The Shane Topic..

[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!

[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! 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.

[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.