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.
The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you.
Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call.
He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast.
Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here.
Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded.
I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital.
To be fair about Shane and Otis: It seemed as if Shane had to kill Otis to survive and bring back the medical supplies or else 3 people could have possibly died instead of just 1. Shane is just that 'ends justify the means' kind of guy. The needs of the many over the needs of the few. He would pull the trigger on 1000 people to save 100000 any day.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
They're not humans. They're zombies. There's a huge difference as Shane tried to show Hershel.
Your first sentence was one point really...just repeating the same thing over again.
He left because Rick was in a coma, and zombies came, not because he hates him. What else could he have done? He slept with Rick's wife because she just lost her husband, and she needed comfort. And being Rick's best friend, he had always looked out for them. And if I recall, Dale also threatened him very similarly. Maybe Shane was more...aggressive. He aimed his gun at Rick. So what? Is Rick dead? No. He decided against it. You don't know whether he would've done it if Dale didn't show up. That's the point.
And we can always throw theories around that Otis and Shane would have survived, but when you're about to die, are you really noble enough to sacrifice yourself for everyone else? You can't say.
I remember a quote somewhere from Death Note. Something like, when asked in class if killing criminals is wrong, there's always going to be students who will stand up and say yes. And the rest of the class will agree. But under the Internet and anonymity, there will be many more who say, no.
Would you have been that noble in the same situation? Yes. But really, no.
Also, people have to stop assuming that the world is going to function exactly the same way after a zombie apocalypse. Was it wrong for Carl to have a gun? Yes. Is it still wrong? Debatable. Is it wrong for you to kill a random partner without anyone ever finding out, in order to save yourself? Maybe. Would Shane have done something different if he had another option? Yes.
There's no "punishment" for treating Hershel like shit. It's not like "policemen" are going to come and arrest Shane? Or can we not imagine a society where our morals are completely different.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
1-They're not humans. They're zombies. There's a huge difference as Shane tried to show Hershel.
2-He left because Rick was in a coma, and zombies came, not because he hates him. What else could he have done? 3-He slept with Rick's wife because she just lost her husband, and she needed comfort. And being Rick's best friend, he had always looked out for them. 4-And if I recall, Dale also threatened him very similarly. Maybe Shane was more...aggressive. 5-He aimed his gun at Rick. So what? Is Rick dead? No. He decided against it. You don't know whether he would've done it if Dale didn't show up. That's the point.
6-And we can always throw theories around that Otis and Shane would have survived, but when you're about to die, are you really noble enough to sacrifice yourself for everyone else? You can't say.
1- There are better ways to show that to someone - it was somewhat excusable until he took the initiative to risk everyone's life to "close a case" against the will of the man who was his host. For one it was reckless and disrespectful, although the main idea to clear out the barn made sense. On the other hand, I'm assuming they'll be forced to leave now, so it was reckless and useless. 2- Yes 3- Yes 4- Dale didn't threaten to kill him, he just wanted him gone. Dale understands that Shane is a wild card. 5- Ugh, I sure am glad I don't have to count on you. If you aim your gun at somebody like he did, it's pretty bad. Sure it's worse if you do, but even if you don't, you're not a very trustworthy fellow. 6- To a certain extent it makes sense to "betray" a person to save yourself and someone else. It would feel awful, but effectively it's saving two lives... On the other hand, have some decency and shoot the guy in the head.
On November 30 2011 10:23 redFF wrote: Shane took control like a boss and did what needed to be done.
Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong and clearing out the barn will be "the thing to do", so we can have 6 more episodes of people picking up flowers at a farm. Fortunately they're likely to get kicked off the farm anyway (my guess) so it was all a waste of time and effort, not to mention awfully dangerous.
Guess we have to wait until February to know, but my guess is that Shane's reckless actions will turn out to have worse repercussions than Rick's attempt at diplomacy.
I still don't get why you guys think killing the zombies in the barn was a good idea. The whole time he was arguing that he'd rather be on the road than next to a barn of zombies. That is dumb; I hope I don't have to explain that point-in depth. He also thought Herschel would just get over it. That is also dumb. Basically he made a dumb decision that's gonna screw everyone over. Shane is a poor survivor cause he can't think logically no matter how much of a "realist" he seems to be.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
1-They're not humans. They're zombies. There's a huge difference as Shane tried to show Hershel.
2-He left because Rick was in a coma, and zombies came, not because he hates him. What else could he have done? 3-He slept with Rick's wife because she just lost her husband, and she needed comfort. And being Rick's best friend, he had always looked out for them. 4-And if I recall, Dale also threatened him very similarly. Maybe Shane was more...aggressive. 5-He aimed his gun at Rick. So what? Is Rick dead? No. He decided against it. You don't know whether he would've done it if Dale didn't show up. That's the point.
6-And we can always throw theories around that Otis and Shane would have survived, but when you're about to die, are you really noble enough to sacrifice yourself for everyone else? You can't say.
1- There are better ways to show that to someone - it was somewhat excusable until he took the initiative to risk everyone's life to "close a case" against the will of the man who was his host. For one it was reckless and disrespectful, although the main idea to clear out the barn made sense. On the other hand, I'm assuming they'll be forced to leave now, so it was reckless and useless. 2- Yes 3- Yes 4- Dale didn't threaten to kill him, he just wanted him gone. Dale understands that Shane is a wild card. 5- Ugh, I sure am glad I don't have to count on you. If you aim your gun at somebody like he did, it's pretty bad. Sure it's worse if you do, but even if you don't, you're not a very trustworthy fellow. 6- To a certain extent it makes sense to "betray" a person to save yourself and someone else. It would feel awful, but effectively it's saving two lives... On the other hand, have some decency and shoot the guy in the head.
On November 30 2011 10:23 redFF wrote: Shane took control like a boss and did what needed to be done.
Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong and clearing out the barn will be "the thing to do", so we can have 6 more episodes of people picking up flowers at a farm. Fortunately they're likely to get kicked off the farm anyway (my guess) so it was all a waste of time and effort, not to mention awfully dangerous.
Guess we have to wait until February to know, but my guess is that Shane's reckless actions will turn out to have worse repercussions than Rick's attempt at diplomacy.
I still don't agree that what Shane was dangerous, perhaps short-sighted and undiplomatic but not dangerous. He honestly could have killed all those walkers on his own, maybe with a little help from Andrea. He had looked in the barn and knew how many were in there, everyone was armed. It was less dangerous than leaving the barn as it was, and nowhere near as dangerous or stupid as Dale hiding the guns or Rick and Hershel trying to herd more zombies into the barn(particularly considering what happened in the comics and would more than likely have occurred without Shane's intervention in the show). If you mix those last two idiocies together, you would have had an absolute massacre.
Yes, Shane did freak out and decide to go balls-out, but that was largely because he saw Rick doing something that was super retarded, and Dale had just attempted to do something that was also really dumb. He decided it was time to wake everyone up.
Here's a pair of videos by the way, one's a making off and one's a future look:
I'm sure those videos could also be found on the AMC website which is where I recommend looking them up, though I'm not sure about access outside the US, hence the YouTube links.
i don't think shane has done too much wrong except for the otis shooting, which was clearly because he was scared and thought he was going to die and undoubtedly that would mean carl dying as well. he was feeling guilt, then convinced himself that all of the bad things he's done were necessary for him to survive.
the incident at the barn was initiated by shane, but remember that all of the main cast were in support of killing those walkers. hershel is lucky he hasn't got his group killed already cooping up those zombies in the barn.
frankly, shane is the main character in the programme, he's the natural leader... rick is a moron who spends most of his time crying or getting people killed.
killing sophia was the first 'ballsy' thing rick has done in the whole series. i'm hopeful that it was a sign that rick has finally snapped out of the sulky emo schoolkid phase and will actually start getting things done.
On November 30 2011 10:46 Mordiford wrote: I still don't agree that what Shane was dangerous, perhaps short-sighted and undiplomatic but not dangerous. He honestly could have killed all those walkers on his own, maybe with a little help from Andrea. He had looked in the barn and knew how many were in there, everyone was armed. It was less dangerous than leaving the barn as it was
I don't think the barn was more dangerous than what Shane did. Sure everyone was armed, but also everyone was a noob at using guns. Yeah, maybe Shane could have killed them all alone, but he wouldn't need to if he didn't open the barn in the first place. Also, there's lots of things he could have done to further enforce the security of the barn, without having to upset his best friend and the owner of the farm.
Just by shooting the zombie in the chest and vital organs, I think it was clear that Hershell was in shock with what he had seen, the girl did not "die". I think he could have stoped right there and a conversation might have solved things in an easier way (maybe they ended up killing everything in the barn anyways, but at least having Hershel's acceptance). Also, the zombies never seemed to try to run out of the barn except when people were really near, so I don't think any of them could escape. Also, they could have made traps to allow them to know if any of the zombies left the barn, like the old string with cans that make a lot of noise. I believe they'd be more protected from the zombies in this barn than from zombies that could come out of the forest at night.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you.
Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call.
He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast.
Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here.
Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded.
I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital.
Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared?
The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him. Edit: Im probably still overstating Shane's culpability here and I get that, let's let that point be. I'll concede that this was "dickish" of me but I don't think it changes my argument overall.
Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial.
If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable.
I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo.
And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no.
Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit.
Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has helped significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't automatically make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's the major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
1-They're not humans. They're zombies. There's a huge difference as Shane tried to show Hershel.
2-He left because Rick was in a coma, and zombies came, not because he hates him. What else could he have done? 3-He slept with Rick's wife because she just lost her husband, and she needed comfort. And being Rick's best friend, he had always looked out for them. 4-And if I recall, Dale also threatened him very similarly. Maybe Shane was more...aggressive. 5-He aimed his gun at Rick. So what? Is Rick dead? No. He decided against it. You don't know whether he would've done it if Dale didn't show up. That's the point.
6-And we can always throw theories around that Otis and Shane would have survived, but when you're about to die, are you really noble enough to sacrifice yourself for everyone else? You can't say.
1- There are better ways to show that to someone - it was somewhat excusable until he took the initiative to risk everyone's life to "close a case" against the will of the man who was his host. For one it was reckless and disrespectful, although the main idea to clear out the barn made sense. On the other hand, I'm assuming they'll be forced to leave now, so it was reckless and useless. 2- Yes 3- Yes 4- Dale didn't threaten to kill him, he just wanted him gone. Dale understands that Shane is a wild card. 5- Ugh, I sure am glad I don't have to count on you. If you aim your gun at somebody like he did, it's pretty bad. Sure it's worse if you do, but even if you don't, you're not a very trustworthy fellow. 6- To a certain extent it makes sense to "betray" a person to save yourself and someone else. It would feel awful, but effectively it's saving two lives... On the other hand, have some decency and shoot the guy in the head.
On November 30 2011 10:23 redFF wrote: Shane took control like a boss and did what needed to be done.
Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong and clearing out the barn will be "the thing to do", so we can have 6 more episodes of people picking up flowers at a farm. Fortunately they're likely to get kicked off the farm anyway (my guess) so it was all a waste of time and effort, not to mention awfully dangerous.
Guess we have to wait until February to know, but my guess is that Shane's reckless actions will turn out to have worse repercussions than Rick's attempt at diplomacy.
I still don't agree that what Shane was dangerous, perhaps short-sighted and undiplomatic but not dangerous.
Guns jam, people choke. It was at least a little dangerous, definitely reckless either way. The alternative was just as stupid, but regardless of that, if you're in someone's house, you agree to their rules and respect them or you GTFO. If you think the rules are stupid, which they are in this case, you leave.
Let me explain with an analogy - you live in a bad crummy apartment and you have to "damage the apartment's walls to get rid of a something that's rotting or whatever. Your landlord says no, just live with it. 1) You "fix" it anyway, you get evicted. Gain: nothing, you just wasted time and effort. 2) You leave it and you keep living in trash. Gain: nothing, but you live in trash. (Live next to walkers) 3) Attempt diplomacy to convince them to "get rid of the problem". Gain: small chance it'll work, probably a waste of time, but it's the only to fix the problem. 4) You leave. Gain: nothing, but you're not wasting any time Gain: It'll almost certainly happen anyway 5) Kill the landlord since there's no police Gain: Apartment (Farm)
Even though you'd think it makes sense, "politically" it didn't help their case. (Provided they do have to leave the farm, and I would be surprised if they stayed after that). What I'm trying to say is this: Shane's actions make no sense if you consider the (highly probable) consequences - it was useless. Getting shit done is only useful when the negative repercussions don't completely negate whatever potential advantages you might get.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you.
Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call.
He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast.
Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here.
Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded.
I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital.
Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared?
The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him.
Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial.
If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable.
I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo.
And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no.
Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit.
Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right
I feel like we have fundamentally different views on what we'd do to survive, I honestly think you're more in Dale's boat and biased against Shane. As for the Shane/Otis thing once again, what matters it the outcome of the situation, not everything that follows because that's a massive unknown. It's already been clearly established that Shane was ready to take the fall, Otis didn't have it in him to carry on and leave a man behind, he was too prohibited by his own morality. Shane ultimately saw that there was no way to get all three of them out of that situation alive and chose what would assuredly save himself and Carl, because taking the fall and letting Otis go on wouldn't have worked, Otis would have fucked up and tried to go back for him, Shane already tried that.
As for the Rick thing. I'm pretty sure this was already touched on within the show, Shane had to say what he said to Lori to get her and Carl out of the city. Had she been adamant about going back for her husband, she would have gotten all of them killed. I doubt he got them out of the city and then said, "By the way your husband is dead, let's fuck".
Dale has been up Shane's ass for a while, Shane's threat was in response to Dale's accusations and based upon Dale's own perception. I believe the quote was roughly, "If you think I could kill my best friend, what would I do to someone I don't even like".
As for whether I would set up camp by force? Fuck yes, I would. If the owner of the property I was on was being an unreasonable ass and giving me a deadline to leave to go back into a shit-hole zombie-fest I would absolutely stay there by force.
Ultimately, I think we just have different views on survival.
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Edit: In what context is it acceptable to accept someones hospitality and then maliciously and deliberately destroy his property (or kill his family, slaughter his walkers, however you want to say it) and kill his son (step-son?) in return?
1-They're not humans. They're zombies. There's a huge difference as Shane tried to show Hershel.
2-He left because Rick was in a coma, and zombies came, not because he hates him. What else could he have done? 3-He slept with Rick's wife because she just lost her husband, and she needed comfort. And being Rick's best friend, he had always looked out for them. 4-And if I recall, Dale also threatened him very similarly. Maybe Shane was more...aggressive. 5-He aimed his gun at Rick. So what? Is Rick dead? No. He decided against it. You don't know whether he would've done it if Dale didn't show up. That's the point.
6-And we can always throw theories around that Otis and Shane would have survived, but when you're about to die, are you really noble enough to sacrifice yourself for everyone else? You can't say.
1- There are better ways to show that to someone - it was somewhat excusable until he took the initiative to risk everyone's life to "close a case" against the will of the man who was his host. For one it was reckless and disrespectful, although the main idea to clear out the barn made sense. On the other hand, I'm assuming they'll be forced to leave now, so it was reckless and useless. 2- Yes 3- Yes 4- Dale didn't threaten to kill him, he just wanted him gone. Dale understands that Shane is a wild card. 5- Ugh, I sure am glad I don't have to count on you. If you aim your gun at somebody like he did, it's pretty bad. Sure it's worse if you do, but even if you don't, you're not a very trustworthy fellow. 6- To a certain extent it makes sense to "betray" a person to save yourself and someone else. It would feel awful, but effectively it's saving two lives... On the other hand, have some decency and shoot the guy in the head.
On November 30 2011 10:23 redFF wrote: Shane took control like a boss and did what needed to be done.
Maybe I'll turn out to be wrong and clearing out the barn will be "the thing to do", so we can have 6 more episodes of people picking up flowers at a farm. Fortunately they're likely to get kicked off the farm anyway (my guess) so it was all a waste of time and effort, not to mention awfully dangerous.
Guess we have to wait until February to know, but my guess is that Shane's reckless actions will turn out to have worse repercussions than Rick's attempt at diplomacy.
I still don't agree that what Shane was dangerous, perhaps short-sighted and undiplomatic but not dangerous.
Guns jam, people choke. It was at least a little dangerous, definitely reckless either way. The alternative was just as stupid, but regardless of that, if you're in someone's house, you agree to their rules and respect them or you GTFO. If you think the rules are stupid, which they are in this case, you leave.
Let me explain with an analogy - you live in a bad crummy apartment and you have to "damage the apartment's walls to get rid of a something that's rotting or whatever. Your landlord says no, just live with it. 1) You "fix" it anyway, you get evicted. Gain: nothing, you just wasted time and effort. 2) You leave it and you keep living in trash. Gain: nothing, but you live in trash. (Live next to walkers) 3) Attempt diplomacy to convince them to "get rid of the problem". Gain: small chance it'll work, probably a waste of time, but it's the only to fix the problem. 4) You leave. Gain: nothing, but you're not wasting any time Gain: It'll almost certainly happen anyway 5) Kill the landlord since there's no police Gain: Apartment (Farm)
Even though you'd think it makes sense, "politically" it didn't help their case. (Provided they do have to leave the farm, and I would be surprised if they stayed after that). What I'm trying to say is this: Shane's actions make no sense if you consider the (highly probable) consequences - it was useless. Getting shit done is only useful when the negative repercussions don't completely negate whatever potential advantages you might get.
Hershel had been pretty adamant about them leaving and showed little signs of changing his mind towards the group. It's comparable to having asbestos in your house and your landlord not letting you get rid of it. Honestly, this whole analogy is kind of funky because it's a zombie apocalypse. I would Try 3 then 1 then 5, choosing not to leave after 1 and instead jumping right to option 5 depending on the reaction of the "landlord".
It's not like I can just leave, there are flesh eating zombies outside this safe haven, the landlord has his best interest in mind, I have mine. I feel no obligation to respect his ownership of the property in a world where we're already running around, taking whatever we can to survive regardless of if it belongs to us. After attempting to make things work, I would say "fuck that, I'm not living with zombies sitting next to me and I'm not leaving, you're being unreasonable".
On November 30 2011 09:46 VediVeci wrote: The point isn't whether Shane's actions at the barn endangered anyone. Go back to when the group gets to Hershel's farm.
Carl is hurt in a hunting accident. Hershel takes him in and saves his life. Otis volunteers to go get supplies for Carl from the school, (he had a moral obligation to do this yes, but do you think Shane would have done the same if the situations were reversed?). Hershel then provides food, water, and safety to the travelers. He unhappily tolerates Daryl taking his horse and then helps to heal him when Daryl stumbles back to the farm injured. This is all happening, I want to emphasis, on his land, at his home, where he has given the travelers safe haven with no request for compensation. Yes he keeps walkers in his barn, but it's his god damn barn. Would you shoot your wife, parent, sibling, or child or hold them in the barn (which appears to be 100% effective) hoping for a cure? I don't think I could look my parents in the eye and kill them if I had any alternative.
To repay all this, Shane comes to Hershel's land and kills a member of Hershel's family. He defies the Hershel's request that gun's not be carried on the farm and then proceeds to slaughter the man's family and friends, taunting Hershel and humiliating him by rendering him powerless on his own farm, in front of his family. The horrible hypocrisy of it of course, is that when Shane is confronted by Sophia, he cannot shoot her. He still apparently sees in her some of the very humanity he denied in the other walkers.
To reiterate: Shane accepts the man's hospitality. In repayment, he murders a member of Hershel's family and then violates Hershel's trust, usurping his right to set the rules in his own home and slaughtering his loved ones.
If that's not bad enough, he has threatened to kill Dale implicitly, aimed his gun at Rick thinking they were alone, and abandoned Rick, his best friend, to die while he ran of with his wife.
How can you possibly defend Shane's character or actions, specifically with regard to Hershel but also more generally over the course of the entire show?
Mixed in with a couple of good points are some unbelievably massive stretches and just down-right dickish statements. First off, I've already offered an alternate account of what would have happened had Shane not intervened the way he did, though this would not necessarily have happened in the show, the comic clearly outlines why the barn was such a stupid and dangerous thing to have right next to you.
Shane didn't kill Hershel's family, they were already dead. Plain and simple. His home means nothing, there are no property laws in a zombie apocalypse, you find a safe-ish place, you want to stay there, someone wants to make you leave, you're left with a couple of options. Leave, or make it clear that you're ready to stay there by force. If you would just walk off back onto that death-trap of a highway, that's your call.
He has threatened to kill Dale after Dale has been a colossal ass after all the positive things that Shane has done for the group. Dale also pulled his gun on Shane, and furthermore was about to do something so fucking stupid(hiding the guns)which had the comic incident occurred, would have potentially wiped out half the main cast.
Abandoned Rick to die while he ran off with his wife? Are you serious, you mean attempted to get Rick out of a massive hellhole despite no evidence that he would ever wake up, after finding that it would be impossible, locking him in to make sure he wouldn't get eaten. Then saving his wife and child? Quite a slant view you have of Shane's actions here.
Hershel has definitely done some great things for the group but ultimately his views are dangerous and his course of action in dealing with zombies is fucking retarded.
I can defend Shane's character and actions because despite anything negative he has done, his overall contribution to the group has been a massive positive. In addition, there are situations where his survival instinct has saved lives other than his own, he is also probably the only reason Rick wasn't eaten in that hospital.
Alright I acknowledge that the walkers in the barn were not the people that they once were. However, Hershel and his folk's considered them to still be people, so from Hershel's point of view killing his family is exactly what Shane did. And if Shane truly believed deep-down that they were already dead, why wasn't he prepared to shoot Sophia when she appeared?
The abandoning Rick thing isn't really fair on my part I suppose, it would not probably not have been possible to get Rick out. However, Shane concealed it from Lori which was pretty damn dishonest as far as I'm concerned. There is a big difference between, "sleep with me, your husband is dead" and "sleep with me, I'm pretty sure your husband is dead but last time I saw him he was alive." And I only use the term sleep with me for lack of a better one, I'm not denying that he had legitimate feelings for her or Carl or they for him.
Shane could have let Otis get away with the supplies, they were moving at the same speed so Otis would probably have had the same chance to get out. Whether or not that's the case, what I find objectionable is him deciding unilaterally to kill Otis, even if the net outcome was one life saved, which is not certain. You are working off of the assumption that Shane's actions saved two lives while costing one, but even if that's true in the immediate future, discussions like that should take into account the future actions of the people. Since no one can know that, it seems horribly arbitrary to just let one person kill another whenever they judge it's beneficial.
If you want more evidence, even the others in the group would find Shane's actions objectionable. That's why he lies about it, because it's sure as hell not something that he wants to advertise. Whether he feels that his actions were wrong or not, he certainly understands that other people would find them objectionable.
I think we disagree pretty strongly on the underlying things in the Dale-Shane thing, but I just want to point out Shane threatened Dale before Dale took the guns, so that's not really relevant in assessing the morality of Shane's position imo.
And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no.
Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit.
Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right
shane could not shoot sofia because he is still shane....
about otis... it was like a game of golden balls.
in shanes position, i probably would have shot otis as well.
On November 30 2011 11:28 Mordiford wrote: Honestly, this whole analogy is kind of funky because it's a zombie apocalypse
That's how analogies work, of course it's different.
It's not like I can just leave, there are flesh eating zombies outside this safe haven, the landlord has his best interest in mind, I have mine. I feel no obligation to respect his ownership of the property in a world where we're already running around, taking whatever we can to survive regardless of if it belongs to us. After attempting to make things work, I would say "fuck that, I'm not living with zombies sitting next to me and I'm not leaving, you're being unreasonable".
Well for one you CAN just leave and look for another farm or something. It's not like going out of the so-called "safe haven" is a 100% death sentence. It's hard but the alternative is to gun down a little family that was extremely nice to you and your people. I don't think I'd have that in me just to keep comfy. Asking them to leave is not unreasonable anyway.
You may say "anything goes because it's about survival" but meh, I think the situation has to be more extreme than that to justify it.
On November 29 2011 09:24 Scarecrow wrote: Yes, if you were a psycopath that's probably the best course of action. How the hell is killing herschel and anyone who refuses a 'necessary act'? Interesting how so many people are siding with shane whilst all I see is a guy slowly losing it (I agree with Dale).
It is necessary to secure the survival of the group. It's them or you, that simple. The farm is obviously the most safe haven available, so if Hershel refuses to provide, he has to be dealt with.
I agree that killing him and his family is quite harsh, but it's not a happy world out there and hitting the road again is certainly not an option. Shane is a man that sees this clearly and is able to carry out extreme measures to protect the group (as we saw in this episode), while Rick can't get things done. I mean look at him, while Shane was trying to ACCOMPLISH something Rick was out with Hershel to catch zombies and bring them to the group. Seriously, Rick?
Of course it does not have to go that far if Hershel simply surrenders the farm, so it would basically be his own choice.
Not even talking about Hershel insanity and that killing him would basically put him out of his misery (he is not made for the world as it is now) and maybe free his family from his grasp, so they would possibly prefer joining the group (most intelligent choice) instead of being shot for the greater good.
Meh, still not agree with killing H and family just to stay at the farm. I'd prefer to talk him out of it, convince him by hook or by crook, and if he won't budge, settle down anyways. And if H decides to shoot at us, THEN we kill him claiming self defense. Heck, his family might even side with us on this one.
Either way, even in an apocalypse, we must still try to uphold virtues, which is essential for rebuilding of civilization. Being savage and psychopathic by killing everyone who doesn't agree sounds too Nazi for me. Just my 2 cents.
You way has the potential of getting your own people killed. So you try to talk him out of it, he doesn't budge, you decide to keep your camp. One day, you're all just chilling and then half of Glen's head flies off, "Oh, I guess they're trying to get us off their land now".
I'd be pretty uncomfortable next to someone who was armed and didn't want me there. Negotiations are all well and good, but sticking to the, "I'd wait so I could claim self defense" would certainly get people in your group killed.
So killing H does not or have a lesser chance of keeping everyone alive? Killing H will turn H's people against my people, and a shooting match/all out war will happen. Furthermore, H don't want to get into armed confrontation with my group. We got 1 Sheriff, 1 Deputy Sheriff, and 1 badass crazy motherfucking hillbilly. On top of all the other people with knowledge about guns and shooting. Among H's people, Otis is the only one familiar with guns. Thank god Rick hasn't descended to Shane's level.
And about the argument about my way not suitable to the post apocalyptic world? I agree I won't last until a grand old age, but I don't need to. I only need to last till I get a decent society with adequate defenses built up. To quote Dale,
the world may have gone to shit, but I won't let it drag me down with it.
.
And also, I am optimistic if I surround myself with people with high ethics and sense of teamwork, we can make a better world than a morally bankrupt post apocalyptic society. Rebuilding civilization. That's my ultimate goal. I want to LIVE, not just SURVIVE like a coward by shooting anyone who looks at you funny and be unwilling to negotiate.
And of course property laws don't exist where they are. Does that give one group of people the right to come to the home of another and tell them how to manage it, or set up camp there by threat of force? I'd say no. Maybe I am biased against Shane, but I think we're just coming from fundamentally different places. I think that even in the state their world's in, you should still respect the right's of the individual. I don't think that the ends automatically justify the means, and I maintain the sanctity of a man's (or woman's) home. And I'm pretty sure its bad to allow one person to kill another just because they see an immediate benefit.
First of all, Herschel didn't grant them any favours, one of his group (Otis) shot a member of Rick's group (his son). If you're still trying to play by conventional pre-apocalypse rules of morality and rights, I don't see how you could see him letting the group stay for the meanwhile as anything but fair.
Second, rights are a made up thing; they're not some natural force or order imposed on humanity, they're created by society to make it more civil and equitable. But in a zombie apocalypse, even the most basic "rights" may not apply anymore. If you're in a situation where you have to decide between someone else's right to property, and your own right not to live in abject fear of being torn apart by freaks and wondering whether you have enough supplies to survive the next day, then it's kind of a 'no-brainer' choice for most people.
I think that Rick would have chosen to stay no matter what Herschel said to be honest, in the end. Because he is also practical and thinks about his kid and wife first, and rights, gods, and morals second. He is reluctant to abandon them, but in the end he does so all the same because of necessity. Shane only instigated shit and made it pan out sooner than it would have otherwise, but the outcome would have been the same no matter what (generally speaking that Rick's group would ultimately impose on Herschel's rights).
Two closing things. First, I understand that Shane has helped the group survive and has contributed significantly in this regard, I don't think that makes him moral though. Even if his overall contribution is positive, it doesn't necessarily make him less of an inconsiderate asshole in my book, and I think that's a major place where we disagree. Second, I know that my position with all these idealistic attitudes and such is easy to take sitting here at my computer in no danger, and its certainly possible that I would change my mind if it happened to me, or just be downright unable to live up to these ideals. That being said, I still think I'm right
This is the part I sort of agree with, Shane is a selfish asshole who's only in it for himself. That, combined with his angry and impulsive personality means he would make a horrible leader. But the reason I, and I think others, "like" him, is because he is one of the only characters which is not delusional about the situation. And maybe, if everyone just manned-up and faced reality instead of blindly trying to apply pre-zombie-apocalypse morality/rights to a post-zombie-apocalypse world then at least some of the problems could be foreseen and dealt with instead of exploding into everyone's faces. Of course, that would make for less exciting TV.
EPT
