Walking Dead- Season Two (Probably will be spoilers)

[Joxer t' Mighty]

Hadn't seen this thread yet. Awesome.

Especially cuz I have a Lorrie rant.

Spoiler

You petted little sow. Twice now you've considered killing your children simply so they won't have to grow up in a world where they have to hide and hunt. Boo hoo. Until the last century that was the NORM.

Go back even five hundred years and most people in the world still huddled around camp fires. OMG, they won't have modern conveniences. WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THAT?! Waaaaah! *sob*

So the best thing to do is just let everyone die? There is nowhere in the world to be safe or to find happiness, nothing to love or care about? You have got to be kidding me. If mankind had your soppy little attitude then we'd have gone extinct long ago. Man found happiness amongst that. We didn't all just die from depression.

How about you raise back up a generation to make up for all the loss. Bring life into the world instead of continuing the death. They, unlike your spoiled ass, will take the world as it is in stride, and find a reason for living. You have that baby and then go stick your head in a meat grinder if that'll make you happy. One less useless bag of bones in the world.

[Tyndmyr]

Appropriate. I find it odd that we get the most on-screen ranting from the characters who have lost the least. Rick is crying all the time...and he not only has his full family, he even has a buddy(though I find his choice in friends questionable).

On the other hand, Glenn seems pretty damned stable. Dale appears not to have any problems coping at all, and even Daryl is pretty solid, despite losing his brother. Well, mostly, anyway.

[Candle Jack]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

He did reuse bolts for a while...then inexplicably stopped doing so(probably because the writers realized that a crossbow that doesn't run out of bolts is an answer to a LOT of problems). He hasn't been reusing them for a couple of episodes, and it's clearly intentional. See his "waste of a bolt" comment for when he shoots the hanging zombie.

I figured he couldn't retrieve the bolt because the zombie is hanging in the air.

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

Go back even five hundred years and most people in the world still huddled around camp fires. OMG, they won't have modern conveniences. WHAT KIND OF LIFE IS THAT?! Waaaaah! *sob*

Did you actually listen to her? It's not the lack of modern conveniences she's worried about, although that admittedly sucks. It's the hordes of hungry undead that will zero in on a baby's cries.

Forget having to feed and clothe that kid, or having to scavenge for medicine when it gets sick. Just imagine trying to sneak past a horde of walkers with a crying baby in your arms and you get a sense of Lori's dilemma.

And it's not like a baby can defend itself from the undead. There's a reason you don't see many kids during these zombie apocalypses.

It's a moot point, however, since morning-after bills cannot terminate a pregnancy.

[Mixt]

You are hiding from the undead.

The baby starts screaming, which gives away your position.

Everyone dies.

Thank you very much you blasted baby, it's your fault we all got killed.

And that is why babies are dangerous.

[Joxer t' Mighty]

Originally Posted by Candle Jack

Did you actually listen to her? It's not the lack of modern conveniences she's worried about, although that admittedly sucks. It's the hordes of hungry undead that will zero in on a baby's cries.

Forget having to feed and clothe that kid, or having to scavenge for medicine when it gets sick. Just imagine trying to sneak past a horde of walkers with a crying baby in your arms and you get a sense of Lori's dilemma.

Welcome to the 1500's. Replace zombies with wolves. Actually, wolves are more dangerous in some ways. They're quieter and faster and you won't notice them until they're upon you. They can hear the babies from much farther and track you by scent. They also use tactics to surround you, and can communicate over distances.

If you're THAT worried, go way out in the middle of nowhere with some supplies. Wait a couple years until the kid can walk and shut up when you tell it. It'll be inconvenient, but who gives a steaming pile. You'll let the kids die as a convenience?

Also, they spend most of their time on the road. With big roaring vehicles. But fine, say they wanna settle down, find a nice, cozy BASEMENT and don't let the kid see the light of day for a couple years. No zombie is gonna hear it down there.

[thompur]

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

Welcome to the 1500's. Replace zombies with wolves. Actually, wolves are more dangerous in some ways. They're quieter and faster and you won't notice them until they're upon you. They can hear the babies from much farther and track you by scent. They also use tactics to surround you, and can communicate over distances.

If you're THAT worried, go way out in the middle of nowhere with some supplies. Wait a couple years until the kid can walk and shut up when you tell it. It'll be inconvenient, but who gives a steaming pile. You'll let the kids die as a convenience?

Also, they spend most of their time on the road. With big roaring vehicles. But fine, say they wanna settle down, find a nice, cozy BASEMENT and don't let the kid see the light of day for a couple years. No zombie is gonna hear it down there.

Wolves don't generally attack people, they avoid them. There are very few confirmed cases of wolves attacking humans. Zombies on the other hand...

[Candle Jack]

Are you kidding? Outside of fantasy literature, wolves rarely attack humans; you're more likely to get hit with a lightning bolt than get attacked by a wolf. The main reason they were feared during the Middle Ages was because they preyed on livestock, not people.

Zombies, unlike wolves, currently blanket the Earth in the Walking Dead series. They are everywhere. Staying out in the middle of nowhere has only reduced the number of walkers that Rick's group has encountered. And if they can't stay at Hershel's farm, then they'll be forced to go on the move again.

Unlike a wolf, a zombie's existence is dedicated to feasting upon the living. They never stop looking for living humans or animals to eat, and they never have to rest. If a zombie knows there are living people inside a building, it might stay outside of that building forever while looking for a way in.

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

But fine, say they wanna settle down, find a nice, cozy BASEMENT and don't let the kid see the light of day for a couple years. No zombie is gonna hear it down there.

They still have to come out of the basement to get food, water, etc.

[Joxer t' Mighty]

Originally Posted by Candle Jack

Are you kidding? Outside of fantasy literature, wolves rarely attack humans; you're more likely to get hit with a lightning bolt than get attacked by a wolf. The main reason they were feared during the Middle Ages was because they preyed on livestock, not people. Sure, I wouldn't leave a defenceless child around a hungry wolf, but it's not like they hang around your house biding their time until they jump through a window and snack on your toddler.

Modern wolves rarely attack. For one, there aren't as many. But let's say there are rare wolf attack. Humans never had to huddle against predators? If they did, use them instead. Insert them instead of wolves. Use coyotes instead if you like. I 'know' they attack from personal experience.

Zombies, unlike wolves, currently blanket the Earth in the Walking Dead series. They are everywhere. Staying out in the middle of nowhere has only reduced the number of walkers that Rick's group has encountered.

Rick's group is so far not even forty miles from one of the largest cities in the southeast. I happen to live exactly in the area to where the walking dead was filmed. There are thousands of people there. They are by no means out in the middle of nowhere.

In georgia alone there are places where no one lives for a hundred miles. Much less other locations in the U.S. that can be traveled to. They can't be 'everywhere'. They have to have been there first, or nearby. None of those zombies even more more than a slow walk on average. They actually tend to congregate around where they rose. Even if they decided to head on out, it'd take them years to move out of the cities.

And zombies are constantly on the hunt for human flesh. Unlike a wolf, they never have to rest; barring some accident, a zombie can keep walking forever while it hunts for tasty survivors to chew on.

Except they aren't actively hunting. They only move if they see light, hear noise, observe movement. So unless someone is leading them along with a flesh carrot they aren't going anywhere.

[Zen Monkey]

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

So unless someone is leading them along with a flesh carrot they aren't going anywhere.

That probably sounds naughtier than was intended.

[Candle Jack]

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

Humans never had to huddle against predators?

Compared to all the people killed by disease, natural disasters, starvation and the actions of other humans, I dare say the number of people killed by predators like bears and wolves throughout history is infinitesimal by comparison.

This image you have of European peasants huddled fearfully in decrepit hovels while packs of baby-eating wolves terrorize the countryside has no basis in reality.

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

In georgia alone there are places where no one lives for a hundred miles. Much less other locations in the U.S. that can be traveled to. They can't be 'everywhere'.

Do you think that humans would not flee to remote areas during a zombie apocalypse? Humans are everywhere and therefore zombies are everywhere.

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

Except they aren't actively hunting. They only move if they see light, hear noise, observe movement. So unless someone is leading them along with a flesh carrot they aren't going anywhere.

Remember that pack of walkers that was moving along the highway?

Zombies. Roam.

[Silverraptor]

How did the pharmacy zombie get in there? And how was it able to be quiet for so long when they were talking just for a chance to jump out at them? I was under the impression they go immediately for their victims and are incapable of planning or logical reasoning.

[Karoht]

Only watched first season. Read the graphic novel first. Absolutely love the deviations thus far.

Personally, I never have the expectation that a movie, book, or comic will have an adaptation which is word for word from the original. The only thing I've seen thus far that even came close was 300, which is unique for a variety of reasons I won't get into here.

But indeed, I very much like the Walking Dead show. AMC really seems to know what the heck they are doing. They pick some great projects to fund.

I personally liked the CDC episode. I rather enjoyed the real time footage of the disease taking effect. I also rather like the show's version of Shane. He was a great 'rock and a hard place' character in the comic, and the show builds on that just enough but without ruining the original concept.

[Candle Jack]

Originally Posted by Silverraptor

How did the pharmacy zombie get in there?And how was it able to be quiet for so long when they were talking just for a chance to jump out at them?

Even zombies obey horror movie tropes.

But the walkers are not as mindless as you think. We've seen them crawl, climb fences and even use rocks to smash doors and windows.

[Silverraptor]

Originally Posted by Candle Jack

Even zombies obey horror movie tropes.

But the walkers are not as mindless as you think. We've seen them crawl, climb fences and even use rocks to smash doors and windows.

Yeah, but I have trouble believing that Zombies are capable of setting up planned ambushes and not immediately going for food when the food makes noises.

[Candle Jack]

He wasn't necessarily lying in ambush. Maybe he wandered into the pharmacy through the back door, heard people talking and then shuffled up to the front. He was just smart enough to stay quiet until he got within close range.

[Silverraptor]

Originally Posted by Candle Jack

He wasn't necessarily lying in ambush. Maybe he wandered into the pharmacy through the back door, heard people talking and then shuffled up to the front. He was just smart enough to stay quiet until he got within close range.

You'd think they would've had the back door closed since the last time they were there. It seems like it would only be common sense for an area you may want to return to for supplies to close all its entrances until you come back to that area.

[Tyndmyr]

Originally Posted by Reverent-One

Guess you're going to be pissed then.

Oh yes. Everyone practically high fived her for shooting a party member. Also, she learned the superpower of self-confidence which turned her into a gun-ninja.

Originally Posted by Candle Jack

It's a moot point, however, since morning-after bills cannot terminate a pregnancy.

They can if you chug the whole bottle. That'll terminate just about anything. Not that this is in any respect a good idea. Realistically though, yeah...the window of opportunity is pretty obviously gone for using it as it's intended.

Originally Posted by Joxer t' Mighty

Rick's group is so far not even forty miles from one of the largest cities in the southeast. I happen to live exactly in the area to where the walking dead was filmed. There are thousands of people there. They are by no means out in the middle of nowhere.

Thank you! I've been saying for a while that the season 1 camp isn't all that far from civilization. I worked at Dobbins AFB for a while, and there's civilization all around Atlanta.

Originally Posted by Silverraptor

How did the pharmacy zombie get in there? And how was it able to be quiet for so long when they were talking just for a chance to jump out at them? I was under the impression they go immediately for their victims and are incapable of planning or logical reasoning.

I dunno dude...it seems to be running on Drama! instead of logic at this point, but I had two thoughts regarding it.

A. Just about decapitating someone with a board is...pretty hard. Either Glenn is pretty ridiculously strong, or the zombies are a lot squishier than people.
B. This provides further evidence for my case that they're portrayed as not taking basic anti-zombie steps, like looking around the building to make sure it's clean or securing the place so zombies can't get in. These are incredibly basic, and are shown in basically any zombie movie ever. Also, if the place is really that insecure, it was probably a really poor choice of places to have sex.

Also, Daryl clearly still has a bolt(quite clean and new looking) that he's playing with while he's healing. This is a bit odd, considering they earlier state that he's down to one, and he then uses it while wounded. I don't recall any depiction of him retrieving the bolt, and given the situation...it just seems odd.

I sort of wonder how these people survived ordinary, everyday life. And also why, if these folks can survive, everyone else has not. Does the zombie virus lower your IQ by 50 points?

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

They can if you chug the whole bottle. That'll terminate just about anything. Not that this is in any respect a good idea. Realistically though, yeah...the window of opportunity is pretty obviously gone for using it as it's intended.

Could also just cause a miscarriage, which, if the fetus is not removed, could kill the mother. Also, that many pills could have harmful side effects on the mom. As you said, "Not... a good idea."

In a D20 modern campaign we played, we did a zombie apocalypse setting, and we were all playing as our real life selves. So the DM being a clever person, through all manner of moral dilemas at us. We rescued a mom, turned out she had a baby and was pregnant with another already.

I'll be honest, the entire party saw an issue of bringing a baby with us, but darned if we could come up with a solution we were comfortable with. Thankfully, the decision was removed from us. We had a party member get attacked and incapacitated, and while this occured the mom got attacked. Party member broke free, looked at the mom and made the fort save to not throw up, and then ran after us with 8 fast zombies on his tail.

In a survival situation, Lori's dilemma's isn't really solveable without endangering herself (IE-Pills to abort child), but bringing the child to term would likely endanger her (medical complications) or the group (she slows them down because carrying a child will do that), and then keeping the baby brings on whole other issues.


This in my opinion is why the show seems to focus more on drama than on actual survival. The moral choices can really fill out a script for an hour long show rather quickly, the minutae of securing camp doesn't. Also, as much as it makes the characters look stupid (I have the same problem as you with some parts of the show), it also does convey a sense of panic and disarray, as not all flight-or-fight decisions necessarily make sense.

I sort of wonder how these people survived ordinary, everyday life. And also why, if these folks can survive, everyone else has not. Does the zombie virus lower your IQ by 50 points?

Average people are stupid. No really, check wiki.
It's easy to watch the show and think to yourself "hey, if I was in that situation I would do this." Projecting one's self like this is easy. Sometimes such projection into the scenario rather than onto the characters is the way people begin to understand the characters or the scenario. But, sometimes it makes the audience bang their head against a desk in frustration and causes the inverse, the audience then no longer relates to the characters due to such frustration.

[Tyndmyr]

Originally Posted by Karoht

Could also just cause a miscarriage, which, if the fetus is not removed, could kill the mother. Also, that many pills could have harmful side effects on the mom. As you said, "Not... a good idea."

Spoiler from comics. Don't read unless you want the reveal/have read the comics.

Spoiler

Being that dead people automatically rise, bitten or not, in the walking dead world...what happens if you abort the baby? Does it chew it's way out?

Here's hoping we DONT find out.

In a D20 modern campaign we played, we did a zombie apocalypse setting, and we were all playing as our real life selves. So the DM being a clever person, through all manner of moral dilemas at us. We rescued a mom, turned out she had a baby and was pregnant with another already.

I'll be honest, the entire party saw an issue of bringing a baby with us, but darned if we could come up with a solution we were comfortable with. Thankfully, the decision was removed from us. We had a party member get attacked and incapacitated, and while this occured the mom got attacked. Party member broke free, looked at the mom and made the fort save to not throw up, and then ran after us with 8 fast zombies on his tail.

In a survival situation, Lori's dilemma's isn't really solveable without endangering herself (IE-Pills to abort child), but bringing the child to term would likely endanger her (medical complications) or the group (she slows them down because carrying a child will do that), and then keeping the baby brings on whole other issues.

It does. I'm not saying it doesn't suck as a situation...but they don't really focus on the moral dilemma. Rick doesn't even appear to accept that it's a problem, let alone come up with any thoughts for solving it.

This in my opinion is why the show seems to focus more on drama than on actual survival. The moral choices can really fill out a script for an hour long show rather quickly, the minutae of securing camp doesn't. Also, as much as it makes the characters look stupid (I have the same problem as you with some parts of the show), it also does convey a sense of panic and disarray, as not all flight-or-fight decisions necessarily make sense.

The comics have a pretty even split between practical problem solving and moral choices. Both are very strong themes. I feel like it strengthens the story quite a bit, and provides greater emphasis to both topics. After all, if everything is overly dramatic, then nothing stands out. Things that SHOULD be decent moral dilemmas and sources of conflict, like the decision to keep the walkers in the barn(not really all that unreasonable, given the info available), end up falling a little flat compared to what they should be.

Average people are stupid. No really, check wiki.
It's easy to watch the show and think to yourself "hey, if I was in that situation I would do this." Projecting one's self like this is easy. Sometimes such projection into the scenario rather than onto the characters is the way people begin to understand the characters or the scenario. But, sometimes it makes the audience bang their head against a desk in frustration and causes the inverse, the audience then no longer relates to the characters due to such frustration.

I've got exactly three chars I relate to at all at this point. Glenn, Daryl, and Dale. None of them are perfect people by any means, but they all have at least areas in which they are basically competent, and at least try to improve their situation somewhat.

Other chars...not so much. Ruled entirely by emotion, and/or have a distinct lack of competence at anything. Consider...the woman who lost the daughter(I can't even recall her name). She is basically a crying ball of uselesness all the time. She isn't a character, she's a problem for the characters to deal with.

One of those might be a good way to introduce ethical concerns, but a LOT of the cast is similarly hard to empathize with. Rick is basically a ball of feelings, and for some reason is the "leader" despite being very bad at actually leading. His only real skill is shooting things with a handgun. Lori is basically a liability. Andrea is even more of this. T-dawg could be solid, but he honestly never gets any face time, so his characterization is thin at best. Shane has character, but it's that of a terrible person, so he's not very sympathetic.

So, well over half the group, I'm hoping that zombies eat them.

[Mathis]

Ok, first off I just want to say that I actually really like this season. It has been interesting -because- of the drama that has been developing on the farm so far, in my opinion that is. It also pushes the story forward just enough to be interesting in every single episode. I see a lot of people have issues with this show that I had never given a second thought to however. There are several issues that have been brought up so far that are worthy of a reply, but I think other people will be happy to jump on them. I do want to comment on this however:

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Other chars...not so much. Ruled entirely by emotion, and/or have a distinct lack of competence at anything. Consider...the woman who lost the daughter(I can't even recall her name). She is basically a crying ball of uselesness all the time. She isn't a character, she's a problem for the characters to deal with.

One of those might be a good way to introduce ethical concerns, but a LOT of the cast is similarly hard to empathize with. Rick is basically a ball of feelings, and for some reason is the "leader" despite being very bad at actually leading. His only real skill is shooting things with a handgun. Lori is basically a liability. Andrea is even more of this. T-dawg could be solid, but he honestly never gets any face time, so his characterization is thin at best. Shane has character, but it's that of a terrible person, so he's not very sympathetic.

So, well over half the group, I'm hoping that zombies eat them.

When it comes to Carol, Sophia's mother who you mention in the first paragraph I agree with you in that she doesn't have many useful skills to bring to the group. But I find that incredibly interesting. When something like this happens, you don't get to cherry pick your own group of survivors, and chances are you're going to have to be extremely lucky to find a group of people with skills useful to this type of scenario. This is why I actually like this character, she's a good addition to the group in that she's a gateway to problems, to story-hooks if you like. Or as you say, a good way to introduce ethical concerns. To say that she isn't a character though, is rather extreme. She doesn't have much character I'll agree with you, but she has a distinct personality and function in the show and so fills the role of a character just like any of the others.

Rick as a leader though, I always figured he just sort of fell into that role because he's a police officer. Just like Shane was before him. In real life you're not always going to get the most competent people in the right positions, and I think the show reflects this pretty well. That said, my favourite characters are like many others Dale, Daryl and Glen. But watching a show about three competent guys driving along and solving every problem thrown at them in a calm and collected, reasonable way would be incredibly boring.

[Tyndmyr]

You can have the issue of "what to do with someone who doesn't contribute anything to the group", sure. It's a valid issue.

But when it's most of the entire group, it goes beyond interesting issue and gets into "Why haven't they all died yet?" territory. Remember, you kind of need to explain why, of all the people in the world, these guys are the survivors. The more panic and stupidity you include, the harder that is to swallow.

[Mathis]

Why they have survived? From what we've seen so far? Pure chance and happenstance? I really don't find that hard to believe at all. You don't need to be a badass to survive something like this, you need to be lucky. And I hardly believe these are the only survivors in the whole world as you claim, I think we've been shown that much several times already? The show has also never claimed anything remotely close to that. This show just portrays the fates of one small group of survivors, that happened to come together and found a certain safety in numbers. There is no greater meaning behind it than that. The show really doesn't need to justify which characters it includes. Pardon me if I'm wrong, I might have misunderstood you, but that does sound like what you're looking for.

[Tyndmyr]

Sure it does. The show needs to justify why people do not die, when basically everyone else appears to be dead.

Luck can be a part of that, but luck on it's own is a really poor reason. This gets back to someone earlier asking why the military isn't alive and well, given that they were clearly powerful enough to launch air strikes post-evacuation of Atlanta. Luck is a very unsatisfying answer to that.

Edit: Explaining how your chars got to their current state in life is a pretty major part of...any story, really. If the answer for all of them is "good luck/bad luck", you basically just copped out of actually explaining it.

[Mathis]

Then we are going to have to disagree on what a show has to justify.

I'm sorry though, but has the story ended? Is the show over? I can't recall seeing the ending of the show and thinking "Wow, that show really never got around to explaining the backgrounds of the characters it involved". You really can't critize a show for not explaining something when the show isn't over yet. Wait until it ends, then we can talk about what they didn't explain. I also thought we were talking about the group here? I never mentioned the military or that whatever happened to it had anything to do with luck. I also really don't want to speculate much on that.

The show has already shown us the entire history of why Rick is still alive, and we now know that Lori, Carl, Shane, Carol and Sophia have all been together since the mass evacuations, as we saw in a flashback that they met on a road during the bombing of Atlanta.

But, I feel like I have to explain that I really don't care about what happened to the characters before the show started. I'm watching The Walking Dead because I want to see what happens to these people now that they have to survive and rely on each other. Not what happened up until this point in the story. Maybe we have different interests here.

[Tyndmyr]

Originally Posted by Mathis

Then we are going to have to disagree on what a show has to justify.

I'm sorry though, but has the story ended? Is the show over? I can't recall seeing the ending of the show and thinking "Wow, that show really never got around to explaining the backgrounds of the characters it involved". You really can't critize a show for not explaining something when the show isn't over yet. Wait until it ends, then we can talk about what they didn't explain. I also thought we were talking about the group here? I never mentioned the military or that whatever happened to it had anything to do with luck. I also really don't want to speculate much on that.

Well, there IS a "mid-season finale" for the next episode. Their words, not mine. I have no idea what that means.

But this idea that a show can't be defined as good or bad until it's over is nonsense. It's been a season and a half. There's no reason not to have fleshed out characters by then, and there's no reason why the depiction of their life until now in a SURVIVAL HORROR show should not include, yknow, how they survive.

The show has already shown us the entire history of why Rick is still alive, and we now know that Lori, Carl, Shane, Carol and Sophia have all been together since the mass evacuations, as we saw in a flashback that they met on a road during the bombing of Atlanta.

We know THAT they are alive. We know roughly where they were for the entire time. But we have no idea why. The characters even frequently hang a lampshade on this by stating that they don't know how they're alive(or other chars say that to them).

But, I feel like I have to explain that I really don't care about what happened to the characters before the show started. I'm watching The Walking Dead because I want to see what happens to these people now that they have to survive and rely on each other. Not what happened up until this point in the story. Maybe we have different interests here.

Pre-zombie, they don't need great detail. He's a cop, shanes a cop, etc, etc. That provides us with some background, and some justification for useful skills. But it's been months with zombies now. They need to have some sort of characterization. People need to have roles that fit them. Not everyone does.

[Karoht]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Spoiler from comics. Don't read unless you want the reveal/have read the comics.

Spoiler

Being that dead people automatically rise, bitten or not, in the walking dead world...what happens if you abort the baby? Does it chew it's way out?

Here's hoping we DONT find out.

Yeah, uh, lets not and say we did.

It does. I'm not saying it doesn't suck as a situation...but they don't really focus on the moral dilemma. Rick doesn't even appear to accept that it's a problem, let alone come up with any thoughts for solving it. Rick is basically a ball of feelings, and for some reason is the "leader" despite being very bad at actually leading. His only real skill is shooting things with a handgun.

Rick always seems like he has an idea in mind but doesn't voice it. Tends to be for two reasons.
1-The panicky idiots immediately overreact rather than letting him finish a sentence.
AND/OR/May be related to #1
2-He keeps some ideas to himself for reasons of accountability. That being that if he phrases something in a half-assed casual hypothetical way, there is a good chance that one of the panicky idiots will bring it up in a negative context later. We've seen this happen, like when he said to at the end of the first season

Spoiler

That it's obvious there really isn't any hope.

Now while he should likely still say his piece, I understand why he doesn't do this.
He's a cop. It's part of the training. He lets something slip, the crook can get off scot free or sue or something. While that doesn't apply in the context of zombie apocalypse, it does apply around panicky idiots who overreact often because they don't know how to deal with the zombie apocalypse. He tends to try and keep peace rather than taking charge like he should.
I think he needs to be a bit more brazen. If people don't want to listen, then he just picks up his guns and gets ready to go get the job done himself.

Thats actually why I like the drama, even if it drives me nuts. It's very easy for us to sit back and say what we (the genre savy) would do, but to watch the unprepared non-genre savy break down or screw up actually kind of helps the immersion somewhat.

Example:
First Season.
After the camp gets attacked, they don't really explore possibilities of what happened and why. My mind was trying to puzzle it out, but then as they were talking about leaving, my mind completely pushed all the logical possibilities (not really relevant) out of my head and thought "oh crap, what about tonight? They're in crappy shape, there's less of them, what if even more zombies show up?" and at that point I was fully behind them getting out of there right away. And the only reason why that worked?
After a while, the panicky idiot becomes part of the atmosphere and helps create that tension.
Though yes, it's over used. But in some spots it works. At least thats the vibe I'm getting.

[Mathis]

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Well, there IS a "mid-season finale" for the next episode. Their words, not mine. I have no idea what that means.

But this idea that a show can't be defined as good or bad until it's over is nonsense. It's been a season and a half. There's no reason not to have fleshed out characters by then, and there's no reason why the depiction of their life until now in a SURVIVAL HORROR show should not include, yknow, how they survive.

I never said a show can't be defined as good or bad until it's over. If you read that into my post then I'm afraid you misunderstood or I communicated poorly. I'll explain. What I said was that you can't critize a show for not including something when it's not over. That means that what you feel is missing from the show, may appear at a later point in the story. You can feel free to call a show either good or bad as much as you want though, based on the things you think are missing from the show. However, it would be awkward if what you felt was missing suddenly came into the story, so your criticism wouldn't really be that valid in my humble opinion. About the last part of that quote, I think we're watching different shows because what I've seen so far has been a show about characters SURVIVING. See? I can capitalize RANDOM words TOO.

Originally Posted by Tyndmyr

Pre-zombie, they don't need great detail. He's a cop, shanes a cop, etc, etc. That provides us with some background, and some justification for useful skills. But it's been months with zombies now. They need to have some sort of characterization. People need to have roles that fit them. Not everyone does.

I disagree, I feel like every character has a definite personality and role within the group so far, some less clear and defined than others yeah but a role still. I guess that's that.

[thorgrim29]

2 things I'd like to say about the discussions:

- Having a baby in a zombie apocalypse without a long-term settlement is a terrible idea. But taking a whole pack of morning after pills at least a month after the pregnancy started is even worse. I honestly don't know what they should do about that, given that Hershel isn't likely to be willing to abort the baby even if he knows how, what with the whole religion thing.

- The whole zombies in barn thing is beyond stupid. Sure at first I can understand thinking it's a disease and they can be cured, but when they start rotting and surviving things they have no business surviving, that's where any reasonable person should realize that these are walking corpses and nothing else.

I'm also concerned about Andrea, she seems like she's becoming an adrenalin junkie, and is therefore on her way to being an even worse person to trust with a gun even if she's inexplicably good with them.

Finally, did Rick say he already knew Lori had slept with Shane or did I hear that wrong?

[Tyndmyr]

Originally Posted by thorgrim29

Finally, did Rick say he already knew Lori had slept with Shane or did I hear that wrong?

No, that sounds exactly right. And that, at least, was something she made the right call on. It kind of sucks, and there's no doubt there will be tension there, but given the situation, it was kind of understandable.

Also, yeah...I do agree that the fact that people are rotting away is a bit of a clue. It indicates that even if you consider zombies to be possibly saveable(something Hershel would likely initially think, given the lack of genre awareness), it's highly problematic in the longer term. How do you restore someone who has literally been partially rotted away? The doctor in him has to know that's highly improbable. He's got to be familiar with Rabies and stuff, which is extremely similar, and in which, after a certain point, people can't be saved.


Mathis, people surviving is entirely expected as a subject. I said it was survival horror, no? So, sure, you've got people surviving, but why they're surviving is a very basic level of justification. I don't require justification of how the virus suddenly spread everywhere...but the topic of why these people are alive is a pretty basic one. The comics tends to cover that in pretty short order for every character introduced. The reasons need not be exactly the same as in the comic, but they shouldn't all be "lucky, I guess".

[Flickerdart]

What I'm wondering is - if they thing the zombies are people, and feed them that many chickens as often as a person needs to eat, how is it that they're not out of chickens yet?