|
For me it's just that Rick makes bad decisions pretty much every time he starts Deciding Things, and it is frequently bad for the group. He didn't even give Carol a chance to become a farmer.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:They also highlight that loss when they find the girl being eaten. She shrugs and says tough luck to her while Rick is obviously effected by their WRONG decision to let them gather food. More importantly, she could of gone to the group before she unilaterally decided these people needed to die. Basically Rick was like, "Here, have some lovely pancakes!" And Carol was like, "No gently caress that," and threw all the pancakes on the floor. "Oh and here's a girl's watch because you're a bitch, later boners." EDIT: I just realized Carol and Daryl have switched personalities, probably because their names rhyme.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Iowa Snow King posted:For me it's just that Rick makes bad decisions pretty much every time he starts Deciding Things, and it is frequently bad for the group. He didn't even give Carol a chance to become a farmer. The dream of being a farmer is over. When he used the pigs to lead the walkers away from the gate was him sacrificing that and going back to being what he was before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:They also highlight that loss when they find the girl being eaten. She shrugs and says tough luck to her while Rick is obviously effected by their WRONG decision to let them gather food. More importantly, she could of gone to the group before she unilaterally decided these people needed to die. The thing that struck me as weird was how Carol was all for allowing them to join up because it was the moral and right thing to do. Then she's like "Ah, tough luck she died. Ah, tough luck the guy is late, let bail, we don't have time to wait." All Rick did was return the favor. "Tough luck you cold-hearted bitch, you aren't coming back with me."  We all know shes gonna be back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Dr. Wright posted:I think one of the reasons a lot of people are supporting Carol and her decisions is that it's the most interesting her character has been in the show's run. I think she's obviously lost perspective, and has prioritized survival at all costs over maintaining her humanity. I also like watching it, because it's believable and intriguing and makes for good TV. e Baldbeard posted:The thing that struck me as weird was how Carol was all for allowing them to join up because it was the moral and right thing to do. Then she's like "Ah, tough luck she died. Ah, tough luck the guy is late, let bail, we don't have time to wait." Redundant fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:The thing that struck me as weird was how Carol was all for allowing them to join up because it was the moral and right thing to do. Then she's like "Ah, tough luck she died. Ah, tough luck the guy is late, let bail, we don't have time to wait." I think carol was testing the kids by having them forage. Her whole perspective is that everyone needs to be strong to survive in the new world, and she was seeing if the two were strong. They obviously weren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Pretty good episode. I appreciate them trying to have some nuance in the differences between the views of characters, rather than the wasted opportunity that was the Governor last season. Lots of good character moments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Redundant posted:Surely people can appreciate watching an interesting episode without supporting either the character or the decisions they make. Some of my favourite shows are full of people making bad or immoral decisions (The Wire, Breaking Bad, The Shield, The Sopranos etc), I don't feel I have to justify or defend their actions though, I just appreciate the interesting places those decisions can take a story. It might just be a leftover response from previous seasons where the writers tried to show moral ambiguity, but instead just showed every decision being a bad decision. I think season two was the worst for this and when most of the arguing started where TWD viewers would support one character over another. I mean to the point of getting angry that someone would disagree with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:21
|
|
|
messagemode1 posted:I think carol was testing the kids by having them forage. Her whole perspective is that everyone needs to be strong to survive in the new world, and she was seeing if the two were strong. They obviously weren't. Or more disturbing, when Rick asked how many people they had killed Darth Carol believed they really didn't kill anyone (considering they are depicted as hippie airheads that seems likely) and she figured it would be best if they took a stroll in the neighborhood rather than become more dead weight for the group.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
Maybe Carol will disappear for good.... until she reappears as the main character in the spinoff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
I think the Governor cut off the girl's leg and fed her to the zombies, then kidnapped dislocated-shoulder-guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
I knew the survivors Rick and Carol found wouldn't make it as soon as they looked on in incredulity at the suggestion that they could have stabbed the shower zombie in the head. Like...you've survived for two years and the two of you can't take a single walker? What the hell have you been doing since all this happened, eating bon-bons? The prison group has no need of people who just ride on the coattails of survivors who can actually, you know, kill walkers, a thing that by now should be second nature to everyone involved. Those two just managed to slip through the Darwinian culling that separates the capable from the incapable. Even Hershel, a one legged old man, still gets work done. Two young, relatively healthy survivors should not have been that weak willed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:What the hell are you talking about, she basically adopted some of them. If there's been one character consistently portrayed as a family person, it's Carol. But she isn't acting as family person anymore, there is a reason why she refuses to be called "mom" by the girl. Of course she still cares for them but she doesn't show it in a "normal" way and certainly isn't teaching the kids family values or how to survive WITH people. It's all about their own survival and how to toughen up. It's the same sick notion of teaching children that was used in fascist socities and is still used for child soldiers today. There is a reason why human socities usually don't teach or confront children with these things EVEN if there is danger or if there could be a reason to use such knowledge. Kids have a hard enough time to see the difference between fiction and reality, imagine how bad it is to see the difference between killing humans and killing zombies, it will be a blurry line and we already see the struggle of the girl to make that differentiation (we already saw which problems it caused for Carl). Besides that is there honestly little practical use to teach kids this stuff so early. They won't be able to survive on their own in any case so why spoil them so early? They will see enough violence on their own and will learn these things anyways, no reason to rush it and even push them. So going against popular goon opinion I just don't think it's a good idea to teach these things to young children even in a zombie apocalypse and that people underestimate the effects this would have on their behaviour as adults, you are creating a society of sociopaths which will probably have less of a chance of survival because everyone is just worried about their own survival and that's basically why Rick banished Carol, she didn't care what the others think, she just did what was best for her/her interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
I think the fact that a walking dead character can inspire this amount of discussion that isn't just "Lori/andrea/old michonne are loving terrible" is a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:There is a reason why human societies usually don't teach or confront children with these things EVEN if there is danger or if there could be a reason to use such knowledge. Most societies don't have to cope with the walking dead. LinkesAuge posted:Kids have a hard enough time to see the difference between fiction and reality, imagine how bad it is to see the difference between killing humans and killing zombies, it will be a blurry line and we already see the struggle of the girl to make that differentiation (we already saw which problems it caused for Carl). Carl is one of the most well-adjusted and psychologically robust members of the cast. He doesn't have problems. LinkesAuge posted:Besides that is there honestly little practical use to teach kids this stuff so early. They won't be able to survive on their own in any case so why spoil them so early? They will see enough violence on their own and will learn these things anyways, no reason to rush it and even push them. I call having not-dead kids pretty practical, but I guess you prefer ignorant innocent corpses to living people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:I knew the survivors Rick and Carol found wouldn't make it as soon as they looked on in incredulity at the suggestion that they could have stabbed the shower zombie in the head. Like...you've survived for two years and the two of you can't take a single walker? What the hell have you been doing since all this happened, eating bon-bons? The prison group has no need of people who just ride on the coattails of survivors who can actually, you know, kill walkers, a thing that by now should be second nature to everyone involved. Those two just managed to slip through the Darwinian culling that separates the capable from the incapable. They said they were with a group and only alone for a week, not to mention that the guy was injured so why risk to attack a zombie in a hand to hand combat? They actually did the smart thing here and simply avoided the zombies because that would probably be the best way to survive a zombie apocalypse. 95% of the time in this show there isn't actually a reason to fight zombies instead of just running from them or simply trying to avoid them. Maybe the prison group should THINK more about ways how to avoid zombies (why aren't you people making a trench behind the fence?) instead of trying to kill them. LeJackal posted:Most societies don't have to cope with the walking dead. No, most societies actually had to deal with smart enemies. quote:Carl is one of the most well-adjusted and psychologically robust members of the cast. He doesn't have problems. To say he doesn't have problems is kinda ignorant, not to mention that he is older and Rick DID try to teach him in a responsible way and actually had to take his weapon away, THINK about it. :p quote:I call having not-dead kids pretty practical, but I guess you prefer ignorant innocent corpses to living people. Do you honestly believe a child could effectively defend itself against Zombies? That might be possible for a child in Carl's age and with some fictional help but the chance is bigger that it will lead to kids accidently killing themselfs or someone else, not to mention the psychological damage it does. Do you know what would be better? Adults paying attention and protecting the kids instead of burning sick people or becoming crazy. Also teach them how to grow food, how to find water/food, how to avoid zombies and so on, ACTUALLY usefull stuff for survival instead of "hur dur kill zombies". That doesn't mean you can't show kids how to use a weapon savely at a certain age because that's certainly one aspect of survival (and hunting) but knifes against zombies as kid? Good luck with that. In reality anyone who would want to be a "badass" is likely the first to die. LinkesAuge fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
I had some terrible audio this episode, what was Daryl going to use the jasper for?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
LinkesAuge posted:To say he doesn't have problems is kinda ignorant, not to mention that he is older and Rick DID try to teach him in a responsible way and actually had to take his weapon away, THINK about it. :p Honestly, Carl doesn't have an issue, aside from Hershel and Rick projecting their pacifist notions onto him and judging his actions by an idealized set of circumstances which didn't mesh with objective reality. Mostly for the same reason you're doing now, which is an overprotective and ultimately harmful desire to shield a child from the rigors of life. Its very common for parents and adults to try shielding children from death (Grandma went up to heaven with Jesus!/Rex went to live on a farm!) or sex (We'll have the talk when you're older/Storks! ERRYWERE!) or other 'serious' affairs. Usually the result is just some embarrassing emotional tension and social awkwardness, but in Carl's case it could have led to him and Hershel getting shot by a violent teenager. Dale actually dies because Carl was so sheltered and not properly informed of the seriousness of zombies and the importance of preventative action! Rick took Carl's weapon away because Rick has bad judgement. A lot. It really speaks to Carl's maturity that he respects his father enough to not call him out on his obviously hypocritical bullshit regarding proactive self-defense. LinkesAuge posted:Do you honestly believe a child could effectively defend itself against Zombies? That might be possible for a child in Carl's age and with some fictional help but the chance is bigger that it will lead to kids accidentally killing themselves or someone else, not to mention the psychological damage it does. You really have to weigh the risk of accidental injury and psychological impact of shooting dad-zombie against the actual physical and psychological harm of being eaten alive by a parent's shambling corpse. In modern Euro-American society, yes, teaching ten year-olds how to headshot and giving them guns to carry everywhere would be insane, but in a world where the corpses of the dead get up to hunt humans, it makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Honestly, Carl doesn't have an issue, aside from Hershel and Rick projecting their pacifist notions onto him and judging his actions by an idealized set of circumstances which didn't mesh with objective reality. It's like earlier when people were saying that Carol said that she killed the sick folk because they were choking on their own blood or whatever, it's kinda close to what happened/was said but misses the point entirely. I'd quote more of your post but it's riddled with that kind of thing and I can't tell if you're joking or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
I think it's a step up for the show that people are arguing whether characters' actions were correct and not whether they're retarded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
VDay posted:And for what it's worth, Rick's flashback/imagining scene at the beginning of the episode showed Carol stabbing the lady while she was just coughing. She wasn't about to die or turning into a zombie or anything, she was just very sick. Just because Rick imagined it, doesn't make it true. Otherwise we'd have magical phones that can call dead people.  Personally, I really just don't want to accept she did it. I will be in denial for several episodes I think. She had become my favorite character.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Redundant posted:Tell me more about this "objective reality" that justifies Carl shooting a kid, who was clearly surrendering, without provocation. The kid had one hand on a shotgun that wasn't pointed anywhere near them and his finger was nowhere near the trigger. Someone posted a gif in the last thread because this discussion ended up so woefully wrong all the time. However I am also willing to accept that it was just bad direction or editing or whatever, and that we were supposed to interpret it as unambiguous surrender. Which would make the characters' reactions to it make sense, at least. quote:It's like earlier when people were saying that Carol said that she killed the sick folk because they were choking on their own blood or whatever, it's kinda close to what happened/was said but misses the point entirely.  Or that they were going to, at least. I think I would have preferred that as the main reason she did it, with infection control being secondary. That would have made a lot more sense than "I'm gonna control this disease by getting the sick people's fluids all over me and then wandering around out of quarantine  "
misguided rage fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:29
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
misguided rage posted:Disagree entirely, the way that scene played out I was thinking the kid was going to try pull a fast one the whole time, if he did intend to surrender he was doing it in the dumbest way possible. The gif didn't do anything to dissuade me. Also, as someone mentioned earlier there's a huge difference between "I found them choking on their own blood so I ended it quickly" and "these sick people may choke on their own blood so I will kill them now just in case". Like I said, it's close to what happens in the scene but that little change makes a world of difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Man, ten pages of talking about Carol's decision, and not one mention of the most hopeful scene this show has ever shown, which is a weak, lethargic, moss-covered zombie that can't even muster up enough gumption to go after a cripple and a child. There's hope, guys! The zombies are all going to be eaten to death by moss and fungus and the world will rise from the ashes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
Svanja posted:Personally, I really just don't want to accept she did it. I will be in denial for several episodes I think. She had become my favorite character. You're definitely not the only one on that. Jack Osborne pretty much said the same thing right after it was revealed. It doesn't help that her 180 would have made more sense back in season 3 when the memory of Sophia was still fresh. It's clear she hasn't gotten over that yet, no matter how much of a front she puts up. Instead of taking the risk of raising children again she pushed them away and that's the most tragic part of this (besides the charred bodies, of course). I haven't given up hope with Carol. She deserves another chance. I think the only person who could possibly repair the divide between her and the group now is Daryl. It'd take convincing on both sides but I think he's up to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Maybe Tyrese will succeed in getting himself killed soon and that'll clear the way for Carol to come back. Otherwise that's a substantial obstacle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
There's a chance she could come back with the Governor's head and people will be too  to deny her entry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
misguided rage posted:However I am also willing to accept that it was just bad direction or editing or whatever, and that we were supposed to interpret it as unambiguous surrender. Which would make the characters' reactions to it make sense, at least. That's the only thing that makes sense to justify the characters reactions after the fact. The dude was an enemy combatant and did not immediately drop the gun. If Carl had shot him in the back or after he dropped the gun, it would have gotten the point across better if that's what they were going for. The truth is reaction can almost never beat action. Do this with air soft pistols. Have someone hold one on an aggressor finger on the trigger, his stimulus to shoot will be the aggressor swinging his gun towards him. They will shoot at almost the same time. The human brain takes about 0.25 of a second from the decision to shoot to pulling the trigger. With that in mind, Carl gave him more time to surrender than he should have. As the scene was portrayed it would have been a justifiable shooting outside of the zombie apocalypse, let alone in it. I could see this being explained to Carl by Rick or Shane given the fact they were cops and were likely exposed to that same kind of reaction based training. Herschel is a pacifist and Rick only hears his version of events after the fact. The scene would have been more powerful if Carl had told Rick "I told him to put the gun down and he didn't so I shot him just like you or Shane would have as cops". The scene showed that Carl is willing to use deadly force against humans without feeling bad about it, that in and of itself is significant whether the shooting was justified or not. SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
I, too, wish/hope Carol was just covering for the creepy girl who actually killed those two people, but that's probably a lost cause. Oh well, I doubt that's the least we'll see of her. Also, the group should learn to use their strengths. Did you see how Bob managed to keep a hold of his sweet, sweet booze bag? Just put a bottle into any bags you need to keeep away from walkers! Have a bottle hanging in front of a treadmill hooked up to a generator for free electricity! Strap a stick with a bottle to his head and watch him run lickety-split off to town for supplies! Think outside the box, people! And has anyone made a "Ricktatorship vs the Carolingian Empire" dumb nerd joke yet or am I the first dumb nerd?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:That's the only thing that makes sense to justify the characters reactions after the fact. The dude was an enemy combatant and did not immediately drop the gun. If Carl had shot him in the back or after he dropped the gun, it would have gotten the point across better if that's what they were going for. Yeah people whinging about him killing that dude are pretty off the mark. I've always been told by law enforcement and military that if you point a weapon at someone and give them a directive you've got to be 100% ready to fire if they fail to comply because more often than not, if you're not willing to pull the trigger you're the one who ends up dead. Hershel can bitch all he wants Carl did the right thing. That kind of change in a kid under the age of 15 is why Rick would've been concerned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
BlindSite posted:Yeah people whinging about him killing that dude are pretty off the mark. I've always been told by law enforcement and military that if you point a weapon at someone and give them a directive you've got to be 100% ready to fire if they fail to comply because more often than not, if you're not willing to pull the trigger you're the one who ends up dead. Hershel can bitch all he wants Carl did the right thing. That kind of change in a kid under the age of 15 is why Rick would've been concerned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:Maybe Tyrese will succeed in getting himself killed soon and that'll clear the way for Carol to come back. Otherwise that's a substantial obstacle. I like that we can talk about character decisions/motivations without having to argue whether the show intended a scene to play out like it did or if it was just edited poorly. So many weird cuts/directorial decisions in the past seasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:Man, ten pages of talking about Carol's decision, and not one mention of the most hopeful scene this show has ever shown, which is a weak, lethargic, moss-covered zombie that can't even muster up enough gumption to go after a cripple and a child. There's hope, guys! The zombies are all going to be eaten to death by moss and fungus and the world will rise from the ashes! It also helped that there was a tree/large branch on top of said zombie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
Bjay9 posted:It also helped that there was a tree/large branch on top of said zombie. Idk they were pulling themselves free from mud-ridden bogs last year and tearing open peoples abdomens. Somehow they seem a little weaker and decrepit this year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
I would agree that a lot of them look more decomposed. I don't know if this is deliberate or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Finally caught up to the thread and episodes. I even watched the Talking Dead episode and I concur with everyone who said that Chris Jericho was shockingly articulate. Who the gently caress knew! Hardwick even joked at one point about how they should switch seats. I agree, please do! Can't say I'm hating this season thus far. The decision to drop Carol was silly, and I'm looking forward to see how that plays out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Redundant posted:Is it somehow last year? It's season 4 now and Carl has his gun back so can we not have this debate again, it was bad enough the first time. Its pretty relevant, since we're talking about minors with weapons and being taught to handle zombies and other threats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Dirk Squarejaw posted:Maybe Carol will disappear for good.... until she reappears as the main character in the spinoff. I thought the same thing, given Rick's farewell bit about her finding another group of people that didn't know she killed two innocent people. Maybe she'll meet up with the hippie guy and maybe it will have something to do with the message the other group were hearing on the radio before having to leave their car? We didn't hear anything about that radio message this week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 06:39
|
|
|
How hilarious would it have been if Carol just gunned the engine and ran right over Rick on the way out? She could have made up any story she wanted when she got back. Also were the corpses supposed to be the hippie couple due to the matching tattoo? I'm pretty sure they were (though I thought perhaps it was the remains of their group), so here's my question: How do two people who survived years in the zombie apocalypse, after being given guns, get killed by two walkers in the middle of the street in broad daylight? misguided rage posted:Disagree entirely, the way that scene played out I was thinking the kid was going to try pull a fast one the whole time, if he did intend to surrender he was doing it in the dumbest way possible. The gif didn't do anything to dissuade me. I think it was supposed to be ambiguous, but came off as the kid clearly planning something that could have ended with all of them dead. Carl's decision was the right one, the way it was presented on the show, but I think it was meant to make us question it. You know it'd be neat if in the next Telltale season they replicate a scene like this and leave it to the player if they want to pull the trigger, but randomize the outcome 50/50 if you don't pull the trigger - half the time it was the wrong call and you die, the other half the time it was the right call and they become a minor character. Given how much debate this scene had, I think it'd be an interesting way to see how many people pull the trigger, if not how fast they come to that conclusion in an interactive environment. Blazing Ownager fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
Shadow posted:Finally caught up to the thread and episodes. I even watched the Talking Dead episode and I concur with everyone who said that Chris Jericho was shockingly articulate. Who the gently caress knew! Hardwick even joked at one point about how they should switch seats. I agree, please do! Yeah, my wife watches Talking Dead and that guy was an amazingly good guest. His analysis of people/situations on the show was just spot on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 07:33
|
|