|
Discussing the show and past episodes is fine. Do not put things that have happened in the TV series in spoilers. However, don't spoil things from the books that may happen in future episodes. Put book spoilers in spoiler tags with a CLEAR WARNING that it is from the book. |
On November 29 2011 15:18 VediVeci wrote: Oh that was longer. ^^
I just want to throw in my support of your view of Shane, except for the Otis bit. He definitely doesn't lead by inspiring people or appealing to their decency, he gives voice to a lot of really primal instincts that other people also feel, and so they rally to him as an expression of those fears, uncertainties and insecurities. That's painting in broad strokes I know, but nuance takes up stupidly large amounts of text...
On another note, am I right in thinking that the night Shane killed Otis, Dale had left the RV on the freeway, on his own, to walk around or search for the girl or whatever, and that his whereabouts until he got back are completely unaccounted for? He nailed it when he said that Shane shot Otis, and I suppose that that isn't really an unreasonable guess but I can't shake the suspicion that he may have seen the whole thing? There had been alot of shooting by Shane and Otis previously and its not too implausible that Dale heard the shots and investigated I don't think.
They would have been very far off and I don't think Dale could have walked that distance even if he had heard the gunshots. Furthermore, if Dale had seen the whole thing, I don't think he would have stayed silent for so long. The way he brings it up in his confrontation with Shane seems more to gauge a reaction, he wasn't entirely sure. I think your idea is a massive massive stretch, almost impossible even.
|
I agree that he probably would have said something actually, so that's a big hole in my theory. But the school was 5 miles from the house I think? It never says what direction though so it could be within Dale's walking distance. The main reason I have suspicions though is because Dale going off on his own at that exact time with no account given for his actions seemed like a big coincidence.
he may have stayed quiet in an effort to keep the group together, or to maintain peaceful relations with Hershel's people or for a variety of other reasons. I do agree with you though it doesn't seem in character, barring something else, for him to stay quiet, so I could be very wrong
|
On November 29 2011 14:04 VediVeci wrote: + Show Spoiler + This forum is depressing though, people would really just kill Hershel? That's what the show is about as far as I can tell, the difference between surviving and keeping one's humanity. Its not about killing or curing the zombies as far as I can tell, they're essentially part of the setting. The show is about examining human nature under circumstances of extreme danger or duress.
One aspect of this is Shane, the cold survivalist. He is tribal to the extreme, prizing the well being of "his people" above all else. Outsiders, ie Hershel and co., are treated with suspicion and hostility. He threatens Dale, nearly shoots Rick, and kills Otis to save himself. In normal society these would be inexcusable offenses, but since everything went to hell, the moral line is becoming blurred.
Another side is Hershel. Like Shane, he acts out of primal, tribal instinct. Unlike Shane he tries to lead his tribe with compassion and morality, seemingly based in religion. He keeps the walkers in the barn because he loves them, or who they were. They were a part of his group, and where Shane would cut his losses and move on, Hershel holds on despite all evidence. His compassion his family and walkers does not extend to outsiders though. He views Rick's group not with outright hostility perhaps but with suspicion. He does what he considers his duty to them but endeavors to do no more, attempting to evict them from his land.
It would be worthwhile to discuss all the characters in this vein, but for the sake of space the last one I'll do here is Rick. Rick comes closer than any other character, save perhaps Dale, to upholding the highest ideals of humanity. He is willing to put himself at risk for the well-being of others in a way Shane and Hershel are not, even if he has no particular bond to or affection for them, as he showed by going back into Atlanta for Meryll (sp?). At risk of rambling on too much, I'll limit myself to one other example. At the end of this episode, when the little girl walks out of the barn, he walks forward and shoots her. He had not taken part in the shooting of the other walkers, protesting vehemently against it, and working actively to bridge the divide between his group and Hershel's. However, the girl's appearance necessitates action. The others who participated in the shooting stand by and do nothing, revealing their own hypocrisy. When they were Hershel's zombies, they were walkers to be despised and shot. When it is one of their own facing them though, they cannot shoot. Their inability to see things this way earlier, from Hershel's perspective, reveals their unwillingness to engage with, and outright hostility towards, the other people (this is more true about Shane, it could be argued that the others shot because once the walkers were free there were no other options). Rick steps up and does the one thing most likely to allow reconciliation. He shows himself to be just in the application of the principles he has espoused and in doing so increased the possibilities of reconciliation. He brings people together, or tries to, in a way that no one else can. He leads in a principled and fair manner, and lifts those who he leads to be better, more human, rather than less.
Oh boy that was long :-/
On November 29 2011 14:38 FunkyLich wrote: + Show Spoiler +This is longer dont worry ^^
I don't understand why people give Shane so much credit for what he did in the last scene. Honestly, the most adequate description for his actions honestly was "childish". He's completely out of control. And to all the people calling it cahones, this is not difficult for him at all. He's not worried about the zombies getting close cause he has all the guns. The only thing you can really say he's got cahones for is maybe offending the few people in the group he might be worried about, which isn't much.
Many or most of the people in that barn were Herschel's friends and family. Shane has absolutely zero regard for this. He kills every last one of them in hot blooded anger. At the very end of the scene suddenly the tables are turned when Sophia comes walking out. And all of a sudden Shane sobers up, and guess what? He can't bring himself to do it. He started this whole little massacre, and who comes in and finishes the job for him? Rick.
It really makes you question what the real difference was between Rick and Shane regarding the issue of looking for Sophia in the first place. Maybe they both knew what to expect, the only major difference being Rick was ready to deal with it and Shane wasn't. You could argue yes, Shane had a more pragmatic interest in the survival of the group, but recent events tell us there was more going on. Particularly with the barn, her coming out and him not owning up. But also the petty little quarrels he has with Daryl. Daryl goes out to search on his own and Shane seems to even have a problem with that. I'm sure Shane would be happy to find her if she's alive and well, but he really does not want to have to deal with finding her if she's been bit. Rick on the other hand really took one for the team with what he did. He steps forward, raises his sights, and looks her dead in the eye when he pulls the trigger. There's not even a hint of cowering. We just see a man who knows exactly what he needs to do and calmly does it (Shane can hardly bare to look at her). That takes a lot of guts. And then after all is said and done, we see Herschel with his head in the dust. Everything the group has just experienced with Sophia has just happened tenfold with Herschel, who wasn't even given the mercy of watching his loved ones die to someone who actually cared. Carol probably does not resent Rick in the slightest, but just think about how you would feel if you were Herschel. It's pretty evident Shane couldn't give two shits about those people.
I don't dislike Shane. He really does have his strong points. No one would have been able to do what he did to Otis at the school. There was no question in my mind that what he did was correct. If it were anyone else Carl would be dead for sure. What bothers me is that people don't realize how terribly he blundered in that last episode. He practically glorifies himself as this cold blooded pragmatist. But that last move of his was completely irrational and emotionally charged. And the way he does it just says a lot about himself as a leader. He doesn't try to rally any support from the group at all. He just dives in head first, opens the door, putting everyone in danger, and expects people to just grab the guns and help him do his dirty little deed. He does not wait for ANY group consensus whatsoever to carry out something that was not even urgent, and to top it off, he couldn't even finish what he started. Totally agree with both of you. Someone earlier in the thread tried to paint Shane as leader by what he did at the end of this weeks episode. Where I disagree with that was he never inspired anyone to follow his lead, he literally just forced everyone's hand by sledging open the door. A leader looks after the interests of those he leads for the good of everyone and for the best outcome. Shane has a cut and dash mentality again and again, he's out for himself and not inspiring by his cowardice in the slightest. Even Carl openly talks against what he wants to do. No one is going to be seriously following Shane's lead over Ricks.
Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do].
|
I'm in total agreement. The decision to kill Otis worked out well from a Unitarian perspective perhaps, but that's the kindest way to look at it. He could indeed have sacrificed himself, or talked to Otis (I know they were running but it wouldn't take many words), or just continued running. There's that old saying that you don't need to be faster than the bear, just faster than the slowest person in the group, and the first one to get caught would have been set upon by all the walkers, like Otis was. The option Shane actually chose was despicable. Maybe the closest comparison would be serving in the military. If you shot your comrade and let him be captured or killed by the enemy, even if you saved others as well as yourself, you'd be court martialed, not praised. Both are life and death situations and seem pretty comparable. Shane's only excuse really is that the whole world's gone to hell, but we see throughout the series that this can bring out the best in people, not just the worst, so that's really no excuse at all.
|
Maybe I missed something but I always wondered, how come in S1 they seem to call the walkers "geeks" but then suddenly drop that and start calling them walkers again?
|
They just called them geeks in this episode.
|
HeeeY.... Me and my GF have been talking about watching it together. You guys got sites/links that have this in HD? Would appreciate it. Please PM me ^^
|
On November 29 2011 18:17 VashTS wrote: HeeeY.... Me and my GF have been talking about watching it together. You guys got sites/links that have this in HD? Would appreciate it. Please PM me ^^
AMC has them up.
|
the first season is up on netflix too if you have access to that.
|
Thank you VediVici and FunkyLich for bringing Sanity back to this thread. I was beginning to think I was the one being crazy by not supporting shane.
I love this story, and it's deviations from the comic. It keeps me totally on the edge of my seat. Man when Andrea shot Daryl in 'Chupacabra', i literally punched the wall and yelled at my fiancee "zomg if andrea shot daryl I don't think I can forgive her, they need to kill her off soon if that's how they want to go with this". Am I a bit attached? probably, but jesus it's a great show.
I love that Carl is growing to be more Rick and less Shane, hope he grows up to be a bad ass in the Rick world, and not the Shane world.
|
I think Shane has the right idea and the best of intentions, he's just a bit chaotic in his method of getting them across.
You don't know what having no family and the world gone to shit will do to a person though, nobody knows.
|
On November 28 2011 14:27 p4NDemik wrote: It's funny that the "safe" thing to do is the let 20+ zombies free all at once in one dramatic gesture while your group is in close proximity to the barn and rely on a bunch of barely trained gunmen to take them all down in less than 30 seconds with headshots before someone gets hurt. Sure the safe thing to do is to kill the zombies, but he goes about it in the LEAST reasonable way possible, and the rest of the cast seems to just go along with it, with the exception of Rick/Lori (who have their hands full with a child/zombie). No one takes even a step to walk up to Shane and talk him down or use force, and Glen doesn't even say a word about the much safer alternative: shooting them like fish in a barrel. No one will even take the pole from Rick to let him do anything.
Drama is so much more effective when it is somewhat believable.
On November 28 2011 14:14 Scribble wrote: I actually liked the twist. The whole point of this slow-burn was to contrast the survivors and Hershel's people by showing that Hershel's group still saw humanity in the walkers. When Shane is finally fed up, he can brashly put both groups into a situation where they have to choose between killing the walkers or dying...until the roles are reversed and HE has to humanize one of them.
That last scene revealed a lot about who Shane and Rick are. The whole time there's been this underlying question about who is actually making the hard calls, and when it came down to it in this episode, it was Rick. To force the issue and kill a bunch of people he didn't know and couldn't relate to was the easy call, and it was a short-sighted decision at that. Finally, when he was confronted with somebody he had to humanize, he couldn't do the hard thing anymore. After leading the charge against Hershel's zombies, he can't bring himself to kill a zombified Sophia, and worse yet he forced somebody else to clean up his mess.
Imo, this payoff was worth the whole season of melodrama. It turned a pretty average half-season into a really worth while one.
Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying that Shane was entirely wrong; they've been out in a changed world for too long and he is just acting in the interest of survival under radically different circumstances than any of them have ever encountered pre-apocalypse. He is operating under the new rules of the world where society has broken down and conventional morality is out the window, and he made a command decision. It's not that the command decision is evidence of a character flaw, it's that the result of that decision highlighted one; he can lead the charge and take credit for being the strong leader until he has to face consequences and make hard choices.
Yep, I think this was by far the best episode in the season. A lot of character development. I still think that, by shooting the zombie Hershel was leading in the vital organs, he could have proved his point and then everyone could have made a decision after talking. But he had to go and open the barn.
I think that decision was stupid and the barn was safe. If it wasn't completely safe, they could have made it safer from the outside, some traps that would alert if anything left the barn (how difficult would it be to put some strings atached to some cans? They'd make a lot of noise if any zombie left).
I don't think their life was in danger and it is obvious because no zombie was forcing the door anytime noone was around. Which means if they stay away, there's no danger of them leaving by breaking anything, unless something alive passed nearby.
On November 28 2011 13:00 Arkan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 11:58 Darpa wrote:On November 28 2011 11:57 Slaughter wrote: Shane just lost his shit. Thank fucking god he did. He actually acted like a normal person would. Kill the walkers, take control of the situation and tell hershal and friends there isnt a damn thing they can do to make them move along. Shane is by far my favorite character at this point. I thought I was the only one that thought Shane was the only real human person there >.< I realize a lot of people dont like him, but hes upfront and has the balls to say and do what needs to be done. The world in the show isnt the same anymore and they need to change their way of thinking. Rick especially should have stood up for the group and told the guy they werent going to leave the farm.
On November 28 2011 14:13 Darpa wrote:the girl they have been searching for the entire season.... Spitting in the face of the people took them in is irrelevant. I wouldnt give to shits about what they felt was right. If it was safe, and they had no way of forcing me out, I'd be staying too regardless of what they wanted. Which is why i feel like shane is the only realistic character at this point.
I disagree, as I said up there and as many others have posted, just because you would do it doesn't meant that's what "a normal person would". You could kill them, but you could also make sure they wouldn't leave. That's not really difficult and you didn't need to upset the whole group of people you live with to do that. The zombies were less dangerous than Shane himself, a trained guy with guns, so if they're killing whatever is dangerous, Shane should be the first to be killed.
The barn was locked and far away, no zombie tried to break the doors unless one of them was nearby, which means that the barn is actually safer than the farm itself, because at any time during the night a walker could come up from the woods and kill someone while they're sleeping. The barn would be easier to protect, to guard, and to set traps around if you want to be extra safe.
I think it was just stupid of him to do that, while making Dale and the owner of the farm as enemies (and pissing off some others, like Rick) at the same time.
He wanted to make the place safer, ok I get that, really. But if he pisses off everyone around him while doing this, doesn't that make it more dangerous for himself? People will start liking and trusting him less, and it might come to a point where he'll have to be killed, or kill the others, or just leave the group (which is dangerous).
----
Edit.:
Just adding that Rick's decision showed who the real maker of hard decisions is. I always thought Shane and Daryl were badass, but that's because they're always physically doing badass stuff, while Rick is the one who has participated in some action, but has intense "psychological/philosophical" struggles, and still manages to handle himself and make the (aparent) correct choices.
|
On November 29 2011 15:18 VediVeci wrote: Oh that was longer. ^^
I just want to throw in my support of your view of Shane, except for the Otis bit. He definitely doesn't lead by inspiring people or appealing to their decency, he gives voice to a lot of really primal instincts that other people also feel, and so they rally to him as an expression of those fears, uncertainties and insecurities. That's painting in broad strokes I know, but nuance takes up stupidly large amounts of text...
On another note, am I right in thinking that the night Shane killed Otis, Dale had left the RV on the freeway, on his own, to walk around or search for the girl or whatever, and that his whereabouts until he got back are completely unaccounted for? He nailed it when he said that Shane shot Otis, and I suppose that that isn't really an unreasonable guess but I can't shake the suspicion that he may have seen the whole thing? There had been alot of shooting by Shane and Otis previously and its not too implausible that Dale heard the shots and investigated I don't think. I believe during that scene you mentioned (RV at night), Dale was retrieving Andrea's gun from his hiding spot to return it to her.
I agree that Dale accusing Shane was just based off of a hunch, putting together the bits and pieces of Shane's story coupled with his growingly aggressive attitude. "You've been very vague as to what happened that night with Otis."
|
I suspect Shane will be around for a while despite + Show Spoiler +him being killed pretty early on in the comics... by all accounts he should be dead by now if they were guiding the show accurately . I realized when the show started deviating from the comics that this production was being swayed by what the masses want, not what the comic says. I mean, how else do you explain Darryl's presence?
Shane is the perfect fit for the TV series: he is the antognist who goes beyong being just another mindless zombie. Audiences like to see a more complex kind of enemy, and Shane is just that. He is an enemy who is not an enemy, so to speak. I figure at this point in the series, it would be really surprising if the producers killed him off (the same reason why I don't think Darryl will ever die - he's too popular).
That being said, I think they SHOULD kill off Shane, just to reinforce the point that it is a zombie apocalypse, and nobody is ever safe. But they won't, they'll probably just kill that girl's mom or T-dog or some lame cop-out like that.
EDIT: I believe I know how TV producers think, so here's my predictions for the show's characters -
Safe, main characters that will probably last through the whole series - Rick, Carl, Shane, Andrea, Darryl, Glen/Maggie couple
Likely to die at some point, as part of a major plot piece - Lori (much later on in the series), Dale (probably by Shane, to further reinforce his villainy), That black guy Rick met with his kid at the beginning (I see him showing up next season, and dying as a season finale)
Definately going to die soon, all for the sake of action - T-Dog, The little girl's mom (WTF is her name, seriously?), some of Herschel's kids/ folks at the farm
I don't think they're gonna kill Herschel off, they'll probably leave him on his farm.
|
On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do].
So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself?
You really underestimate the power of the will to survive.
|
On November 30 2011 01:32 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do]. So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself? You really underestimate the power of the will to survive. I'm not underestimating anything. The question isn't what I would do. The question was whether Shane should be lauded for his behaviour. I was simply pointing out he was acting out of self-interest, not some ulterior higher motive.
And actually, no I wouldn't shoot someone in cold blood.
|
On November 30 2011 01:32 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do]. So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself? You really underestimate the power of the will to survive.
Exactly. People can be so naive sometimes, it's so easy to say "I would've sacrificed myself" or "I would rather die than 'sacrifice my humanity' and kill him" in the comfort of their own living rooms sippin' OJ, but the reality is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE would've killed Otis if they had the chance to do so and it meant them and another loved one (Carl) surviving instead of getting eaten alive.
Don't kid yourselves people, Shane is by far the most realistic and logical character in the show. He sometimes does reasonable things in unreasonable ways, but at least the reasoning makes sense. Shane is absolutely right when he said Rick and the rest that think like him are about as delusional as Hershel himself and just not built for that type of world.
|
You guys should try to remember the world and environment these people are living in, their logic is severly flawed. They are all mentally traumautized severely.
As for Shane vs Rick, ofc I like Rick better, but Rick is a fool. Going to save Dale's brother and searching for Sophia so long was silly. It was stupid.
and ofc Shane was a dumbass too, why would you go fight all those zombies in the barn and waste all that ammo? where are these ppl's blunt weapons at? its just so unrealistic that these ppl just waste ammo freely, and dont always consider not firing cuz of the sound.
|
On November 30 2011 02:08 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:32 CrimsonLotus wrote:On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do]. So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself? You really underestimate the power of the will to survive. Exactly. People can be so naive sometimes, it's so easy to say "I would've sacrificed myself" or "I would rather die than 'sacrifice my humanity' and kill him" in the comfort of their own living rooms sippin' OJ, but the reality is that EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE would've killed Otis if they had the chance to do so and it meant them and another loved one (Carl) surviving instead of getting eaten alive. Don't kid yourselves people, Shane is by far the most realistic and logical character in the show. He sometimes does reasonable things in unreasonable ways, but at least the reasoning makes sense. Shane is absolutely right when he said Rick and the rest that think like him are about as delusional as Hershel himself and just not built for that type of world. Rick wouldn't have done it. And I don't think his character is incredibly unrealistic at all. Anyway that guy is off on a tangent, we were talking about whether what Shane did was praiseworthy. Not what I or anyone else would do.
|
On November 30 2011 02:02 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:32 CrimsonLotus wrote:On November 29 2011 16:48 Subversive wrote:Oh and as a last point, what he did to Otis was not correct. He could have gotten the same outcome by sacrificing himself. And he didn't do it for Carl either - he did it because he didn't want to die. He's a selfish, self-serving character. There isn't a lot to like about him. [On a personal level I mean. Liking him as character in the show is fine, I do]. So, if you were presented with the choice of suffering a horrible death or sacrificing a total stranger (which himself caused you two to be in such a position), you're telling me that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself? You really underestimate the power of the will to survive. I'm not underestimating anything. The question isn't what I would do. The question was whether Shane should be lauded for his behaviour. I was simply pointing out he was acting out of self-interest, not some ulterior higher motive. And actually, no I wouldn't shoot someone in cold blood.
Then you're a very unique person, since you would prefer to be devoured to death just to do the "right" thing.
But my point still stands, if Shane is "selfish and self-serving" for killing a stranger in order to save himself from a horrible death, then something along the lines of 90% of humanity is just the same.
Shane is not a hero, he's not a moral beacon, he's just a guy with a bad attitude trying to survive. Honestly, if I was part of the survivors and Shane told what he did, I wouldn't really judge him. But I would certainly would not want to go on any "mission" with him, it's all surival in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|