong to out-right condemn him, but it's equally wrong to out-right support him.

Out of Rick and Shane though - who would I pledge allegiance to in that situation? Rick, most definitely, but this is also from a position of knowing the full facts of what Shane has done, and sitting quite comfortably in front of a computer. :D

[krisvds]

Well put. Shane is going to crack.
I myself would side with Andrea. ;)

[Andy]

Out of Rick and Shane though - who would I pledge allegiance to in that situation? Rick, most definitely, but this is also from a position of knowing the full facts of what Shane has done, and sitting quite comfortably in front of a computer. :D


Interesting point there and i think thay would make a great topic by itself.

Given the same choice i would pledge allegiance to Shane. I honestly beleive Rick would get me killed.

[AcesandEights]

Given the same choice i would pledge allegiance to Shane. I honestly believe Rick would get me killed.

Nah, Rick would get killed for you and Shane would be more likely to kill you.

That said, we need a well thought out, but not overly complex poll about Shane or possibly Shane vs. Rick as a leader.

[Legion2213]

Nah, Rick would get killed for you and Shane would be more likely to kill you.

That said, we need a well thought out, but not overly complex poll about Shane or possibly Shane vs. Rick as a leader.

This. If you were in a bad situation, Rick would go balls out to save you, Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers.

Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes.

[AcesandEights]

Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers.

Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes.

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't say he's that bad. He has highly dangerous tendencies and slants towards amoral and selfish behavior, and has been written to be the guy torn apart by doing what he feels needs to be done to keep himself, and to some extent the rest of the the group, alive even if that means doing things no one else is willing to (or at least this is what he tells himself).

To me, he just goes too far too often too easily.

[Andy]

This. If you were in a bad situation, Rick would go balls out to save you, Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers.

Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes.
I Dont think its fair at all to compare Shane to captain rhodes, for one Shane genuinely cares for members of his group, particularly Carl (as has been mentioned) and volunteered to save the boys hide without a seconds thought. Shane also, i believe, showed genuine restraint when dealing with dale in the swamp. Personally if it was me, i would of been beating his old ass all over the place. He's no rhodes by a long shot.

Rick as the groups leader on the other hand i genuinely believe would willingly endanger my life for his own purposes, as we've seen with the group in season 2. We all knew sophia was dead, we have been saying for weeks on here and several members of the group have hinted at it. after 72 hours they are looking for a body and that was before the zompocalypse hit. Rick felt guilty about losing sophia out in the woods and i think alot of the prolonged search for her was down to his personal guilt and wanting to redeem himself in the groups eyes. There are several examples of this behaviour in the comics aswell but i wont go into that as i dont know how much youve read.

Shane would kill a injured (otis) or dangerous (ed) member of the group if their presence endangered the rest of the group. He is not a cold blooded killer or else both rick and dale would be dead now. He's had motive and opportunity at them both.
Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience.

Thats why im going with shane.

[AcesandEights]

Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience.
I certainly won't deny that's a possibility based on his actions this season! He just needs some seasoning. Get him a little more toughened up, like Shane, but without Shane's head start into the wilderness of amorality.

[Andy]

I certainly won't deny that's a possibility based on his actions this season! He just needs some seasoning. Get him a little more toughened up, like Shane, but without Shane's head start into the wilderness of amorality.

I Thought of this after i typed my post out, but i think a fairer comparison to GAR characters here would be Ben and Cooper from NOTLD.

Rick, like Ben, beleives that what he is doing is right and has nothing but good intentions and acts on his conscience. but ultimately his actions will lead to the demise of the group.
Shane, like Cooper, Also beleives what he is doing is right but is alot more forceful and aggressive, as a result people see him as the villain. but ultimately, he is actually right. What he wants to do is sensible.

I Think thats fairer than calling Shane "Rhodes".

[AcesandEights]

I Think thats fairer than calling Shane "Rhodes".

I agree that's probably an unfortunate comparison...at least at this point (though it could be said Shane lost it at the barn and had a bit of Rhodes moment, but I still think that was more of a Roger moment).

Ben and Cooper is a better comparison, though I don't think either of them was expressly correct then and I don't think Shane or Rick are without fault in their choices. More to the point as...Krisvds or Sammich pointed out some pages back, they could tackle a lot more by coming at things from a more reasonable and communicative approach.

Just with Ben and Cooper, there's a whole stretch of middle ground often overlooked.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's one element of what "went wrong with Shane" in the finale that hasn't been touched on to any great extent,
Shane looked to Rick REPEATEDLY for an answer/resolution to the Walkers-in-the-barn situation, and instead of communicating in any meaningful way with Shane or really anyone else from their group besides Lori (who due to certain emotional factors is currently overcompensating by supporting Rick 150% as a knee-jerk reaction), Rick has been communicating with Herschel, doing things to "prove himself" to Herschel, and all while telling the people who are trusting him with their lives by looking to Rick as leader what amounts to "I'll get back to you on that, after I talk to Herschel again."

Unlike the others in the group (except Daryl in an equal but very different way) Shane is the only man whose conduct is exemplifying the old military saying "A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow." Rick knows this quite well, as they've argued over the very predisposition of Shane's before, and how it conflicts with the way Rick thinks things should be done. Possessing intimate knowledge of how Shane looks at decision-making in the post-apocalyptic environment means that RICK is the proximate cause of what Shane did at the barn.

Why? It's as simple as this. Having already been told on at least 3 other occasions in a 48hr period "I'll get back to you on that after I talk with Herschel again"....Rick has NO excuse to fail to understand what a VERY serious overt act that indicates AT LEAST passive compliance with Herschel's delusions about the nature of the Walkers would be perceived as by Shane under those specific circumstances. Rick tells Shane over and over basically "Sit tight, I'm handling this" in response to Shane's grave concerns about the proximity of a great many Walkers to their unsecured campsite. So (at least initially) Shane trusts Rick and sits tight. As a result of trusting Rick's judgment, Shane witnesses Rick being willing to CONTINUE risking all their lives to appease Herschel's delusional decision-making. From there, what happens at the barn is simply another example of Shane seeing the situation as a "do or die moment", and Shane decides to take matters into his own hands because he (rightly) feels that Rick's misguided good intentions are steadily increasing the danger to all of them.

It bears remembering that Rick, Herschel and the teen from Herschel's group seemed (because Herschel wanted it that way, as we see in his turning down Andrea's offer of help in favor of taking just Rick) intent on completing the zombie-wrangling without anyone else's involvement. Shane has a rough idea that there are around 20 Walkers already in the barn. Is it unreasonable to believe that it's POSSIBLE Shane took such drastic action because he felt that the act of zombie wrangling occurring constituted a threat by potentially releasing the Walkers if the wrangling went wrong?

Viewer's perspective note: Shane didn't see this, but WE saw NUMEROUS instances of (possible) bites, and potential losses of control of the catch-poles, and by extension the Walkers on their ends as Rick, Herschel and that kid struggled to get the Walkers out of the bog. Is it so unreasonable for a person whose looking to another to resolve what he sees as an ongoing danger to himself and others to take matters into his own hands upon viewing as seemingly crazy an operation as trying to manhandle Walkers where you want them to go for the first time?

[Trin]

I don't necessarily think that Shane's actions with Otis were unjustified, and maybe not evil, but the man has shown a tendency to hide his actions, and his moral code has some warts when there's no accountability to the group. I'd feel a whole lot differently about Shane if he showed an ounce of remorse. That's really it right there. He shows no remorse.

I don't get how people can excuse Shane and condemn Dale. If we're okay with Shane shooting Otis in the leg and leaving him for zombie food because it's the "tough choice" to save lives... then why is it wrong for Dale to coerce Andrea to leave the CDC and thus save her life? We are starting to see shades of her expressing a desire to live now. And the notion of keeping the guns out of Andrea's hands should seem a lot different now that she shot Darryl in the head. His decisons have been very much in the category of making tough choices to protect/save lives.

The big decision of Dale's that I think was awful judgement was hiding the guns. And personally, I think that decision would've been a fine one had he told someone else of his plans to do so. I agree with Wyld that no single person should have that knoweldge given how easy it is for any one of them to die with it. But really, would Dale have tried to hide the guns at all if Shane hadn't caused him to think he was about to do something aggressive? Dale's concerns were clearly justified because as soon as Shane got the guns back he went and did something aggressive, so even that decision wasn't a bad one from the perspective of his instincts being right or wrong.

I think that if Shane were ever in a position to save Dale or let Dale die, and there were no witnesses or ways to determine what happened... he'd let Dale die without a second's thought. And I think that goes for several others of the group.

Personally, I hope Otis shambles into the farm with a bullet hole in his kneecap. Let's see Shane explain that.

[Thorn]

I dunno Trin I think there is a big difference between talking someone into living instead of throwing their lives away and killing a guy who is trying to help you in cold blood. I may be missing you point but that just seems like a night and day situation.

[krisvds]

I dunno Trin I think there is a big difference between talking someone into living instead of throwing their lives away and killing a guy who is trying to help you in cold blood. I may be missing you point but that just seems like a night and day situation.

I don't know, seems like Trin's question is valid? Why do some condemn Dale for a moral choice involving saving someone's life (be it against her will) but excuse Shane for killing Otis to save Carl's life (and his own)?
In the end both acts can be seen as ultimately altruistic and/completely selfish. I am enjoying this moral ambiguity in the series a lot, it's classic TWD. That route has more 'drama' (look the ongoing discussions here)cthan the standard soap fare it can sometimes dish out as well.

[babomb]

I'd feel a whole lot differently about Shane if he showed an ounce of remorse. That's really it right there. He shows no remorse. That might come down to what you consider to qualify as showing remorse. Because it seems obvious to me that Shane feels remorse for the Otis thing at least. Which is really the only deed that he should feel remorse for. There was the scene in the bathroom, then his discussion with Andrea. Which IMO, showed that he is capable of remorse and does feel it. People show and feel remorse in different ways. Shane might not be brought to tears over it, or allow it to overtake him, but that doesn't exactly indicate an absolute lack of remorse. This holds true in real life. People don't always respond to emotion just as we would, or as we expect them to or prefer them to. I'm one of those kinds of people. I don't show emotion overtly, and I'm terrible at verbalizing emotion. This doesn't mean I'm not capable of it or feel it less than others. It just means my response to it is different.


I don't get how people can excuse Shane and condemn Dale. If we're okay with Shane shooting Otis in the leg and leaving him for zombie food because it's the "tough choice" to save lives... then why is it wrong for Dale to coerce Andrea to leave the CDC and thus save her life? We are starting to see shades of her expressing a desire to live now. And the notion of keeping the guns out of Andrea's hands should seem a lot different now that she shot Darryl in the head. His decisons have been very much in the category of making tough choices to protect/save lives. Carl was an innocent child shot by accident, not an adult that chose to die in order to escape the world they live in. What Dale did was take away Andreas choice that was by all rights hers to make. He did this not because she was "accidentally" put in harms way and otherwise wanted to live, but because he didn't want her to die because of his own personal reasons. He also did it in a shifty way by making her responsible for his death should she choose to end her own life.
Shane did what he did because he saw it as the only way for either one of them to survive and bring back needed medical supplies to save a childs life who didn't choose to die. Otis understood that the chances were good that he may not make it back alive from that mission. He chose to do it anyway because he felt it was his responsibility because he shot Carl.
Andrea shooting Daryl was more of an indication that she needed to be properly trained in using firearms, not that she shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon. It's not like those are Dale's guns and he's reserving the right to choose who he gives them to or who he allows to have access to them. That was Andreas sidearm and nobody else had the right to say she couldn't have it. Realistically, that would be a situation that has a person like Dale coughing up his balls or spittin out his teeth.


The big decision of Dale's that I think was awful judgement was hiding the guns. And personally, I think that decision would've been a fine one had he told someone else of his plans to do so. I agree with Wyld that no single person should have that knoweldge given how easy it is for any one of them to die with it. But really, would Dale have tried to hide the guns at all if Shane hadn't caused him to think he was about to do something aggressive? Dale's concerns were clearly justified because as soon as Shane got the guns back he went and did something aggressive, so even that decision wasn't a bad one from the perspective of his instincts being right or wrong. That depends on your personal perspective though. I personally think that what Shane did was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Shane clearly stated to Rick that the farm was no longer safe and that the right thing to do was to leave. Rick dismissed that in favor of further "negotiations" with Hershel. Which IMO wasn't the right course of action. THEN, Rick takes it further into the realm of insanity and complies with Hershel to the point of putting himself and everyone else at risk by helping put more walkers in the barn.
But for some reason there's this pervasive idea that because Rick has good intentions that he can do no wrong, and his wishes are complied with regardless of whether they make sense or not or if they endanger the entire group. Which is ridiculous! Good intentions don't mean anything if the plan is stupid and reckless. But this doesn't seem to be getting anyones attention. All anyone seems to be focusing on is their reaction to Shane's hard edged methods. People seem to dislike him so much that they're willing to completely overlook the mitigating circumstances that lead to his so called "meltdowns".
IMO, this is a very naive and unrealistic way to evaluate the situation.
Dale on the other hand, consistently deceives the group in order to tip the scales toward an outcome that he himself favors, and no one ever really knows about it. One of these days it's gonna end up bad for everyone.

[Thorn]

I guess, to me I just see it in more terms of the motives involving the people directly impacted. Shane killed a man to get to where he wanted to go, the old fella saved a life that did not want to be saved... but he saved a life all the same.

You would agree I am sure lying is not as bad as rape. Deceit is not as bad as murder. Manipulating someone into making a choice about living is wrong, I get that but shooting a man and feeding him to zombies is far worse in my opinion. Andrea has a gun right now, if she wanted to die she still could she has choice here. Otis had NO CHOICE. HE was betrayed and fed to walkers... period.

-- -------- Post added at 08:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 AM ----------



IMO, this is a very naive and unrealistic way to evaluate the situation.
Dale on the other hand, consistently deceives the group in order to tip the scales toward an outcome that he himself favors, and no one ever really knows about it. One of these days it's gonna end up bad for everyone.

Rick can and does do wrong, trust me, as a fan of the comics at least his flaws and errors are very obvious. To me it is not about being a perfect leader, there is NO PERFECT leader in this world there is no perfect anything there is just surviving as best you can. It comes down to whose methods you find most palatable, who you most identify with, and to me that is the guy who works from a point of good intentions who holds on to a semblance of his old moral code especially in the face of some of the worst horrors imaginable.

That said preference, and choice... I will error on the side of honor, defend compassion, and give a pass to people following the path I most identify with. If he is wrong I will call him on it, I don't think Rick agreeing to try Hershel's way short term is a major failing on his part. It shows him having an open mind, also let's not forget they were being evicted Rick was doing what he had to do short term at least to make sure that did not happen. It would buy him time to work on Herschel with logic and reason.

Ultimately though, leaving the Farm would have been my first choice. Baby or no. Not my place, not my rules, and I don't like the idea of having a barn full of land sharks sitting next to where my kid sleeps. Beyond that there is no way I force my will on those who live on the farm, nor do I force my opinion on them. I try to teach them, get my point across, and illustrate . I discuss debate, and frame my argument. I take Herschel, one of his other people, and one of my people into the wilds and set a scene that shows the walkers for what they are without the dramatic shoot the guys wife in the face. It is a less personal display that I feel could get you where you needed without destroying the man.

Might not work but it makes more sense than Shane's way and it keeps the farm and the group out of harms way.

[shootemindehead]

This. If you were in a bad situation, Rick would go balls out to save you, Shane would discard you like yesterdays chip wrappers.

Shane with power over the group = Captain Rhodes.

+1

Can''t believe there are people supporting Shanes actions. Very strange indeed.

The man's a liar, a murderer and a damn near rapist.

-- -------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------


Shane would kill a injured (otis) or dangerous (ed) member of the group if their presence endangered the rest of the group. He is not a cold blooded killer or else both rick and dale would be dead now. He's had motive and opportunity at them both.
Rick while having more honourable intentions, i genuinely believe would inadvertently kill me while trying to ease his own conscience.

Thats why im going with shane.

Shane had enough time to WOUND Otis and wrestle with him for the goods for several minutes before the zombies got near the spot. They probably could have both made it, but Shane opted for the cowardly approach. He didn't even have the decency to put a round in Otis' head for jesus sake, but instead condemed him to a horrifying and incredibly agonising death.

Also, he only used Ed for an outlet for his own frustrations. Again, a purely selfish action, that had beneficial and unintended side-effects.

He drew down on Rick, his best mate and only didn't fire because he was caught in the act by Dale and probably didn't kill Dale because he thought he wouldn't get away with it in that instance.

Shane is a dangerous c*nt to EVERYONE in the group. He's no better than Merle. In fact, I'd sooner trust Merle, as he advertises his particular nastiness very clearly.

I also don't believe that Rick has put anyone in direct danger yet, despite his obvious flaws and possible potential to do so.

That's why I'm going with me and sod the lot of them.

[Thorn]

+1

Can''t believe there are people supporting Shanes actions. Very strange indeed.

The man's a liar, a murderer and a damn near rapist.

-- -------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------



Shane had enough time to WOUND Otis and wrestle with him for the goods for several minutes before the zombies got near the spot. They probably could have both made it, but Shane opted for the cowardly approach. He didn't even have the decency to put a round in Otis' head for jesus sake, but instead condemed him to a horrifying and incredibly agonising death.

Also, he only used Ed for an outlet for his own frustrations. Again, a purely selfish action, that had beneficial and unintended side-effects.

He drew down on Rick, his best mate and only didn't fire because he was caught in the act by Dale and probably didn't kill Dale because he thought he wouldn't get away with it in that instance.

Shane is a dangerous c*nt to EVERYONE in the group. He's no better than Merle. In fact, I'd sooner trust Merle, as he advertises his particular nastiness very clearly.

I also don't believe that Rick has put anyone in direct danger yet, despite his obvious flaws and possible potential to do so.

That's why I'm going with me and sod the lot of them.

I want to know how people would feel if they were the ones Shane sacrificed for the good of the group in his own mind as judge jury and executioner. Or their kid... honestly. All BS and trying to support your argument aside.

[SymphonicX]

Would you rather shane had allowed himself, otis and carl to all die by trying to do the "right" thing?

I Honestly dont see his act as evil. It sucks for otis but it was nesscessary and shane knew it.

Oh come on man there was no justification for doing that to poor Otis!

What shane did was create himself an advantage in that situation - the fact is shane could have ran ahead and got in the car in exactly the same amount of time it took him to cap Otis and leg it. Otis wouldn't have caught up with Shane, no way - the dude was gone anyway, Otis knew it...Shane helped the situation happen earlier and for that, he committed an act of evil...

My point is it took Shane the same time to get back to the car and Otis wouldn't have survived anyway - Shane didn't even have the respect to pop Otis in the head - he left him alive to be eaten, Otis has himself ripped apart limb from limb whilst still alive - so I don't think it's fair to say what Shane did was humane....it was evil.

[babomb]

Shane killed a man to get to where he wanted to go, the old fella saved a life that did not want to be saved... but he saved a life all the same. Well, that's not exactly the entire truth though. It's not like Shane killed Otis so he could take his truck and go get drunk. It wasn't exactly to get "where he wanted to go". It was done, as has been said, to make sure one of them got back to the farm to save Carl. Had the mission gone smoothly and neither of them were hurt, I really don't think Shane would've shot Otis and left him for dead. It wasn't an action driven by purely selfish "want", it was in Shane's mind the only way to "ensure" the success of the mission. Had Shane left it to chance there's a good possibility that Otis would be mobbed by walkers and Shane wouldn't be able to retreive the contents of the pack Otis was carrying. Then Hershel wouldn't have had all the necessary supplies to do Carl's surgery and he would've probably died. MAYBE fortune would've shined on them and they both would've got away clean and made it back without incident? Or maybe if Otis was mobbed Hershel could still do the surgery without the stuff in Otis' pack? But maybe not? Shane wasn't prepared to gamble with Carl's life like that.
I'm not saying that it was an honorable thing to do, or that Shane shouldn't be concerned with remorse regarding the decision. Just that I personally don't see it as such a cut and dry case of cold blooded murder for purely selfish motivations.


You would agree I am sure lying is not as bad as rape. Of course. But then again, Shane didn't actually rape anyone either. He forced himself on Lori but stopped before it actually turned into a full blown rape. He had no intentions of outright raping her, he forced himself on her hoping she would go along with it. Think about it. Would a simple scratch on the face stop someone that was fully comitted to a rape? No.

Deceit is not as bad as murder. Manipulating someone into making a choice about living is wrong, I get that but shooting a man and feeding him to zombies is far worse in my opinion. Agreed. But let's not forget that saving a childs life was the motivation for a man getting shot and left as walker food. Dale disregarded Andreas wishes to save himself the heartache of dealing with her death, then he also denied her the ability to defend herself for the exact same reason. So the ultimate motivations for the acts on the part of Shane and Dale are very different. If you look at the act itself based solely on how it appears in words squeezed into a single sentence, then yeah shooting a man and leaving him for dead is worse than manipulating someone to make them choose life. However, that isn't an accurate representation of the circumstances surrounding the 2 acts. The severity, motivations and circumstances surrounding the 2 acts make them unable to be accurately compared like this.

Andrea has a gun right now, if she wanted to die she still could she has choice here. Otis had NO CHOICE. HE was betrayed and fed to walkers... period. Again, these 2 situations don't boil down equally like this unless you disregard certain aspects of the bigger picture. And if you disregard those aspects you're essentially rewriting the script to suit your position better. Which brings us back to the point where this doesn't accurately reflect the larger picture.


If he is wrong I will call him on it, I don't think Rick agreeing to try Hershel's way short term is a major failing on his part. It shows him having an open mind, also let's not forget they were being evicted Rick was doing what he had to do short term at least to make sure that did not happen. It would buy him time to work on Herschel with logic and reason. That's my problem with it. Staying at that farm shouldn't be so all important as to put everyone in the danger they were put in by staying there. I would seriously question Rick's ability to lead if I were in that group. And his justification for it IMO makes it all the worse.


I take Herschel, one of his other people, and one of my people into the wilds and set a scene that shows the walkers for what they are without the dramatic shoot the guys wife in the face. It is a less personal display that I feel could get you where you needed without destroying the man.
Might not work but it makes more sense than Shane's way and it keeps the farm and the group out of harms way. That might be a better way. I don't disagree with that at all. But it's likely that if that were proposed, either Rick would block it or Hershel would make it extremely difficult to get him out in the woods and in the situation. You'd have to lie to him. Which would upset him greatly from the start. Then you'd have to put him and one of his people in harms way, which would upset him. Then you'd still be killing what he thinks is a sick person, which would upset him. So even if you changed his mind about the walkers, he'd probably still want you to leave.
So I think we can both agree that the best thing to do would have been for the group to leave. Forget the negotiations, just pack up and put the show back on the road. Which is also what Shane said to Rick, and Rick immediately dismissed.

[childofgilead]

Shane is an attack dog off the leash. He needs putting down in a bad way.

All credit due to Jon Bernthal, I didn't think he could make me dislike the show Shane as much as the comic Shane. I was wrong.

It's also really enlightening to see how far some people will go to excuse a television characters actions. Very enlightening indeed. I've had some serious misgivings about the show this season, but they've flat out emasculated Rick to the point where him putting Sophia down makes that the only action taken so far. Yes, I understand that this was supposed to take place over the course of no more than a week, but it DRUG the fuck on. Whole episodes where I'd dread the commercial breaks because nothing had happened yet. And no, I don't mean character moments, I mean ANYTHING.

There have been ALOT of BS moments that had no place being in an episode. The scene where Dale wanders off while Daryl and Andrea are out. Someone made a rationalization that he was getting her pistol on these boards. Fair enough, good save. But that should have been on the fucking show!

Show, don't tell!
Do, don't say!

Finding Sophia dead was to me, just the biggest slap in the face as a fan as I've had. Sure, it makes all kinds of sense "in universe" but I feel flat out insulted how Kirkman acted about the whole thing on the Talking Dead afterwards. He's pulling a serious George Lucas for no goddam reason and I really think that's going to come back and bite him in the ass. And it should.

Do I want a panel by panel reconstruction of the book? Not really, no, because I already have all the comics. But I don't even get the same atmosphere anymore, watching this show. Previous guys were right, this doesn't feel dangerous anymore. It doesn't feel like they're doing without, like they have hardships. Season 1 felt genuine, felt like you were with these people on their way to try to find a better place. Then they get there and all they do is bicker and argue about trying to save a child.

I..hell, I don't know what to think at the moment. I refrained from posting because I was just so..tired after watching the finale. It was cheap. Flat out friggin cheap.

Alot of this is because this is a longer, overarching story, I understand that. But my time is precious. Getting on into week 4, I was feeling like I was wasting my time watching this, because I KNEW it wouldn't be resolved. I think now that I'm just going to start waiting until all the episodes have aired and watch them all at once, because this foreplay, back and forth, nothing getting resolved BS doesn't work for me.

[Thorn]

I had a long response typed up that poofed into the ether so I am going to suffuce to say you make some good points, not all I agree with some I do, and some points I was not making you spoke to... in the end it matters little I enjoyed reading your post.

That said I STILL want to hear from Shane supporters. You are with him running from the horde of zombies, you are there instead of Otis do you support Shane's plan of shooting you (or your wife or kid) and leaving you/tehm to die?

Seriously I want to hear that defended when it is you or yours on the ground being ripped to bits by walkers because Shane thought it was the best chance for a kid who is not yours. Is he still a great leader?

[babomb]

I had a long response typed up that poofed into the ether so I am going to suffuce to say you make some good points, not all I agree with some I do, and some points I was not making you spoke to... in the end it matters little I enjoyed reading your post. That's happened to me quite a few times on here. Now I always copy my entire post body before hitting submit, just in case.


That said I STILL want to hear from Shane supporters. You are with him running from the horde of zombies, you are there instead of Otis do you support Shane's plan of shooting you (or your wife or kid) and leaving you/tehm to die?

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

[Thorn]

That's happened to me quite a few times on here. Now I always copy my entire post body before hitting submit, just in case.

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

Well I would disagree. This is not specifically directed at you either, those people and they are on here who are saying Shane is a better leader than Rick, and who are saying they would follow him. Those are the people I am talking to, and there is in my mind a huge difference between being in a snipers cross hairs who is your enemy and being in the cross hairs of the man you trust to lead you and yours.

Major... HUGE difference.

[Andy]

Well I would disagree. This is not specifically directed at you either, those people and they are on here who are saying Shane is a better leader than Rick, and who are saying they would follow him. Those are the people I am talking to, and there is in my mind a huge difference between being in a snipers cross hairs who is your enemy and being in the cross hairs of the man you trust to lead you and yours.

Major... HUGE difference.

Now wait a second, i did not say shane would be a great leader or even a nice man, What i did say is that he's a interesting character with more depth and better written and acted than any of the others and that i can also see what he is doing and why he does what he does. I stand by that and i certainly dont think that he's evil or selfish. In terms of the overall group, he has not done anything to put them in danger, he has spoke common sense several times and helped shape the group. He has also been protective and a good fighter for the group, i really do think they'd probably all be dead long ago without him. I would have shane by my side in a zombie apocolypse, happilly.

Rick has endangered the group many times on wild goose chases and is too emotionally unstable to be my leader, He is a nicer man than shane and definately has a stronger conscience and moral code. i am not arguing that, but he is not as wise to the new world they live in and repeatedly endangers himself and other members of the group with very questionable actions and quests.

The question i was answering was between rick and shane specifically, who would i have as a leader? And the answer is shane. EASY.

Dosnt mean he's perfect, dosnt mean i would pick him out of a different group. But given the choice and circumstances...

[Thorn]

Now wait a second, i did not say shane would be a great leader at all, but so far.. for the overall group, he has not done anything to put them in danger, he has been protective and a good fighter for the group, i really do think he'd be a great guy to have by my side in a zompocalypse.

Rick has endangered the group many times on wild goose chases and is too emotionally unstable to be my leader, the question i was answering was between rick and shane, who would i have as a leader? And the answer is shane.

Dosnt mean he's perfect, dosnt mean i would pick him out of a different group perhaps.

So you are in a bad spot, he decides to shoot your wife in the leg so the rest of you survive because he feels she is the weak link you are still okay with him? Or he shoots you. It is a hard question to answer maybe but it is one I am very curious to hear people answer.

See that is my point, I do not mind risking my life for the group, and especially if the motives are sound. My leader if compassionate and worthy of respect can screw up and get a pass. My leader can not become a cold blooded heartless killer sacrificing whomever he pleases because he sees fit to do so... you never know when you are going to b the other guy. The one on the ground being devoured so he can help out a kid he feels is more valuable than you because he is trying to earn his way back into the good graces of a woman he is trying to steal from his best friend.

It makes me laugh how many people paint him as trying to save Carl as a great and noble thing his motivations are clearly biased.

So when it comes down to you or a sick kid if it is furthering his agenda you can kiss your ass goodbye. I wouldn't follow him to dinner if he was the only cook in town.

[childofgilead]

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

[Andy]

So you are in a bad spot, he decides to shoot your wife in the leg so the rest of you survive because he feels she is the weak link you are still okay with him? Or he shoots you. It is a hard question to answer maybe but it is one I am very curious to hear people answer.

See that is my point, I do not mind risking my life for the group, and especially if the motives are sound. My leader if compassionate and worthy of respect can screw up and get a pass. My leader can not become a cold blooded heartless killer sacrificing whomever he pleases because he sees fit to do so... you never know when you are going to b the other guy. The one on the ground being devoured so he can help out a kid he feels is more valuable than you because he is trying to earn his way back into the good graces of a woman he is trying to steal from his best friend.

It makes me laugh how many people paint him as trying to save Carl as a great and noble thing his motivations are clearly biased.

So when it comes down to you or a sick kid if it is furthering his agenda you can kiss your ass goodbye. I wouldn't follow him to dinner if he was the only cook in town.

What makes you so certain that is was shanes will or that he shot otis on a whim? Are you totally overlooking the fact that shane actually tried to give otis the bag and told him to go on without him, he tried to sacrifice himself but otis wouldnt do it.

The fact is, they where both injured, they where both out of ammo, they where both a good distance from their vehicle and most importantly, the zombies are gaining on them. Watch the scene again. Shane understood they were not both going to make it and accepted that he tried to make otis go ahead and he refused, if shane had not done what he did, they both would have died and so would carl. The fact that he tried to make otis go ahead puts the situation in a different light than your seeing it for me, if shane had not have done that and just shot him outright, id be arguing by your side bro.

Im not saying shane wasnt biased, he has shown alot of paternal care for carl so no doubt he was biased, but in the situation, he took 1 life to save 2 and if rick had gone instead of shane, no doubt we would be discussing the deaths of 3 characters now.

[childofgilead]

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

[Andy]

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

OK but i dont understand why you think he's such a "loose cannon"? What specically is it he's done to give you that impression of him?

What has shane done, so far, that has endangered the entire group?

[childofgilead]

Opened the barn doors? Taken Andrea out to a housing development for practice?

Hahaha, don't get me wrong. The fact that this character engenders such conversation is just a testament to his awesome portrayal. But if I were in that situation, with my loved ones well being hanging on the line, there's no way in hell I would follow his lead. Shane time and again refused to place up signs warning people away from the city.

I also believe that he had something for Lori before the end as well. The way he questions Rick in their squad car at the very beginning was just too felicitous. Just struck me as off, like he knew something Rick didn't. Could be me just putting things into it that aren't there in this rendition as opposed to the comics, but it just struck me as odd.

Basically, after watching Rick and Shane banter in the woods, it's made clear that Shane is a ladies man (or sees himself as one), whereas Rick seems to have less experience with women. I don't want to think that it could be something as simple as a rivalry that this was a woman that Shane wanted only because he couldn't have her and once he had her he decided that she was his. I dunno. But his decision making leaves alot to be desired.

Again though. That's the point. Shane is a valuable part of the group, he's good with guns and maintaining them, not afraid to fight. But his attitude of getting it done and damn the consequences is BAD news. I'd never follow him.

I can excuse alot of his failings, but attempting to rape Lori is one I can't. You can excuse the moment in the woods where he almost shot Rick, that could be explained either way. But he was WELL on his way to raping her that night. What stopped him? I don't know.

But if the situation comes up again, will he stop himself?

That's the thing that bothers me. It seems like he's not worrying too much about where that path is leading him. He's not worrying about the strength of the group. If he had, Otis would still be alive. Otis was an EMT, and while overweight, could shoot, was apparently adept at wrangling walkers and could even play guitar! *natch*

Otis was a man who made a mistake. He seemed genuinely contrite, and more than willing to put himself on the line, especially considering that he knew he'd be more of a hindrance in a raid to get supplies than a help. Yes, he could have taken the supplies when Shane tried to push them on him, BUT HE REFUSED.

An artifice of telling the story, sure, but they could have made it out of that alive. Yes, I'm sure that Shane BELIEVED that his back was against the wall. I'm sure he BELIEVED he was doing what was right. But he wasn't. If he'd really wanted Otis to go on without him, he could have done it.

[Andy]

Absolutly right my friend and rape is inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, i aint excusing shane and i go back to my previous posts, i never once said he was a nice man.

BUT

I will say, lori treated shane like a peice of shit throughout season 1, fair enough she was angry and he was a dick and i think the situation in the CDC was a culmination of shanes anger, fustration and actual genuine feelings for lori.. and of course alcohol. She could could have spoke to him a little more than she did and ended things with him properly, what happened in the CDC might have been avoided. I get shes angry that shane lied about rick being dead and maybe she thinks he took advantage of the situation, but it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean and she is not without blame.

That said, shane was totally out of line with her in the CDC and that was a real low point for the character.

[Thorn]

Andy, Not at all and I pointed that out myself in the thread where the episode was discussed, I did not forget it and I think it is worth noting. That said it in no way changes the fact he decided to kill one of the people who was counting on him, a guy who risked his life to save him more than once when shane would have been finished.

Risking your life for another is courageous, taking someone's life so you can live is crap. He could have easily handed Otis the bag and charged the walkers.He didn't need Otis' permission to sacrifice himself, he clearly didn't look for it when he killed him.

I see the whole thing quite clearly and like many here watched the scene a number of times there are always other options, and what I am saying is following any man who would pick that options is a fool's errand.

You would be basically writing your life over to a man who would dispose of you the minute he deemed he had to. With Rick who is an imperfect leader as well you can at least reason with him, talk to him, and have a voice. Look at the farm, he was clearly willing to work with Herschel to try and make it work. To compromise and discuss, buy time, and negotiate. Shane just kills you.

I can not say enough anyone who wants to follow him is a bit misguided if not outright crazy and or in denial in my opinion.

Again if he shoots you or a loved one are you okay with it? Because he made the call that it had to happen? The answer is clearly no.

Rick would have sacrificed himself after trying to find away for it to work where everyone lives going for the perfect and most ideal solution. When the chips were down Shane murdered an innocent man, he did not sacrifice himself. He offered sure, but no one could stop someone like Shane the dude is a force of nature... the only thing that stops Shane is Shane. (Comic Book aside...)

-- -------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 PM ----------


Absolutly right my friend and rape is inexcusable under any circumstances whatsoever, i aint excusing shane and i go back to my previous posts, i never once said he was a nice man.

BUT

I will say, lori treated shane like a piece of shit throughout season 1, fair enough she was angry and he was a dick and i think the situation in the CDC was a culmination of shanes anger, frustration and actual genuine feelings for lori.. and of course alcohol. She could could have spoke to him a little more than she did and ended things with him properly, what happened in the CDC might have been avoided. I get shes angry that shane lied about rick being dead and maybe she thinks he took advantage of the situation, but it takes 2 to tango if you know what i mean and she is not without blame.

That said, Shane was totally out of line with her in the CDC and that was a real low point for the character.

I guess for me the whole Lori and Shane thing is by and large miscommunication, Lori felt betrayed because Shane told her her husband was dead and he wasn't. She read a lot into that, and he denied her the right to go for her man, to do whatever she would have done. Ended his life while he slept? Stayed by his side? Tried to take him with them? And that is frustrating. Do I fault Shane? I did at first but when they showed the flashback no, he did in fact check for a pulse, tried to save his friend, and was genuinely conflicted. Then the crap hit the fan and he had to get out of there and he made a last ditch effort to save his friend which appeared to have worked to some degree.

I don't think Lori gets that, she should watch the flashback.

Also she was likely afraid to get caught, and she was nervous her looks or Shane's might betray her I imagine, so she pushed him away harder. Was this right? I don't think so but it might explain it a bit.

[Wyldwraith]

About Shane,
These things I consider concrete. 1) Shane DID make an effort to a) Communicate to Otis 1 of them needed to make it out with the supplies, and b) They WEREN'T GOING TO MAKE IT under those conditions. You can say Shane could have flung the bag of supplies at Otis and leaped back into the oncoming horde, but then he'd be trusting someone he's known for like TWO HOURS to complete a life-or-death mission. A man who has shown at least SOME tendency to make very costly errors (not being sure of what was beyond his intended target). Delivering a head shot to Otis would NOT, in all likelihood, and BASED UPON SHANE'S EXPERIENCE divert 95-100% of the Walkers from continuing to pursue prey that is still alive/moving. Being realistic now, if Shane was going to sacrifice Otis at all it had to be in such a way that he could be **100%** sure the sacrifice would accomplish the necessary purpose.

Put another way: How MUCH WORSE would it have been if Shane killed Otis to buy time to escape with the medical supplies, but because he killed him outright over half the Walker mob continued to pursue, and eventually overtake him before Shane could reach the truck? The killing of Otis would have been quite literally for nothing. Shane has a keen awareness of how Walkers cue off of sensory stimuli, and this awareness is something he keeps in mind CONSTANTLY. Remember his being a campfire-size nazi to Ed? Shane cited that the light of the fire could attract Walkers. Glenn coming barreling into the camp in a sports car whose alarm had been blaring the entire time, and continued to blare even after he'd exited/turned off said car? Shane ripped the guts out of the alarm to kill the sound immediately, and wasn't willing to accept Dale's speculation that the echoing nature of the surrounding mountains would prevent Walkers from finding them due to the noise of the car alarm. I can go on, but that point's been made. Shane had EVERY REASON to believe that AT LEAST 50% of the Walkers would choose to pursue fleeing prey over being Walkers 20-through-50 trying to dogpile in and get a hand-full of Otis's already-swarmed body.

Motive is irrelevant since Rick gets a pass CONSTANTLY around here for group-endangering acts that are well-intentioned. Shane tried to make it clear to Otis both of them weren't going to make it, and that Otis needed to go on ahead with the supplies. Otis wouldn't accept that harsh reality. Shane couldn't FORCE Otis to go on and manage his escape as well as Shane himself would've done, because with relatively equal leg/muscle injuries, the seriously overweight man was obviously going to slow and tire more rapidly than Shane would. Shane knew this, he could hear Otis huffing and puffing along beside him and see the heavy sheen of sweat the man was covered in. It would've been OBVIOUS AT A GLANCE that Otis was tiring more rapidly than Shane was. So, in Shane's mind the combination of Otis's unwillingness to face harsh reality and the strikes against the man physically/health-wise, made it obvious that he couldn't be as sure that Otis would make it as he could be about making it himself if the large majority of pursuing Walkers were delayed even for a short interval.

Even if you take all moral considerations out of the equation and strip it down to cold pragmatism, what Shane did to Otis was the gambit with the highest % chance of succeeding. It was a survival situation, yet Shane was CLEARLY WILLING to CONTINUE risking his life by struggling with Otis to secure the supplies the other man had been carrying. An act that reduced his chances of making it out alive, so that right there conclusively proves that FOR WHATEVER REASON, Shane was prioritizing getting the medical supplies to save Carl's life over his own best chance at survival.

I find that I cannot condemn these decisions and acts by Shane in the slightest, and I will take it one step further. I suffer from SEVERE back trouble, that BADLY impairs my stamina due to pain-induced fatigue caused by any significant exertion. If *I* was the one who had accidentally shot Carl, AND I was the only one who could recognize the needed medical supplies for the procedure besides the medical practicioner needed to preform said procedure, I would go with Shane to get those supplies.....And if it played out as it did for Otis & Shane, and Shane could tell I was in about as bad a shape injury-wise, and in much worse shape fatigue-wise, my self-preservation instinct might well cause me to try and stop it if I knew it was coming, but...as I lay there watching both the Walkers approach inexorably and Shane recede into the distance, I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY SHANE DID IT, and while I would of course take it personally that I was being eaten because of his actions, were I able to still be rational and able to somehow observe his actions and the fact my death was in FACT buying back the life of a child my act put in jeopardy of losing their life....I would not judge Shane for what he did to me. I can't go so far as to say I wouldn't die enraged, but it would be a more general rage at how it all turned out...not personally raging at Shane and cursing him as a murderer.

I was going to go on with a long and detailed response to the rest of the issues, but (silly as this is) I find I'm having an emotional reaction to typing all this that makes me want to stop for now.

[Thorn]

I just have a hard time beleiving that Wyld especially from you, you are telling me that your leader kills you without discussion denying you free will and choice and you are okay with that. You fight passionately on these boards for much less. I am not saying you are lying, or anything of that nature I just don't think in that situation it would be something you found peace with. Could I be wrong sure but man, come on...

As to Rick getting a pass, Rick gets a pass on making mistakes because at no point does he force anyone to do anything including follow him. If you want to leave you do, if you want to live you do. He doesn't force it on you. That is the difference for me in the leadership styles. Rick would sacrifice himself not you, and if you or anyone else had issue with him he would discuss and debate... he does the job himself and if no one else wants to go along they don't. He doesn't force his will down your throat making you swallow it no matter how bad it tastes.

It is about respect. I respect that in him as a leader of men, he will make mistakes all men do. They do not cover their mistakes through sacrifice of others, lies, and deception, they do not take what is not theirs or try to by force, they do not shove their will down the throats of people that do not even recognize them as a leader and who have provided them shelter and safe haven.A leader does not need to lie, because he has the courage of his convictions and if he is actions are just and true he does not need to lie to cover them up. If he does he is leading the wrong group of people and therefore should not be leading them.

Those are the actions of a taker, and no one worthy of your respect.

We have gone over it a lot, I guess at this point we all agree to disagree on the Shane versus Rick thing. No one is changing their minds here.

[Andy]

When has shane forced anyone to follow him or not allowed someone to leave?

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing about what I said,
I flat out believe 100% in eye-for-an-eye justice. Don't and never have given a shit about the whole "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" bit of triteness. Because of these beliefs in part, and because of my views on personal responsibility, in the VERY NARROW EXAMPLE under discussion, Ie: I've accidentally shot a child, and despite my failing health am the only one who can be spared from the treatment of that child able to recognize and locate the needed medical supplies, I would go without a moment's hesitation.

Now, assuming that I twisted my ankle or wrenched my knee in the manner both Shane and Otis had, and considering that my pre-existing health problems can be equated to Otis's being overweight and out of shape, when Shane told me we both weren't going to make it after we'd been trying our very hardest to fight and flee our way out of danger and despite that one glance backward tells me the zombies are steadily gaining on us....ADMITTEDLY my FIRST CHOICE would be to accept Shane's bag of supplies and go on alone...BUT ONLY IF I WAS CERTAIN I HAD AS MUCH CHANCE OF ESCAPE ON MY OWN AS SHANE DID!

If I WASN'T CERTAIN of that, given that I am the one responsible for gravely jeopardizing a CHILD'S life, I am swearing before my God that it wouldn't come to Shane having to shoot and wrestle with me. Despite the idea of being eaten alive by a predator or predators being an especial nightmare of mine (probably part of my fascination with zombies. Sort of similar to some people's fascination with venomous and/or dangerous reptiles and other exotic animals)...I would go back toward the Walker horde, and cut hard to the left or right to speed-hobble diagonally away from the horde's front lines to keep me closer to and actively pursued by the horde until I was brought down.

Given this very deeply-held belief, that the man whose error or intent places another human being (and ESPECIALLY a CHILD) in mortal danger has an absolute obligation to do ALL IN THEIR POWER to save that life in jeopardy because of their mistake...if Otis didn't share my sense of absolute culpability, and refused to recognize that Shane was correct that they both weren't going to make it and thereby refusing to go on ahead alone as it turned out he did refuse....I would still say that while I would be HORRIFIED AND TERRIFIED (naturally), and while being enraged that this is how my pain-filled but good-intentioned money-where-my-mouth-is life has to end, if Shane decided to turn me into zombie bait because for reasons I can't relate to I refused to go on ahead alone, IF I WAS SURE that Shane would then be able to get the supplies to the medical professional who can try to save that child's life now that he/she has the necessary supplies I WOULD UNDERSTAND why Shane did that to me.

Of course I'd be enraged and terrified, that's primordial instinct at work. I would NOT however curse Shane for condemning me under these SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. You're saying he did this without discussion, but that isn't right. Shane tried to get Otis to recognize they weren't going to make it under those circumstances, and because of that Otis needed to take the other bag and go on ahead without Shane. THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION. By refusing to do so, Otis is in essence saying "I want to save the child my mistake has placed in mortal jeopardy, but I'm not committed enough to the cause to make a VERY HARD DECISION in order to make it happen.

THAT is where the key moment is for me. *I* would have thanked Shane for his imminent sacrifice, SWORN I would get those medical supplies to Herschel if it was with my very last breath and GONE ON AHEAD. But AGAIN, ONLY IF I WAS SURE I had as good or better a chance of making it as Shane did. I wasn't in the situation, and I don't know how bad they were really hurt. If it was mostly the pain rather than a structural injury slowing them maybe my decade-and-change of withstanding constant agony only somewhat dulled by the legal limit of Oxycodone in a month's supply might allow me to withstand this new injury's pain better and block it out more and by doing so move faster. I don't know. That would be one of the key determining factors in whether I decided to go on ahead or be the sacrificial lamb.

Yes, I'm a fighter. Passionately so. But my REAL LIFE has ALREADY DEMONSTRATED that in a horrible crisis situation where seconds mattered, I didn't hesitate to jump in and take on 4 men all bigger and heavier than me to stop them from raping a teenaged girl. I was in essence crippled that night, but I SUCCEEDED. I neutralized 3 and held on to life stubbornly enough that their little ringleader had to keep bludgeoning me with the lamp-stand. Long enough for hotel security to arrive.

You ask yourself Thorn whether I believed I could stop all 4 of those men when I entered that hotel room, and when you have an answer you'll know whether I'm BS'ing you about my PoV or not.

[Thorn]

Here's the thing about what I said,
I flat out believe 100% in eye-for-an-eye justice. Don't and never have given a shit about the whole "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" bit of triteness. Because of these beliefs in part, and because of my views on personal responsibility, in the VERY NARROW EXAMPLE under discussion, Ie: I've accidentally shot a child, and despite my failing health am the only one who can be spared from the treatment of that child able to recognize and locate the needed medical supplies, I would go without a moment's hesitation.

Now, assuming that I twisted my ankle or wrenched my knee in the manner both Shane and Otis had, and considering that my pre-existing health problems can be equated to Otis's being overweight and out of shape, when Shane told me we both weren't going to make it after we'd been trying our very hardest to fight and flee our way out of danger and despite that one glance backward tells me the zombies are steadily gaining on us....ADMITTEDLY my FIRST CHOICE would be to accept Shane's bag of supplies and go on alone...BUT ONLY IF I WAS CERTAIN I HAD AS MUCH CHANCE OF ESCAPE ON MY OWN AS SHANE DID!

If I WASN'T CERTAIN of that, given that I am the one responsible for gravely jeopardizing a CHILD'S life, I am swearing before my God that it wouldn't come to Shane having to shoot and wrestle with me. Despite the idea of being eaten alive by a predator or predators being an especial nightmare of mine (probably part of my fascination with zombies. Sort of similar to some people's fascination with venomous and/or dangerous reptiles and other exotic animals)...I would go back toward the Walker horde, and cut hard to the left or right to speed-hobble diagonally away from the horde's front lines to keep me closer to and actively pursued by the horde until I was brought down.

Given this very deeply-held belief, that the man whose error or intent places another human being (and ESPECIALLY a CHILD) in mortal danger has an absolute obligation to do ALL IN THEIR POWER to save that life in jeopardy because of their mistake...if Otis didn't share my sense of absolute culpability, and refused to recognize that Shane was correct that they both weren't going to make it and thereby refusing to go on ahead alone as it turned out he did refuse....I would still say that while I would be HORRIFIED AND TERRIFIED (naturally), and while being enraged that this is how my pain-filled but good-intentioned money-where-my-mouth-is life has to end, if Shane decided to turn me into zombie bait because for reasons I can't relate to I refused to go on ahead alone, IF I WAS SURE that Shane would then be able to get the supplies to the medical professional who can try to save that child's life now that he/she has the necessary supplies I WOULD UNDERSTAND why Shane did that to me.

Of course I'd be enraged and terrified, that's primordial instinct at work. I would NOT however curse Shane for condemning me under these SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. You're saying he did this without discussion, but that isn't right. Shane tried to get Otis to recognize they weren't going to make it under those circumstances, and because of that Otis needed to take the other bag and go on ahead without Shane. THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION. By refusing to do so, Otis is in essence saying "I want to save the child my mistake has placed in mortal jeopardy, but I'm not committed enough to the cause to make a VERY HARD DECISION in order to make it happen.

THAT is where the key moment is for me. *I* would have thanked Shane for his imminent sacrifice, SWORN I would get those medical supplies to Herschel if it was with my very last breath and GONE ON AHEAD. But AGAIN, ONLY IF I WAS SURE I had as good or better a chance of making it as Shane did. I wasn't in the situation, and I don't know how bad they were really hurt. If it was mostly the pain rather than a structural injury slowing them maybe my decade-and-change of withstanding constant agony only somewhat dulled by the legal limit of Oxycodone in a month's supply might allow me to withstand this new injury's pain better and block it out more and by doing so move faster. I don't know. That would be one of the key determining factors in whether I decided to go on ahead or be the sacrificial lamb.

Yes, I'm a fighter. Passionately so. But my REAL LIFE has ALREADY DEMONSTRATED that in a horrible crisis situation where seconds mattered, I didn't hesitate to jump in and take on 4 men all bigger and heavier than me to stop them from raping a teenaged girl. I was in essence crippled that night, but I SUCCEEDED. I neutralized 3 and held on to life stubbornly enough that their little ringleader had to keep bludgeoning me with the lamp-stand. Long enough for hotel security to arrive.

You ask yourself Thorn whether I believed I could stop all 4 of those men when I entered that hotel room, and when you have an answer you'll know whether I'm BS'ing you about my PoV or not.

Naw man based on what you have said I have no doubt you would fight, and that is my point. I can see you going to lead them off and trying that. I can't see you laying on the ground happily being eaten alive because some asshole decided it was the best option and I never will.

It is just ridiculous, as humans we have a predisposition to live, we also want to be done right by those around us. You strike me as a leader and a man of action not someone who would accept his fate as dictated by some self professed "knows it better than you".

I, like you would try to lead them off myself I would would fight for my life up until the end and if anyone took that right from me he wouldn't get away with a minor scratch or two or missing hair... I would rip the shit out of him and lock him up like a son of a bitch. Because in that moment right or wrong Carl would not enter my mind ending this douche would and you can bet your ass I would get mine.

Far too often people confuse kindness for weakness, morals for lack of action, and a big heart for a vulnerability. I can assure you the opposite is true.

I guess it is not fair for me to speak for others, so I will not I can say however I would NEVER take that crap from Shane, would never look on it with a smile or a nod of hey you did what you had to, it would be me and him and I would end him if I could at all manage it and I guess I have a hard time seeing people acting any differently realistically in a life or death situation where someone has done them wrong. I am sure it happens but it is just so alien to me, I can not get my head around it.. .especially a self professed fighter such as yourself.

[babomb]

When has shane forced anyone to follow him or not allowed someone to leave? Or covered up his mistake by sacrificing others for that matter? Shane wasn't the one who made the mistake where Carl's shooting is concerned, and I don't remember him sacrificing anyone beside Otis.

[Trin]

I think we're blurring the line between what is necessary for a greater good, what is justified, and what is morally reprehensible. Shane shooting Otis probably qualifies as all of the above.

Shooting Otis was necessary. It allows Shane to live and Carl to live. We have 2 pages of arguments which support this.

Was it justified? That's a bit harder. I'd say yes, noting all the things Shane did to try to find alternatives before resorting to it.

Morality is the sticky point because it is very subjective. I consider Shane shooting Otis to be morally reprehensible even in spite of thinking it is both necessary and justified. I think Rick and the group would agree, and I think Shane knows this, hence he lied about it. That lie, btw, is equally necessary since you can bet Herschel kicks the whole group out if he knows the truth.

The real crux of morality is that it's different for everyone, and it's not just a sliding scale between good and evil. Take Herschel... outwardly he has high moral standards. Yet he has no problem hiding the fact that he is harboring walkers. Dale's morality is based on attempting to protect the greater good, but he's willing to dip into deceit or manipulation as necessary to do so. Rick's is a very do-gooder morality, attempting to do the right thing no matter the cost.

We tend to side with people whose morality most closely resembles our own. I personally favor Dale/Rick, although with reservations. I like Rick's high moral standards, but he takes too many risks. I like Dale's sense of right and wrong, but sometimes I question his decision making. Both of them need someone like Shane around to inject some common sense and practicality.

As for Shane... I freely admit he'd live longer than I would, but I think the guy could rationalize about any decision at this point, and that worries me. Shooting Otis is a slippery slope that will open doors to new lows.

[shootemindehead]

Shooting Otis was necessary.

Was it though?

I'm having a hard time with this one. There's clearly a LOT of time between the shooting of Otis and the zombies getting to him. There's lots of time spent struggling that could have been used to escape.

[Thorn]

Was it though?

I'm having a hard time with this one. There's clearly a LOT of time between the shooting of Otis and the zombies getting to him. There's lots of time spent struggling that could have been used to escape.

Yep and other options, it is not like there were just two options shoot him or don't shoot him.

[Sammich]

Just think of how the Vatos episode would have ended if Shane went instead of Rick and did what was "necessary". He would have taken the bag of guns and left. No one would see Glenn ever again. Daryl would stay behind and keep looking for Merle. T-Dog would have probably ended up like Otis. Then Shane would have another crocodile tears filled story about how everyone else died to tell back at camp.

[Thorn]

I think we're blurring the line between what is necessary for a greater good, what is justified, and what is morally reprehensible. Shane shooting Otis probably qualifies as all of the above.

Shooting Otis was necessary. It allows Shane to live and Carl to live. We have 2 pages of arguments which support this.

Was it justified? That's a bit harder. I'd say yes, noting all the things Shane did to try to find alternatives before resorting to it.

Morality is the sticky point because it is very subjective. I consider Shane shooting Otis to be morally reprehensible even in spite of thinking it is both necessary and justified. I think Rick and the group would agree, and I think Shane knows this, hence he lied about it. That lie, btw, is equally necessary since you can bet Herschel kicks the whole group out if he knows the truth.

The real crux of morality is that it's different for everyone, and it's not just a sliding scale between good and evil. Take Herschel... outwardly he has high moral standards. Yet he has no problem hiding the fact that he is harboring walkers. Dale's morality is based on attempting to protect the greater good, but he's willing to dip into deceit or manipulation as necessary to do so. Rick's is a very do-gooder morality, attempting to do the right thing no matter the cost.

We tend to side with people whose morality most closely resembles our own. I personally favor Dale/Rick, although with reservations. I like Rick's high moral standards, but he takes too many risks. I like Dale's sense of right and wrong, but sometimes I question his decision making. Both of them need someone like Shane around to inject some common sense and practicality.

As for Shane... I freely admit he'd live longer than I would, but I think the guy could rationalize about any decision at this point, and that worries me. Shooting Otis is a slippery slope that will open doors to new lows.

Agreed, and Trin you would outlive Shane because it would just take someone like me to come to learn he capped an innocent man in the head and he wouldn't be long for this world. It is a new world right? Justice is more important than doing right? Well, trust me someone like Shane would find themselves exiled or outright killed real fast in a zombie apocalypse. Would he have followers these forums seems to say yes... but who knows.

[babomb]

Was it though?

I'm having a hard time with this one. There's clearly a LOT of time between the shooting of Otis and the zombies getting to him. There's lots of time spent struggling that could have been used to escape.945
As you can see the mob is about 10-15 yards behind them at most. And the struggle takes 20 seconds 30 tops. Realistically it wouldn't take 30 seconds for the mob to be on them. That's Hollywood time.
Prior to the shooting Shane has to motivate Otis and fall back to help him also. And before that Shane thinks he's already dead and starts to go back. Presumably to get the bag from his corpse.


Yep and other options, it is not like there were just two options shoot him or don't shoot him. That's like what I was saying about hindsight. How many options can you consider when there's a mob of walkers right behind you and adrenaline has you by the balls? Not to mention that the fat guy next to you can hardly speak because he's about to keel over. And what if the other option doesn't work? Then the walkers are even closer. Shane also states that he only has 1 round left in the pipe. If the other option requires that round, then what? They're very pressed for time so taking a detour and hiding is not an option either, and the longer they walk on those injuries the slower they become. You have to consider that while this was happening those at the farm didn't know if Shane and Otis were dead, and they were about to make their own decision on how to proceed with Carl.
Maybe some ideas on what other options would be practical and possible would help to change some minds?

[shootemindehead]

It seems to me to be closer to 40+ secs, discluding the cut to Shane in the jacks, saving his head. That's nearly a minute of gap time and if the time spent uselessly pausing to shoot aombies in the head, it could go over the minute mark.

That's a minute of get away time.

However, it could just be bad filming or editing. But to me there isn't the "necessity" in the action.

My first reaction to that scene was "fuck!", then it was "Fuck, they're both going to get eaten because of the scrap over the supplies!"

Anyway, the very least that Shane could have done was put one in Otis's head and at least spare him the incredible death that he suffered.

[Trin]

Was it though?

I'm having a hard time with this one. There's clearly a LOT of time between the shooting of Otis and the zombies getting to him. There's lots of time spent struggling that could have been used to escape.I believe that they attempted to portray the situation as one where they'd exhausted all options. I think we saw several instances where the zombies around the school were moving very quickly. Much faster than both Shane and Otis at hobbling speed. Were there other options? I didn't see any. I haven't heard any I consider to be compelling.

[Sammich]

Sure there was an option: allow for one of them VOLUNTARILY decide to stay behind to give the other one time to get away. Using an empty rifle like a bat and still being able to hobble along could have been enough for the other to get to the truck and drive back to pick the guy up.

[Thorn]

I believe that they attempted to portray the situation as one where they'd exhausted all options. I think we saw several instances where the zombies around the school were moving very quickly. Much faster than both Shane and Otis at hobbling speed. Were there other options? I didn't see any. I haven't heard any I consider to be compelling.

Other options? Limping back and cutting off in another direction making as much noise as possible after throwing your bag and handing your firearm to Otis and screaming him to move to the vehicle. Then trying like mad to get their attention and get the hell away and if I didn't then die knowing i gave my life making amends for what I did wrong.

I hear a lot of talk about what Otis did wrong which was what hunt for food and "not see" a kid the bullet carried through the deer and then injured? Shane did knowingly and willfully leave Rick in the hospital, if he was sure he was dead he would not have barricaded the door (IMO), then bang his wife before the corpse was cold, move in like a father figure to his kid, contemplate killing his friend... attempted rape on his best friends wife... lies... there is more here but I think we have been down the road. Guys Shane is a scumbag ;) I still like him too as a character it is okay, but why defend him and vilify Otis because Carl was in the way?

Nope Shane should have sacrificed himself and made amends that way, and if he managed to live somehow then great, but if not he died a hero.

[Wyldwraith]

Shane wasn't morally bound to sacrifice himself in the situation,
Otis WAS. It's as simple as that for me. I don't care if Otis had shot the proverbial arrow into the air and where it fell he did not care (if it struck Carl by some random completely unforeseeable chance), once it HAPPENED, once Otis fired the weapon he was committed to life-or-death responsibility to make amends for the firing of that round. Had he NOT been willing to go in search of supplies after it was determined he was the only one there besides Herschel (who needed to tend Carl, then perform the procedure) who could locate and identify the supplies on Herschel's list, I would go one further than Shane and shoot him in cold blood in front of God and everyone for shooting a child I've come to love and not being willing to do EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER to save the life of said child.

That's MY morality at work. Summary judgment, or as one well-known historian termed it "An instant application of deadly justice."

Now, Otis DID agree to go, so in my world he doesn't die on the spot for his crime. We go and do our best, and end up in the situation Shane & Otis found themselves in. DESPITE his moral culpability, if I believed Otis stood a better chance of getting out of there than I did, he gets my bag of supplies and has to look me in the eye and swear he'll get those supplies to Herschel or die trying. If I believe his sworn oath, Otis leaves to go on to the truck and I stay to make a last stand and buy him the needed time.

HOWEVER, if the opposite is true, and I (I'll say objectively, but qualify that as "Objectively as possible in an adrenaline filled life-or-death situation") objectively believe that MY chance of getting the supplies to the truck and escaping to get said supplies to Herschel is better than Otis's, I EXPECT HIM to be the one to die to buy me the time to "Buy Back" the LIFE of a CHILD he has GRAVELY JEOPARDIZED. Since I can't know his moral code after having only met him a couple hours ago, I simply CAN'T RISK that Otis won't see things the way I do and instead wants to make a selfish decision (that decreases Carl's chance at life)...so if, having made the decision that I've got a better shot at reaching the truck than Otis, and because I can't know how if Otis will (correctly, IMO) perceive his responsibility to be ABSOLUTE and thus give himself up in a last stand versus the zombies to buy me time, I'm forced into exactly the same decision-track as Shane.

My first thought then: Shoot the bastard in the head, so at least he won't have to suffer such a horrible death. HOWEVER, my SECOND THOUGHT then crosses my mind and sticks there in the forefront "Horrible or not, a kneecapped Otis struggling on the ground for his life futilely will buy me more seconds and more Walkers tied up with eating him. Due to THIS REASONING, I kneecap Otis, and grab his bag of supplies before he's over the shock of the pain. If he grabs me in the process I bludgeon him some more, but make sure not to knock him out if I can possibly help it. Then I speed-hobble away like mad.

Now, ASSUMING Shane saw his options as being this black and white as I've just described, where's the hole in my professed course of action in those circumstances? All I ask is that you remember my prevailing moral compass.

[Trin]

Other options? Limping back and cutting off in another direction making as much noise as possible after throwing your bag and handing your firearm to Otis and screaming him to move to the vehicle. Then trying like mad to get their attention and get the hell away and if I didn't then die knowing i gave my life making amends for what I did wrong.First, I doubt that two hobbling targets does anything but split the zombies up. It worked because there was a sure meal. Second, I don't see Otis doing the cold hearted thing and leaving Shane to a near certain death. He'd hesitate and that'd be it. Third, I'm not certain Otis makes it to the truck even if Shane buys him some time. Between the two of them Otis looked like he was done for regardless.

In any case if I'm Shane I don't trust that Otis can get the job done, simple as that. I stand by my comment that what Shane did was the only option in Shane's eyes.

I also don't see the stance that Shane should feel he has to make amends for anything. He genuinely tried to find signs of life from Rick at the hospital. He did his best to protect the group after that. He has put his life on the line repeatedly for others. Sure he has some bumps on the morality road, but nothing that warrants self-sacrificing levels of guilt.

[Sammich]

Projecting one's own conceived "morals" on others results in things like the inquisition and witch burnings.

Otis was doing what he could to attone for his MISTAKE. On the other hand, Shane killing Otis was INTENTIONAL just to save his own butt. I find it strange that you think Shane was acting as a moral crusader when the guy has shown he has no morals at all.

[babomb]

Other options? Limping back and cutting off in another direction making as much noise as possible after throwing your bag and handing your firearm to Otis and screaming him to move to the vehicle. Then trying like mad to get their attention and get the hell away and if I didn't then die knowing i gave my life making amends for what I did wrong. If he didn't kill Otis, then what is he giving his life to make amends for?


I hear a lot of talk about what Otis did wrong which was what hunt for food and "not see" a kid the bullet carried through the deer and then injured? Shane did knowingly and willfully leave Rick in the hospital, if he was sure he was dead he would not have barricaded the door (IMO), then bang his wife before the corpse was cold, move in like a father figure to his kid, contemplate killing his friend... attempted rape on his best friends wife... lies... there is more here but I think we have been down the road. Guys Shane is a scumbag ;) I still like him too as a character it is okay, but why defend him and vilify Otis because Carl was in the way? Who's villifying Otis? Otis himself felt that he was responsible for Carl. Which is why he risked his ass going on the mission with Shane. Everyone realizes that what Otis did was an accident. But that doesn't mean it totally excuses him from all responsibility. Even Otis himself recognized that.
Shane knew Rick wasn't dead in the hospital, nobody is saying otherwise. But what was he gonna do? Wheel him through the streets on his hospital bed? The military was outside Ricks room executing people. Don't forget that. Shane told Lori Rick was dead so that he could get her and Carl out of the city. Shane and Rick discussed that, and even Rick said Shane made the right choice on that one. Shane had no idea if Rick would ever come out of it. And it would be a safe assumption that he would've died by either walkers or the military. So what should he have done? Made his last stand at Ricks bedside? Effectively destroying any chance of saving Ricks family.
Where's the sense in that?
Nobody is trying to make Shane out to be a great guy here! But we, and the writers of the show, are trying to establish that there are gray areas here surrounding Shane's actions. And to simply write him off as a scumbag is missing the entire point and the depth of the character that has(to some of us anyway) been so effectively established as a major aspect of not only the characters background, but the entire show. I don't understand how you can hate him so much that you willingly disregard those aspects of his character that have been painstakingly crafted to create the ambiguity that I as well as others are trying like hell to make you aware of!? No offense intended at all. But that's why those aspects are written into the show.


Nope Shane should have sacrificed himself and made amends that way, and if he managed to live somehow then great, but if not he died a hero. Again, if he didn't kill Otis, then what is he sacrificing himself to make amends for? Leaving Rick in the hospital? Lying to Lori and screwing her? Those things too are crafted in an ambiguous way that's intended to leave the viewer with mixed feelings. If you jump to the conclusion that he's a scumbag that deserves to die you're missing half the point. If that was how it was intended they wouldn't have bothered with the ambiguity.

-- -------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------


Projecting one's own conceived "morals" on others results in things like the inquisition and witch burnings.

Otis was doing what he could to attone for his MISTAKE. On the other hand, Shane killing Otis was INTENTIONAL just to save his own butt. I find it strange that you think Shane was acting as a moral crusader when the guy has shown he has no morals at all. You're missing half the point too. I don't know what's causing this but it's starting to freak me out. I can't tell if you guys are unable to process the ambiguity that is intentionally written into the show and the character or if it's a totally conscious disregard of those aspects. To me it couldn't be any more obvious why Shane did what he did. It wasn't just to save his own butt! If that were the case, why would he not have shot Otis and left him to the walkers immediately upon exiting the trailer that contained the medical supplies? Why go through all the trouble of covering Otis in the gym, getting himself injured in the process? That just doesn't make any sense at all! Why would he apologize to Otis before shooting him? Why would he try to help Otis along in the last minutes of the scene?
Nobody is saying that Shane ever tried to act as a moral crusader! It's almost like we're not even watching the same show here.

[AcesandEights]

It's a great debate, guys...let's not let an inability to see each others side derail it :p


PS--I would kill for a photoshop of Shane shooting Kennedy from the grassy knoll.

[babomb]

PS--I would kill for a photoshop of Shane shooting Kennedy from the grassy knoll. I could do that. I don't know where to get the source photos from though. A still from youtube of the Zapruder footage would probably be such terrible quality that once it was done you wouldn't be able to tell it was Shane. But didn't they do an updated recreation?

[krisvds]

On Shane; the real question might be: will this debate rage on until februari?

Shane isn't a bad guy as in 'he's totally evil'. The character is ambiguous. It shows that the writers are going for a 'deeper' charcater driven approach than just have the series populated with cookie cutter good and bad guys. It's also a classical Romero approach to the zombie genre: the undead aren't evil, they are just there and do what they have to do. Man has most to fear from himself in a situation where society has collapsed. Thus exposing the 'animal' in all of us. This is what TWD excells in: the characters clinging to a certain degree of morality end up in bad spots because of that (Rick in bascically every single comic book), but so do the ones who let loose of all reservations and just opt for the opportunistic approach (Shane in the tv series). He's slowly turning into an animal. Shooting Otis, be it justified or no, has just opened the door and set him on the path to what I think will eventually be self destruction. He may not be a 'bad guy' yet, but clearly that's where the writers are sending him. I can't for the life of me imagine a TWD series where this character evolves into a natural leader of this group of people. He will be at the center of conflict. Luckily! If it were just the zombies it would turn into a bore.

That being said; as I have stated before, the writing could be better. The Shane character is written to stir up these kinds of debates as you guys are having to the expense of, well, believability. He's a bit of a loose canon in more ways than one. One moment he's all altruistic and sensible, the next a guy considering rape and what not. Not that these twists and turns in personality are impossibe in real life, it's just that it seems to me that hey are are written to manipulate your feelings and insert the 'ambiguity' with little regard to plausiblity.
In short: I feel the writers intent more than I believe the character of Shane.

Still: damn fine flawed little zombie show.

[childofgilead]

What would the punishment for cold blooded murder be then, in your new regime? I mean hell, if you're going to stipulate a bullet to the brain for an accident, then I'd assume the punishment for that would be..drawn and quartering? Raped to death by a well hung rhesus monkey? :D

But seriously, I LIKED Shane after I saw what he did at the hospital, when I saw that he THOUGHT RICK WAS REALLY DEAD. I thought hey, they're going to go somewhere else with this character. And they have. They've made me wonder if he was always a morally repugnant asshole or if the end of the world has just taken out some of his stuffing.

I guess I'm just a wide eyed optimist for hoping that if I'm ever put into, not only a survival situation, but a situation where I would have to make a choice between myself and someone else that I'd fight until the very last breath.

Yes, the scene may have been "Hollywood" or padded out due to some editing, but the fact is it's presented to us, so we have to take what we've seen. What I saw repulsed me.

If any "moral" could be assigned to it, it's revenge, not justice.

Did his plan work? Yeah, he got away and saved Carl.

Then why lie? Because he knew it was wrong?

[babomb]

That being said; as I have stated before, the writing could be better. The Shane character is written to stir up these kinds of debates as you guys are having to the expense of, well, believability. He's a bit of a loose canon in more ways than one. One moment he's all altruistic and sensible, the next a guy considering rape and what not. Not that these twists and turns in personality are impossibe in real life, it's just that it seems to me that hey are are written to manipulate your feelings and insert the 'ambiguity' with little regard to plausiblity.
In short: I feel the writers intent more than I believe the character of Shane.

Still: damn fine flawed little zombie show. I agree for the most part. I think the characters are about as realistic as the series as a whole. It's realistic in terms of a TV show, but only relatively so. In a zombie apocalypse(or any apocalypse) things just wouldn't happen that way. The majority of survivors would be people who happened to be in a good location or very near one when the shit goes down. Like states with lower population levels and sparsely distributed population centers. The people who survive will tend to be more self sufficient. More like Hershels group but with several families combined and they'd be much more security minded and organized, well armed and well stocked. They'd be very solitary and extremely weary and suspicious of outsiders. The experience itself would be more very loooong periods of mind bending boredom with breif periods of intense activity. People would be very judicious with their use of things like electricity and hot water. The world in general would be so much more unforgiving than it is in the show.

[Andy]

I guess I'm just a wide eyed optimist for hoping that if I'm ever put into, not only a survival situation, but a situation where I would have to make a choice between myself and someone else that I'd fight until the very last breath.

Very easy to condemn with hindsight on your side isnt it?

Just remember that your "fight until the very last breath" would most likely cost your life, the person with you their life and a innocent child their life.


Then why lie? Because he knew it was wrong?

The answer to that is pretty much the same as the above, shane got out of the situation and had time to reflect, hindsight hit him. He knew virtually nothing about herschel or his group at this stage but he did know carl's life was in their hands and they would probably react exactly how you and a couple of others have on here.

The lie is justified for the survival of the group, if you ask me.

[childofgilead]

That's the crux though isn't it? Through his actions, Shane DID save Carl. I'm not arguing that, please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to debate the motive, as we can't know what's going on inside his head.

No, what bothers me is how he acted to Dale in the swamp. Was he trying to psyche Dale out because he knew that having a loaded rifle pointed at his chest was bad? Sure, could be.

But he wasn't even cold blooded about it. He was almost drinking the fear that Dale was giving off. That is the kind of behavior that has me wondering if Shane is going to start taking alot of easy ways out before too long.

[MinionZombie]

The poll needs a third option - something like "Shane did the wrong thing for the right reasons" or something like that. I can totally understand why he made that choice, but it's the sort of choice that involves committing evil - taking a life to save a life - and all that it entails afterwards, for Otis' loved ones, for the group Shane is a part of, and indeed for Shane himself - he left a part of himself behind with Otis' screams of terror and fury as he was turned into a talking buffet.

[krisvds]

The poll needs a third option - something like "Shane did the wrong thing for the right reasons" or something like that. I can totally understand why he made that choice, but it's the sort of choice that involves committing evil - taking a life to save a life - and all that it entails afterwards, for Otis' loved ones, for the group Shane is a part of, and indeed for Shane himself - he left a part of himself behind with Otis' screams of terror and fury as he was turned into a talking buffet.

Agreed

[AcesandEights]

The poll needs a third option - something like "Shane did the wrong thing for the right reasons" or something like that. I can totally understand why he made that choice, but it's the sort of choice that involves committing evil - taking a life to save a life - and all that it entails afterwards, for Otis' loved ones, for the group Shane is a part of, and indeed for Shane himself - he left a part of himself behind with Otis' screams of terror and fury as he was turned into a talking buffet.

I also agree.

[shootemindehead]

Again though...why not put a round n Otis' head?

Thereby, sparing him the agony of being eaten alive.

I understand Shane's "better him than me" choice. But, to leave the man to that fate, is unforgivable.

Regardless of the Otis/Shane dilemma, he is also openly threatening members of the group. Such a man is just not needed in the greater scheme of things.

Either way, I hated the way the Shane character from the books was being twisted in the show, but I have to say that it's turned out quite well in the end.

[AcesandEights]

Again though...why not put a round n Otis' head?

Because a thrashing yelling victim is more stimuli and bait to a zed.

I mean, it's a safe, safe bet to make and (while not saying I agree with Shane's decision) makes the killing less likely to be a complete waste. Outright killing Otis may very well have drawn some zeds to his lifeless corpse, but possibly not a 'feeding frenzy' of zeds acting on the stimulus of active and closer prey.

[Thorn]

I find it hard to answer based on the three choices given to me.

I feel he did the wrong thing, and I do not feel he did them for the right reasons.

[AcesandEights]

I find it hard to answer based on the three choices given to me.

I feel he did the wrong thing, and I do not feel he did them for the right reasons.

I agree, however I also feel--mainly due to the way the action was filmed--that the decision was unnecessary and they stood a chance of both making it out.

I get the director wanted us to think they were done for, but the time spent on the ground wrastlin' seems to argue otherwise. I feel they had time to try something else...like off the top of my head, split up again, one act as a distraction and the other make for the vehicle to circle back etc. It might not have worked, but it's better than murder. If the only reason you need to murder someone is because it might make it easier, or you'd have a better chance of surviving, then you're going to murder a hell of a lot of people in zombieland.


Rule #237 to Surviving Zombieland: Don't trust this guy!
http://bricksofthedead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/twd-shane-dinner.jpg
http://bricksofthedead.com/wp-conten...ane-dinner.jpg

[Thorn]

If he didn't kill Otis, then what is he giving his life to make amends for?

Who's villifying Otis? Otis himself felt that he was responsible for Carl. Which is why he risked his ass going on the mission with Shane. Everyone realizes that what Otis did was an accident. But that doesn't mean it totally excuses him from all responsibility. Even Otis himself recognized that.
Shane knew Rick wasn't dead in the hospital, nobody is saying otherwise. But what was he gonna do? Wheel him through the streets on his hospital bed? The military was outside Ricks room executing people. Don't forget that. Shane told Lori Rick was dead so that he could get her and Carl out of the city. Shane and Rick discussed that, and even Rick said Shane made the right choice on that one. Shane had no idea if Rick would ever come out of it. And it would be a safe assumption that he would've died by either walkers or the military. So what should he have done? Made his last stand at Ricks bedside? Effectively destroying any chance of saving Ricks family.
Where's the sense in that?
Nobody is trying to make Shane out to be a great guy here! But we, and the writers of the show, are trying to establish that there are gray areas here surrounding Shane's actions. And to simply write him off as a scumbag is missing the entire point and the depth of the character that has(to some of us anyway) been so effectively established as a major aspect of not only the characters background, but the entire show. I don't understand how you can hate him so much that you willingly disregard those aspects of his character that have been painstakingly crafted to create the ambiguity that I as well as others are trying like hell to make you aware of!? No offense intended at all. But that's why those aspects are written into the show.

Again, if he didn't kill Otis, then what is he sacrificing himself to make amends for? Leaving Rick in the hospital? Lying to Lori and screwing her? Those things too are crafted in an ambiguous way that's intended to leave the viewer with mixed feelings. If you jump to the conclusion that he's a scumbag that deserves to die you're missing half the point. If that was how it was intended they wouldn't have bothered with the ambiguity.

-- -------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:26 PM ----------

You're missing half the point too. I don't know what's causing this but it's starting to freak me out. I can't tell if you guys are unable to process the ambiguity that is intentionally written into the show and the character or if it's a totally conscious disregard of those aspects. To me it couldn't be any more obvious why Shane did what he did. It wasn't just to save his own butt! If that were the case, why would he not have shot Otis and left him to the walkers immediately upon exiting the trailer that contained the medical supplies? Why go through all the trouble of covering Otis in the gym, getting himself injured in the process? That just doesn't make any sense at all! Why would he apologize to Otis before shooting him? Why would he try to help Otis along in the last minutes of the scene?
Nobody is saying that Shane ever tried to act as a moral crusader! It's almost like we're not even watching the same show here.

Not going to go line by line but he has plenty to make amends for and I get the ambiguity of the character, how the writers painted a picture and changed things up by adding details as a creator I totally get the point. He did not ambiguously try to force himself on Lori, he did not put his friend in his sights and ambiguously contemplate killing him, he did not ambiguously do any of the wrongs we know that he did...

As to who is vilifying Otis re-read all the threads it was mentioned plenty of times that Otis was paying for his wrong doings, and making amends for what he did wrong. I really do not have the time to go and pull them up and quote them but assure you they are all throughout our discussions.

We are all watching the same show we just get different things out of it, read things into it, and are tainted by our own passions and beliefs quite often. You can watch a film like the swimming pool where the ending is up to you and spell it out anyway you like. It is your interpretation of the material.

I have said in the other thread that Shane tried to do the right thing by offering Otis the bag. I am not sure why you keep implying I didn't see it or I missed something I get it, I saw it... I just do not give him a pass for his final act which was killing Otis in cold blood and I am using that to frame points in our larger discussions about Shane as a leader.

I get it.

I LIKE the writing, I LOVE how it paints Shane in such a way people can read him to some extent how they choose to. I like the duality of the character. He is also very much a man who is becoming unhinged and who is forcing his vision of the new world on others something there is no gray area around. He also in cold blood murdered a man who saved him twice. You say Shane covered him in the gym... he covered him as he risked his life to save Shane's. You might be the one who is not getting it.

At the end of the day he had more than one option open to him and he went the worst possible route you could have gone. It really is that easy to me and I do not see how that is open to interpretation, and if you think it is again put yourself in the place of Otis and tell me it was ambiguous and I am sorry I just don't buy that you would 'Yeah he screwed me over but you know he could be taken two ways..." *chomp* *munch* *tear* *scream*.

-- -------- Post added at 11:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------


I agree, however I also feel--mainly due to the way the action was filmed--that the decision was unnecessary and they stood a chance of both making it out.

I get the director wanted us to think they were done for, but the time spent on the ground wrastlin' seems to argue otherwise. I feel they had time to try something else...like off the top of my head, split up again, one act as a distraction and the other make for the vehicle to circle back etc. It might not have worked, but it's better than murder. If the only reason you need to murder someone is because it might make it easier, or you'd have a better chance of surviving, then you're going to murder a hell of a lot of people in zombieland.


Rule #237 to Surviving Zombieland: Don't trust this guy!
http://bricksofthedead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/twd-shane-dinner.jpg
http://bricksofthedead.com/wp-conten...ane-dinner.jpg

I would also agree with this., and hey at the end of Dawn it looked like it was all over too...

[AcesandEights]

On Shane; the real question might be: will this debate rage on until februari?

Shane isn't a bad guy as in 'he's totally evil'. The character is ambiguous. It shows that the writers are going for a 'deeper' charcater driven approach than just have the series populated with cookie cutter good and bad guys. It's also a classical Romero approach to the zombie genre: the undead aren't evil, they are just there and do what they have to do. Man has most to fear from himself in a situation where society has collapsed. Thus exposing the 'animal' in all of us. This is what TWD excells in: the characters clinging to a certain degree of morality end up in bad spots because of that (Rick in bascically every single comic book), but so do the ones who let loose of all reservations and just opt for the opportunistic approach (Shane in the tv series). He's slowly turning into an animal. Shooting Otis, be it justified or no, has just opened the door and set him on the path to what I think will eventually be self destruction. He may not be a 'bad guy' yet, but clearly that's where the writers are sending him. I can't for the life of me imagine a TWD series where this character evolves into a natural leader of this group of people. He will be at the center of conflict. Luckily! If it were just the zombies it would turn into a bore.

That being said; as I have stated before, the writing could be better. The Shane character is written to stir up these kinds of debates as you guys are having to the expense of, well, believability. He's a bit of a loose canon in more ways than one. One moment he's all altruistic and sensible, the next a guy considering rape and what not. Not that these twists and turns in personality are impossibe in real life, it's just that it seems to me that hey are are written to manipulate your feelings and insert the 'ambiguity' with little regard to plausiblity.
In short: I feel the writers intent more than I believe the character of Shane.

Still: damn fine flawed little zombie show.

I missed the post since last night, damned fine points!

[MinionZombie]

Because a thrashing yelling victim is more stimuli and bait to a zed.

I mean, it's a safe, safe bet to make and (while not saying I agree with Shane's decision) makes the killing less likely to be a complete waste. Outright killing Otis may very well have drawn some zeds to his lifeless corpse, but possibly not a 'feeding frenzy' of zeds acting on the stimulus of active and closer prey.

Spot on - Otis drew all the fire, so-to-speak, away from Shane so he could escape ... but also from a storytelling perspective it's even more dramatic than just popping the dude in the head ... ... I mean, that would be pretty darn dramatic, but wounding him and letting him get eaten alive is way more dramatic. :evil:

[Neil]

Surely (1) & (3) is the same!?

[krisvds]

Surely (1) & (3) is the same!?

Perhaps the questions could be:

shooting Otis was justified: It was the only way out for him and Carl's only salvation. (right for he right reasons)
shooting Otis wasn't justified: it was an act of pure evil by a man who has lost himself. (wrong for the wrong reasons)
shooting Otis wasn't justified but was commited because at that moment he could see no other way out. (wrong for the right reasons)

the poll is turning out to be just as debate inspiring than the actual content of it. ;)

[babomb]

Not going to go line by line but he has plenty to make amends for and I get the ambiguity of the character, how the writers painted a picture and changed things up by adding details as a creator I totally get the point. He did not ambiguously try to force himself on Lori, he did not put his friend in his sights and ambiguously contemplate killing him, he did not ambiguously do any of the wrongs we know that he did... Obviously there IS ambiguity in those acts, or else everyone would hate him for those reasons. But there are people saying that they don't see his character as being so black and white.
The only point I've been making is that things aren't as black and white as some paint them to be here. So what you see as me defending Shane's actions isn't actually the case. You only see it like that because you see things in that black and white way. In effect ignoring the entire grayscale spectrum except for the very ends. This is apparent in your comments to people about you claiming they're saying "Shane would make a great leader". But nobody has actually said that, not even in a roundabout way. Some have said that they like the way Shane makes the hard choices and does what needs to be done, as opposed to Rick putting everyone in danger by chasing his own moral outcomes. This is not the same thing as claiming Shane is a great leader.


As to who is vilifying Otis re-read all the threads it was mentioned plenty of times that Otis was paying for his wrong doings, and making amends for what he did wrong. I really do not have the time to go and pull them up and quote them but assure you they are all throughout our discussions. Acknowledging the fact that Otis had responsibility in the events in question that may have played a role in the outcome is not vilifying him. That's black and white thinking at play again.


I have said in the other thread that Shane tried to do the right thing by offering Otis the bag. I am not sure why you keep implying I didn't see it or I missed something I get it, I saw it... I just do not give him a pass for his final act which was killing Otis in cold blood and I am using that to frame points in our larger discussions about Shane as a leader. I'm not giving him a pass either. I'm just saying that I understand the circumstances that lead to him making that choice. I'm not sitting here saying it was the right thing to do and that Shane should be exonnerated in everyones eyes. I'm saying that under the circumstances he saw it as the only option to accomplish the task. I think that's supported by the writers and the cues they left leading up to it. So by you refusing to acknowledge that Shane saw it as the only option, and instead did it merely "to get where he wanted to go", you're ignoring the circumstances surrounding it that were put there for a reason and choosing to see it based only on your own moral convictions. Which isn't supported by the actual events or the intentions of the writers. It's a purely emotional reaction. And IMO, you're supposed to look deeper into it than your initial emotional reaction.


He also in cold blood murdered a man who saved him twice. You say Shane covered him in the gym... he covered him as he risked his life to save Shane's. You might be the one who is not getting it. Which was only necessary because Otis wouldn't have made it out alive going the other way. He was too fat to fit through the window, and he would've been hurt alot worse by the fall from that window. So Shane covered him so he could get to an exit that was more suitable for him.
I don't see that to be a murder in cold blood either. What I would consider a murder in cold blood would be if Shane shot Otis directly upon leaving the supply trailer and bolted to the truck. Instead, "other options" were explored.
IMO, if Shane were such a little bitch that all he cared about was his own ass he wouldn't have volunteered for the mission. I think the fact that he was even in support of the mission at all is an indication of how much he cares about Carl. Because Shane has always been opposed to suicide missions, vehemently opposed. Which I think is an intentional thing on the part of the writers to illustrate this very point.
I also remember how Otis was almost dying when they were running to the farm when Carl got shot. I think that was also intentionally put there so that people would consider that when Shane did what he did to Otis. Which is why I think that immediately jumping to the conclusion that Shane shot Otis for purely selfish reasons is to ignore the cues that the writers went to great lengths to imply.


At the end of the day he had more than one option open to him and he went the worst possible route you could have gone. It really is that easy to me and I do not see how that is open to interpretation, That's why we're having the misunderstanding here. Because you refuse to see how these things are open to any interpretation besides your own. I understand your view, and I understand why you've arrived at your interpretation. I'm also not saying you're wrong in any way. But I don't feel that you're extending some of us that same courtesy.
Anyway, I think the options you're talking about WERE explored. That's why they split up in the gym, and it's why Shane didn't shoot Otis right off the bat. All the cues are there to indicate that the writers intended for the audience to see it as if other options had been explored, and Shane made a split second difficult decision that he saw as the only way to accomplish the task.
As it stands I don't think that there's been a compelling case made to support the idea that Shanes actions on Otis were based solely on selfish motives. IMO, the events in the episode and the cues implied by the writers don't support that. The only evidence I've heard to support that argument seem to be based on other peoples moral convictions and their feelings about Shane's character as a whole.


and if you think it is again put yourself in the place of Otis and tell me it was ambiguous and I am sorry I just don't buy that you would 'Yeah he screwed me over but you know he could be taken two ways..." *chomp* *munch* *tear* *scream*. Of course not. If you're the one being shot and eaten that's what you'd be focusing on. But again, I don't see how this theoretical scenario you keep bringing up proves anything. Because this whole thing is about why Shane did what he did to Otis. So looking at it from Otis' perspective is only gonna give us an idea of how Otis felt at that point. It does nothing to help us understand why Shane did it.
But it does help me to understand that we'll never be able to put this debate to rest. Because my whole argument is based on trying to understand the logic behind Shanes decision. Yours is an emotional reaction to the event itself.

[MinionZombie]

Surely (1) & (3) is the same!?

#1 is an absolute (like #2 is also an absolute), and #3 is a vast area of grey where it is both right and wrong simultaneously.

[Neil]

Perhaps the questions could be:

shooting Otis was justified: It was the only way out for him and Carl's only salvation. (right for he right reasons)
shooting Otis wasn't justified: it was an act of pure evil by a man who has lost himself. (wrong for the wrong reasons)
shooting Otis wasn't justified but was commited because at that moment he could see no other way out. (wrong for the right reasons)

the poll is turning out to be just as debate inspiring than the actual content of it. ;)

In that (clarified) case I'd have to go (1) then. As I think he was justified...

[Thorn]

Obviously there IS ambiguity in those acts, or else everyone would hate him for those reasons. But there are people saying that they don't see his character as being so black and white.
Not really, and I will point on one example and move on. Pretty much everyone has said rape is wrong, he went too far by trying to force himself on Lori, he was basically over the line forcing sex on someone who did not want it. There is not ambiguity in that. One person blamed the alcohol here in these forums but even said that is no excuse and they are right. There is no gray area trying to force sex on your best friends wife is wrong. Black and white. That is black.


The only point I've been making is that things aren't as black and white as some paint them to be here. So what you see as me defending Shane's actions isn't actually the case. You only see it like that because you see things in that black and white way. In effect ignoring the entire grayscale spectrum except for the very ends. This is apparent in your comments to people about you claiming they're saying "Shane would make a great leader". But nobody has actually said that, not even in a roundabout way. Some have said that they like the way Shane makes the hard choices and does what needs to be done, as opposed to Rick putting everyone in danger by chasing his own moral outcomes. This is not the same thing as claiming Shane is a great leader.
I really do not see you as anything, I see black and white where needed and gray where needed. My eyes are plenty open, it might be you who is reading far too much into a conversation and personalizing a lot of what is said that is not even directed at you or your comments.

As for people saying Shane would make a great leader, there are those who have in fact said he would make a better leader than Rick where I have said there is value to both men and neither is a perfect leader but that I would never follow Shane but instead would follow Rick. I am not sure you are reading my posts here and I am not going to repeat myself. I said a number of pages back people should just agree to disagree and move on I think it is the best way to go.


Acknowledging the fact that Otis had responsibility in the events in question that may have played a role in the outcome is not vilifying him. That's black and white thinking at play again.
I never said he did, and in fact see what he did as a terrible mistake. It was a wrong that was done beyond his control that is gray, not black nor white. He shot a kid, it is like driving and hitting a kid, it is wrong in that you did wrong but might not have been willfully criminal.


I'm not giving him a pass either. I'm just saying that I understand the circumstances that lead to him making that choice. I'm not sitting here saying it was the right thing to do and that Shane should be exonnerated in everyones eyes. I'm saying that under the circumstances he saw it as the only option to accomplish the task. I think that's supported by the writers and the cues they left leading up to it. So by you refusing to acknowledge that Shane saw it as the only option, and instead did it merely "to get where he wanted to go", you're ignoring the circumstances surrounding it that were put there for a reason and choosing to see it based only on your own moral convictions. Which isn't supported by the actual events or the intentions of the writers. It's a purely emotional reaction. And IMO, you're supposed to look deeper into it than your initial emotional reaction.
Again I am ignoring nothing, you are not taking your perception of the writers intentions and using that as an absolute, I am reading something different in based on my opinion of the matter. Your idea of what the writers intended is no better or worse than mine. It is your opinion, you are welcome to it, I do not agree with your opinion at all. Doesn't make me wrong. I also do not think in my opinion it was the only option and I suggested another option or two which were downplayed by some (which is fine that is what a good conversation is about), and while I appreciate the passion behind the defense of ones opinion we will never know what would have happened we can only guess and state our thoughts. That plus any subsequent action taken by the characters in question is left up to us to imagine, or the writers to explain, it is a TV show. You can say if Shane ran back it would not have worked I can say it may have, and if not he could have cut himself and flailed about wildly Then if that did not work he could have shot himself and laid on the ground like a great hog waiting to be eaten screaming and flailing. That is where I think you yourself are holding to "black and white" and not considering other possibilities and that's fine you like your idea, are into your opinion. More power to you. I am comfortable with mine. Again we will have to agree to disagree.

As for my ignoring my initial emotional opinion, I have to be honest with you, you are starting to offend me with this. Please stop telling me I am incapable of watching a movie or tv show and understanding how it is being presented, and then further telling me how to watch it and absorb the information. I am not a mental midget I did quite well in theater and film in school. I worked in the comic book industry and I can absorb the information just fine.

My bottom line is I do not think Shane is a good guy, I would not follow him, and I think he killed Otis in cold blood because he decided it was his best option based on flawed criteria of a man who has admitted willfully the world has changed and so have the rules, his rules I can not and will not support. That's it. I further think he did so for very selfish reason instead of for pure ones, and that I feel is supported through dialogue and the fact that he lied about his actions. I feel the writers presented what they did to us to make us feel Shane was coming unhinged, he is being presented to us as the bad guy not the good guy. The symbolic cutting of the hair is very much a staple in written works to show a man is going through a change or coming unhinged.

At this point I am going to stop responding to the thread on this topic because it is talked out and it is just now getting nit picky and personal rather than discussing the material. You went from talking about the show to criticizing me as limited in scope, ability to perceive the subject matter, ignorant as to the industry, and incapable of forming unbiased opinions.

We are no longer discussing the living dead, as as such I am done with the topic.

I made my points, I am comfortable with them, and support them. I encourage each of you to do the same.

[Wyldwraith]

If we're wrapping up I'll finish with this,
Rick is hands down attempting to retain his pre-apocalypse moral code, and making decisions great and small based on these tenets of belief on his part. Fair enough, as the retention of a moral code one has not only lived with, but in Rick's case spent his adult life defending as a police officer is both understandable and, IN SOME WAYS admirable. I completely understand why many are far more comfortable with the idea of a man like Rick leading the group they're a part of in the wake of civilization's collapse. Rick's beliefs/convictions are comforting in both their familiarity and as a reminder of better times. Further, the general consensus from those who seem to be stating that if Rick is not already a good leader he's got a lot of potential to grow into one. Fair enough. I disagree, but am not trying to deny others their right to believe as they choose to and think about things as they choose to.

On Rick, I will finish by saying that, bottom line, I could not trust a man willing to readily increase the danger to the group as a whole or members of said group in part to uphold that moral code. While Rick is not likely to allow pragmatism and grim necessity to cause him to either actively take the life of a group member, or passively allow a life to be taken, I feel that Rick CONSISTENTLY prioritizes "doing the right thing" above "doing the thing with the greatest chance of keeping the most members of the group alive for the longest period of time." People will, as stated above, disagree about this...even on the most basic level of some not feeling like this tendency of Rick's is a failing at all.

On Shane: Shane is the cold pragmatist, and the one constantly aware of the fact that survival for the majority may well mean abandoning the old world's moral code in whole or in part. As a result, Shane exhibits a predisposition towards a propensity of using violence to hammer a problem into submission, and treading readily into the moral abyss if it means getting the job done. I can certainly understand this not being nearly as attractive or loyalty-inspiring as "Rick's Way"...but there IS something to be said for Shane's worldview when the shit hit the fan five seconds ago and everyone needs to know what the group's doing NOW THIS INSTANT. "Shane's Way" exhibits as its strengths a far smaller degree of hesitation between making the decision and acting on said decision due to Shane not agonizing over moral ramifications to crisis-situation-scale problems. Shane is also less likely to act as the admittedly important linchpin that holds everyone together when everything is busy turning to shit. Conversely, if Shane feels a survival-related task has been placed in his hands to resolve, I feel a much greater degree of confidence that, while the solution Shane decides upon and ultimately pursued to the resolution of the problem may be disturbing if not viscerally and instinctively repugnant, that Shane WILL IN FACT come through with a solution as effective as it is timely.

Ultimately, 2 very different life-paths, and both possessing positive and negative attributes. Perhaps because my life has been full of situations where absolutely vicious degree(s) of violence proved to be the solution, or maybe it's simply my less than comfy-sparkly moral code, but I personally tend to feel that while Shane is not himself the one I'd want leading a group I was a part of, I want someone who's much more like Shane than they are like Rick in that position.

[babomb]

As for my ignoring my initial emotional opinion, I have to be honest with you, you are starting to offend me with this. Please stop telling me I am incapable of watching a movie or tv show and understanding how it is being presented, and then further telling me how to watch it and absorb the information. I am not a mental midget I did quite well in theater and film in school. I worked in the comic book industry and I can absorb the information just fine. I'm not telling you you're incapable of anything. And I'm not telling you how to watch the TV show or implying that you can't absorb information. I'm not trying to downplay or disregard your professional opinion here and I'm sorry you feel that way, really.
I was just saying I thought you were willingly leaving out aspects of the situation to justify your moral position. If you say that you're not I have to take you at your word. So it must be me who's totally mistaken. I can live with that.
But I've made every attempt to leave personal attacks out of this.




At this point I am going to stop responding to the thread on this topic because it is talked out and it is just now getting nit picky and personal rather than discussing the material. You went from talking about the show to criticizing me as limited in scope, ability to perceive the subject matter, ignorant as to the industry, and incapable of forming unbiased opinions. I wasn't criticizing you as limited in scope, I never said anything about being ignorant to the industry at all. I honestly don't know how you got that specifically, but evidently you did nonetheless. My thought was directly the opposite. If you choose to see that as an insult there's not much I can do to change that as it's been proven that I'm unable to provide you with valid information to get you to consider another point of view.
All I can do is apologize. I'm sorry I insulted you.
But since we're being honest, I do feel you're being a bit dramatic on that count.
So, sorry, and it's done...

[krisvds]

If we're wrapping up I'll finish with this,
Rick is hands down attempting to retain his pre-apocalypse moral code, and making decisions great and small based on these tenets of belief on his part. Fair enough, as the retention of a moral code one has not only lived with, but in Rick's case spent his adult life defending as a police officer is both understandable and, IN SOME WAYS admirable. I completely understand why many are far more comfortable with the idea of a man like Rick leading the group they're a part of in the wake of civilization's collapse. Rick's beliefs/convictions are comforting in both their familiarity and as a reminder of better times. Further, the general consensus from those who seem to be stating that if Rick is not already a good leader he's got a lot of potential to grow into one. Fair enough. I disagree, but am not trying to deny others their right to believe as they choose to and think about things as they choose to.

On Rick, I will finish by saying that, bottom line, I could not trust a man willing to readily increase the danger to the group as a whole or members of said group in part to uphold that moral code. While Rick is not likely to allow pragmatism and grim necessity to cause him to either actively take the life of a group member, or passively allow a life to be taken, I feel that Rick CONSISTENTLY prioritizes "doing the right thing" above "doing the thing with the greatest chance of keeping the most members of the group alive for the longest period of time." People will, as stated above, disagree about this...even on the most basic level of some not feeling like this tendency of Rick's is a failing at all.

On Shane: Shane is the cold pragmatist, and the one constantly aware of the fact that survival for the majority may well mean abandoning the old world's moral code in whole or in part. As a result, Shane exhibits a predisposition towards a propensity of using violence to hammer a problem into submission, and treading readily into the moral abyss if it means getting the job done. I can certainly understand this not being nearly as attractive or loyalty-inspiring as "Rick's Way"...but there IS something to be said for Shane's worldview when the shit hit the fan five seconds ago and everyone needs to know what the group's doing NOW THIS INSTANT. "Shane's Way" exhibits as its strengths a far smaller degree of hesitation between making the decision and acting on said decision due to Shane not agonizing over moral ramifications to crisis-situation-scale problems. Shane is also less likely to act as the admittedly important linchpin that holds everyone together when everything is busy turning to shit. Conversely, if Shane feels a survival-related task has been placed in his hands to resolve, I feel a much greater degree of confidence that, while the solution Shane decides upon and ultimately pursued to the resolution of the problem may be disturbing if not viscerally and instinctively repugnant, that Shane WILL IN FACT come through with a solution as effective as it is timely.

Ultimately, 2 very different life-paths, and both possessing positive and negative attributes. Perhaps because my life has been full of situations where absolutely vicious degree(s) of violence proved to be the solution, or maybe it's simply my less than comfy-sparkly moral code, but I personally tend to feel that while Shane is not himself the one I'd want leading a group I was a part of, I want someone who's much more like Shane than they are like Rick in that position.

Have you read the comics? If not do NOT click. You see...

There's more to Rick than him trying to be goody little two shoes all the time. YOu write: "While Rick is not likely to allow pragmatism and grim necessity to cause him to either actively take the life of a group member, or passively allow a life to be taken, I feel that Rick CONSISTENTLY prioritizes "doing the right thing" above "doing the thing with the greatest chance of keeping the most members of the group alive for the longest period of time."
In the comics Rick has killed multiple times for exactly the reasons you state. Rick's journey from trying to uphold some moral code amidst all this savagery to 'cold pragmatism' will I hope be carried over to the tv series.

[Andy]

Have you read the comics? If not do NOT click. You see...

There's more to Rick than him trying to be goody little two shoes all the time. YOu write: "While Rick is not likely to allow pragmatism and grim necessity to cause him to either actively take the life of a group member, or passively allow a life to be taken, I feel that Rick CONSISTENTLY prioritizes "doing the right thing" above "doing the thing with the greatest chance of keeping the most members of the group alive for the longest period of time."
In the comics Rick has killed multiple times for exactly the reasons you state. Rick's journey from trying to uphold some moral code amidst all this savagery to 'cold pragmatism' will I hope be carried over to the tv series.

What you say is very true... of the comics.

Rick is different in the TV series, as alot of characters are.

[AcesandEights]

What you say is very true... of the comics.

Rick is different in the TV series, as alot of characters are.

I think Rick is starting out pretty on par with his comic book version.

[krisvds]

I think Rick is starting out pretty on par with his comic book version.

Very much. I hope they stay as close to that character as possible. He has a very, let's say 'interesting' journey ahead of him. If they keep following the 'breadcrumbs Kirkman left them' we might see some of those developments next season.

[Mr. Blue]

Shane should become walker food.