The Walking Dead

Horatio said:
I hate all of them except the crossbow guy, I forget his name. Everyone else could die and I wouldn't care. Oh, and I like Michonne. She is the reason to watch this season.
Click to expand...

I don't like ANY of the women. None of them are really believable as real characters.
 
CindyLou said:
I don't like ANY of the women. None of them are really believable as real characters.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find Michonne is quite the opposite of the other women.

But I'm going largely on conjecture since I haven't read the comics/novels yet.

One can hope :o)
 
CindyLou said:
It's been a couple months but I see it differently. Rick was precise and thought things through. Shane was like a marine. Shane was a good person to keep around but was a total loose cannon. His entire philosophy was a crock of shit too. Dale was right, the entire group would have died faster and possibly humanity in general under shane's philosophy. The idea that morals are just a ball and chain is just a feel good feeler knee jerk reaction of someone not thinking but feeling.
Click to expand...
you must have the characters mixed up... Shane made the right call almost every time. Every time Rick was like, we have to go all out of our way to help this 1 person, 2 or 3 more people died in response to the failure. Shane had a logical perspective about practical ways to survive. Rick did not. Rick was a high-faluting moral conundrumist. The group wouldnt have died fasterunder shanes philosiphy, because the group was doing just fine before Rick showed up. It wasnt until Rick took over that the grop began to get eaten off event after event.

[video=youtube;WUxR-ELasrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WUxR-ELasrw[/video]


here is a rambunctious article which does make some decent points

Rick Grimes, played by English actor Andrew Lincoln, is supposed to be the hero of The Walking Dead, but why? Because he’s a decent, sensitive man? Every decision Rick makes ends up with another member of their group injured or dead. Here come some spoilers: Merle, Carl, Otis, Sophia, Amy, Jim, Ed, and Jacqui have all died or nearly died as a direct result of actions Rick has taken in the show.
Meanwhile, Shane, played by Jon Bernthal, is the guy the show wants you to think is too unstable and violent. But he’s the reason every single character alive on the show is still alive. That includes Rick’s harpy wife, his slackjawed kid and even Rick himself. Shane actually kills Otis so that he can get away from a group of zombies to save Rick’s kid, who got shot in the chest in the first place (by Otis, no less) because Rick was an idiot.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/austin_3800/3889_the-walking-dead.html#ixzz29K0nVogS
 
CindyLou said:
No, I don't have them mixed up.

and lol @ askmen.com
Click to expand...
The you dont understand what thinking vs feeling is?

Whats wrong with ask men? Its not like we are talking science here.. and the article points to truth, specifically:

Every decision Rick makes ends up with another member of their group injured or dead. Here come some spoilers: Merle, Carl, Otis, Sophia, Amy, Jim, Ed, and Jacqui have all died or nearly died as a direct result of actions Rick has taken in the show.
 
Yes! I enjoy this series. I was watching the series from the beginning again and I was like "ughhhh!" and my housemate, who also watches it, was like, "oh, is it that scene with that female zombie who's missing her lower half and is super decayed and crawling along the grass," and I was like "no, it's that scene where Shane and Lori are shagging in the forest, and at this point I know that Rick is still alive, and I remember that scene where where Shane basically tries to Rape Lori a few episodes later." :/ That's "ughhh" for me. As a child, my sustenance was a regular diet of horror/supernatural movies, so the zombies never freak me out, only elicit, perhaps, an "oh, nice makeup" reaction.

Still, post-apocalyptic shows/movies/stories/etc. have a strangely strong capability to capture my attention. The landscapes and scenery are typically beautiful, yet depressing. Not sure why.
 
Billy said:
The you dont understand what thinking vs feeling is?

Whats wrong with ask men? Its not like we are talking science here.. and the article points to truth, specifically:

Every decision Rick makes ends up with another member of their group injured or dead. Here come some spoilers: Merle, Carl, Otis, Sophia, Amy, Jim, Ed, and Jacqui have all died or nearly died as a direct result of actions Rick has taken in the show.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. If one life is worth nothing then none of them are. Don't you watch Spartacus? Shane is dead anyway, thank god because he is a mindless idiot. ;)
 
Billy said:
Another thing, in WHAT WORLD would some crusty old man telling you "get off my land" be any kind of a threat when you have a dozen people in your camp with guns? The 1st thing they should have done in season 2 when they found the farm was to execute Hershel, then the barn full of walkers. Then dedicate ALL manpower to building a REAL barrier around the property and the wells. Log some trees and put in stump barriers up to 6 foot high buried another 6 foot into the earth with a simple draw bridge type door. BAMN everyone is safe... instead they spent the entire season crying and whining about the most moral way of handling things would be... fuck that stuff annoys me.... its like... PEOPLE! the DEAD are RISING and EATING the living!!!! HELLLO?!
Click to expand...

I figured this was because the budget was pretty damn terrible in the second season, at least compared to the first. They couldn't afford to really make any progress with the plot, and instead focused on finding a lost child episode after episode, who turned out to be dead, with maybe a zombie or two featured in each episode. This was somewhat disappointing. Basically, the episodes were a bunch of filler, without much of anything being accomplished. A little bit of drama, and that's it.
 
CindyLou said:
No, you don't. If one life is worth nothing then none of them are. Don't you watch Spartacus? Shane is dead anyway, thank god because he is a mindless idiot. ;)
Click to expand...

That is not logical... that is emotional. Spartacus while a much better leader than Rick, suffers from the same problem, he makes emotional decisions that lead to the people around him dying. He could have left Rome and headed to Galia and survived, instead he carves Glabers names into the dead chests of the Romans he kills and lures him down, as a direct consequence he sets into motion a chain of events which leads to many deaths of his fellow gladiators and innocent people like Varrows wife. Spartacus is not a thinker, a feeler. He is highly irrational.

The name of the season was "vengeance" for christs sake.
 
hush said:
I figured this was because the budget was pretty damn terrible in the second season, at least compared to the first. They couldn't afford to really make any progress with the plot, and instead focused on finding a lost child episode after episode, who turned out to be dead, with maybe a zombie or two featured in each episode. This was somewhat disappointing. Basically, the episodes were a bunch of filler, without much of anything being accomplished. A little bit of drama, and that's it.
Click to expand...

That is probably true, but I mean there is no point in debating the real world causes for the fictional characters flaws. Rick and Shane could have easily assumed control of the farm without Hershels blessing and had the same power struggle, all that season did for me was prove how shitty of a leader Rick really was. Crying and whining about "we might have to go, because we just cant see it in us, to take the farm by force" I mean PLEASE! Give me a break. Shane was the errand boy for the entire 1st two seasons, any time they needed something done he was the one to do it, meanwhile rick was busy getting everyone killed.
 
Shane was emotional, more so than Rick. He was self-absorbed and self-centered. He only cared about himself and his "family" (belongings) Lori and her kid. Why would that make a good leader? He was totally reactionary and only steps from an animal.

What was Rick's reaction when he found out about Lori and Shane? I just see Rick as the more logical one even though it may not be apparent to you now.
 
CindyLou said:
Shane was emotional, more so than Rick. He was self-absorbed and self-centered. He only cared about himself and his "family" (belongings) Lori and her kid. Why would that make a good leader?

What was Rick's reaction when he found out about Lori and Shane? I just see Rick as the more logical one even though it may not be apparent to you now.
Click to expand...

Every human being is emotional. The difference, between a thinker and a feeler is what decisions they make. Shane made rational decisions. Decisions logically consistent for the survival of the group. Rick makes emotional decisions. Decisions that have to do with how he feels about things being right morally. Morality is often highly irrational to long term survival. Shane made a moral/irrational decision to save Lori and Carl, he could have easily survived on his own, I thought it took great character for him to put together a band of survivors and keep things working at the quarry until Rick showed up and started making shitty decisions. Like taking men and guns to save the white supremacist at the cost of Amy, Jim and Ed back at camp defenseless. Or like in Season 2, when Rick decided he had to go after that dumbfuck Hershel at the bar in town, and ended up bringing back the raider, which lead to the death of Shane ultimately and Dale.

Dont confuse Ricks non-reaction to Lori/Shane as some form of logic, I see it as his typical wimpyness he was talking about early on in the season in episode 1, where he was talking about how he doesnt react to Lori and it just pisses her off. Its probably more to do with him being a giant vagina than anything, and besides, that 1 example is piss, compared to the rest of the choices he makes emotionally that lead to tons of deaths.
 
y<-- Abby saying hi
Billy said:
Every human being is emotional. The difference, between a thinker and a feeler is what decisions they make. Shane made rational decisions. Decisions logically consistent for the survival of the group. Rick makes emotional decisions. Decisions that have to do with how he feels about things being right morally. Morality is often highly irrational to long term survival. Shane made a moral/irrational decision to save Lori and Carl, he could have easily survived on his own, I thought it took great character for him to put together a band of survivors and keep things working at the quarry until Rick showed up and started making shitty decisions. Like taking men and guns to save the white supremacist at the cost of Amy, Jim and Ed back at camp defenseless. Or like in Season 2, when Rick decided he had to go after that dumbfuck Hershel at the bar in town, and ended up bringing back the raider, which lead to the death of Shane ultimately and Dale.
Click to expand...

Lori and Carl were his reasons to survive; they didn't exist outside of his own needs. Shane was dangerous and lacked true character imo. All of Shane's decisions were reactionary emotional moves based on his own self interest.

Rick made a lot of dumb moves but he was thinking about the group and it's future. Shane was out there.
 
CindyLou said:
y<-- Abby saying hi

Lori and Carl were his reasons to survive; they didn't exist outside of his own needs. Shane was dangerous and lacked true character imo.

Rick made a lot of dumb moves but Shane was out there.
Click to expand...

you keep judging based on intentions, this is a mistake for this kind of a world if survival is the goal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Rick has good intentions and gets everyone killed... Shane has selfish intentions and saves lives...

who is better?

well if we are judging based on who is more effective as a leader and who has a net effect of keeping people alive, then Shane.

If we are judging based on who was the most moral, and the actual lives of the group are irrelevant to that, then Rick.

Thanks for admitting that Rick was dumb and I agree Shane was out there, then again, he was living in a world where THE DEAD RISE AND EAT THE LIVING.
 
Billy said:
you keep judging based on intentions, this is a mistake for this kind of a world if survival is the goal. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Rick has good intentions and gets everyone killed... Shane has selfish intentions and saves lives...

who is better?

well if we are judging based on who is more effective as a leader and who has a net effect of keeping people alive, then Shane.

If we are judging based on who was the most moral, and the actual lives of the group are irrelevant to that, then Rick.

Thanks for admitting that Rick was dumb and I agree Shane was out there, then again, he was living in a world where THE DEAD RISE AND EAT THE LIVING.
Click to expand...

Call it women's intuition but if I was there Shane would have eventually gotten me killed if he didn't kill me himself. He was no leader. He was irrational most of the time and obviously was losing his mind if he hadn't lost it already.
 
CindyLou said:
Call it women's intuition but if I was there Shane would have eventually gotten me killed if he didn't kill me himself. He was no leader. He was irrational most of the time and obviously was losing his mind if he hadn't lost it already.
Click to expand...
Thats not based on anything, because if we go by the 1st 2 seasons we see that he saved more lives than he lost, rick lost more than he saved. Thats what happened, there is no arguing that... so your womans intuition is wrong in this case.
 
Billy said:
Thats not based on anything, because if we go by the 1st 2 seasons we see that he saved more lives than he lost, rick lost more than he saved. Thats what happened, there is no arguing that... so your womans intuition is wrong in this case.
Click to expand...

You'll never know if I'm wrong because he's dead. Yessssssssss ;)
 
1st scene of season 3, Carl finds dogfood and opens it to eat it and Rick throws it away... I agree, thats the logical thing to do, its much smarter to be hungry than to lower yourself to the status of dog food.. jesus what a moron.
 
What he almost raped Lori! The fuck? Let me go see what Cosmo says about it. ;)

He did make the show interesting. I stopped watching after my Dale died. So, was it even still good or what with just Rick around being a vagina like you say? Lol. I've never really disliked a child character in my life until Carl. They wrote some of those people to be the most unsympathetic people ever lolol almost think the zombies ought to eat them

I have Dish Network. :/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top