|
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 December 12 2013 03:47 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 21:08 Conti wrote:On December 11 2013 14:31 Nemireck wrote:On December 10 2013 22:55 maartendq wrote:On December 10 2013 16:04 Kazeyonoma wrote:On December 09 2013 06:09 maartendq wrote:
I've watched the whole series up to the season 4 finale over the course of a couple of weeks now, and I've got pretty mixed feelings. Season 2 was just awful at times, and was basically a never-ending penis measuring contest between two meatheads who were incapable of making even the slightest logical and good decision (made worse by Lori, who is the most annoying character I've ever seen in any series, ever). I hated it when they killed off Dale, who was by far the best character in the series and the only one that still acted like a human being, not a wild animal. Season 3 was slightly better, but again there had to be a penis-measuring contest, but this time less meatheady (but still lots of lives were lost due to completely nonsensical decision-making. Season 3 also ramped up the violence to almost unnecessary levels, which took away a lot of the tension present in the first two seasons. Instead of running away from the zombies, they now just ran at them with knives (incl a 12-year-old with barely any muscle in his body who survived getting shot in the stomach not even a few weeks ago). I didn't really know why there were still zombies in the first place, they were hardly a threat anymore and if people still got caught by them, it was due to their own stupidity.
Also, can anyone explain to me how, in season 3, Rick's group suddenly had silenced guns and assault rifles (i.e. very specialised military equipment) whereas in season 2 they left with barely any bullets in their weapons and hardly any fuel in their cars?
I get that the authors probably want to portray what humanity is like once it's faced with certain death and impossible odds, but I highly doubt that we'd lower ourselves to the level of animalistic behaviour of the majority of Rick's group. Humans are social animals by nature who will form groups to find safety in numbers. They will not scare away others just because they may pose a threat. Meatheads like Shane and Rick in season 2 will not be tolerated as leaders because they cause more tension than they solve problems. Just imagine the people from the Prison forming one big group with the Woodbury Folk and the soldiers further down the road. They could have turned the whole area around Woodbury or the Prison into an impregnable fortress. But no, instead we have two groups of idiots who'd much rather kill and torture each other than come together and find a way to survive.
Don't get me wrong, I like the series - I wouldn't have watched it if I didn't - but sometimes the stupidity of some of the characters makes suspending my disbelief very hard. same complaints this entire thread has been filled with. but your opinion is welcome. also, LOL at thinking people will remain civil in post apocalyptic scenarios. seriously, have you seen people during black friday? Black Friday is people's greed getting the best of them. Survival forces people to group together. Humans are incredibly low on the food chain when they're unarmed and in small groups. Before the rise of agriculture, small tribal groups of people was the NORMAL lifestyle of the human, often with regular conflict between other local tribes. It's like people who think like you believe our entire history started just a couple of thousand years ago. It's amazing what a little wealth and technology can do to a species' "fitness" levels. I'm pretty sure people don't criticize "regular conflict", but "batshit insane leaders who want to kill everything". There's a difference. There certainly have never been batshit crazy leaders in human history, nope, never. I mean there have been insane leaders in our life time, in RECENT history. Let alone if you can use your imagination to go back in human history, 500, 1000, 10000 years. I can't even begin to fathom the nutjobs that have controlled regions, tribes etc., the governor is probably a pussycat. There are likely warlords in central and northern Africa that would but the governor to shame existing right this very moment.
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders.
|
On December 12 2013 05:46 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 03:47 crms wrote:On December 11 2013 21:08 Conti wrote:On December 11 2013 14:31 Nemireck wrote:On December 10 2013 22:55 maartendq wrote:On December 10 2013 16:04 Kazeyonoma wrote:On December 09 2013 06:09 maartendq wrote:
I've watched the whole series up to the season 4 finale over the course of a couple of weeks now, and I've got pretty mixed feelings. Season 2 was just awful at times, and was basically a never-ending penis measuring contest between two meatheads who were incapable of making even the slightest logical and good decision (made worse by Lori, who is the most annoying character I've ever seen in any series, ever). I hated it when they killed off Dale, who was by far the best character in the series and the only one that still acted like a human being, not a wild animal. Season 3 was slightly better, but again there had to be a penis-measuring contest, but this time less meatheady (but still lots of lives were lost due to completely nonsensical decision-making. Season 3 also ramped up the violence to almost unnecessary levels, which took away a lot of the tension present in the first two seasons. Instead of running away from the zombies, they now just ran at them with knives (incl a 12-year-old with barely any muscle in his body who survived getting shot in the stomach not even a few weeks ago). I didn't really know why there were still zombies in the first place, they were hardly a threat anymore and if people still got caught by them, it was due to their own stupidity.
Also, can anyone explain to me how, in season 3, Rick's group suddenly had silenced guns and assault rifles (i.e. very specialised military equipment) whereas in season 2 they left with barely any bullets in their weapons and hardly any fuel in their cars?
I get that the authors probably want to portray what humanity is like once it's faced with certain death and impossible odds, but I highly doubt that we'd lower ourselves to the level of animalistic behaviour of the majority of Rick's group. Humans are social animals by nature who will form groups to find safety in numbers. They will not scare away others just because they may pose a threat. Meatheads like Shane and Rick in season 2 will not be tolerated as leaders because they cause more tension than they solve problems. Just imagine the people from the Prison forming one big group with the Woodbury Folk and the soldiers further down the road. They could have turned the whole area around Woodbury or the Prison into an impregnable fortress. But no, instead we have two groups of idiots who'd much rather kill and torture each other than come together and find a way to survive.
Don't get me wrong, I like the series - I wouldn't have watched it if I didn't - but sometimes the stupidity of some of the characters makes suspending my disbelief very hard. same complaints this entire thread has been filled with. but your opinion is welcome. also, LOL at thinking people will remain civil in post apocalyptic scenarios. seriously, have you seen people during black friday? Black Friday is people's greed getting the best of them. Survival forces people to group together. Humans are incredibly low on the food chain when they're unarmed and in small groups. Before the rise of agriculture, small tribal groups of people was the NORMAL lifestyle of the human, often with regular conflict between other local tribes. It's like people who think like you believe our entire history started just a couple of thousand years ago. It's amazing what a little wealth and technology can do to a species' "fitness" levels. I'm pretty sure people don't criticize "regular conflict", but "batshit insane leaders who want to kill everything". There's a difference. There certainly have never been batshit crazy leaders in human history, nope, never. I mean there have been insane leaders in our life time, in RECENT history. Let alone if you can use your imagination to go back in human history, 500, 1000, 10000 years. I can't even begin to fathom the nutjobs that have controlled regions, tribes etc., the governor is probably a pussycat. There are likely warlords in central and northern Africa that would but the governor to shame existing right this very moment. I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders.
This just isn't true. While many people would resort to that, your every day housewife or office worker would have a hard time coming to the point that they just immediately start killing everyone to survive. While people suck, the underlying human compulsion is to be part of a community and find people to be around. Just because the show has shown us a bunch of psychopaths and desperate people doesn't mean that's the only way to go about things. In fact, many groups we've seen (Hershel's farm, most everyone at the prison, Woodbury, the Governer's new group before he got there) all lived relatively at peace unless they had to fight or were coaxed into it.
And while not every insane person becomes a leader, those sort of people do tend to take advantage of groups like that.
|
I'm sad the Governor is out, he was by far my favorite character on the show. Felt pretty cheap too, like how did no one at any point notice that Michonne escaped. And where was she all that time, chilling back there with all the walkers? Just waiting for the perfect moment to backstab the Gov right before he kills Rick... sigh
At least the prison chapter is over now, the show was starting to feel stale in the prison before the 2 Governor focused episodes imo.
|
That is why the show is getting a spin off because they are running out of material to use and are constricted by the comics.
|
On December 14 2013 03:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That is why the show is getting a spin off because they are running out of material to use and are constricted by the comics.
Are they really, though? From what I've read, they've done huge changes to the comics all over the place. What stops them from just abandoning the comics altogether and doing their own stuff?
Granted, I'm not exactly trusting the writers to do a good job with that.. but there's nothing stopping them, is there?
|
On December 12 2013 05:46 Conti wrote:
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders.
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". The argument was "That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders."
In a society without law and order, it is the psychotic megalomaniacs that take power and lead. Those who try to be selfless white knights end up as the beta orbiters of the world.
|
On December 14 2013 04:02 Guitar Picker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 05:46 Conti wrote:
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders. I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". The argument was "That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders." In a society without law and order, it is the psychotic megalomaniacs that take power and lead. Those who try to be selfless white knights end up as the beta orbiters of the world.
Says who?
Edit: are you trying to say that all human feudal societies were run by psychotic megalomaniacs? What nonsense.
Or are you trying to say that because it's a zombie apocalypse, and not just a normal human feudal society this suddenly happens... because magic?
|
On December 14 2013 23:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 04:02 Guitar Picker wrote:On December 12 2013 05:46 Conti wrote:
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders. I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". The argument was "That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders." In a society without law and order, it is the psychotic megalomaniacs that take power and lead. Those who try to be selfless white knights end up as the beta orbiters of the world. Says who? Edit: are you trying to say that all human feudal societies were run by psychotic megalomaniacs? What nonsense. Or are you trying to say that because it's a zombie apocalypse, and not just a normal human feudal society this suddenly happens... because magic?
Just finished watching episode 8. I agree that the governors power is stupid. The reason bat-shit crazy people get into power is usually for a reason. Hitler used the plight of Germany to get them to turn a blind eye, and he made life generally a lot better for you if you were a German at the time. Tribes in Africa usually function with a physco leader because the populace are uneducated and dont know better (see children fighting in the armies).
The governor's jedi mindtrick level of ability to persuade any and all people he meets into killing others with a mere "this is desperate times speech" is borderline metaphysical. In the comics do the characters develop superpowers? This would make more sense in that case.
I was never one to jump on the "this show is getting worse" bandwagon but unfortunately i can't help but see it that way now. The Rick and Shane dyamic was the best part of the show, he should never have died and they should have explored it more. The idea of two people, one a bit too moralistic and the other a bit to pathological was a really good dynamic(although rick killing shane allowed him to consume both, which is boring). They should of just put these two in more situations and explored the different merits and pitfalls of each approach with various examples.
|
On December 21 2013 10:27 UdderChaos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 23:32 Acrofales wrote:On December 14 2013 04:02 Guitar Picker wrote:On December 12 2013 05:46 Conti wrote:
I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "batshit insane people do not exist", the argument was "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders. I don't even know what your point is, to be honest. The argument was not "in an apocalyptic world, batshit insane people do not automatically become leaders, and everyone is out to kill everyone else because only those kind of people survive". The argument was "That they do not automatically become leaders does not mean that they never become leaders." In a society without law and order, it is the psychotic megalomaniacs that take power and lead. Those who try to be selfless white knights end up as the beta orbiters of the world. Says who? Edit: are you trying to say that all human feudal societies were run by psychotic megalomaniacs? What nonsense. Or are you trying to say that because it's a zombie apocalypse, and not just a normal human feudal society this suddenly happens... because magic? Just finished watching episode 8. I agree that the governors power is stupid. The reason bat-shit crazy people get into power is usually for a reason. Hitler used the plight of Germany to get them to turn a blind eye, and he made life generally a lot better for you if you were a German at the time. Tribes in Africa usually function with a physco leader because the populace are uneducated and dont know better (see children fighting in the armies). The governor's jedi mindtrick level of ability to persuade any and all people he meets into killing others with a mere "this is desperate times speech" is borderline metaphysical. In the comics do the characters develop superpowers? This would make more sense in that case. I was never one to jump on the "this show is getting worse" bandwagon but unfortunately i can't help but see it that way now. The Rick and Shane dyamic was the best part of the show, he should never have died and they should have explored it more. The idea of two people, one a bit too moralistic and the other a bit to pathological was a really good dynamic(although rick killing shane allowed him to consume both, which is boring). They should of just put these two in more situations and explored the different merits and pitfalls of each approach with various examples.
Comic spoilers so be warned
+ Show Spoiler +In the comics the populace of Woodbury don't know anything about the governor. He puts on a good face to the town and seems like a reasonable leader. Only a few select people know anything about how fucked up the governor is and go along with it because he's created essentially a utopia for a very large group of survivors that they don't believe anyone else could have. But the comic shows that he really is a fucked up psychopath. The only real humanity he can even call humanity at all is his love for penny, who is zombified, and in the comic, his niece. Who he makes out with and feeds people to. >_> Yeah. So not much there, lol.
So I guess there are some similarities to Hitler in that he made life better for his people, but in reality he was a fucked up psychopath. Except the governor is probably more "extreme" due to the circumstances. (obviously didn't kill as many people though)
|
I just finished season 3, so it´s possible that in season 4 things happen that makes me less angry. I really liked The Walking Dead Series (never read the comics) and maybe someone can help me if i miss something on my little rant.
First of there is not a single character i liked in season 3. Daryl and Michionne are badass as usuall, Lori hateable as ever (to their credit her death was the best of the series in my opinion besides the phantastic "sorry brother" scene), Rick is inconsistant and Carl just a psychopath. What the purpose of Hershel is besides replacing Dale is, id dont know. I get that the 3rd season is about "losing humaneness" and "kill to live" but besides Merle of all people no character gets any believable development.
My biggest problem with the 3rd season is that it misses the main point of films or series about this topic:
The story makes no sense because the Zombies arent a threat at all.
Everything gets around beeing save from the "walkers"(i will never understand why zombies in zombie movies get other names. Is the copyright of the word hold disney or something like that?), but why? They defend the Prison and everything and fight each other to keep their "homes" but why.
Every character can kill numerous zombies with a fu***ing knife and some stamps with his foot. I am okay with Rick or Darly because they are "trained" fighters but also the other ones make it look easy.
All you need is some thord of chain armor, a sword and some bamboo traps. Even a broken down guy like Morgan could make it ho long? Almost a year? So whats the point of defending everything if the Zombies aren´t that big of a threat with that much of fighting skills and "unlimited" ammunition.
|
On January 03 2014 03:05 USvBleakill wrote:
(i will never understand why zombies in zombie movies get other names. Is the copyright of the word hold disney or something like that?).
The reason they don't call them zombies is because in TWD universe there was never any zombie fiction ever released and no one has come up with the idea of it before, therefore they all just make up their own names for them.
|
On January 03 2014 03:05 USvBleakill wrote:
Everything gets around beeing save from the "walkers"(i will never understand why zombies in zombie movies get other names. Is the copyright of the word hold disney or something like that?)
They don't speak of Zombies because that's a pop-culture term, associated with Shaun of the Dead like funny Zombies. They wanted to make a serious show, where Zombies aren't already a thing like "hey yesterday they were on the TV, now they're in my living room!"
But I agree with the disappointment of Season 3. Season 1 was super-awesome and haunting. The atmosphere was really depressive and suffocating. The longer the show went on the more it turned into some kind of "battle of the survivors" soap opera show.
|
Zombie beeing a pop culture thing and not fitting for a seríus show could be reasonable but as far as i know the word is way older than pop culture. However i think a more technical term like "infected" or "undead" would be better but thats netpicing.
Another question that came up to me with Andreas death was: "why does it matter to be bit".
I never read the comics and season one and two are some time ago so please correct me but i don´t get why you get into a zombie by every bite. As far as i remeber everyone is infected so when you die you become a "walker". But what if the bite isn´t lethal? You get double infected and become an instant zombie? Hershels leg was cut of to contain the infection but he is already infected right? So what was the point?
|
On January 03 2014 03:45 USvBleakill wrote:
Zombie beeing a pop culture thing and not fitting for a seríus show could be reasonable but as far as i know the word is way older than pop culture. However i think a more technical term like "infected" or "undead" would be better but thats netpicing.
Another question that came up to me with Andreas death was: "why does it matter to be bit".
I never read the comics and season one and two are some time ago so please correct me but i don´t get why you get into a zombie by every bite. As far as i remeber everyone is infected so when you die you become a "walker". But what if the bite isn´t lethal? You get double infected and become an instant zombie? Hershels leg was cut of to contain the infection but he is already infected right? So what was the point?
In the show there are two ways to become a zombie, either by being bitten and infected (which kills you and then turns you into a zombie over the course of a few days) or by simply dying naturally. Hershel didn't turn into a Zombie because his leg was cut off fast enough.
|
Canada8160 Posts
On January 03 2014 04:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2014 03:45 USvBleakill wrote:
Zombie beeing a pop culture thing and not fitting for a seríus show could be reasonable but as far as i know the word is way older than pop culture. However i think a more technical term like "infected" or "undead" would be better but thats netpicing.
Another question that came up to me with Andreas death was: "why does it matter to be bit".
I never read the comics and season one and two are some time ago so please correct me but i don´t get why you get into a zombie by every bite. As far as i remeber everyone is infected so when you die you become a "walker". But what if the bite isn´t lethal? You get double infected and become an instant zombie? Hershels leg was cut of to contain the infection but he is already infected right? So what was the point? In the show there are two ways to become a zombie, either by being bitten and infected (which kills you and then turns you into a zombie over the course of a few days) or by simply dying naturally. Hershel didn't turn into a Zombie because his leg was cut off fast enough.
Since everyone is infected already, could it be possible that a bite doesn't turn you into a zombie but rather just kills you, and since you are already infected then you turn into a zombie? We've only seen people that have been bit die and then turn into a zombie, or people that have been bit have been treated for it (hershels leg getting cut off, and then treated to prevent bleeding out)
?? maybe i don't know
|
The only "scientific" explanation i could come up is that there are 2 different types of infections. First a infection by air, because everyone has it that turns you if you just die and second a "better, faster, stronger" version you get from a direct bit (liquid infection over spittle).
What makes this theory problematic is that you could potential get into a zombie everytime you come in contact with a body liquid from a walker. So you could potenitally get infected by open wounds or mucosa like you mouth or eyes.
What would make more sense (at least in my mind) would be a parasite. It could have different stages of activity in a living and dead body and your "infected but living/healthy" body could be ok with little numbers but overwhelmed by a massive flood of parasites that comes with a bite.
|
I thought the series explained it pretty easily already. the bite kills you because the infection kills you. being infected is a guarantee. "We're all infected". It's not being bit that TURNS you. the biting just KILLS you, which then turns you upon death.
|
On January 03 2014 05:38 Jer99 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2014 04:13 Nyxisto wrote:On January 03 2014 03:45 USvBleakill wrote:
Zombie beeing a pop culture thing and not fitting for a seríus show could be reasonable but as far as i know the word is way older than pop culture. However i think a more technical term like "infected" or "undead" would be better but thats netpicing.
Another question that came up to me with Andreas death was: "why does it matter to be bit".
I never read the comics and season one and two are some time ago so please correct me but i don´t get why you get into a zombie by every bite. As far as i remeber everyone is infected so when you die you become a "walker". But what if the bite isn´t lethal? You get double infected and become an instant zombie? Hershels leg was cut of to contain the infection but he is already infected right? So what was the point? In the show there are two ways to become a zombie, either by being bitten and infected (which kills you and then turns you into a zombie over the course of a few days) or by simply dying naturally. Hershel didn't turn into a Zombie because his leg was cut off fast enough. Since everyone is infected already, could it be possible that a bite doesn't turn you into a zombie but rather just kills you, and since you are already infected then you turn into a zombie? We've only seen people that have been bit die and then turn into a zombie, or people that have been bit have been treated for it (hershels leg getting cut off, and then treated to prevent bleeding out) ?? maybe i don't know
It's probably most likely that the bite of the zombies transmits some kind of bacteria or virus that ends up killing you, separate from the air-borne infection of becoming a walker.
The air-borne infection probably just spreads some kind of latent prion or virus or something and the bite/scratch probably transmits some kind of infection similar to a very serious flu that they haven't experienced before and ends up killing them. Only explanation that makes sense, but TWD isn't exactly realistic 
|
I've always seen the way you're infected as kinda HIV.
I mean you can be HIV positive and be fine, but if it develops into AIDS you can have massive problems. The bite probably does something similarly.
|
Yeah, the rules are basically:
1) Something terrible happened to the world and everyone who dies comes back as a 'walker', no matter the cause. Could be some kind of global airborne virus or "when there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth", take your pick.
and
2) Getting bitten causes you to die very fast because as it turns out walkers carry some kind of disease/infection which no one has resources to cure. Something like rabies is a good example, I think. Doesn't exactly explain why it *has* to be a bite. Seems like getting walker blood into the eyes/mouth would do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
