Who was the bigger loss to the group? (Season 2 discussion)

[paranoid101]

Lets not forget T-Dogs voice

[Andy]

Interesting that nobody has voted for sophia when her death was essentially the turning point of the second season.

[AcesandEights]

Interesting that nobody has voted for sophia when her death was essentially the turning point of the second season. A senseless tragedy, but her loss actually had mixed results, both positive and negative. She acted as a catalyst for an escalation in tensions in the group, especially between Rick and Shane, yet also spurred Daryl down a roller-coaster path that seemed to eventually tie him deeper into the group.

[Trin]

Dale was the bigger loss. It's not about what Dale was doing right. It's about being less of a problem than Shane. A few points... 1) We cannot compare Shane's actions early on against Dale's actions in total. Shane may have been more valuable to the group early on (and I'd argue he was) but at the point when they both died Shane's value was not only in decline, but may have been negative. Shane was actively plotting to kill Rick in order to wrestle control of the group and of Lori away. 2) I think it's fair to say that Dale's value was in decline as well, but not nearly so blatantly. Dale didn't cross a few critical boundaries. He never tried to oppose Rick or the group through violence. He never tried to take control. He never tried to hide his actions if someone called him on them. He never knowingly and directly endangered the group to push his agenda (knowing there's some gray area around hiding the guns). 3) Dale was at odds with Shane. Shane was at odds with the group. Remove Shane from the group first and Dale might well have calmed down and been fine. Shane would not have been fine without the better part of the group (especially its leadership) being completely out of the picture. 4) Dale was predictable compared to Shane. Mainly because Dale didn't have ulterior motives (love interest, unborn baby) driving his actions. The moral argument is hard and higly dependent on opinion. To someone who shares Dale's basic moral stance a lot of his actions would be seen as selfless and for the group's benefit. To someone opposed to his moral stance his actions would be seen not only as self-serving but as dangerous to the group. But the same could be said for Shane. In purely objective terms they were a lot alike. They both lied to the group to manipulate events toward their goals. They both felt they were pushing for the best outcome for the group. They each put themselves personally in danger for things they believed in. In the end Dale could be relied upon to do what he said and Shane couldn't.

[Andy]

Actually trin.. one of the very few "pro dale" posts that i can understand what your saying. Personally i cant stand dale and the way he was portrayed on TV but im open to the suggestion that that may well be down a personality clash with myself. I Guess i can sympathise and even relate to shane better. Only point i will out and out disagree with was 2) I think it's fair to say that Dale's value was in decline as well, but not nearly so blatantly. Dale didn't cross a few critical boundaries. He never tried to oppose Rick or the group through violence. He never tried to take control. He never tried to hide his actions if someone called him on them. He never knowingly and directly endangered the group to push his agenda (knowing there's some gray area around hiding the guns). IMO Dale was all about control and on several occassions knowingly and directly endangered the group to push his own agenda. Namely the whole randall thing, hiding the guns and lying about the condition of the RV so the group thought it was undrivable for longer than it actually was.

[shootemindehead]

The long and the short of it was that Shane was on one long straight road and there was only one end, a showdown with Rick and the destruction of the group. Dale's road was bumpy and had more twists and turns. Sure, he could disagree with the consensus and he made some dodgy decisions ( I think his lie about the RV was an effort to give the kid a fighting chance though). But, in the end I think his actions were focused on the betterment of the group overall and without Shane and the antagonism that he created, Dale may have been of a different disposition. Both characters had there flaws, but Shane's were there from a much earlier notch and by the time he checked out, he was so far gone, that there was only one outcome. In the end though, the writting is the let down. The Dale and Shane characters are VERY different from those of the comic and the writing in the comic is FAR superior than anything that's been put on screen.

[MinionZombie]

Dale lied about the condition of the RV so the group wouldn't just up-and-leave Sophia at the drop of a hat. Some would want to continue searching for Sophia, while others would want to head on out - and that's a massive schism smack bang in the middle of the group right there, and you'll stand a much better chance of survival as a whole, rather than in two halves (or more fractions) all pulling in different directions. Shane is the example of pulling in the opposite direction.

[rgc2005]

OTIS and the RV!!!!!! Trained Medic, Rancher, Farmer, Marksman. Too bad he pissed off Shane I would have loved to watch him lose weight on the road in Dale's RV.

[MinionZombie]

OTIS and the RV!!!!!! Trained Medic, Rancher, Farmer, Marksman. Too bad he pissed off Shane I would have loved to watch him lose weight on the road in Dale's RV. Made me laugh - but you're damned right too. Otis had a good skillset.

[Andy]

In the end though, the writting is the let down. The Dale and Shane characters are VERY different from those of the comic and the writing in the comic is FAR superior than anything that's been put on screen. 100% Agreed. The writing in the comics is vastly superior, all the characters are more likeable and even though shane gets alot less time with the reader, his descent into madness is played out alot better. Speaking of shane, has anyone ever heard this before? At the 2012 Emerald City Comicon featuring a panel with Jon Bernthal and Laurie Holden, Bernthal revealed what his version of Shane's death would have been. It would have been largely similar with a few key differences. The ending would have been the same up until the point when Shane and Rick walk into the clearing while searching for Randal. Rick would have asked why they are stopping in the field as they need to find their prisoner, to which Shane would have confessed that he had killed Randal which is a job Rick should have done himself. Shane then would have pulled his gun on Rick leading to similar dialogue between the two men as in the final episode, with the second change being that Shane would have admitted he was there to kill Rick. Rick would then have had similar dialogue as in the episode asking why he was doing this, as he thought they settled their issues in "18 Miles Out." Rick would have then thrown his gun away, instead of holding it in a non-confrontational position, insisting that Shane would have to kill an unarmed man. Shane would have then charged Rick and putting his gun into Ricks face using the same insults as in the final episode about Carl and Lori, but adding a new insult such as "I tasted your wife." Rick would have then stabbed Shane to death as in the final episode, having the same dialogue as in the episode telling Shane it was his fault that he was being killed, not his own. When Shane would have came back as a zombie, Rick (having thrown his gun away), would have picked up Shane's gun to shoot him. When attempting to pull the trigger Rick would come to the realization that Shane never put any ammo into his gun, and must've brought Rick out there to have him kill him, forcing Rick to finally be more like Shane. Carl would have then had shown up and killed Shane, similarly again to the final episode. That would have been a far better ending for shane IMHO.

[bassman]

Bernthal also once said that he tried to convince them that zombie Shane should be able to talk.... As for the "empty gun" ending - you can still see it that way if you want. It's just a bit more open to interpretation. Imo, Shane wasn't taking Rick out there to kill him. He was taking him out there for a stand off. Only one man was going to return to the farm and Shane was never sure it would be himself.

[AcesandEights]

Imo, Shane wasn't taking Rick out there to kill him. He was taking him out there for a stand off. Only one man was going to return to the farm and Shane was never sure it would be himself. I kind of like that take on it. In some ways it's more Hollywood and less gritty, but in others it fits with the way things played out.

[Trin]

Actually trin.. one of the very few "pro dale" posts that i can understand what your saying. Good enough for me! Imo, Shane wasn't taking Rick out there to kill him. He was taking him out there for a stand off. Only one man was going to return to the farm and Shane was never sure it would be himself. I think this is true. Why would Shane talk it out with Rick if he was just planning to kill him and be done with it? It was an unnecessary risk and we know Shane isn't about unnecessary risk. Shane was giving Rick a chance to man-up, as the "empty gun" ending quote implies. I do believe, however, that Shane was prepared to kill Rick if he hadn't proven himself.

[Andy]

As for the "empty gun" ending - you can still see it that way if you want. It's just a bit more open to interpretation. Imo, Shane wasn't taking Rick out there to kill him. He was taking him out there for a stand off. Only one man was going to return to the farm and Shane was never sure it would be himself. Dosnt Shane fire his gun when rick stabs him? I dont think it is empty.. as much as id love it to be, that would have been a far more suitable ending to shane and had a greater impact on rick. You know what always bothered me about that ending? Shane leads rick out into the woods by claiming randal escaped right, its daylight. Their walking in the woods for a couple of hours at least becuase its night before they reach the clearing, yet when it then shows the farmhouse in the background! their only about 200yds from it!! The only reasonable explination for this would be that Shane lead rick around in a giant circle. But i am at a loss as to why he would do that?

[bassman]

Dosnt Shane fire his gun when rick stabs him? I dont think it is empty.. as much as id love it to be, that would have been a far more suitable ending to shane and had a greater impact on rick. No, the gun isn't empty. What I mean is the idea of the "empty gun scenario" can still be there if you wish for it to be. While the gun itself may not be empty, the idea that Shane wanted Rick to kill him is still there if the viewer would like. As I said earlier, I've never believed that Shane took Rick out there with the sole purpose of killing him. Shane took him out there for an old west stand off and had no idea who would survive. On the same token, you could also see it as Shane intentionally pushing Rick to kill him, not the other way around.