# Walking Dead S03E02 - 10/21/12 - Sick



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Rick grew a pair over the winter.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I don't know what was better...the prisoners' reaction to Rick & Co. doing their thing on Herschel, or Rick & Co.'s reaction to the prisoners performing their first zombie kill...


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

My god is this the fastest hour on television!

So now they know for sure that acting as quick as Rick did to save Herschel does indeed work.


----------



## mrpope (Jan 13, 2006)

It still bugs me that they don't kill the walkers at the fence. Instead of teasing them away (to get the practice cadaver) why not just kill them. Don't cost nuthin'.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Rick's machete move was shocking and cool.

Who was watching Carol? I don't think it was a walker. Why did she need to kill a walker, there was a ton of bodies inside.

Perhaps this joke was made last week but if the old guy turned into a zombie would that make him.....



Herschel Walker 


(try the veal)


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Beryl said:


> Rick grew a pair over the winter.


I think Carl grew a pair too. His mom better realize that the world is not how it used it be and he is not a boy.


----------



## GameGuru (Dec 12, 2003)

I think they want to leave walkers outside as a deterrent to others who want to try and get in.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> Who was watching Carol? I don't think it was a walker. Why did she need to kill a walker, there was a ton of bodies inside.


Not female. She needed to practice on the female parts for if/when she has to do Lori's C-section.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

Carol was probably being watched by someone from the "Governor's" group.


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

trnsfrguy said:


> Carol was probably being watched by someone from the "Governor's" group.


Yeah I think that makes sense as it


Spoiler



folds in to the previews for next week.


----------



## robbhimself (Sep 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't know what was better...the prisoners' reaction to Rick & Co. doing their thing on Herschel, or Rick & Co.'s reaction to the prisoners performing their first zombie kill...


i laughed for a good minute watching the prisoners shank the walkers, and the groups reaction


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

Wow - unexpected outcome of that episode. I thought we'd see more conflict between the prisoners before they bit it.

I didn't believe that guy's pleadings though - he was one of the guys that went ape on the walkers in the hallway. Only Big Tiny shied away.

I'm sure once they find out that there are women and even a young girl in C Block, there will be more trouble to come.

They should count their blessings though - they now have half of that food to split between just two people now. They could probably spend the rest of their days in relative comfort until the world wakes up from this nightmare.


Oh, and I also didn't know that the actor playing Rick was English - he's pretty good with his accent!


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't know what was better...the prisoners' reaction to Rick & Co. doing their thing on Herschel, or Rick & Co.'s reaction to the prisoners performing their first zombie kill...


The reaction to the prisoners performing their first zombie kill was classic. You could practically see the wheels turning in Rick's mind-- "All I have to do is sit back and they'll get themselves killed. Existential dilemma about whether to kill the prisoners or not solved."


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

So what's the explanation of all the prisoners in the new cell block being executed? Had they already turned? Did the guards just open the cells one by one and shoot them all?


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

classicX said:


> So what's the explanation of all the prisoners in the new cell block being executed? Had they already turned? Did the guards just open the cells one by one and shoot them all?


Once they got to the new cell block (through all the zombies in previous rooms) it looked to me like they were already dead. Most of them looked like they were cuffed up and probably became zombie food during the initial event.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Yeah, that interview (in his native British accent) floored me. A large percentage of the shows I watch/watched have Brits/Aussies playing Americans.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I spilled my drink when Hershel "woke up".


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

classicX said:


> So what's the explanation of all the prisoners in the new cell block being executed? Had they already turned? Did the guards just open the cells one by one and shoot them all?


I thought that was just the aftermath of Rick & Co. clearing out the cell block, but I could be mistaken...


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

They will need gas masks to clean out that make-shift outhouse so close to the food. 10 months of crap -- ewwwwwww!


----------



## rahnbo (Sep 12, 2010)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought that was just the aftermath of Rick & Co. clearing out the cell block, but I could be mistaken...


I went back and watched again. It looks like most if not all them had been handcuffed. I could be mistaken too that's just what it looked like to me.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought that was just the aftermath of Rick & Co. clearing out the cell block, but I could be mistaken...


I don't think Rick & co killed those guys. They looked too lined up and neat just outside of the cell door to be zombie kills.
My theory is guards probably killed them as the prison was being overrun.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

trnsfrguy said:


> Carol was probably being watched by someone from the "Governor's" group.


carefull please......

I was surprised at the quick outcome of the prisoner group. I really thought that would be a longer story line (I guess it still could).

It certainly seems like they are going to call this prison home and really get settled in. I hope it doesn't slow down the show though. Them moving around did keep things going.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I don't think Rick & co killed those guys. They looked too lined up and neat just outside of the cell door to be zombie kills.
> My theory is guards probably killed them as the prison was being overrun.


That was my thoughts too. Looked like executions.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I did notice that T-dog also has a gun to go with his fire poker....at least they gave him that.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pmyers said:


> I was surprised at the quick outcome of the prisoner group. I really thought that would be a longer story line (I guess it still could).
> 
> It certainly seems like they are going to call this prison home and really get settled in. I hope it doesn't slow down the show though. Them moving around did keep things going.


It seems by spliiting the group up they have found a way to keep things moving...
Regarding sneak peek at next week's episode.


Spoiler



Seems like next week will focus more on Michonne and Andrea. Giving Rick's group a chance to settle in more and not bore us with the details.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I did notice that T-dog also has a gun to go with his fire poker....at least they gave him that.


I had to laugh at the RIP Herschel's Leg video...T-Dog got more lines there than he does in an entire season of WD.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Different show, same subject: I found last night's related episode of Talking Dead to be interesting. Not sure I'm interested in Wesley Crusher's opinion on things, but kind of chuckled when I saw he was wearing a Captain Kirk shirt. Very funny. 

And after seeing the dead convict actor interviewed, kind of felt like we lost him a little too fast. I would have done more with him before he got killed off. But yeah, the scene with Rick killing him was monumental. Definitely a turning point with his outlook on things.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> It certainly seems like they are going to call this prison home and really get settled in. I hope it doesn't slow down the show though. Them moving around did keep things going.


Given how extensive the prison set seems to be, there's no way they abandon it anytime soon. I'm guessing they'll be in the prison for all of S3, if not longer.

Once they've cleared all the cell blocks of walkers, I wonder how they're going to generate suspense.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> ...Once they've cleared all the cell blocks of walkers, I wonder how they're going to generate suspense.


Exactly. While I would find an entire season about them rebuilding at the prison, entertaining....I doubt anybody else would 

I predict something or someone is going to force them to leave and I agree it will probably be at the end of this season after the baby is born.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

betts4 said:


> I think Carl grew a pair too. His mom better realize that the world is not how it used it be and he is not a boy.


I disagree - Carl is a whiny little brat.
Mom was right. 
Even the adults wouldn't have gone out into unknown parts of the prison by themselves.

I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> I disagree - Carl is a whiny little brat.
> Mom was right.
> *Even the adults wouldn't have gone out into unknown parts of the prison by themselves.*
> 
> I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


We saw Rick chasing that prisoner all through the prison in this very episode. Not only was it possible that they could have run into walkers at any point in that chase, but the prisoner could also have stopped and waited around a corner and surprised Rick when he got there. So I don't think it's accurate to say Carl is the only one that would go off on his own.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I still don't fully understand the prisoner situation. Did they lock them in that cell block? Do they have access to the other areas of the prison including the common areas and the kitchen?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I still don't fully understand the prisoner situation. Did they lock them in that cell block? Do they have access to the other areas of the prison including the common areas and the kitchen?


No. Rick's position was that his crew cleared the yard and the cell block and the other areas and so they were entitled to it. The bargain was that Rick's crew would help the prisoners clear another cell block for them to live in, for half the food. So those two remaining prisoners should get half the food and should be locked in their own cell block. I'm sure that arrangement won't last long, but that's the current set up.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> I disagree - Carl is a whiny little brat.
> Mom was right.
> Even the adults wouldn't have gone out into unknown parts of the prison by themselves.
> 
> I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


Or rather, to be more precise, something bites Carl.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> No. Rick's position was that his crew cleared the yard and the cell block and the other areas and so they were entitled to it. The bargain was that Rick's crew would help the prisoners clear another cell block for them to live in, for half the food. So those two remaining prisoners should get half the food and should be locked in their own cell block. I'm sure that arrangement won't last long, but that's the current set up.


I think Rick needs to renegotiate that agreement....the 2 guys should get 1/4 of the supplies now that there are less of them


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Carol grew a pair too. I guess hanging out with Daryl was good for her.

Crazy, tough guy prisoner lasted about two scenes more with Rick in charge than he would have if I were in charge. You just knew from the beginning that he needed his head cleaved.

I kinda thought Rick was going to kill Lori at the end. It makes no sense but there was a lot of tension in that scene.

There's a lot more action this season but this is still the most depressing hour on tv.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I got a kick out of our hereos having to describe this new world to somebody else.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

On the Nerdist podcast Andrew Lincoln described his group as "The Plague" Everywhere they go they bring havoc and destruction. Interesting perspective


----------



## classicX (May 10, 2006)

I wonder how life is on the sparsely populated islands that are not tourist attractions is doing.

And if Morgan and Duane are there.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Given how extensive the prison set seems to be, there's no way they abandon it anytime soon. I'm guessing they'll be in the prison for all of S3, if not longer.
> 
> Once they've cleared all the cell blocks of walkers, I wonder how they're going to generate suspense.


Mazzara/Kirkman have already said the current arc will take two seasons to tell. This arc is the best part of the comic series.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


Good luck with that. Given the many things he's involved in the comics I don't think the writers will deviate like that with his character.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Cainebj said:


> I disagree - Carl is a whiny little brat.
> Mom was right.
> Even the adults wouldn't have gone out into unknown parts of the prison by themselves.
> 
> I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


Mom was right but her timing sucked. She did a horrific job mothering in 2 seasons and now she is trying to step up after the kid brings back needed supplies? Na-uh.

I think Carl had adapted nicely to the situation. Even the dog food in S3E1 made sense.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> Good luck with that. Given the many things he's involved in the comics I don't think the writers will deviate like that with his character.


Could you please leave any information pertaining to the comics OUT of these discussions. You should know that by now.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> There's a lot more action this season but *this is still the most depressing hour on tv.*


This is one of the reasons I love 'Talking Dead'. I always watch right after WD and the contrast makes the whole package that much better for me.

Don't get me wrong - I think WG is an outstanding show, but I love finishing each episode off with the humor, interviews, and 'behind the scenes' stuff.

I agree with Caine about Carl - I've wished him dead for a while now and that hasn't waned one bit.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I tired several times to like Talking Dead, Chris Hardwick kills it for me..

"HEY GUYS LOOK AT ME, I'M CHRIS HARDWICK. IF I TALK LOUD AND SMILE LIKE I'M TELLING A FUNNY JOKE, IT MAKES WHAT I SAY SOUND REAL FUNNY DOESN'T IT?"


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I think I'm done with these threads. Too many spoilers and not enough interesting discussion.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> We saw Rick chasing that prisoner all through the prison in this very episode. Not only was it possible that they could have run into walkers at any point in that chase, but the prisoner could also have stopped and waited around a corner and surprised Rick when he got there. So I don't think it's accurate to say Carl is the only one that would go off on his own.


Well I agree with you because I thought the same thing - how convenient that there were no walkers during that chase 
- but my point is still the same - 
chasing a potential enemy in the heat of an attack is VERY different than doing a search mission for medical supplies.

Carl should not have gone alone.



SnakeEyes said:


> Good luck with that. Given the many things he's involved in the comics I don't think the writers will deviate like that with his character.


What is this comic thing that you are talking about?
But thanks you just ruined my day. 
A guy can still dream of Carl being eaten alive can't he?


----------



## ozzman73 (Nov 27, 2006)

Why was this episode called "Sick"? Or the previous "seed" for that matter. I'm probably over thinking it, but can't figure it out. Maybe it's a rebus


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

ozzman73 said:


> Why was this episode called "Sick"? Or the previous "seed" for that matter. I'm probably over thinking it, but can't figure it out. Maybe it's a rebus


I'm not exactly sure but I imagine "sick" is because we did'nt know if herschel is sick, infected, or going to die.....and "seed" they did mention planting seeds in the field for crops. I'm not exactly sure.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

pmyers said:


> I'm not exactly sure but I imagine "sick" is because we did'nt know if herschel is sick, infected, or going to die.....and "seed" they did mention planting seeds in the field for crops. I'm not exactly sure.


I'd say that you have it correct.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> I think I'm done with these threads. Too many spoilers and not enough interesting discussion.


Bye.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I think I'm done with these threads. Too many spoilers and not enough interesting discussion.


I feel like 75% of the thread is about The Talking Dead. That's a different show, and mixing comments in about what happened on that show w/ this show gets really confusing. Please make another thread about it, or separate those comments out visually or something so it is easier to follow.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I feel like 75% of the thread is about The Talking Dead. That's a different show, and mixing comments in about what happened on that show w/ this show gets really confusing. Please make another thread about it, or separate those comments out visually or something so it is easier to follow.


Not sure about the 75% statistic, but I agree with Zevida. I don't follow The Talking Dead, and also get confused reading those posts in this thread.

I also have not read the comics.

*Let's just stick with the TV show episode listed in the thread title.* That's not an unreasonable request.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

retrodog said:


> But yeah, the scene with Rick killing him was monumental. Definitely a turning point with his outlook on things.


I thought the same thing but I think turning point already came last season in the bar when he killed Dave(?)... that was the point where we knew Rick would kill humans if it meant keeping everyone safe. His alarms were going off big time that whole scene. Dave was about to draw on him (or so it seemed) but I don't see that scene being any different than his experience with Head Convict. That guy's behavior was all kinds of threatening.

If anything, I'd say his hunting the other guy down then locking him outside to get ripped apart by walkers was WAY more telling--that's someone who most likely wasn't a threat (unless I missed something) and he chased him to a violent, horrible death while he begged for his life. That's more telling than him killing someone who's clearly a threat to his peeps.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

"Talking Dead" is what we are doing here, but with cameras and guest stars and such. I see no problem discussing it here *as long* as spoilers are properly enclosed in spoiler tags. That said, the revelation about the clean axe and how the Rick's group had discussed this during the winter wanderings was fine, IMO. It was not spoiling things that had not yet happened, just filling in some details on what had happened off-screen, as explained by one of TPTB.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

wprager said:


> "Talking Dead" is what we are doing here, but with cameras and guest stars and such. I see no problem discussing it here *as long* as spoilers are properly enclosed in spoiler tags. That said, the revelation about the clean axe and how the Rick's group had discussed this during the winter wanderings was fine, IMO. It was not spoiling things that had not yet happened, just filling in some details on what had happened off-screen, as explained by one of TPTB.


Totally agree with this. There's lots of good info provided on Talking Dead and I can't imagine why people who watch the WD wouldn't want that info. If you don't have time to watch the show or don't like the host, that's understandable, but you shouldn't shun the interesting trivia about the show. As long as it's not a spoiler of something upcoming or related to the comic, I don't see any problem with people sharing that behind-the-scenes info here.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Talking Dead makes sense, Comics don't IMHO


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

pmyers said:


> Could you please leave any information pertaining to the comics OUT of these discussions. You should know that by now.


Actually i dont know that by now but I didnt spoil anything with the speculation, especially considering that the deviation that has already happened and that Mazzera/Kirkman has stated that the show is it's own and will be what they think works for the tv show


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

At this point its well established to those that have read the comics that the tv show it's it's own and that one can only speculate what may happen on the TV show. From the CDC to Dale dying etc. There are already a lot of things changed

So what i said doesn't spoil anything.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I thought the same thing but I think turning point already came last season in the bar when he killed Dave(?)... that was the point where we knew Rick would kill humans if it meant keeping everyone safe. His alarms were going off big time that whole scene. Dave was about to draw on him (or so it seemed) but I don't see that scene being any different than his experience with Head Convict. That guy's behavior was all kinds of threatening.
> 
> If anything, I'd say his hunting the other guy down then locking him outside to get ripped apart by walkers was WAY more telling--that's someone who most likely wasn't a threat (unless I missed something) and he chased him to a violent, horrible death while he begged for his life. That's more telling than him killing someone who's clearly a threat to his peeps.


I agree. The only thing he did was take a swing at Rick with his baseball bat in a reflexive self-defense move after Rick macheted the other guy. It was arguably motivated by instinctual self-preservation, as opposed to his fellow inmate's intentional "I'm gonna kill you by throwing a zombie at you" move, but it was still enough for Rick to off him. I was more shocked by his execution and what it shows of Rick's character now than I was by Head Inmate's. His death, along with the stark difference between how Rick "negotiated" for residency in the prison versus how he interacted so respectfully with Herschel last season when requesting long-term asylum for his group from Herschel at the farm really shows how Rick's character has hardened.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Zevida said:


> I feel like 75% of the thread is about The Talking Dead. That's a different show, and mixing comments in about what happened on that show w/ this show gets really confusing. Please make another thread about it, or separate those comments out visually or something so it is easier to follow.





getreal said:


> Not sure about the 75% statistic, but I agree with Zevida. I don't follow The Talking Dead, and also get confused reading those posts in this thread.
> 
> I also have not read the comics.
> 
> *Let's just stick with the TV show episode listed in the thread title.* That's not an unreasonable request.


I agree with this. I don't watch Talking Dead and get confused when stuff is brought up that I have not heard of before or that was shown in the episode.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

betts4 said:


> I agree with this. I don't watch Talking Dead and get confused when stuff is brought up that I have not heard of before or that was shown in the episode.


I also agree. 
I DO watch Talking Dead but I don't necessarily get to it until Monday so my options are 
1) NOT read this thread until after I watch Talking Dead
or
2) Make sure I watch Talking Dead in real time.



Zevida said:


> The Talking Dead. That's a different show.


No matter how you slice it - Zevida is correct.
This is a thread for THE WALKING DEAD episode SICK.

Talking Dead is a different show.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

wprager said:


> I spilled my drink when Hershel "woke up".


Mine went through and out my nose...


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

I agree that discussions of the comics and Talking Dead don't belong here. While they might not necessarily spoil things, there's a chance that they could. You don't know for sure that something from the comics or TD won't be revealed in the next few episodes, so why risk that to the rest of us?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Talking dead is not really its own show and does not warrant its own thread.
They are careful not to give away future stuff other than previews.
They are doing the exact same thing we are and talking about the episode.
It's like saying we can't bring up our other conversations about the same episode because they are not members of TCF.

I most definitely think it belongs here.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Cainebj said:


> I disagree - Carl is a whiny little brat.
> Mom was right.
> Even the adults wouldn't have gone out into unknown parts of the prison by themselves.
> 
> I LIVE for the day Carl bites it.


This. He's SO far from being an adult, it's incredible. I hate his character...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

getreal said:


> ...*Let's just stick with the TV show episode listed in the thread title.* That's not an unreasonable request.


Totally agree with this.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Totally agree with this. There's lots of good info provided on Talking Dead and I can't imagine why people who watch the WD wouldn't want that info....


I'll tell you why....the show's host is an ass and there's way too much unrelated crap...there's not enough "interesting trivia" to make it worth my valuable time. And I would dispute what some might consider "interesting"...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Just to be clear, I don't mind the spoilers from talking dead so much, but they are technically spoilers and should have spoiler tags (if they reveal anything about the show's plot). The comic thing seems to come up about every week in these threads. In both cases, all you need to do is read the sticky at the top of this forum and obey the basic rules given therein. It doesn't matter what your personal evaluation is of whether it is an ok spoiler or not. There are rules and they should be followed. 

I have not yet been bothered by spoilers here, but I am certain that I will be bothered a LOT if the trend continues with future episodes since I know that this season focuses on a pivotal story in the comics. As such, since no one apparently enforces the spoiler rules here, I'm not sure what the point is of being in future threads since it's largely devoted to spoilers from outside sources.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

SnakeEyes said:


> Actually i dont know that by now but I didnt spoil anything with the speculation, especially considering that the deviation that has already happened and that Mazzera/Kirkman has stated that the show is it's own and will be what they think works for the tv show


If you don't know by now that any reference to the comics are highly frowned upon and not wanted here, then you are either new to these threads, hard headed, or not very observant. It's been discussed a million times over every season in every thread.

I'm fine with a seperated Talking Dead thread, although I really don't see the need for it because the information certainly aren't spoilers.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

zalusky said:


> Talking dead is not really its own show and does not warrant its own thread.
> They are careful not to give away future stuff other than previews.
> They are doing the exact same thing we are and talking about the episode.
> It's like saying we can't bring up our other conversations about the same episode because they are not members of TCF.
> ...


I absolutely agree with Zalusky and, for the same reasons he mentioned, never thought it was problematic. If the call is that it cannot be discussed in this thread, then fine. I'll abstain, but each week's ep of TD is about that week's ep of WD so it makes sense for it to be part of the discussion.

I would think that it's much more inappropriate to discuss the comic book version in these episode threads. I don't read comic books, but I've seen numerous posts about what happened, going forward, in the comic book version so if I were a reader THAT is what I'd be pissed off about.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Maybe a seperate Talking Dead thread that would not be a new one every week but rather a running one (like project runway and other shows) so that those that watch it can go there to discuss and we that don't watch, well, don't have to.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

betts4 said:


> Maybe a seperate Talking Dead thread that would not be a new one every week but rather a running one (like project runway and other shows) so that those that watch it can go there to discuss and we that don't watch, well, don't have to.


Sounds like a reasonable compromise. I enjoy TD, don't mind reading comments that show up, but don't feel compelled to discuss it in WD threads.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

That's a good idea, Betts & Beryl. 

It just had never occurred to me that it was problematic for some that it was being discussed together with each WD episode so I guess it's a good thing to know. I'm pretty easy to get along with and I just love both shows together, so I never gave it a thought that they would be considered separate.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

zalusky said:


> Talking dead is not really its own show


C'mon? seriously?
If that were the case it wouldn't have its own listings and season pass LOL



zalusky said:


> They are careful not to give away future stuff other than previews.


C'mon? seriously? 

Talking Dead prides itself for having a sneek peek spoiler giveaway each week. 
Case in point was the clip they showed this week.
That is not a "preview".
Now no one has divulged that info 
- but they have said other things that were said on TD that is not info given on WD.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> I'll tell you why....the show's host is an ass and there's way too much unrelated crap...there's not enough "interesting trivia" to make it worth my valuable time. And I would dispute what some might consider "interesting"...


I totally understand why you wouldn't want to watch Talking Dead. But there are a couple of interesting nuggets provided in each week's show. So I'd think someone like you who doesn't want to watch TD would be thrilled that those couple interesting nuggets are shared here without you having to watch the whole show and put up with the stuff that you don't like. And if you don't consider it interesting, then no harm, no foul.

The reason it doesn't make sense to have a separate thread for TD is that the only stuff from TD worth talking about is the stuff that enhances one's understanding of that week's episode of WD. It seems pointless for people to be debating something in these threads when the answer was provided in TD, yet it can't be shared because people are too scared of "spoilers." Having a parallel thread for TD which basically discusses the same things as this thread but with a couple extra tidbits of information doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

I don't think that Talking Dead stuff is spoilery - they don't talk about *future* events, they just talk about this week's episode, and occasionally provide more insight as to what happened this week. So it just fills in the gaps on stuff that you otherwise _would never find out_. And since each TD episode is so closely related to each WD episode, it makes zero sense to have a separate thread to talk about the TD episode.

(In other words, what DevdogAZ just said. )

As for the comics, I thought that we had established last year that was only acceptable to talk about storylines where the show has already veered from the comic, and that even if the deviation from the comic would *appear* to preclude certain future storylines from taking place, that it was not okay to talk about that.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> I totally understand why you wouldn't want to watch Talking Dead. But there are a couple of interesting nuggets provided in each week's show. So I'd think someone like you who doesn't want to watch TD would be thrilled that those couple interesting nuggets are shared here without you having to watch the whole show and put up with the stuff that you don't like. And if you don't consider it interesting, then no harm, no foul...


Fair enough; you do have a point. I don't really care whether TD is discussed here or not. I haven't read any spoilers from those discussions. However, discussing the comic book as was done earlier and revealed that


Spoiler



Unfortunately, Carl doesn't die anytime soon...


 I DO have a problem with...


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> C'mon? seriously?
> If that were the case it wouldn't have its own listings and season pass LOL
> 
> C'mon? seriously?
> ...


Come on - Seriously. Your being too anal. It's a show specifically about the show episode that preceded it. It does not stand on its own.

And yes it has one extended preview segment at the end which I think we all know is a PREVIEW and generally not talked about.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

zalusky said:


> And yes it has one extended preview segment at the end which I think we all know is a PREVIEW and *generally* not talked about.


It's that "generally" part that bothers me. If we all intepret the rules however we see fit then there's bound to be a spoiler. Better not to chance it IMO. 

(font emphasis in the quote is my own addition)


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I totally understand why you wouldn't want to watch Talking Dead. But there are a couple of interesting nuggets provided in each week's show. So I'd think someone like you who doesn't want to watch TD would be thrilled that those couple interesting nuggets are shared here without you having to watch the whole show and put up with the stuff that you don't like. And if you don't consider it interesting, then no harm, no foul.


Agreed. But anything that describes things like how long a story arc will take or any other information about the future should have spoiler tags. Just as any reveals from the comics should.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Agreed. But anything that describes things like how long a story arc will take or any other information about the future should have spoiler tags. Just as any reveals from the comics should.


I agree with that. But I've never heard them discuss any information like that on Talking Dead. That information shared earlier in the thread was not from TD. It was from an outside source, and as such, it should have been spoilered.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree with that. But I've never heard them discuss any information like that on Talking Dead. That information shared earlier in the thread was not from TD. It was from an outside source, and as such, it should have been spoilered.


Exactly. This whole debate started because somebody made a comic book reference. It had nothing to do with Talking Dead but they have now been lumped together. We've never had (at least that I can remember) an issue with any "spoilers" coming out of Talking Dead and anybody getting upset.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

pmyers said:


> Exactly. This whole debate started because somebody made a comic book reference. It had nothing to do with Talking Dead but they have now been lumped together. We've never had (at least that I can remember) an issue with any "spoilers" coming out of Talking Dead and anybody getting upset.


My mistake then. I saw references to things that some of the cast had said about the prison storyline and assumed it came from the Talking Dead.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> My mistake then. I saw references to things that some of the cast had said about the prison storyline and assumed it came from the Talking Dead.


It wasn't cast members. The spoiler that was posted was attributed to the comic book creator (Robert Kirkman) and the showrunner (Glen Mazarra), and they definitely didn't say that stuff on TD.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

I'm don't recall whether the S3/4 comment was also said on TD or not.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Could you please leave any information pertaining to the comics OUT of these discussions. You should know that by now.


:up: If your comment contains the words "in the comics" then keep it to yourself.



ozzman73 said:


> Why was this episode called "Sick"? Or the previous "seed" for that matter. I'm probably over thinking it, but can't figure it out. Maybe it's a rebus


I thought maybe "sick" referred to the group having to break it to the prisoners that they were all already infected, or sick. One season of Breaking Bad had episode titles that made no sense individually but at the end of the season something happened (I won't spoil what) that made it clear how the episode titles fit together.


----------



## Johnny Dancing (Sep 3, 2000)

What the heck is Talking Dead? I downloaded and listened to a podcast called "Talking Dead" last week, it sounded like a bunch of stoners talking about the previous Walking Dead episode. Although they did talk about comic book stuff for a while so they did spoil some stuff about


Spoiler



the governor


 so I won't be listing to them again.

Or is 'talking dead' that everyone is talking about the mini episodes on the Walking Dead site? Those seem to be a parallel story to the Walking Dead timeline we see.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

TD is not a show we talk about for what happens on that show, aside from what is directly relevant to WD. For example, when Dani Pudi had his cameo on Cougar Town that was certainly brought up on the Community thread, but they did not discuss in detail what happened in the CT episode; only the fact that "Abed" was an extra on CT.

In the case of TD, the show exists solely because WD does, and as such they are intrinsically connected. Yes, it is its own show and so on, but it does not have characters, plot lines, etc. We are not ever discussing TD the show, only what was said on TD about WD.

If a bunch of buddies met up for coffee on Monday morning and discussed WD, would I not be allowed to discuss what was said? What if one of my buddies had ties with the cast or writers, and was able to provide some insights that were not spoilerish in nature? What if there was a camera? At what point does it become _wrong_ to discuss it?


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Johnny Dancing said:


> Or is 'talking dead' that everyone is talking about the mini episodes on the Walking Dead site? Those seem to be a parallel story to the Walking Dead timeline we see.


No, The WD Webisodes are separate shows and should have separate threads. Maybe because they are so short, just have a WDW season thread.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Bierboy said:


> Fair enough; you do have a point. I don't really care whether TD is discussed here or not. I haven't read any spoilers from those discussions. However, discussing the comic book as was done earlier and revealed that ...


Whatever happens in the comics, stays in the comics.

That said, even if something happens (or doesn't happen) in the comics, does not mean that the same thing will happen (or won't happen) in the show. Even if characters have the same names and are generally similar, what happens to them could be quite different.

I don't think I spoiled anything.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Johnny Dancing said:


> What the heck is Talking Dead?


It's a half-hour show that airs an hour or two after a new WD episode. It's basically a talk show about WD (and the episode that just aired). They have guests from the show, creators, and random celebrities who I guess like the show.

It's basically what we do here after an episode, but with insider information.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

wprager said:


> No, The WD Webisodes are separate shows and should have separate threads. Maybe because they are so short, just have a WDW season thread.


Total smeek!


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

For me, I don't care if you reference The Talking Dead, but I wish it was more clear. It is being referenced in an implicit way that interrupts the flow of the conversation if you haven't seen it.

Trying not to pick on anyone, but here are examples:



classicX said:


> Wow - unexpected outcome of that episode. I thought we'd see more conflict between the prisoners before they bit it.
> 
> I didn't believe that guy's pleadings though - he was one of the guys that went ape on the walkers in the hallway. Only Big Tiny shied away.
> 
> ...


I actually puzzled over this for a bit, trying to figure out if Rick had a British accent during part of the episode.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> I had to laugh at the RIP Herschel's Leg video...T-Dog got more lines there than he does in an entire season of WD.


This post made zero sense to me. I mean, I figured it out, but without watching The Talking Dead, it has no context.

Not everyone watches both shows.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Johnny Dancing said:


> What the heck is Talking Dead? I downloaded and listened to a podcast called "Talking Dead" last week, it sounded like a bunch of stoners talking about the previous Walking Dead episode. Although they did talk about comic book stuff for a while so they did spoil some stuff about * SPOILER * so I won't be listing to them again.
> 
> Or is 'talking dead' that everyone is talking about the mini episodes on the Walking Dead site? Those seem to be a parallel story to the Walking Dead timeline we see.


Just to clarify more, the Talking Dead podcast you listened to is not the Talking Dead television show under discussion here. The podcast is an amateur podcast that came out about a year before season one premiered. They began by discussing casting rumors, etc, and then when the show came out they kept going and talking about the show (and the comic). They called their podcast TD before Chris Hardwick's televised TD show came out - it is a coincidence of names.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

wprager said:


> Whatever happens in the comics, stays in the comics.
> 
> That said, even if something happens (or doesn't happen) in the comics, does not mean that the same thing will happen (or won't happen) in the show. Even if characters have the same names and are generally similar, what happens to them could be quite different.
> 
> I don't think I spoiled anything.


The words "could be" are your clue that it is still possibly a spoiler and shouldn't be posted. If (for example) someone posts "in the comic Carl gets butchered in the prison" (we can only hope  ) and then the next episode it happens, then it was spoiled it even if there was a chance that it wasn't going to happen in the TV show. That seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It wouldn't be a thread in Now Playing without a spoiler argument. 

The TD and Comic Book discussions don't bother me, but I would probably spoiler them out of consideration for the people that don't like it. It would cost me nothing but a couple clicks.

TD Spoiler:


Spoiler



So people who don't mind Talking Dead spoilers know they can click.



CB Spoiler:


Spoiler



So people who don't mind Comic Book spoilers know they can click.



Those two spoilers took me all of 3 seconds.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

MonsterJoe said:


> It wouldn't be a thread in Now Playing without a spoiler argument.
> 
> The TD and Comic Book discussions don't bother me, but I would probably spoiler them out of consideration for the people that don't like it. It would cost me nothing but a couple clicks.
> 
> ...


I think doing this would help. It would clarify and allow anyone that wants to know extra stuff the choice.

Could you all that do watch TD and read comics do this at least?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Zevida said:


> This post made zero sense to me. I mean, I figured it out, but without watching The Talking Dead, it has no context.


I don't watch Talking Dead, and since I'm the one that posted that video here, it made perfect sense to me.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Back to show talk. I thought this was much better than the premier which I didn't like. 

And Carl definitely grew a pair because he wanted to use them on Herschel's youngest daughter.

It'll be interesting to see how they keep the prison life moving along. Obviously we have the remaining prisoner tension and the Baby On Board issue. Romance between Carol and Darryl? Ewww.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

fmowry said:


> Back to show talk. I thought this was much better than the premier which I didn't like.
> 
> And Carl definitely grew a pair because he wanted to use them on Herschel's youngest daughter.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how they keep the prison life moving along. Obviously we have the remaining prisoner tension and the Baby On Board issue. Romance between Carol and Darryl? Ewww.


You were one of the people on the fence at the beginning/middle of last season, right?

In my mind, they've completely fixed whatever problems they've had. This is easily the best current show on TV for me.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> You were one of the people on the fence at the beginning/middle of last season, right?
> 
> In my mind, they've completely fixed whatever problems they've had. This is easily the best current show on TV for me.


Yeah. I thought the premier was way over the top with the whole "We need to save ammo, so lets shoot every zombie in the yard" deal and everyone being a badass and crushing heads, but I don't see myself NOT watching the show. If I can stick with True Blood, I will certainly keep watching this.

I don't really get why Rick had to chase the prisoner through the dark cells. If he gets killed, he gets killed. Rick seems to be making a lot of risky decisions for being a leader of the group.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

MonsterJoe said:


> In my mind, they've completely fixed whatever problems they've had. This is easily the best current show on TV for me.


They certainly got the message that people hated the Lori character. Now all the cast hates her too.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I feel like we've missed some key developments in the Rick and Lori relationship. At the end of last season, he was all about protecting his family. Yeah, she was wrong to get all worked up when he said he killed Shane, but there had to be more. The scene on the bridge basically acknowledged they are split up. 

They were having issues before the apocalypse, though, so maybe that brewed up again.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Zevida said:


> I feel like we've missed some key developments in the Rick and Lori relationship. At the end of last season, he was all about protecting his family. Yeah, she was wrong to get all worked up when he said he killed Shane, but there had to be more. The scene on the bridge basically acknowledged they are split up.
> 
> They were having issues before the apocalypse, though, so maybe that brewed up again.


I'm sure some of this will be filled in as we go along. This is just conjecture -- I haven't seen all the TD/WDW so it may have been covered there without my knowledge.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

wprager said:


> I'm sure some of this will be filled in as we go along. This is just conjecture -- I haven't seen all the TD/WDW so it may have been covered there without my knowledge.


Yes, remember that more time passed between Seasons 2 & 3 than passed from the beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse to the end of Season 2. So a lot must have happened to/with our group in the interim, which will no doubt emerge.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Isn't "she slept with Shane & gave up on Rick" a factor ?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

I'm probably wrong, but I wonder if Rick's "we're awful grateful for what you did" line to Lori at the end is in reference to something that happened between seasons and not her saving Herschel.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Zevida said:


> I feel like we've missed some key developments in the Rick and Lori relationship. At the end of last season, he was all about protecting his family. Yeah, she was wrong to get all worked up when he said he killed Shane, but there had to be more. The scene on the bridge basically acknowledged they are split up.
> 
> They were having issues before the apocalypse, though, so maybe that brewed up again.


I had to explain that last scene to my SO - Lori was taking his precence as a sympathetic moment in their relationship - and he was basically just extending his gratitude for helping to save one of the herd.

Did I read that right?

Or maybe the sympathy was seaping in to him, and he killed it by getting back to business.

I am definitely leaning to the former. I think (feel) like he really hates her right now...He's in leader/survival mode - emotions are secondary. though I guess that could change.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

MonsterJoe said:


> I had to explain that last scene to my SO - Lori was taking his precence as a sympathetic moment in their relationship - and he was basically just extending his gratitude for helping to save one of the herd.
> 
> Did I read that right?
> 
> ...


I read it the same way that you did. It was especially telling in the final moments, when he reached out and squeezed her shoulder and said "We're really grateful." He never came closer than an arm's reach away, and he couldn't even speak for himself and make a one-to-one connection with her. It was really cold. Maybe deservedly so, but very cold.

At the end of last season he was ready to put her sleeping with Shane behind them, he seemed to understand. But when she goaded him into killing Shane, then was horrified when he did, that really set him off. I'm guessing he just shut down and shut her out.

Of course, Lori is the worst character ever, so I don't blame him! I do wish the writers had written her a little better. They had an episode where she clearly told him Shane was dangerous, thought she and the baby were his, and would kill the living to protect them. Then like two episodes later, she was telling Shane how confused she was about things and it might be his baby. Talk about mixed signals! Then Rick does kill Shane to protect himself and his family - and Lori freaks out about it?  They either did a terrible job writing her or purposefully wrote her as a moron.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Unfortunately my recording cut when it was supposed to and the show continued for a few seconds longer. He kinda-sorta put his hand on her shoulder, even though he was standing a coupe of feet away. It was really ambiguous what he was doing. What happened after that? My guess is she took it as a sign of him warming up to her but then he turned and left? If that's what happened, I still think he is softening to her because she redeemed herself. Not enough to undo everything, but it's a start. Earlier (E1) she pretty much admitted to Hershel that she set Rick in motion to kill Shane (when she told him how he killed to protect his own, and then said that Shane thinks of her and Carl as his own).


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

wprager said:


> He kinda-sorta put his hand on her shoulder, even though he was standing a coupe of feet away. It was really ambiguous what he was doing. What happened after that? My guess is she took it as a sign of him warming up to her but then he turned and left? If that's what happened, I still think he is softening to her because she redeemed herself.


He reached out and squeezed her shoulder then mumbled "We're really grateful for what you did." Then turned and walked away. Lori stood there, stunned.

I think "we" rather than "I" is really important phrasing. He might have been softening to her as a member of the group, but it was very cold and hard for someone who is her husband.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Zevida said:


> He reached out and squeezed her shoulder then mumbled "We're really grateful for what you did." Then turned and walked away. Lori stood there, stunned.
> 
> I think "we" rather than "I" is really important phrasing. He might have been softening to her as a member of the group, but it was very cold and hard for someone who is her husband.


I agree. And it was especially harsh given that it was preceded by her saying "I thought maybe you had come out here to talk about us..."


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I took it as he had actually softened up a little to her and might give her a ray of hope. I agree that it was cold though.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Did anyone else find it funny when the prisoners were talking about how long they'd been locked up in the cafeteria? I think one said 262 days, and then the other said, "I think it was 264." That sounded to me like the writers acknowledging the fact that the fans have been trying to figure out the timeline and that there have been a couple different schools of thought about how long it's actually been.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> Did anyone else find it funny when the prisoners were talking about how long they'd been locked up in the cafeteria? I think one said 262 days, and then the other said, "I think it was 264." That sounded to me like the writers acknowledging the fact that the fans have been trying to figure out the timeline and that there have been a couple different schools of thought about how long it's actually been.


I thought it was just a prison thing. How to count the days.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

betts4 said:


> I thought it was just a prison thing. How to count the days.


Last season, I remember someone linking to a blog where they tried to figure out the timeline, and IIRC, there was some discrepancy about a couple of days, such that there were two distinct schools of thought and they were only a couple days apart. Obviously, with the time that passed between the end of S2 and the beginning of S3, it was going to be impossible for anyone to figure out an accurate timeline, so I took that exchange as the writers giving us the info, and acknowledging that there had been a legitimate debate beforehand.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> Last season, I remember someone linking to a blog where they tried to figure out the timeline, and IIRC, there was some discrepancy about a couple of days, such that there were two distinct schools of thought and they were only a couple days apart. Obviously, with the time that passed between the end of S2 and the beginning of S3, it was going to be impossible for anyone to figure out an accurate timeline, so I took that exchange as the writers giving us the info, and acknowledging that there had been a legitimate debate beforehand.


but for that number to matter they would have to have been locked up on THAT day.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

pmyers said:


> but for that number to matter they would have to have been locked up on THAT day.


Obviously we don't know when the virus hit the prison vs. when it hit Rick's town. Frankly, I could never understand how anyone could calculate the time because I didn't feel like enough info had been provided.

I don't think the number of days matters. I'm simply saying that I think the number the prisoners said was a wink to the die-hard fans who were trying to figure it out.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Yeah, I think that was a nod to the timeline issue. 

I figure that you it probably took between 2-3 weeks for all hell to break loose from date of first infection, and that was obviously during the time that Rick was in a coma. I think we can presume that the prison didn't go into lockdown at the very beginning. But at some point during that time, the outbreak hit the prison (maybe a guard got bit on the way to work or something, and then transformed in the infirmary), so we can probably assume that by the time Rick awoke from his coma to find the world had gone to hell, the prison was already in full throes of the outbreak. 

So, for shorthand, we can use the prisoners' estimates to figure out how long Rick has been awake - roughly 9 months. At least 6 of which took place between Seasons 2 and 3 given how Lori's pregnancy progressed.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

jradosh said:


> They certainly got the message that people hated the Lori character. Now all the cast hates her too.


Actually, I think she's redeeming herself so far this season...


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

betts4 said:


> I thought it was just a prison thing. How to count the days.


Sort of like in the Navy, only days to go until enlistment is up.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Last season, I remember someone linking to a blog where they tried to figure out the timeline, and IIRC, there was some discrepancy about a couple of days, such that there were two distinct schools of thought and they were only a couple days apart. Obviously, with the time that passed between the end of S2 and the beginning of S3, it was going to be impossible for anyone to figure out an accurate timeline, so I took that exchange as the writers giving us the info, and acknowledging that there had been a legitimate debate beforehand.


Found the post from a S2 thread where the timeline blogs were linked:

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=8832282#post8832282



markz said:


> On The Walking Dead, someone asked how long it has been from when Rick woke up in the hospital until the barn scene. Kirkman said he knows, but he wasn't going to say. He said that there are time frame clues in each episode that tell how long it has been from various points and if you did the math you could keep track.
> 
> I just googled: amc walking dead timeline
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Both links are (not walking) dead now unfortunately.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Neither of those links worked.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Weird. I guess it's because when I quoted the post, it didn't bring the actual URLs, but instead only included the actual text with the ... in the middle of the link.

Try them again, they're fixed now.


----------



## tiams (Apr 19, 2004)

I wondered where the prisoners got water for 260 odd days.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

tiams said:


> I wondered where the prisoners got water for 260 odd days.


That's definitely a good question. The only logical answer is that the running water still works. Maybe the prison gets its water from an on-site well and there's been nothing that shut it down or otherwise compromised it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> That's definitely a good question. The only logical answer is that the running water still works. Maybe the prison gets its water from an on-site well and there's been nothing that shut it down or otherwise compromised it.


Don't wells require electricity for the pump? Maybe they had a LOT of bottled water...


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I figure that you it probably took between 2-3 weeks for all hell to break loose from date of first infection, and that was obviously during the time that Rick was in a coma. I think we can presume that the prison didn't go into lockdown at the very beginning. But at some point during that time, the outbreak hit the prison (maybe a guard got bit on the way to work or something, and then transformed in the infirmary), so we can probably assume that by the time Rick awoke from his coma to find the world had gone to hell, the prison was already in full throes of the outbreak.


Alternatively, since everyone is already infected, all it would take is a prisoner or guard to die and the domino effect would happen. Lets say the prison went on lock down and no infected got in, eventually the prisoners would eventually unruly and riot started, killing a guard and/or rival gang member. Or a guard got bit and brought it in, I guess it doesn't matter either way.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> Don't wells require electricity for the pump? Maybe they had a LOT of bottled water...


Maybe the prison has its own power generation as well.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Maybe the prison has its own power generation as well.


But didn't whatever happened make all electrical power stop working?

Oh, wait, wrong show...



(Wouldn't a Walking Dead/Revolution mash-up be fun?)


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But didn't whatever happened make all electrical power stop working?
> 
> Oh, wait, wrong show...
> 
> ...


Geez...that's what I did...wrong show


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

MonsterJoe said:


> It wouldn't be a thread in Now Playing without a spoiler argument.
> 
> The TD and Comic Book discussions don't bother me, but I would probably spoiler them out of consideration for the people that don't like it. It would cost me nothing but a couple clicks.
> 
> ...


I was coming here to suggest this exact thing. Good idea!


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> But didn't whatever happened make all electrical power stop working?
> 
> Oh, wait, wrong show...
> 
> ...


It would be fun if Charlie got eaten.


----------



## mchasal (Jun 6, 2001)

tiams said:


> I wondered where the prisoners got water for 260 odd days.


I wouldn't find it far fetched if the prison had it's own water tower. Not sure how big would be typical, but with only a handful of guys drawing from it, I'd find it a completely plausible explanation.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Zevida said:


> He reached out and squeezed her shoulder then mumbled "We're really grateful for what you did." Then turned and walked away. Lori stood there, stunned.
> 
> I think "we" rather than "I" is really important phrasing. He might have been softening to her as a member of the group, but it was very cold and hard for someone who is her husband.





pmyers said:


> I took it as he had actually softened up a little to her and might give her a ray of hope. I agree that it was cold though.


I thought as he squeezed her shoulder and straightened his arm, he actually pushed her slightly further away (literally).


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

tlc said:


> I thought as he squeezed her shoulder and straightened his arm, he actually pushed her slightly further away (literally).


On the AMC website, there's a behind-the-scenes segment for this episode, where this particular scene is discussed by both Andrew Lincoln and also the actress who plays Laurie. I thought their statements on the scene were interesting to hear. I disagree with them, though...


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Re-watching this episode. I counted five strikes against Tomas.


Kills the Walker behind Tiny with Rick's back to him.
Kills "his friend" Tiny violently. 
Opens both doors instead of one.
Swing his machete too close to Rick.
Pushes the Walker onto Rick.
Rick obviously had seen enough.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Zevida said:


> Of course, Lori is the worst character ever, so I don't blame him! I do wish the writers had written her a little better. They had an episode where she clearly told him Shane was dangerous, thought she and the baby were his, and would kill the living to protect them. Then like two episodes later, she was telling Shane how confused she was about things and it might be his baby. Talk about mixed signals! Then Rick does kill Shane to protect himself and his family - and Lori freaks out about it?  They either did a terrible job writing her or purposefully wrote her as a moron.


I remember an episode where she pretty much suggested killing Shane, he did then she freaked out and he pretty much said it was her idea. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but with that in mind I think they are writing her as a manipulative b*tch not a moron.

edit: maybe she suggested "getting rid of him" and not meaning death. not sure, I guess I should re watch those episodes.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

That was the scene where Rick was explaining how he killed those men in the bar. Lori said that he was doing everything he had to do to defend his own. Then she drew a very clear parallel saying how Shane considered her and Carl as his own. She was basically saying that Shane would do anything, including killing Rick.

She did come clean, though, in E01 when she was talking with Hershel.


----------

