# The Walking Dead "Self-Help" 11/9/14 | Talking Dead 11/9/14



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

So Eugene, the perv, is not a scientist - not a surprise.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm glad that they brought the "get to Washington" story to an end. It was a good aside episode though.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I just do not understand how a show that attracts such a large audience cannot get better directors. That sequence when the bus crashed was ludicrously bad.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

A good solid episode, way better than last week though it actually achieved less.

Since Abraham (had to look up his name) seemed to complete a circle and he was on Talking Dead I assumed he was going to die.

Not sure what the significance of his bleeding hand is.

and next week



Spoiler



We go back again to right after Daryl and Carol left


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

I liked last week's episode better than this one. I guess I already knew Eugene was full of it, from here or just natural read can't remember, so this episodes shocker was nothing for me. What was surprising was they were only about 15 miles from the church. Basically that means they were maybe at best 30 min driving distance out. Yes, I know Eugene put glass into the tank, but still the reaction of Glenn/Maggie to say let's continue was a surprise.


----------



## Craigbob (Dec 2, 2006)

Yeah, Eugene not being a scientist was pretty obvious from the get go. But Abraham needed a mission/reason to keep going and Eugene needed protection. A match made in Heaven, a dysfunctional match, but one nonetheless. 

As soon as I saw the door swing open, I knew walkers were coming out of the building. I. did like Eugene's use of the hose to kill the walkers. Ingenious.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

"It's classified." I couldn't believe Glenn bought it the first time.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

I thought it was better than last weeks. And I agree the bus crash looked terrible. If you put glass in a fuel tank wouldn't it just cause the bus to either slowly leak gas and die or maybe sputter until it runs out? I know, it's a tv show.

Worst part about this is only three more episodes to go. Geeeeez. Seems like that's a very short season. I didn't start watching WD until season 4 so I guess that's normal??? When will it return?


----------



## SoupMan (Mar 1, 2001)

Walking Dead splits their season around the holidays. The other half usually starts in February.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Beryl said:


> "It's classified." I couldn't believe Glenn bought it the first time.


I don't think he really did buy that...what he bought was Abraham.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> So Eugene, the perv, is not a scientist - not a surprise.


In his defense, I'm sure everyone would watch Rosita have sex every chance they get!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

How does hosing down walkers kill them? Doesn't make sense to me....


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

2004raptor said:


> I thought it was better than last weeks. And I agree the bus crash looked terrible. If you put glass in a fuel tank wouldn't it just cause the bus to either slowly leak gas and die or maybe sputter until it runs out? I know, it's a tv show.


 They tried to address this in Eugene's monologue when he confessed to Tara. He said that he thought it would work as you said: the engine would just die and he was surprised they made it 50 yards from the church at all. He thought the glass must have cut the fuel line near the spark plugs. They didn't really say why it caused Abraham to lose control like that. I'm not saying that's any more reasonable, but they did make an effort to explain some of it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> How does hosing down walkers kill them? Doesn't make sense to me....


 Fire hoses can generate a lot of pressure, and the theory is walkers are kind of rotting so it was enough to take them out. Remember they can stab through a walker skull with a little knife, with hardly any force needed.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

madscientist said:


> They tried to address this in Eugene's monologue...


Thanks.

On a related note, was there ever any established relationship between Abraham and rosita before this episode? It's not really a big deal but does seem a little sloppy writing that they all of a sudden are an item. I guess it's possible they show a flashback to how they met and connect the dots but it did seem a bit out of place.

And, I'm pretty certain that was Abrahams wife and kids in the flashbacks?? So, they were scared of him? Why? Maybe beating the other guys to death? So, they left out on their own only to be killed.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

The water hose thing was a bit contrived. There didn't appear to be enough pressure to do the damage, though those walkers have eggshell thin skulls. I'm pretty sure the engine or at least a generator needs to be running to provide power to the pump pressurizing the water. AND in one scene, just stabbin up from the lower jaw into the mouth is enough to stop a walker, no brain stab necessary. Still like the show, but it's not without its issues. OH, and that fall by Eugene after being punched lights out is probably not survivable without serious medical attention. Maybe they should stab him in the head to relieve the pressure from the Hematoma, they have experience with that.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> How does hosing down walkers kill them? Doesn't make sense to me....


Walkers are pretty fragile (note how easy it is to crush their skulls) and fire hoses are pretty high-pressure (note that dictators use them to mow down crowds of protestors). At a couple of points, they showed the water pressure "washing" right through the walkers' skulls. Presumably, enough pressure did enough damage to the brains that they mostly "died" (note that a few of them were still groaning on the ground afterward).

Not saying it's realistic, but by WD standards it's not ridiculous...


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought last week's episode was far better than this week's. 

Why?

I don't give a rat's ass about either Abraham or Eugene and wish both of them had been eaten by walkers and we were done with them.

I thought the bus crash was shot OK - I don't know why the complaint about the direction. 
Particularly liked the axel shot coming to a stop. 
The fact the bus crashed? Not so much.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Big Deficit said:


> The water hose thing was a bit contrived. There didn't appear to be enough pressure to do the damage,


 I agree the water didn't look like it was pressurized enough. On TD (BTW, I felt TD was pretty lame this week) they mentioned that the stunt coordinator required them to shoot him with the water cannon until he was happy with the pressure, before he'd let anyone else get hit with it. I think they just didn't want to make it high enough to look realistic, for safety's sake.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

2004raptor said:


> And, I'm pretty certain that was Abrahams wife and kids in the flashbacks?? So, they were scared of him? Why? Maybe beating the other guys to death? So, they left out on their own only to be killed.


This was on TD, but the actor that plays Abraham explained in the comics how the flashbacks were different. I will spoiler (I haven't read the comics)



Spoiler



He was with a group (Wife and kids too) and neighbors and the like. He went out on a supply run and came back to some of the neighbors raping his Wife.  He lost it and killed them all (and then I'm assuming the Wife and Kids left like they did in the show
Something like that


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

madscientist said:


> They tried to address this in Eugene's monologue when he confessed to Tara. He said that he thought it would work as you said: the engine would just die and he was surprised they made it 50 yards from the church at all. He thought the glass must have cut the fuel line near the spark plugs. They didn't really say why it caused Abraham to lose control like that. I'm not saying that's any more reasonable, but they did make an effort to explain some of it.


I thought Abraham lost it because it was one more thing stopping him from getting to DC. After a whole series of them and after the big deal with insisting that they go as soon as possible. It was a meltdown. It happens under stress.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

betts4 said:


> I thought Abraham lost it because it was one more thing stopping him from getting to DC. After a whole series of them and after the big deal with insisting that they go as soon as possible. It was a meltdown. It happens under stress.


madscientist was saying he lost control of the Bus

But obviously later he did "lose it" but I think it was because his whole mission that people died for was fake


----------



## mwhip (Jul 22, 2002)

How did Eugene ever make it to Abraham? I hope he broke his jaw that guy is now completely useless. 

Now what for this group? Head back to Rick and the others?


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

I was under the assumption that the family was not Eugene's but a family he protected from bad/terrible father. But in Talking Dead, they do say it is his family via the In Memoriam segment.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> madscientist was saying he lost control of the Bus


 Yes, thanks. Sorry for not being more clear.



MikeMar said:


> But obviously later he did "lose it" but I think it was because his whole mission that people died for was fake


 Heh. But Betts wasn't talking about when he lost it at the end, after Eugene confessed. She was talking about when he lost it right after the bus burned, and Eugene suggested they were only 15 miles or so from the church and could go back. Glenn talked him down and assured him they would continue on to DC.

Then they all (except for Maggie!) rubbed dirt on it and kept going.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mwhip said:


> How did Eugene ever make it to Abraham? I hope he broke his jaw that guy is now completely useless.


Presumably he had spent the entire Zombie Apocalypse to that point locked in his apartment cowering in terror. He finally ran out of food, allowed himself to go to the brink of starvation rather than leave, and when he had no other choice he left. Twelve seconds later, the zombies started chasing him. 45 seconds after that, he met Abraham.

That's my theory as to how he survived the Zombie Apocalypse pre-Abraham.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

madscientist said:


> Yes, thanks. Sorry for not being more clear.
> 
> Heh. But Betts wasn't talking about when he lost it at the end, after Eugene confessed. She was talking about when he lost it right after the bus burned, and Eugene suggested they were only 15 miles or so from the church and could go back. Glenn talked him down and assured him they would continue on to DC.
> 
> Then they all (except for Maggie!) rubbed dirt on it and kept going.


They should have named this episode "Lost It"

He lost the bus
Lost himself after the bus
Lost it on Eugene


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

The problem with the hosing was that half the walkers were shot below the head, the disintegrating heads made some sense.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I wonder if a heavy rain or even HAIL would just wipe out herds of Walkers?

Guess not. 

Yes I know rain/hail does not equal a fire hose!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> How does hosing down walkers kill them? Doesn't make sense to me....


During the TD "In Memoriam" segment, they showed this in slow motion and the water was basically disintegrating the walkers. Heads removed from bodies, bodies cut in half, etc.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> I was under the assumption that the family was not Eugene's but a family he protected from bad/terrible father. But in Talking Dead, they do say it is his family via the In Memoriam segment.


All I can say is that the flashback must have been from very shortly after the downfall. The idea that a man's wife and kids would run off alone into the zombie apocalypse because he'd defended them from people who wanted to hurt them seems... unlikely. Especially a mom taking her kids out like that? No matter how scary he seemed in what universe is it preferable to try your luck alone with your kids among hordes of flesh-eating zombies? I can only suppose that this was so early on that they'd not really grasped what was going on, at all.

Even more so because on TD they said


Spoiler



that the "bad guys" were his neighbors, and they'd raped his wife while he was out scavenging, which is why he went off on them


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

mwhip said:


> How did Eugene ever make it to Abraham? I hope he broke his jaw that guy is now completely useless.
> 
> Now what for this group? Head back to Rick and the others?


In one of the flashbacks, after Abraham found his dead family, Eugene came 'running' nearby from several walkers. Since Eugene is pretty much helpless and unable to defend himself, Abraham ran over there instinctively and killed all the walkers. He, then, walked away.

Then Eugene followed him and started the 'I have the cure' deal with him so it gave Abraham a reason to go on.

Anyway, I enjoyed this one and, as usual for me, I liked seeing more backstory stuff. Not that I give one whit about Eugene (Gee, what a shock he's not who he said he was - NOT), but some of the Abraham stuff was interesting.

I enjoyed having both actors on TD so discuss more about it.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

sharkster said:


> In one of the flashbacks, after Abraham found his dead family, Eugene came 'running' nearby from several walkers. Since Eugene is pretty much helpless and unable to defend himself, Abraham ran over there instinctively and killed all the walkers. He, then, walked away.
> 
> Then Eugene followed him and started the 'I have the cure' deal with him so it gave Abraham a reason to go on.
> 
> ...


Yeah, we're just guessing on what happened to Eugene before that! As he obviously is beyond helpless! haha


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

2004raptor said:


> Thanks.
> 
> On a related note, was there ever any established relationship between Abraham and rosita before this episode? It's not really a big deal but does seem a little sloppy writing that they all of a sudden are an item. I guess it's possible they show a flashback to how they met and connect the dots but it did seem a bit out of place.
> 
> And, I'm pretty certain that was Abrahams wife and kids in the flashbacks?? So, they were scared of him? Why? Maybe beating the other guys to death? So, they left out on their own only to be killed.


Yeah...I had the same thoughts. I wasn't really happy with the writing of this episode.


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

I thought last weeks episode was way better than this one. 
This one was just boring. The big reveal is something we all already guessed at and getting to that reveal was well, boring.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

How did Eugene get the fire going with the battery and some sort of tape?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Anubys said:


> How did Eugene get the fire going with the battery and some sort of tape?


Probably the battery and gum wrapper trick.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Slightly off-topic and could posted in a last week's episode thread since it only applies here after a comment made in TD 

BUT

Why are so many men using rape as a recreational activity during a zombie apocalypse? Maybe it is because I'm female but I just don't get it. I'd think that everyone would be thinking more about finding supplies and living accommodations and not that kind of gratification with a stranger. Besides the immorality of the act, if you catch a deadly STD, it is not like you'll be able to get medical treatment.

Don't get me wrong-- I totally get the Maggie/Glenn, Abraham/Rosita, and (hopefully) "Darol" and "Richonne' hookups. It is the rape that boggles my mind.

Maybe a man or a smart person can 'splain it to me.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I don't see that there is much to explain. There are humans who will do whatever they like with little thought for how it hurts others. When a system of law enforcement and justice is in operation, such people have some restraints. With fewer restraints in operation in the post-apocalyptic world, such people have more opportunity to do whatever they want.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

It's also a convenient tool to demonstrate that "humans are the real monsters".


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

The engine of a fire truck needs to be running for the pump to operate. The transmission can be switched between Drive and Pump. If the engine's not running, where's all that water pressure supposed to be coming from? Free energy?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

It is just that I see that rapists are outliers and anyone that does this would be eliminated by others immediately -- no courts. It is like a pedophile would be allowed to exist for long. Or, is the tendency to rape more widespread than I think it is.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

john4200 said:


> I don't see that there is much to explain. There are humans who will do whatever they like with little thought for how it hurts others. When a system of law enforcement and justice is in operation, such people have some restraints. With fewer restraints in operation in the post-apocalyptic world, such people have more opportunity to do whatever they want.


Not to mention that these humans who don't care about other humans are going to be more likely to survive in the Zombie Apocalypse. And the circumstances of the ZA are likely to influence other people, who would not have done something like that before the ZA, to become more callous and selfish (see Gareth and the Termites). So the percentage of surviving men who will resort to rape would be significantly higher than the percentage of men who would do that in our civilized society.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Beryl said:


> ...Why are so many men using rape as a recreational activity during a zombie apocalypse? Maybe it is because I'm female but I just don't get it...


Rape is not a "recreational activity"....it's a power/control thing (from all that I've read). In a society where men have been rendered virtually powerless, I can see where this could be an issue ("proving" they still have some power or control). Just my two cents, and that's not worth much....


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Big Deficit said:


> ... that fall by Eugene after being punched lights out is probably not survivable without serious medical attention. Maybe they should stab him in the head to relieve the pressure from the Hematoma, they have experience with that.


I was thinking that, right after killing the walkers outside the ridiculous bus ramp flip, as some people were winded and dropping to their knees, that it would have been pretty easy to mistake them for a walker and accidentally stab a fellow survivor in the noggin.



madscientist said:


> I agree the water didn't look like it was pressurized enough...


With all the SFX of blood splatter and weapons added in post, I expected the water pressure to have been enhanced considerably in post as a special effect.



MikeMar said:


> madscientist was saying he lost control of the Bus
> 
> But obviously later he did "lose it" but I think it was because his whole mission that people died for was fake


Imagine how much Abraham would lose it when he finally discovers the truth about Santa and Noah and Jesus and the Easter Bunny. 



Beryl said:


> Why are so many men using rape as a recreational activity during a zombie apocalypse? Maybe it is because I'm female but I just don't get it ...<snip> ... Don't get me wrong-- I totally get the Maggie/Glenn, Abraham/Rosita, and (hopefully) "Darol" and "Richonne' hookups. It is the rape that boggles my mind.
> 
> Maybe a man or a smart person can 'splain it to me.


Well, "Barrel" (  ), it's not just the zombie apocalypse that brings that aspect out but also in war. Soldiers are notorious for raping women (and children) before killing them or leaving some to survive after having them witness brutalities inflicted upon their loved ones. Is it because soldiers are trained to separate morality from killing and they then take it to another level? I don't really know, but there are studies about this topic. And when you take into account the immorality and brutality taking place by women in women's prisons, it is not just a "male" phenomena ... albeit mostly a male thing.



Bierboy said:


> Rape is not a "recreational activity"....it's a power/control thing (from all that I've read)...


I agree that it has more to do with power, as proven in the Stanford Prison Expt.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not to mention that these humans who don't care about other humans are going to be more likely to survive in the Zombie Apocalypse. And the circumstances of the ZA are likely to influence other people, who would not have done something like that before the ZA, to become more callous and selfish (see Gareth and the Termites). So the percentage of surviving men who will resort to rape would be significantly higher than the percentage of men who would do that in our civilized society.


Which is kind of in a roundabout way exactly what Abraham and Glenn were talking about in the window over night watch (well, Abraham was talking TO Glenn anyway).


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Beryl said:


> It is just that I see that rapists are outliers and anyone that does this would be eliminated by others immediately -- no courts. It is like a pedophile would be allowed to exist for long. Or, is the tendency to rape more widespread than I think it is.


Well, the rapists last night were eliminated pretty quickly.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Beryl said:


> It is just that I see that rapists are outliers and anyone that does this would be eliminated by others immediately -- no courts. It is like a pedophile would be allowed to exist for long. Or, is the tendency to rape more widespread than I think it is.


Whether the rapists are eliminated immediately by others depends on who the "others" are. I'd suspect that in the ZA, someone who wanted to commit rape wouldn't do so in front of others if he wasn't sure of what the others' reaction would be. Rapists are going to associate themselves with other rapists.

So if you've got a group like Rick's, a rapist among them would be dealt with very quickly. But if you've got a group like the one Daryl briefly joined last season, they probably wouldn't care at all about the rape and would probably all join in.

This is why Rick's group has to be incredibly careful of other survivors in the ZA, because we now know that many/most groups of survivors no longer adhere to any pre-ZA set of rules/laws/morality.


----------



## ihatecable (Apr 16, 2003)

Big Deficit said:


> OH, and that fall by Eugene after being punched lights out is probably not survivable without serious medical attention. Maybe they should stab him in the head to relieve the pressure from the Hematoma, they have experience with that.


I was thinking the same thing. That looked like the hardest straight punch to the face I have seen in a long time, Eugene looked practically brain dead as he fell down! Also in TD the actor who plays Eugene was a little tight lipped even if he character was alive.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Good ep. Glad to see the show back on track after last week's utter debacle.

Though I do think it stretches credulity considerably to think that Eugene could just run into Abraham and claim to have the cure-all for this world-wide disaster and that Abraham (and then the rest) would buy it hook line and sinker on nothing but Eugene's word.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Hcour said:


> Good ep. Glad to see the show back on track after last week's utter debacle.
> 
> Though I do think it stretches credulity considerably to think that Eugene could just run into Abraham and claim to have the cure-all for this world-wide disaster and that Abraham (and then the rest) would buy it hook line and sinker on nothing but Eugene's word.


After all, he is smarter than them.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hcour said:


> Though I do think it stretches credulity considerably to think that Eugene could just run into Abraham and claim to have the cure-all for this world-wide disaster and that Abraham (and then the rest) would buy it hook line and sinker on nothing but Eugene's word.


It works for me. Abraham believed it because he needed to believe SOMETHING and Eugene gave it to him. And everybody else was just a follower of Abraham (Glen & Maggie basically spelled that out).

It will be interesting to see what Abraham does without a Mission, and what his followers do without a strong leader...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Den of Geek seems to be assuming that Eugene is dead. I don't think so even though he should be based on that punch and fall.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

MikeMar said:


> This was on TD, but the actor that plays Abraham explained in the comics how the flashbacks were different. I will spoiler (I haven't read the comics)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





madscientist said:


> All I can say is that the flashback must have been from very shortly after the downfall. The idea that a man's wife and kids would run off alone into the zombie apocalypse because he'd defended them from people who wanted to hurt them seems... unlikely. Especially a mom taking her kids out like that? No matter how scary he seemed in what universe is it preferable to try your luck alone with your kids among hordes of flesh-eating zombies? I can only suppose that this was so early on that they'd not really grasped what was going on, at all.
> 
> Even more so because on TD they said
> 
> ...


No need to spoilerize that stuff


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

scandia101 said:


> No need to spoilerize that stuff


I did because the actor said it was different in the comic than they portrayed in the episode


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

JohnB1000 said:


> Den of Geek seems to be assuming that Eugene is dead. I don't think so even though he should be based on that punch and fall.


He's saying that Eugene could be dead or could die, not that he's assuming he's dead.

Den of Geek says:


> I can't tell if Eugene is dead after Abraham lays the smackdown on him, but that squishy sound that his head makes when he hits the pavement face-first didn't sound too good.


http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/the-walking-dead/241121/the-walking-dead-season-5-self-help-review


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

MikeMar said:


> I did because the actor said it was different in the comic than they portrayed in the episode


He didn't say it was different. He said that it was a call back to the comics (the explanation he gave on TD is exactly what did happen in the comics) but that in the future the tv show could go back and explain it differently.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

And last season when Eugene, the bumbling fool, accidentally shot up the truck because he couldn't control the gun, was actually disabling the truck on purpose.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

scandia101 said:


> And last season when Eugene, the bumbling fool, accidentally shot up the truck because he couldn't control the gun, was actually disabling the truck on purpose.


Oh GOOD call on that, forgot about it


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

Hcour said:


> Good ep. Glad to see the show back on track after last week's utter debacle.


And yet some of us felt that this episode was much weaker than last weeks. It was an hour long build up to a revelation we all pretty much expected.

At least the Beth episode answered the question where she was and set up next weeks episode of Daryl and Carol chasing the car that leads them to her.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I liked them both. They were different, and different from each other, but still good TV. Hey, it's not like it was the Robin Hood episode of Dr. Who or something!! Some of you folks are way too picky .


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> How does hosing down walkers kill them? Doesn't make sense to me....





DevdogAZ said:


> During the TD "In Memoriam" segment, they showed this in slow motion and the water was basically disintegrating the walkers. Heads removed from bodies, bodies cut in half, etc.


I wonder if the walkers are more fragile by now than they were at first. That could explain why they were so easy to kill.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

stellie93 said:


> I wonder if the walkers are more fragile by now than they were at first. That could explain why they were so easy to kill.


Yes, it's been said over and over again on TD that walkers get softer over time.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

But then why do our heroes insist on stabbing or shooting them in the head (wasting bullets) then when they could just be knocking their heads and limbs off? Like I said, doesn't make any sense...


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I think the bigger problem with that scene has already been mentioned. It is not how soft the walkers are, but how did the water pump work without the engine running? If it was running on battery power, it seems like it would not have lasted for as long as it did.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

OK, predictions from non-comic-readers:

Is Eugene alive and physically functional?
Will the group support someone so "useless" and untrustworthy?
Can Abraham forgive the many deaths protecting Eugine?
How broken is Abraham?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

tlc said:


> OK, predictions from non-comic-readers:
> 
> Is Eugene alive and physically functional?
> Will the group support someone so "useless" and untrustworthy?
> ...


My guesses.

Eugene is alive and will survive the season at least, finding a niche for himself and some redemption in the process.

Abraham may be the next to exit the show. He's broken and there seems to have been some kind of foreshadowing with his hand.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

generaltso said:


> The engine of a fire truck needs to be running for the pump to operate. The transmission can be switched between Drive and Pump. If the engine's not running, where's all that water pressure supposed to be coming from? Free energy?


Was working my shift at the firehouse and we all had a go laugh about that scene. Don't think many viewers would have picked up on that.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

As far a episodes go, this might be one of the worst the show has done to date. The biggest plot point of the entire hour was Eugene's confession that he's not a scientist, and anyone who's ever watched a TV show could have guessed that from the second he was introduced. There was really no point to the hour other than that and Abraham's "character" stuff, which I have to say I didn't care about at all. The flashbacks told us that he had people he cared about who died (and were scared of him for some reason), but nothing else. 

Story-wise and character-wise, this is the weakest episode by far. Beth's episode was at least interesting because of the environment she was in and all the new potential threats, etc, plus I actually somewhat care about the character... There's no investment in these new characters especially since it was so obvious that he was playing them (or at least the possibility of it was obvious). 

I get the fact taht Abraham had a mission and now he doesn't, and how much of a betrayal the lie was to the whole group, but in the grand scheme of the show and everything else that's going on, I don't think it's enough to justify an entire episode, lol. 

Oh well, next week's should be better since all the other stories are more interesting.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

tlc said:


> OK, predictions from non-comic-readers:
> 
> Is Eugene alive and physically functional?
> Will the group support someone so "useless" and untrustworthy?
> ...





heySkippy said:


> My guesses.
> 
> Eugene is alive and will survive the season at least, finding a niche for himself and some redemption in the process.
> 
> Abraham may be the next to exit the show. He's broken and there seems to have been some kind of foreshadowing with his hand.


**I think Eugene is going to end up alive (despite the skull-breaking face first fall he took after being KO'd cold)

**The group will support someone so "useless" because that's what they do - they'll retain some of their humanity that way, however they aren't going to give Eugene a free ride anymore, he's going to have to earn his keep now by getting tougher just like everyone else at some point had to in the past.

**Abraham might forgive (eventually) but he's not going to forget.

**Abraham is broken. I'm wondering if he's going to stick around. I'm also wondering if he's going to end up losing his hand (ala Merle).


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

mrdazzo7 said:


> As far a episodes go, this might be one of the worst the show has done to date. The biggest plot point of the entire hour was Eugene's confession that he's not a scientist, and anyone who's ever watched a TV show could have guessed that from the second he was introduced. There was really no point to the hour other than that and Abraham's "character" stuff, which I have to say I didn't care about at all. The flashbacks told us that he had people he cared about who died (and were scared of him for some reason), but nothing else.
> 
> Story-wise and character-wise, this is the weakest episode by far. Beth's episode was at least interesting because of the environment she was in and all the new potential threats, etc, plus I actually somewhat care about the character... There's no investment in these new characters especially since it was so obvious that he was playing them (or at least the possibility of it was obvious).
> 
> ...


The Abraham flashbacks gave a very big reason for Abraham being who he is and what has been driving him this whole time - the odd thing is that you completely missed the point behind that kind of character development. Or I suppose that it didn't resonate with you at all which could be another explanation in which case it would naturally be a very weak episode for you.

I thought it was quite a powerful episode from a character(s) development aspect (Eugene, Abraham, and even Tara - who was much like Eugene in the sense that she also felt worthless and that she needed to be carried before coming into her own).


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Bierboy said:


> But then why do our heroes insist on stabbing or shooting them in the head (wasting bullets) then when they could just be knocking their heads and limbs off? Like I said, doesn't make any sense...


Seriously?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> But then why do our heroes insist on stabbing or shooting them in the head (wasting bullets) then when they could just be knocking their heads and limbs off? Like I said, doesn't make any sense...


The only way to "kill" the walkers is to destroy the brain. If they simply cut off their heads, you'd have walker heads sitting there on the ground still trying to bite anything that gets close. Likewise, if you simply cut off limbs, the walkers are still going to have mouths and will still try to bite, even if they can't walk or grab. This has been established since the very first episode of the series, when Rick came across the walker that was only an upper torso, arms, and head. It was still dragging itself along the ground, trying to bite anything it could.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

DevdogAZ said:


> The only way to "kill" the walkers is to destroy the brain.


Technically, brain destruction is not necessary. Apparently, only minor to moderate brain damage is required.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

I think the bashing Eugene received after his "I'm smarter than you" comment should render him brain damaged for a while.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> The only way to "kill" the walkers is to destroy the brain. If they simply cut off their heads, you'd have walker heads sitting there on the ground still trying to bite anything that gets close.


Heh. Marvel Comics had a series about an alternate universe where all the Marvel heroes turn into zombies (and eat the rest of the human race, and start looking for other universes to supply food) called Marvel Zombies (a joke on a pejorative term for fans who buy all Marvel's comics and only Marvel's comics, whether they like them or not). And there was an entire series featuring the Deadpool of the regular Marvel Universe teaming up with the head of Zombie Deadpool. "Deadpool: Merc with a Mouth," written by crime novelist Victor Gischler...I believe it was his first major comic book work.

Deadpool and Headpool had a very...interesting relationship. 

We now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.


Beryl said:


> I think the bashing Eugene received after his "I'm smarter than you" comment should render him brain damaged for a while.


So even if he's still a live human, he's a dead zombie?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> The only way to "kill" the walkers is to destroy the brain. If they simply cut off their heads, you'd have walker heads sitting there on the ground still trying to bite anything that gets close....


Exactly my point; how does shooting water and knocking off their heads kill them? You, yourself, mentioned "heads removed from bodies" and it doesn't make sense...just removing the head from the body (with water) doesn't "destroy the brain".


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

How many people actually did protecting Eugene? It's not like Saving Private Ryan, where they had to go in to get him out. Just a band of people united in a purpose. Maybe I'm just not remembering-- did anyone actually sacrifice themselves on order that he live?


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

wprager said:


> How many people actually did protecting Eugene? It's not like Saving Private Ryan, where they had to go in to get him out. Just a band of people united in a purpose. Maybe I'm just not remembering-- did anyone actually sacrifice themselves on order that he live?


Eugene listed half a dozen or so himself and then added Bob "Tainted Meat" Stookey last.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Exactly my point; how does shooting water and knocking off their heads kill them? You, yourself, mentioned "heads removed from bodies" and it doesn't make sense...just removing the head from the body (with water) doesn't "destroy the brain".


But it does make it rather difficult for the brain to control the rest of the body...

And there was still zombie moaning coming from the killing field after Eugene was done. So at least some of them weren't "dead," just disabled.

(I wonder if they qualify for assistance under the ZDA?)


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Maui said:


> And yet some of us felt that this episode was much weaker than last weeks.


+1



madscientist said:


> I liked them both. They were different, and different from each other, but still good TV. Hey, it's not like it was the Robin Hood episode of Dr. Who or something!! Some of you folks are way too picky .


+2


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Exactly my point; how does shooting water and knocking off their heads kill them? You, yourself, mentioned "heads removed from bodies" and it doesn't make sense...just removing the head from the body (with water) doesn't "destroy the brain".


As Rob has mentioned, it does not matter. What matters is they could not bite/kill them anymore. They were about to be overrun and the water hose saved them.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I predict Eugene will be just fine and be accepted back in to the group but will have to earn his keep.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Quite clearly a number of heads were disintegrated, seems like that would do a good job.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Anubys said:


> As Rob has mentioned, it does not matter. What matters is they could not bite/kill them anymore. They were about to be overrun and the water hose saved them.


Correct. The water didn't "kill" the walkers but it certainly dissabled them enough to save the group. Hard to bite when your arms, legs, and head are being blown off.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

When the bus hit that ramp and flipped I fully expected the A*Team to pop out of the woods. That's what it reminded me of.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I think the water hose/pressure would be a good idea to remember in the future.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Exactly my point; how does shooting water and knocking off their heads kill them? You, yourself, mentioned "heads removed from bodies" and it doesn't make sense...just removing the head from the body (with water) doesn't "destroy the brain".


As I said before, the water disintegrated the walkers, including their heads. If any of the heads were still intact after that, they would have been easy to puncture with a knife.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

We can debate whether or not it would be possible to disintegrate a zombie skull with high enough water pressure, but it was quite clearly depicted on the show - several close up shots of it happening - and I'm not sure how some of you missed that.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Bierboy said:


> Exactly my point; how does shooting water and knocking off their heads kill them? You, yourself, mentioned "heads removed from bodies" and it doesn't make sense...just removing the head from the body (with water) doesn't "destroy the brain".


Heads were not simply being knocked off whole, they were being disintegrated by the supposedly high water pressure. Even if they were, the point isn't always to kill the walkers. Sometimes you just have to eliminate the immediate threat of attack.

I don't recommend watching the scene in slow motion, the effects look 10x more ridiculous. But if you do, you can see a walker getting his head knocked off and then when his body falls to the ground, he still has a head.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

I think Eugene being untrustworthy is a bigger issue than his being "helpless". This is someone who has lied and sabotaged, putting others in danger. They'll probably overlook that though, to show the group being humane and supporting the helpless.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Spoiler



I'm really curious what everyone's take is on the scene from next week's episode that they showed and discussed on TD. That can't possibly be Beth's body that Daryl and Carol are throwing in the fire outside the hospital, could it?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I thought one of the big arguments for including Talking Dead in the Walking Dead thread is that TD never had spoilers.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

john4200 said:


> I thought one of the big arguments for including Talking Dead in the Walking Dead thread is that TD never had spoilers.


This isn't the first example, either. It'll just get hand-waved away by the TD watchers.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I do watch TD but I agree with you: if we consider previews for the next episode that happen at the end of the current episode to be spoilers (and we do! See the forum rules) then definitely the preview for the next episode that is shown during TD should also be considered a spoiler, and the above question should be spoilerized.

I think TD watchers have a higher level of responsibility in these threads, just like the GoT book readers have a higher level of responsibility in the GoT threads.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

I disagree. These aren't typical previews. They're not shown at the end of the show as something separate; they're integrated into the show and discussed on the show. They're part of the show we all agreed could be discussed fully. 

I'll go back and spoilerize, though.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

David Platt said:


> They're part of the show we all agreed could be discussed fully.


We did not all agree. Not by a long ways.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

heySkippy said:


> We did not all agree. Not by a long ways.


You're completely right; bad wording on my part. I should have said "the show that was unilaterally agreed we could discuss."


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

David Platt said:


> You're completely right; bad wording on my part. I should have said "the show that was unilaterally agreed we could discuss."


"The show that the thread title says we can discuss, and therefore completely within the forum rules."


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

David Platt said:


> I disagree. These aren't typical previews. They're not shown at the end of the show as something separate; they're integrated into the show and discussed on the show. They're part of the show we all agreed could be discussed fully.
> 
> I'll go back and spoilerize, though.


I watch TD, but I always turn it off about 45 min into it when they say "up next, previews of next week"


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> "The show that the thread title says we can discuss, and therefore completely within the forum rules."


 So I should unspoiler the question about the preview, then?


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

David Platt said:


> So I should unspoiler the question about the preview, then?


You'd be shining a nice bright spotlight on the big lie we were repeatedly told about TD and spoilers.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

I think any talk about previews of next weeks episodes, REGARDLESS of the source should be spoilerized, simple as that.

Why would you not?


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I agree, I can't see how previews for next week are OK because someone arbitrarily decides to merge the WD/TD shows into one thread.

I clicked on the spoiler, not realizing what it was, and wish I had not. I don't think it should be in this thread at all.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

But it's part of The Talking Dead. It's heavily hyped as part of the show, and it's discussed as part of the show. This isn't a standard "after the show's over" preview that is easily skippable.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I don't watch TD but I've never worried about people discussing it because I was under the impression there was no spoilers covered and some of the background was interesting. If there are previews and spoilers then the show should have a separate thread (IMHO)


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

David Platt said:


> But it's part of The Talking Dead. It's heavily hyped as part of the show, and it's discussed as part of the show. This isn't a standard "after the show's over" preview that is easily skippable.


It's part of a separate show that a majority of the people reading this thread didn't watch. That's why all TD talk should, at a minimum, be spoilered and labeled.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

David Platt said:


> But it's part of The Talking Dead. It's heavily hyped as part of the show, and it's discussed as part of the show. This isn't a standard "after the show's over" preview that is easily skippable.


We're already on very shaky ground with many people in these threads who watch WD but don't watch TD and aren't happy that TD is being discussed in the threads. One of the main arguments used by those who want to have TD discussed in the thread was that there isn't any spoiler information given or shown in TD. So I would recommend not trying to use that technicality that because the thread title says TD and because the preview for next week was part of TD, we can freely discuss it. It's a long-standing forum rule that previews for next week are considered spoilers, so let's just adhere to that rule and not try to piss people off any more than they already are.

If you want to have an open, non-spoiler discussion about a scene from next week's episode that was shown during TD, I think the only way to do that is to start a separate thread for TD.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

tlc said:


> I think Eugene being untrustworthy is a bigger issue than his being "helpless". This is someone who has lied and sabotaged, putting others in danger. They'll probably overlook that though, to show the group being humane and supporting the helpless.


Maybe I'm not as humane as some, but I'd probably lean (heavily) toward killing his worthless ass - not for being helpless but because his lies and misdirection caused the deaths of many and put everybody in danger.

I would have a hard time thinking that that kind of behavior should pay with loyalty of the group.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> I don't watch TD but I've never worried about people discussing it because I was under the impression there was no spoilers covered and some of the background was interesting. If there are previews and spoilers then the show should have a separate thread (IMHO)


I love Talking Dead, but they really never discuss spoilers beyond the episode du jour. The only thing that is the little bit spoilery is the ten second preview they offer toward the end of the show. If people are spoilerizing that, I think that goes plenty far toward not offending the sensitivities of those who don't watch.

It's an episode about the episode it follows, anyway (for those who are not aware of that). It doesn't discuss anything beyond that episode. Anyway, I'm glad that they've combined the two. If I say anything about the little preview at the end (which is really never telling about pretty much anything), I will be glad to spoilerize it, even though it's in the thread title.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It's been in the thread title for what - 2 or 3 weeks? I've never seen it before. Seems kind of shady to me!


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

pmyers said:


> Correct. The water didn't "kill" the walkers but it certainly dissabled them enough to save the group. Hard to bite when your arms, legs, and head are being blown off.


I was expecting them to go around one by one and stick them in the head after the water thing, but I'll accept that they were harmless at that point.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> It's been in the thread title for what - 2 or 3 weeks? I've never seen it before. Seems kind of shady to me!


There was a lot of debate about it in the thread for the S5 premiere. Those against including TD discussion pointed out the rules that said discussion of outside shows is considered a spoiler. So the logical progression was that Simeon's started the thread for S5E02 and included both shows in the thread title.

I think it's a good compromise as long as any discussion that stems from TD is related solely to the current WD episode. Discussion of the preview for next week should still be considered a spoiler. If they discussed the differences between the comic and the TV show on TD (which they don't usually do), that should be spoiled.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

David Platt said:


> But it's part of The Talking Dead. It's heavily hyped as part of the show, and it's discussed as part of the show. This isn't a standard "after the show's over" preview that is easily skippable.


I watch both _The Walking Dead_ and _Talking Dead_. There are many who participate in the combined WD and TD threads who do not watch both.

I've been avoiding getting involved in the discussion relating to having discussions of both shows in the same thread, but for what it's worth, here's my opinion on the discussion of the _Talking Dead_ 'preview segment' in the combined threads:

That teaser has generally been a pretty short, generic clip of a scene that happens to air in the following week's _The Walking Dead_ episode. In fact, I always took it to be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek 'here's a tidbit for those watching' kind of bit.

The one from this week actually seemed to have a bit more meat on it than others in the past.

Since it is part of the "after show" and is clearly a preview for next week's episode, my feeling is any discussion of that in these combined threads should be spoilerized just as discussion of the preview at the end of _The Walking Dead_ program is handled.

....I actually started typing this about a half hour ago, and had a steady stream of people walking into my office as soon as I started. I agree with what DevdogAZ posted while I was still composing. :shrug:


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

A preview is a preview no matter where you saw it and not to be discussed w/o spoiler tags.
That's just basic forum rules 101.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

wanna know how I know it was a mediocre episode......


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

pmyers said:


> wanna know how I know it was a mediocre episode......


Nope.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

JLucPicard said:


> The one from this week actually seemed to have a bit more meat on it than others in the past.


Was it Tainted Meat?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

So my takeaway from the latest Talking Dead discussion: 

1. The forum rules about one specific episode per thread and outside information from another source needing to be spoilered do not need to be followed because WD/TD is a special case. 

2, the forum rule about spoiler-tagging previews does need to be followed because it is not a special case. 

3. One of the major arguments in favor of dual threads was that TD doesn't have any spoilers and thus can be discussed. On the other hand, the spoilers in TD (which aren't supposed to exist) cannot he discussed without spoiler tags. 

Is that about the gist of it?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

David Platt said:


> So my takeaway from the latest Talking Dead discussion:
> 
> 1. The forum rules about one specific episode per thread and outside information from another source needing to be spoilered do not need to be followed because WD/TD is a special case.
> 
> ...


I think you're being a bit defensive about this. There's nothing confusing or inconsistent about the forum rules or the way this thread works with them. You can quickly review what's actually in the rules, they're short.

There's nothing in the rules that says you have to have one specific thread per episode: in fact we have many threads that cover entire seasons on a single thread. The thread title clearly says what's allowed and what's not, and that's what the rules require. Not a special case.

The rules covering previews do NOT say that the previews have to come at the end of the episode vs. the middle (although the TD teaser is actually almost at the end of TD, not in the middle); they say:


> Previews of Next Week and other spoilers:
> Anything shown on the previews of next week is considered a spoiler on this forum, and must be tagged as such, using spoiler tags


The teaser in TD very clearly falls within that rule as it's explicitly billed as a preview of next week's show, and so should be spoilered. Not a special case.

TD doesn't have any more spoilers for future shows in it than WD itself: the guests on TD never give anything away. Both have short previews for the next week's episode. They are slightly different scenes but the TD preview is no more substantive than the WD preview. Not a special case.

Sometimes TD talks about the comics and I personally spoiler that (or more likely don't discuss it at all), as a reference to an outside source, but since it was discussed in the episode that's a close call. I don't see any reason to upset anyone when it takes a half a second to add spoiler tags.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Personally, I agree with 1 and 2. 

Episode discussion is episode discussion. 
But, a spoiler is a spoiler is a spoiler...

I have enjoyed the combos - would probably also read a WD-only thread, if there was one.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

MonsterJoe said:


> It's been in the thread title for what - 2 or 3 weeks? I've never seen it before. Seems kind of shady to me!


Yes it does, there is an eagerness to start the thread in order to make sure it's done


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Necromancer2006 said:


> The Abraham flashbacks gave a very big reason for Abraham being who he is and what has been driving him this whole time - the odd thing is that you completely missed the point behind that kind of character development. Or I suppose that it didn't resonate with you at all which could be another explanation in which case it would naturally be a very weak episode for you.


Yeah I mean that's what I meant - no one person can deem an episode as bad and have that stand as the generally accepted feeling, lol. It's just an opinion. The thing for me with this episode is that it didn't reveal anything I didn't already know, particularly about Abraham, who I'm not sure I care about at this point. You could tell without seeing those flashbacks that the mission to get Eugene to DC was his singular driving force, and you can surmise from there that he probably lose his family at some point and this mission is the only thing keeping him going.

The whole thing with the family was oddly done and didn't make a ton of sense, although it might at some point. But they showed him beating a bunch of guys to death which to me looked like in protection of his family, yet they were clearly afraid of him and ran off only to get killed 10 feet away. If they explain the reason why the family was afraid of him I might change my story but at this point, the whole thing just seemed odd. And I get he was about to kill himself and Eugene saved him in a sense, but that wasn't that shocking.

And just from years of experienced TV watching, I could tell Eugene was lying. From a "group dynamics" stand point I get that it's a big turning point because now they have no mission and they've been lead on this BS train for so long, but from "an entire episode hinging on this reveal" perspective, it didn't pack any punch for me because I figured it was coming at some point. So while I'm sure the revelations of this episode will have repercussions throughout the rest of the season, the episode itself fell flat for me.


----------



## kdmorse (Jan 29, 2001)

The "interpretation of the rules" aspect of the discussion is kinda moot, and I can see how either side could feel that they're right.

But if we do interpret the rules as "Anything show in TD is part of this weeks TD, and thus fair game, including spoilers/scenes from next week's WD" - then it simply means that I (and a lot of other people), can't read these threads any more. Which in my mind, isn't a favorable outcome - so let's just not do that


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

madscientist said:


> I think you're being a bit defensive about this. There's nothing confusing or inconsistent about the forum rules or the way this thread works with them. You can quickly review what's actually in the rules, they're short.
> 
> There's nothing in the rules that says you have to have one specific thread per episode: in fact we have many threads that cover entire seasons on a single thread. The thread title clearly says what's allowed and what's not, and that's what the rules require. Not a special case.
> 
> ...


You probably should have quoted the entire rule:



> *Previews of Next Week and other spoilers: *
> Anything shown on the *previews of next week is considered a spoiler* on this forum, *and must be tagged* as such, using spoiler tags. (See below for instructions.) *Any spoiler information from other sources*, such as articles, websites, webisodes, personal friendships with producers, etc., *must also be tagged.*


Like I said, it's basic forum rules 101.
A preview is a preview and needs to be tagged


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Ok, rules are rules and all but honestly- the short, out of context, utterly *un*informative snippets they show on TD as previews are not worth this amount of angst. 
They never show anything substantive and are almost always five seconds of confusing nothing.
IMO calling this a "spoiler" is a bit of a stretch.

I like the combined thread.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Cearbhaill said:


> IMO calling this a "spoiler" is a bit of a stretch.


Welcome to TiVoCommunity! (Since obviously you're new here.)


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Ok, rules are rules and all but honestly- the short, out of context, utterly *un*informative snippets they show on TD as previews are not worth this amount of angst.
> They never show anything substantive and are almost always five seconds of confusing nothing.
> IMO calling this a "spoiler" is a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I like the combined thread.


I've accidentally seen parts of previews a couple of times on TD that I would rather not have seen.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

KyleLC said:


> I've accidentally seen parts of previews a couple of times on TD that I would rather not have seen.


That's why I turn off TD when they say "coming up next, scenes ...." 45 min of TD is enough


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


> They never show anything substantive and are almost always five seconds of confusing nothing.


Your imagined reality is in conflict with the facts. 

Did you miss how there was a substantive TD spoiler that someone posted in this thread, initially without spoiler tags?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

john4200 said:


> Your imagined reality is in conflict with the facts.  Did you miss how there was a substantive TD spoiler that someone posted in this thread, initially without spoiler tags?


Just like the imagined reality that Talking Dead never contains spoilers, which was the bill of goods sold to us as the rationale for combined threads. This week it contained both spoilers and material from outside sources (the comics).

I apologize for the untagged spoiler.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Your imagined reality is in conflict with the facts.
> 
> Did you miss how there was a substantive TD spoiler that someone posted in this thread, initially without spoiler tags?


Yes, because I can't remember anything from one hour to the next.
So spoilers really don't affect me one way or another


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

mrdazzo7 said:


> The whole thing with the family was oddly done and didn't make a ton of sense, although it might at some point. But they showed him beating a bunch of guys to death which to me looked like in protection of his family, yet they were clearly afraid of him and ran off only to get killed 10 feet away.


Yeah, the attitude of his family was strange. So he was violent protecting them--still not reason enough to go out into an unsafe area with walkers. I wonder if they'll explain it more later.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

stellie93 said:


> Yeah, the attitude of his family was strange. So he was violent protecting them--still not reason enough to go out into an unsafe area with walkers. I wonder if they'll explain it more later.


According to the actor who plays Abraham, when he beat and killed the men who harmed her, she then saw him as just as dangerous as they were and she was afraid to be around him. I'm also guessing that this happened early enough in the ZA that she didn't have a good understanding of how dangerous it was to walk around without protection.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Eugene listed half a dozen or so himself and then added Bob "Tainted Meat" Stookey last.


Don't know about the others, but Bob died because he was bit andwent outside expecting to die. He didn't sacrifice himself so that Eugene could survive.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Previews are preview. The previews they show at the end of a regular show typically fit within the hour allocated to the show. You can't use that as an argument that they are not spoilers. Me, personally, I don't care about spoilers, I click on all of them, pretty much. And the previews at the end of TD are always misdirection or they give absolutely nothing away (like last week it was a ten second clip of Abe from his flashbacks with the tin can -- gave absolutely nothing away about the site itself). But it's still a preview and cannot be included without spoiler tags (well, I can this week but would not have been able to last week).


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

kdmorse said:


> The "interpretation of the rules" aspect of the discussion is kinda moot, and I can see how either side could feel that they're right.
> 
> But if we do interpret the rules as "Anything show in TD is part of this weeks TD, and thus fair game, including spoilers/scenes from next week's WD"


 Since that directly contradicts the rules, there's no way that interpretation is correct regardless of what some may feel about it. This is not a grey area; it's like "interpreting" that red is blue . If someone were to want that the only way I can see it working is if that information was added to the title of every episode thread: "walking dead / talking dead / preview spoilers ok" so people know what to expect (or can create their own thread).

Getting a little unwieldy.



David Platt said:


> john4200 said:
> 
> 
> > Your imagined reality is in conflict with the facts. Did you miss how there was a substantive TD spoiler that someone posted in this thread, initially without spoiler tags?
> ...


There was no "substantive TD spoiler". There was a provocative _question_ posted here based solely on the typical completely ambiguous 10 second preview, which showed


Spoiler



Daryl throwing a body covered by a sheet into a fire


 From that David _guessed_ at something that this might mean: absolutely nothing in TD suggested that interpretation would be correct (IMO there's about a zero percent chance that interpretation is correct). This is no different from any of the numerous times that someone has discussed a "next week on..." preview on any other thread without properly spoilerizing it.

There are no spoilers regarding future episodes in TD. There is an extra very short, very ambiguous or intentionally misleading preview clip. It's just the same kind of thing as the preview clip at the end of WD and should be treated the same way.

In some episodes they do discuss the backstories of some characters from the comics. Usually there's not much about this but in this past TD there was a lot of it, about Abraham (I think this really means the episode did not do a good enough job showing his backstory and they tried to fill in details from the comics). I do think we should be careful about writing about that in this thread, even if it shows TD in the title.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Since that directly contradicts the rules, there's no way that interpretation is correct regardless of what some may feel about it. This is not a grey area; it's like "interpreting" that red is blue . If someone were to want that the only way I can see it working is if that information was added to the title of every episode thread: "walking dead / talking dead / preview spoilers ok" so people know what to expect (or can create their own thread).
> 
> Getting a little unwieldy.


But there's already a ruled being ignored by the combined threads. What's one more? 



> Official Episode Threads:
> When starting a discussion about a specific show episode, please put the air date and name of the program (and title if you know it) in the subject line. (ie: Lost, Man of Science, Man of Faith, 11/16.)
> 
> This will be the official thread for that week, and anything within that thread may contain spoilers for that show. It is also okay to mention a plot point from any previous episode. If you are not caught up on this show, and do not wish to read spoilers, do not open this thread.


Everything in the rule is singular. One specific episode.



> There was no "substantive TD spoiler". There was a provocative _question_ posted here based solely on the typical completely ambiguous 10 second preview, which showed
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


I agree. I think the producers clearly want us to think that was the implication, and the TD panel members kind of went along with that. But the very fact that they showed the scene makes it almost a zero chance that my interpretation is true. No way would they give away something that big.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

David Platt said:


> But there's already a ruled being ignored by the combined threads. What's one more?
> 
> Everything in the rule is singular. One specific episode.


and yet season long threads have existed for a very long time w/o complaint and there are some series long discussions too.

You're pretty good and twisting the rules to suit your needs.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

scandia101 said:


> and yet season long threads have existed for a very long time w/o complaint and there are some series long discussions too.


There have been plenty of complaints about season long threads.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

_UGH!_
*So, back to the actual show discussion:*

I think Eugene and Father Gabriel are new characters who do not have enough survival skills to make it in this New World. I wonder if Gabriel will be having a rethink on his faith regarding his new reality, or if he can justify this world as a Satan-led demon infestation?

Abraham and Rosita could get it on, but Maggie & Glenn just cuddled. I agree with Cudlitz in TD when he said that he would expect people to be getting down & dirty in this world as much as possible instead of trying to "date". LOL! Couldn't agree more!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

getreal said:


> I agree with Cudlitz in TD when he said that he would expect people to be getting down & dirty in this world as much as possible instead of trying to "date". LOL! Couldn't agree more!


I don't know what was said on TD, but one issue I would expect people to be concerned about is pregnancy. Maybe they are always on scavenging runs for condoms but they just don't mention it...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Its funny that in this last episode that there was a number of characters asked Eugene about his mullet and nobody has ever asked Daryl about whatever his hairstyle is called!


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

heySkippy said:


> There have been plenty of complaints about season long threads.


I meant in terms of what the forum rules allow


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

getreal said:


> _UGH!_
> *So, back to the actual show discussion:*


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Its funny that in this last episode that there was a number of characters asked Eugene about his mullet and nobody has ever asked Daryl about whatever his hairstyle is called!


I think it's because the mullet would seem so out of place for a genius scientist working in a government lab, and thus it caused people to wonder about him. But nobody would have said a word about the hair if they didn't know his backstory or thought he was just an average *******.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

john4200 said:


> I don't know what was said on TD, but one issue I would expect people to be concerned about is pregnancy. Maybe they are always on scavenging runs for condoms but they just don't mention it...


Don't you remember the episode where Glenn and Maggie did exactly that?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

ej42137 said:


> Don't you remember the episode where Glenn and Maggie did exactly that?


Did they last all this time? Must have found a jumbo box...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

getreal said:


> Abraham and Rosita could get it on, but Maggie & Glenn just cuddled. I agree with Cudlitz in TD when he said that he would expect people to be getting down & dirty in this world as much as possible instead of trying to "date". LOL! Couldn't agree more!


The one thing I always think about in the apocalypse is... when was the last time these people had a shower? Or even a sponge bath? I am in no way prudish, but it seems like for many people the level of cleanliness could be an issue. I mean, it only takes one UTI to ruin your week or worse.

Also, these people are living under constant stress and with poor nutrition. I think under these situations libido would be affected.

When they were in the prison I can easily see people acting like bunnies. But out on the open road like this it doesn't surprise me, really, that there's not as much going on.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

madscientist said:


> ... it only takes one UTI to ruin your week or worse.


I had to pause for minutes trying to decrypt your mid-sentence acronym before going to Google for the answer*:
UTI = Unanticipated Transgender Intercourse. 

_* Actual answer = Urinary Tract Infection_


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Regarding the complaints about previews - do all of you people who are so adamantly against discussing what is in the previews also completely and totally not watch movie trailers? What are those except for glorified productions of "coming next week"?

The amount that some get worked up over about a preview is absolutely stunning to me - to care so much about something so utterly trivial seems to be a poor life choice.

There are so many other things to worry about - I mean, it's not like the previews are telling you that Vader is Luke's father or that Soylent Green is people or that Rosebud is a sled.

Perspective is a really good thing people 

Now, back to the UTI discussion.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Regarding the complaints about previews - do all of you people who are so adamantly against discussing what is in the previews also completely and totally not watch movie trailers? What are those except for glorified productions of "coming next week"?
> 
> The amount that some get worked up over about a preview is absolutely stunning to me - to care so much about something so utterly trivial seems to be a poor life choice.
> 
> ...


Apples to oranges...serialized TV is much different than movies....


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Bierboy said:


> Apples to oranges...serialized TV is much different than movies....


A spoiler is a spoiler or it isn't, so not apples to oranges - 'what you are going to see later/next' regardless.

If you (global) do avoid trailers, more power to you and I have a lot of respect for that.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

For things I'm interested in, yes I do avoid trailers.

And I disagree that they don't give away anything. They give away everything. From talking to other people about this I remember previews and trailers differently than a lot of people.

They are ads after all, intended to keep you interested and watching, hence they tend to show the more dramatic moments.

I remember what was said, I remember the background of where it was said, I remember who else was in the shot.

So as I'm watching if we come to a dramatic life and death moment, and I know that the person who is about to "die" is going to be in a scene later, well, then I know they aren't going to die.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

So far I can't think of a single preview that was truly a spoiler having watched the episode after the fact.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

zalusky said:


> So far I can't think of a single preview that was truly a spoiler having watched the episode after the fact.


See I do, because if, for example, we see a trailer where it looks like a character is going to die, then I know for sure they will not die.

I don't watch WD trailers much but in other shows they have shown characters you believe to be dead in the next episode.

It's more what they don't say than what they do that bugs me.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Previews for network shows are made by marketing; their purpose is to get you to watch the next episode and marketing doesn't care a fig if they spoiler the plot. The only reason I watch previews for network shows is that I can depend upon my poor memory to clear out anything I learned from the previews in seven days. Of course, if I'm binge-watching I avoid previews like the plague.

On the other hand, I like the previews on shows like "Walking Dead" and "Mad Men" very much. They show a few misleading scenes to give some flavor and never give anything away. Exactly what a preview should do. IMO

Now "Previously-on" is quite another matter. I always pay attention, they are trying to link the plot together with the previous episodes and help my poor memory.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Yeah, the TD previews are so short (literally a second or two), that they don't give away anything. I'm a spoiler-phobe, but I watch it and do not get irritated.


----------



## JCWest (Mar 23, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Regarding the complaints about previews -
> 
> There are so many other things to worry about - I mean, it's not like the previews are telling you that Vader is
> 
> ...


You just like using the discussion to do more spoiling.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

SeanC said:


> For things I'm interested in, yes I do avoid trailers.
> 
> And I disagree that they don't give away anything. They give away everything. From talking to other people about this I remember previews and trailers differently than a lot of people.
> 
> ...


Has you learned nothing from Lost?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

JCWest said:


> You just like using the discussion to do more spoiling.


What's the statute of limitation on spoilers, anyway?


----------



## timr_42 (Oct 14, 2001)

Necromancer2006 said:


> I mean, it's not like the previews are telling you that Vader is Luke's father


Gee freaking thanks!


----------

