Page 5 of 8

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-12 11:39pm
by Sute
Regarding the car corpses, maybe whatever does the reanimating dies at a high enough temperature, like real bacteria and viruses do, and the corpses in the cars got up to that temperature at some point while they were trapped.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-12 11:47pm
by Themightytom
Sute wrote:Regarding the car corpses, maybe whatever does the reanimating dies at a high enough temperature, like real bacteria and viruses do, and the corpses in the cars got up to that temperature at some point while they were trapped.
Maybe someone figured out a nerve agent that could actually kill the infected without them respawning and decided it was the only way to contain the outbreak.

and then died obviously.. Jenner could have said the only way to stop the plague is to kill every living person on the planet. That's definitely a hopeless situation.

Personally though I don't want closure on what the virus is. I want this group of yokels to live and die and live again and die again, never knowing what the hell is going on because frankly, they aren't SG-1 and can't be part of every big thing that ever happens ever.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-12 11:52pm
by JME2
Themightytom wrote:Personally though I don't want closure on what the virus is. I want this group of yokels to live and die and live again and die again, never knowing what the hell is going on because frankly, they aren't SG-1 and can't be part of every big thing that ever happens ever.
$5 says this is an alternate reality where the Ori Priors successfully unleashed a plague on the Tau'ri. :D

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-12 11:56pm
by Ritterin Sophia
Block wrote:
General Schatten wrote:
Scrib wrote:So Shane's gone. Hm. As a character I liked him because he was pragmatic and provided a counter to Rick
Except Shane wasn't a pragmatist. He was a psychopath who couched his actions in a false veneer of pragmatism.
I've said that a couple of times, and the response has been, "well, you don't know how you'd react under that kind of stress and it being a new world." Except if you don't act like a bunch of animals suddenly the dead become a lot less of a threat.
Yeah, well whoever's saying it is wrong. Just because you don't know how you will react in a given situation doesn't mean that your actual course of action in said situation is rational and pragmatic, in fact unless you've been drilling for an emergency comparable to what you're facing you're probably going to cause more trouble.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 12:37am
by Dread Not
I've already shared my thoughts on why those bodies didn't become walkers.
Dread Not wrote:Perhaps the infection wasn't as widespread when those people died and people who are already dead can't be infected. After all, it would probably be much harder for the pathogen to infect someone's brain if they're not breathing, eating or drinking and their heart isn't pumping blood through their body.
Though if the producers are pushing for several cases of head trauma, I really don't think they thought it through at all.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 02:00am
by Guardsman Bass
The producers claim that they did think it through:
TV Line Interview with Robert Kirkman wrote:
TVLINE | This does raise the question about the dead bodies in the season-opening traffic jam — why hadn’t they all been turned?

I think if you go back and watch that [sequence you'll see] we were very careful to have them be in cars that were in accidents, so the brain would’ve had trauma. Or they had some kind of wounds somewhere on their heads to show that their brains had been killed, like somebody came across and killed them. We knew that we were building to this throughout the entire season.
Anyone want to check that? I don't own any of the Season 2 episodes On Demand.

I think it's also important that our only source on what the infection is comes from Jenner, who was more of a bureaucrat than a researcher. His wife may have known more before she died.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 10:53am
by Scrib
General Schatten wrote:
Scrib wrote:So Shane's gone. Hm. As a character I liked him because he was pragmatic and provided a counter to Rick
Except Shane wasn't a pragmatist. He was a psychopath who couched his actions in a false veneer of pragmatism.
I don't think he was a psychopath, but I definitely think that his pragmatism was a way of dealing with what happened. I mentioned as much in my previous post. But that doesn't change the facts, when he and Rick or Dale or Hershel get into an argument his position is generally the most pragmatic. Well, before he cracked and went after Rick.

It's funny how everyone says that he's not pragmatic, that he somehow doesn't count because he's psychopathic, but wouldn't that make him more pragmatic? I don't think he is, but it's odd.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 11:34am
by Akhlut
I'm not sure he was all that pragmatic in season 2, as opposed to sadistic and completely lacking in empathy. For instance, when he was with Otis trying to get the supplies, Otis repeatedly told him to go ahead without him, while Shane tried to stay with him until he shot him in the leg. That's not really pragmatism. Or killing Randall, instead of utilizing him as some sort of temporary indentured labor or something (give him improvised leg irons and have him fortify buildings, for instance). Or, hey, trying to kill Rick out in the middle of nowhere. Twice.

Sure, there were some pragmatic episodes (telling Lori that Rick was already safe at home; killing the zombies in the barn), but, on the whole, I don't think I'd call him pragmatic.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 11:42am
by Guardsman Bass
Having watched some of the episodes from Season One again, I agree. Shane says things that sound pragmatic, but mostly it's just his way of avoiding doing things that inconvenience and/or endanger him. He was the quickest to want to abandon the search for Sophia, and his reaction in Season One to the Atlanta group getting stuck was basically "too bad - it's too dangerous to go there and try to save them."

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 03:35pm
by Scrib
Akhlut wrote:I'm not sure he was all that pragmatic in season 2, as opposed to sadistic and completely lacking in empathy. For instance, when he was with Otis trying to get the supplies, Otis repeatedly told him to go ahead without him, while Shane tried to stay with him until he shot him in the leg. That's not really pragmatism. Or killing Randall, instead of utilizing him as some sort of temporary indentured labor or something (give him improvised leg irons and have him fortify buildings, for instance). Or, hey, trying to kill Rick out in the middle of nowhere. Twice.

Sure, there were some pragmatic episodes (telling Lori that Rick was already safe at home; killing the zombies in the barn), but, on the whole, I don't think I'd call him pragmatic.
Otis running around was of no use to him, Otis on the floor being eaten and distracting the horde was. As for Randall, this was covered. Firstly, they would have to feed him with winter coming. Secondly there was the possibility he would escape. And thirdly, and quite rightly it seems, the longer they dawdled on the issue the less likely it seemed that they would ever be able to kill him if need be, Randall doesn't exactly look like a guy that deserves death. (see: Rick's strange logic this episode). It was hard enough to get the group to agree to it once, and even then they couldn't go through with it.

Again, I don't see how avoiding inconvenience disqualifies you from being pragmatic. Sofia's search had already led to the wounding and near death of one of the most able members of the group and it tbh the chances of her being alive were slim, alone out there in the forest... And on a purely practical level, she had nothing to really offer. That's pragmatism. It may be soulless, and completely selfish but on a practical level, it wasn't wrong.

I can't remember, what Atlanta group is this, the one with Rick that went out to get the guns?

As for killing Rick, that was sheer craziness. Even if it had worked it would have tainted him forever. But honestly,Rick was trying to get them killed out of some misplaced sense of sentimentalism. His plan basically amounted to "drop the kid in the middle of nowhere, hope he dies or can't remember how to get to us if he finds his group again." I guess he decided that the suspicion was worth more than Randall getting loose. But if he was really pragmatic he would have gone to Rick and told him what Randall said, or just planned it with him.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 09:23pm
by Ritterin Sophia
Scrib wrote:his position is generally the most pragmatic.
Except it wasn't. The Walkers in the barn was not pragmatic, it was quite clearly a sadistic display as the zombies weren't getting out of the barn and the same goal could've been accomplished in much quieter ways than hails of gunfire attracting every walker for miles. Attempting to kill Randal was not pragmatic because you're setting a bad dynamic for the group. Killing Randal is not pragmatic as for all you know he may be of some help, if you'd stop beating the shit out of him, it's not until Shane reveals how similar they are that Randal actually reveals how callous he is. Killing Rick is not pragmatic as Rick is one of the most resourceful members of the group.
It's funny how everyone says that he's not pragmatic, that he somehow doesn't count because he's psychopathic, but wouldn't that make him more pragmatic? I don't think he is, but it's odd.
Humans are group animals, psychopathy is like the antithesis of any social order we create as a psychopath doesn't care about the group but solely their own desires.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 09:43pm
by Themightytom
JME2 wrote:
Themightytom wrote:Personally though I don't want closure on what the virus is. I want this group of yokels to live and die and live again and die again, never knowing what the hell is going on because frankly, they aren't SG-1 and can't be part of every big thing that ever happens ever.
$5 says this is an alternate reality where the Ori Priors successfully unleashed a plague on the Tau'ri. :D
I have written a part of that fanfic. I am not too proud to admit it. Ronan gets disemboweled by Zombie Teal'c, and Eli Wallace is trapped in his house, and his mom keeps trying to turn the doorknob.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 09:46pm
by Themightytom
General Schatten wrote:
Scrib wrote:his position is generally the most pragmatic.
Except it wasn't. The Walkers in the barn was not pragmatic, it was quite clearly a sadistic display as the zombies weren't getting out of the barn and the same goal could've been accomplished in much quieter ways than hails of gunfire attracting every walker for miles. Attempting to kill Randal was not pragmatic because you're setting a bad dynamic for the group. Killing Randal is not pragmatic as for all you know he may be of some help, if you'd stop beating the shit out of him, it's not until Shane reveals how similar they are that Randal actually reveals how callous he is. Killing Rick is not pragmatic as Rick is one of the most resourceful members of the group.
It's funny how everyone says that he's not pragmatic, that he somehow doesn't count because he's psychopathic, but wouldn't that make him more pragmatic? I don't think he is, but it's odd.
Humans are group animals, psychopathy is like the antithesis of any social order we create as a psychopath doesn't care about the group but solely their own desires.
I wonder if they could just lure them into the barn, lock the doors and beat them to death from the loft..

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 10:17pm
by Torben
Given that the first group almost broke out of the barn once they started banging on the walls and doors, I doubt it would hold for long with that many walkers in it. Now, I do have a question: I watched the last episode today on Tivo, basic quality, standard def - suffice to say, it was blurry - at the end, where Carl and Rick were standing over Shane's corpse, was that the group of walkers in the distance after the pan out?

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-13 10:40pm
by Block
Yes. It looked to be a decent sized group, but I'm not sure if the whole pan out thing was meant to mean mega-swarm incoming or what.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-14 01:16pm
by Themightytom
Block wrote:Yes. It looked to be a decent sized group, but I'm not sure if the whole pan out thing was meant to mean mega-swarm incoming or what.
It looked like it did. Remember they got megaswarmed on the other side of those woods at the beginning of the season. With those numbers, they probably can't just hack through them as I had earlier thought (I just rewatched) and once they start using guns, they'll draw attention. Actually if that other group is just five miles "Down the road" they might totally HEAR those gunshots and come investigating.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-18 09:55pm
by Col. Crackpot
I want Hershel's Magic Mossberg and it's never ending tube o' 12 gauge.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-18 10:24pm
by Flagg
Col. Crackpot wrote:I want Hershel's Magic Mossberg and it's never ending tube o' 12 gauge.
I was thinking that while watching the episode. :lol:

I loved it, though. From Michonne showing up with boyfriends in tow, to the prison, and the most obvious plot twist ever.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-18 10:49pm
by Guardsman Bass
I loved it, and it was what I expected for a Walking Dead season finale: intense action, lots o' zombie death, several character deaths (admittedly minor characters), and the final revelation that they're all infected. Rick took a more brutally pragmatist turn near the end, which put me off a bit - I actually liked Rick more when he was trying to be The Good Guy. Lori is pissed at Rick for killing Shane, which makes me wonder if their reconciliation is going to be a plot-line in the next season.

Herschel with the Unlimited Ammo Shotgun from CarnEvil was pretty badass. So was Darryl, who was head-shooting zombies from 20-30 feet away one-handed with a pistol.

They finally ran out of gas! I was wondering when that would happen. They were supposed to be almost out of gas when they reached the CDC in Season One.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 12:08am
by Alyeska
Guardsman Bass wrote:They finally ran out of gas! I was wondering when that would happen. They were supposed to be almost out of gas when they reached the CDC in Season One.
They cannibalized at least one of their vehicles between season 1 and 2. Shane was driving a jeep. That jeep was not present at the start of season 2. So they took what little gas it had and spread it amongst the other vehicles.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 12:10am
by loomer
You know it can't be good when a mysterious hooded figure with two chained slaves finds you alone in the woods.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 02:27am
by Lonestar
That's Michonne. She's good people.

Well, crazy people.

Well, completely unhinged people.

But smart enought to know that the zombies with her confuse other zombies.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 03:57am
by Meest
Liked the ending parts of the episode the best, seemed to hit a stride in terms of emotion, the rest fell flat to me. Really bad character deaths and didn't get the impression anyone was in danger other than Andrea. Hard to care when people die because of extreme stupidity, and felt like they just needed a reason to drop the RV so they could all be split up for barely half an episode. Like I said I hope they continue the feel and tone of the last segments in Season 3.

What do people feel about the Talking Dead this time around, for non comic readers they seemed to spoil a bit. Michonne and the prison revealed, that could take away some questions that tv show viewers only would be asking up until it's shown in season 3.

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 10:36am
by ArmorPierce
So why couldn't they just stay quiet, close the lights and wait to see if the the zombie hordes just past by?

Re: "The Walking Dead" Season 2 Part II Discussion (Spoilers

Posted: 2012-03-19 11:21am
by Guardsman Bass
It was probably too late for that, with Rick and Carl out running towards the house. There was also the factor that Darryl mentioned - a horde of that size would tear the house apart if they caught the smell of people. It's a pity they didn't have any vinegar or the like to splash over the porch and steps.

Cutting the cattle loose in the direction of the zombies might have bought them some time, though. At the very least, it would be a smell that the zombies would chase after.