# Walking Dead - Welcome to the Tombs - 03/31/13



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Good stuff, but how did Andrea not survive that attack? I mean I knew she wasn't making it out of the episode alive, but c'mon she made it out of the cuffs and couldn't take down or avoid zombie Milton?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, a wrench is just about the worst possible weapon against a zombie, since you have little chance of destroying their head...at least, not before they've had plenty of time to get in a good bite or two.

I was thinking Andrea was a complete idiot for spending so much time sitting in the chair watching Milton die. If she had spent that time freeing herself, she would have been free before he turned. But then I realized I wasn't being fair. The writers were just trying to ramp up the tension.

So it's a matter of idiotic writers, not an idiotic character.

Shame about Andrea. She's a good character in the comics, but they never really did anything with her in the show.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

her feet were still tied when he lunged, one hand may have been too.


Also: I woulda have done exactly what Carl did. "Put the gun down" is not the same as "hold on to the gun and keep closing on the child.", Hershal should have reacted first.. "I said drop the gun!".


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, a wrench is just about the worst possible weapon against a zombie, since you have little chance of destroying their head...at least, not before they've had plenty of time to get in a good bite or two.


latch onto the jaw.


----------



## wedgecon (Dec 28, 2002)

I don't know if I can look forward to another season at the prison. I bet AMC has ordered another round of budget cuts for the most popular show they have ever had.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I thought it was a strong episode and I enjoyed it.

Ultimately, as far as I remember, Andrea achieved less than nothing this season. She could have killed the Guv on a few times and as far as I can remember all of her plans either came to nothing or failed.

Not sure why the guv just disappeared at the end, he could easily have gone back to Woodbury with a story.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

So where are the Governor and his two last men off to and could you imagine car ride?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> Not sure why the guv just disappeared at the end, he could easily have gone back to Woodbury with a story.


A story for whom? To accomplish what? The only able-bodied people left in Woodbury were the two who wouldn't fight for him. The rest are children and old people...useless to a psychopath on the warpath.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I was thinking Andrea was a complete idiot for spending so much time sitting in the chair watching Milton die. If she had spent that time freeing herself, she would have been free before he turned. But then I realized I wasn't being fair. The writers were just trying to ramp up the tension.
> 
> So it's a matter of idiotic writers, not an idiotic character.


I don't recall Andrea doing a lot of sitting and watching. She was working on getting the wrench, then getting it picked up. Yes, she'd pause once in a while to see if he was dead yet or talk to him, but she didn't stop trying to free herself. Picking up a wrench with her feet while handcuffed to a chair isn't exactly easy.


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

I thought it was an ok episode, but not really on the level of what I was expecting after an entire season of build up. if you think about it, nothing really happened... The governor showed up for war, but then the opposition was run out of the prison almost immediately. So aside from a few bullets, there was no real battle (the gun fight when the Zombie-bomb got delivered was 100 x more tense...). They retreated, and then he murdered half the town. Then Rick/etc went back to finish him off, watched Andrea die, and brought the town back to the prison. 

Unless I'm missing something, there was almost no resolution to the entire arc of the season. Things changed (Rick now has Woodbury in a sense) but really, not enough for season finale time... comparing it to last season's finale, which was excellent, it falls flat to me. 

Even the way the ended Andrea makes little sense to me... her arc through the whole season is being separated from the group, finding they're alive, trying to bridge peace between them and her new group, realizing the new guy is a psycho, then getting kidnapped before she could get back to her old group - but then she dies anyway. And not only that but her death is completely pointless, so it's not even like she died with a purpose, which I would have been fine with. most people hated her anyway so I'm guessing there won't be any tears shed, lol. 

I don't know, I guess it sets up a lot for next season, but I hoping this story would have been wrapped up and next year would be something different - the way they did it last year was perfect. Some slow stuff in the middle of the season but a ton of build up that culminated in the insane farm battle and ended with the group cut in half with nowhere to go, and foreshadowed the next chapter (the prison). I don't think another season of "prisoners vs. the governor" is that exciting. 

Anyway, like I said, it sets stuff up for next year but I don't think this was near the caliber of last year's finale, or even the one at the CDC.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Zevida said:


> I don't recall Andrea doing a lot of sitting and watching. She was working on getting the wrench, then getting it picked up. Yes, she'd pause once in a while to see if he was dead yet or talk to him, but she didn't stop trying to free herself. Picking up a wrench with her feet while handcuffed to a chair isn't exactly easy.


She spent probably as much time staring at Milton as she did trying to get the wrench.

And again, I don't blame her. I blame idiot writers who sacrifice any sense whatsoever to create a little extra drama. I suspect by this point, Andrea welcomed death as an escape from the stupidity she was repeatedly forced to exhibit.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Why choose the prison and not Woodbury? Woodbury looks a whole lot nicer, safe and it seems to have the resources to keep everyone fed. It would also be easier to set a trap for the governor if he returns. The prison doesn't seem to be all that appealing.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I think Woodbury would be a lot harder to defend...it's too big, they don't have very many able-bodied people, and the Guv knows it better than they do. I suspect it would be trivial for him to sneak in and slit their throats while they sleep.

It's gonna be hard enough defending the prison, but at least they have good fallback positions there.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I think Woodbury would be a lot harder to defend...it's too big, they don't have very many able-bodied people, and the Guv knows it better than they do. I suspect it would be trivial for him to sneak in and slit their throats while they sleep.
> 
> It's gonna be hard enough defending the prison, but at least they have good fallback positions there.


But the Governor wouldn't necessarily know that they took it over. Tyreese could open the doors like nothing was wrong and he could be ambushed pretty easily.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

You realize that she didn't spend half her time looking at him right? It's just the way they chose to present it for tv show dramatic license. But once you decide a point you like to stick with it I suppose.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> You realize that she didn't spend half her time looking at him right? It's just the way they chose to present it for tv show dramatic license. But once you decide a point you like to stick with it I suppose.


Well, if you actually read my posts you'll realize that's exactly what I said. But once you decide a point you like to stick with it I suppose.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, a wrench is just about the worst possible weapon against a zombie, since you have little chance of destroying their head...at least, not before they've had plenty of time to get in a good bite or two.


So I guess we learned that Milton is not a good dodgeball player. Not too surprising. (Except it was a pliers, wasn't it?)

I thought this was a very good episode, but not necessarily a very good season finale episode. Where's the cliffhanger here that's supposed to keep me on the edge of my seat, waiting for the show to return? The only thing that distinguished this from a normal episode was that it featured more background music than normal.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Pretty lame finale. I guess Milton needed to leave some tool for the whole scene, but some crappy pliers isn't going to get you loose from handcuffs anyway. I couldn't tell what she was trying to do with the handcuffs to get them off.

And the whole standoff at the prison? Why wouldn't Rick's people sit there and pick people off out in the open rather than spray shots all over the place and just chase them away? Everyone try and kill the governor.


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

She wasn't doing anything to the handcuffs. She was working on the chair she was handcuffed to. When Rick et al find her, she still has the cuffs on. 

I enjoyed the episode. And I am looking forward to next season. It will be a reversal of this season. The prison group now has the advantage of strength. Woodbury is the weaker of the positions at this point. 

I also liked how Rick finally realizing that bringing others into their fold was the right thing to do made him stop having visions of Lori.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Einselen said:


> So where are the Governor and his two last men off to and could you imagine car ride?


That's what I was wondering. I thought they were headed back to the prison but they didn't go there. They didn't go back to Woodbury either, so where did they go? And the people with the governor must be thinking that he went over the top and they could be next. They may want to kill him themselves.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

BrandonRe said:


> She wasn't doing anything to the handcuffs. She was working on the chair she was handcuffed to. When Rick et al find her, she still has the cuffs on.
> 
> I enjoyed the episode. And I am looking forward to next season. It will be a reversal of this season. The prison group now has the advantage of strength. Woodbury is the weaker of the positions at this point.
> 
> I also liked how Rick finally realizing that bringing others into their fold was the right thing to do made him stop having visions of Lori.


Is Woodbury even a concern for them at this point? The remaning population have no leader anymore and Rick et al obviously clued them in to what the Governor was all about should he return.

Are we supposed to think they brought the entire remaining population of Woodbury to the prison?


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I completely agree with you Rob, there is no reason for her to get bit other than the writers wanted her bit.

Zombies aren't known for their quick reflexes and good balance. All she had to do was put her foot on his chest and push, that should have knocked him down, and given her 5-10 seconds to keep trying to free herself while Milton got back up.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

He drinks a whiskey drink, he drinks a vodka drink...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

For a long while, I thought Carl will turn into a worse version of Shane. But then he explained himself and I totally agreed with his logic


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Just out of curiosity...

A few weeks ago someone posted that someone had gotten a hold of the final episodes and were putting spoiler screen grab images up on facebook and elsewhere.

I laid low cos I didn't want to know 
- but does anyone know what there were of? 
I am assuming one was of Merle.

Norman Reedus said last night on The Talking Dead that someone posted pictures of him with his guts hanging out from a movie he did a couple years back and people thought it was Darryl. I wondered one was that?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I looked again at the Andrea scenes, and it was even stranger than I originally thought...the chair she was handcuffed to was welded steel, so there was really nothing for her to work on with the pliers. I notice that they never actually showed what she was doing; her body or the chair was always blocking where the pliers were. I suspect it's another case of the physical reality of the set not matching the script, and they didn't bother changing anything.


Anubys said:


> For a long while, I thought Carl will turn into a worse version of Shane. But then he explained himself and I totally agreed with his logic


Yeah, my thought in that scene was that Carl is one of the few people in the history of film and television to know that when you tell somebody who has a gun and is moving towards you to freeze and drop the gun, and they don't, the appropriate response isn't to wait for a while and hope they eventually comply.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

The way I saw it, she cut the chain connecting the handcuffs. So one side of the handcuffs was still on her wrist while the other was still on the chair.


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> Just out of curiosity...
> 
> A few weeks ago someone posted that someone had gotten a hold of the final episodes and were putting spoiler screen grab images up on facebook and elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Yup, those were the 2 pics posted on the net.
I just saw the pic of Norman Reedus on Twitter with the tag "Daryl dies".


----------



## trnsfrguy (Apr 28, 2005)

Anubys said:


> The way I saw it, she cut the chain connecting the handcuffs. So one side of the handcuffs was still on her wrist while the other was still on the chair.


I agree.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Well, a wrench is just about the worst possible weapon against a zombie, since you have little chance of destroying their head...at least, not before they've had plenty of time to get in a good bite or two.


I think it was pliers. And pliers are excellent for fighting zombies - you can use it to remove their teeth. This guy knows what I'm talking about...



Spoiler


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> The way I saw it, she cut the chain connecting the handcuffs. So one side of the handcuffs was still on her wrist while the other was still on the chair.


Which raises the question of how somebody can cut through handcuff-quality steel with a pliers, one-handed, without leverage.

I think it's just a case of the writer figuring she would disassemble the chair's arm, the propmaster not knowing that when he picked out the chair, and the director just throwing his hands up and making sure we couldn't see what was going on.

The writers are in LA, by the way...I wonder if they're on a schedule so tight there just isn't time to adapt the scripts to the sets, locations, and props that are available...this sort of thing happens fairly regularly on WD, where something that sounds good in isolation makes little sense in the execution. (Ironically, Robert Kirkman moved his family from Kentucky to LA to work on the show. Maybe he should have stayed! )


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> She spent probably as much time staring at Milton as she did trying to get the wrench.
> 
> And again, I don't blame her. I blame idiot writers who sacrifice any sense whatsoever to create a little extra drama. I suspect by this point, Andrea welcomed death as an escape from the stupidity she was repeatedly forced to exhibit.


I was screaming at my TV and I'm one of those quiet movie watchers. Even Milton told her to hurry up and get out of the chair but they had the character spend a ridiculous amount of time reminiscing and staring at Milton. They seem to make some main characters so hated that the audience hope they die. T-Dog and Dale were notable exceptions. Also, Merle redeemed himself so well that I was sad that he bit it.


Anubys said:


> For a long while, I thought Carl will turn into a worse version of Shane. But then he explained himself and I totally agreed with his logic


I so loved Carl this season. He told his father right. That guy from Tyreese's group was an idiot and needed Carl lessons. Never put a gun on a sociopath unless you plan to use it.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Anubys said:


> The way I saw it, she cut the chain connecting the handcuffs. So one side of the handcuffs was still on her wrist while the other was still on the chair.


He could have left her a hacksaw and it would have been an impossibility. Didn't anyone watch Merle in S1? Or Mad Max in 1979?


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

danterner said:


> He drinks a whiskey drink, he drinks a vodka drink...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Which raises the question of how somebody can cut through handcuff-quality steel with a pliers, one-handed, without leverage.
> 
> I think it's just a case of the writer figuring she would disassemble the chair's arm, the propmaster not knowing that when he picked out the chair, and the director just throwing his hands up and making sure we couldn't see what was going on.
> 
> The writers are in LA, by the way...I wonder if they're on a schedule so tight there just isn't time to adapt the scripts to the sets, locations, and props that are available...this sort of thing happens fairly regularly on WD, where something that sounds good in isolation makes little sense in the execution. (Ironically, Robert Kirkman moved his family from Kentucky to LA to work on the show. Maybe he should have stayed! )


There were so many ways around it given the props they had. They just didn't care to spend an extra 5 minutes figuring it out in pre-production.

I love this show but it's very carelessly done from start to finish. We're not talking "revolution-bad", but it's up there!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

I really wanted the Governor character gone for good- all the human vs. human crap is not nearly as compelling to me as humans vs. zombie apocalypse.
And it irks me to no end that folks can pick off a zombie at 100 yards but cannot manage to hit a human at half that range and they don't even have to be accurate headshots. So many bullets flying during these battles but very few actually do any good.

I loved how ambiguous the Carl shooting was played- I've always thought he would turn out to be either a sociopath or a natural born leader, and the straddling of the two is marvelous.
My favorite character by far.
I don't think he can be held accountable for any missteps as his development as a person has been totally ignored by both his parents while they are off doing their own thing. One would think at least one fireside chat per day would be called for when you are responsible for raising a child under these circumstances. Especially since Lori's death- he should have been in talks with people daily to help him sort out what is going on inside him. Sure, someone had to do it, but a child?
That person's child?

Did Rick ever sit down and have a seriously deep discussion with him about that?
He dropped the ball and is to blame for putting everyone and everything else ahead of seeing to Carl's mental health. I mean, yeah, Rick has a lot on his plate, but caring for your child is not the thing you sacrifice when you get busy. Why bother to try and save the world if you can't be bothered to see that the young impressionable kids are raised adequately to carry on the human race? The children should be a priority. They are living in a very black and white world and need to be taught about gray. You don't expect kids to automatically know these things.
I can see why Carl might overcompensate and think he can do everything alone- he's been allowed to over and over. Herschel just stood there doing nothing, the kid was advancing, so Carl made a choice. And Herschel's telling of the tale conveniently left out "I just stood there with my thumb up my butt while Carl stepped up."
I hope he feels guilty for allowing a child to take control.
They let Carl go, they gave him a gun, and he shot an enemy- deal.
I would watch him and have those hard discussions but not look at him like he's pure evil.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Another issue I have in line with the last couple posts is that the show seems to have no sense that the characters are doing anything in the vast majority of the time when we're not watching. You'd think they all would have extensive conversations about everything, but there's no indication of that. You'd think they'd be planning things, but we only see that retroactively when they (the writers) need it to happen. And with so many of this show's flaws, they are endemic to television in general, but here they're taken to new levels, even in situations where they're plot-critical (I'm thinking of the Guv's magical pursuit of Andrea, but there are many other examples).

It has become far too common in modern American television for writers to be satisfied with coming up with really cool stuff, without considering how that really cool stuff fits together. And I think a lot of viewers just don't care (Battlestar is a good example of that), which is why they keep getting away with it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I just didn't understand our Hero's goal/plan for the prison raid. It looked to me that they weren't trying to shoot them, only scare them away....but then what's the point of that? If they did want to kill the townspeople, they had the perfect chance to setup boobytraps.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I just didn't understand our Hero's goal/plan for the prison raid. It looked to me that they weren't trying to shoot them, only scare them away....but then what's the point of that? If they did want to kill the townspeople, they had the perfect chance to setup boobytraps.


And they were so excited when the Townies ran...how does that help them? They escaped unscathed, now they know what you're up to...if the Guv didn't turn out to be a homicidal maniac willing to kill every able-bodied person in his community save two because he didn't approve of their attitude in the light of an unexpected setback, the Prisoners would have been screwed.

There's a new guy in charge of the show next year. I hope that's a good thing.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I think the writers wanted them to look like the good guys taking the higher path, but that's just moronic with gun fight. When someone is shooting at you you shoot them, center mass, until they stop shooting at you.

Oh and that reminds me.... the whole Guv losing it and wasting his own people.

Who in their right mind witnesses that, shugs their shoulders, and gets in the car with the insane ******* that just murdered 10-15 people?

Because if he is willing to drop a bunch of random people for no reason, what would make you think you are safe?

The second he started opening fire on his own people someone, ANYONE, should have shot him. But that would make too much sense, and close possible plot lines the writers want to use.

I'm barely hanging onto this SP.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, my thought in that scene was that Carl is one of the few people in the history of film and television to know that when you tell somebody who has a gun and is moving towards you to freeze and drop the gun, and they don't, the appropriate response isn't to wait for a while and hope they eventually comply.


As much as I still don't love Carl, I think the old guy was wrong. Carl told the guy to DROP the gun - not edge toward him, acting like he's going to hand him the gun. Drop the gun means drop the gun and nothing else. Kill or be killed.

As for Andrea and the damn wrench. Good grief - That was one of the stoopidest scenes ever. Sure, plenty of time to screw around. Just sit there with a stupid look on your face while time goes by, instead of dealing with the task at hand. I think they could have had smarter ways to have her die, or at least make it look more intelligently written. Adios, Andrea. You've outlived your usefullness. Of that I became glaringly certain at this point.

I wonder why the Governator went off the rails like that. Why would you kill all your men? god complex, I guess. I, too, wondered why those last two guys got in the vehicle with him. I suppose they figure there is no way to outrun his gun and if they ran, they'd definitely get it. Oh wait, that one gun ran out of ammo, right? But didn't he still have another one, or was that one out of ammo too?

The Gov must be made of rubber. Nobody seems to be able to get a shot on him - even the sharpshooters.

I wonder how the villagers felt about being brought to the prison. The digs certainly aren't so nice, but I suppose the sense of safety is a lot higher especially if they, somehow, knew what the gov did.

Re: Talking Dead (nothing spoily of course)



Spoiler



Wow, I guess Norman Reedus wears his hair like that all the time. Cool having him and the guy who plays Tyreese there.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Well, what about the idiot who - in the middle of the Gov shooting his own people - holds a gun to him and asks him oh so very politely to please stop.

Now THAT guy deserved to be shot in the head


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

I wish this thread had less threadcrap stuff. As has been said in many threads, if you don't enjoy the show don't watch.

I still don't understand why the Guv would not go back to Woodbury where, presumably, all his belongings, weapons and ammo would be. Beyond that I have no problem with the dramatic license of what others call flaws.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

First of all, STFU Andrea and get to work! When they cut back to that scene, and she was *still* talking talking talking and NOT getting the pliers --well, she got what she deserved. I think it would take an ordinary person about 30 second to fetch those pliers. If she had done that, and THEN spent all that other time trying to free herself (and still getting bit) that would have made so much more sense.

Second, why didn't they just lock all the Woodbury folks _inside_ the prison and then take the Gov out when he's trapped like an animal? I kept saying to my g/f "no, don't go inside, they'll lock you in there!!!"... but no, they just wanted a stupid shootout and to run. Such bad writing.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And they were so excited when the Townies ran...how does that help them? They escaped unscathed, now they know what you're up to...if the Guv didn't turn out to be a homicidal maniac willing to kill every able-bodied person in his community save two because he didn't approve of their attitude in the light of an unexpected setback, the Prisoners would have been screwed.
> 
> There's a new guy in charge of the show next year. I hope that's a good thing.


Exactly. So you scare them off....now what? Do you really think they won't come back? What was the end game plan there?

I did see one booby trap with some spikes which I love the idea of but could have been done much better.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

JohnB1000 said:


> I wish this thread had less threadcrap stuff. As has been said in many threads, if you don't enjoy the show don't watch.
> 
> I still don't understand why the Guv would not go back to Woodbury where, presumably, all his belongings, weapons and ammo would be. Beyond that I have no problem with the dramatic license of what others call flaws.


How is you posting your critique any different than us posting ours?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

sharkster said:


> As much as I still don't love Carl, I think the old guy was wrong. Carl told the guy to DROP the gun - not edge toward him, acting like he's going to hand him the gun. Drop the gun means drop the gun and nothing else. Kill or be killed.[/SPOILER]


What was the show where the bad guy said, "What are you gonna do, shoo..." BLAM! And down he goes with a hole in his head. (Justified? I know The Following had a similar scene recently.)

It was quite a jolt, but it shouldn't have been. TV has trained us with bad, suicidal habits.

Granted, those were both law enforcement people giving the instructions; a little kid might be different. But even if it's a little kid, if I'm surrendering to him and he's got a bead on me, I'm going to be very careful to follow his instructions.


JohnB1000 said:


> I wish this thread had less threadcrap stuff.


I wish this show had less showcrap stuff. It was great at the beginning, but ever since the first season it's been lurching down and up, but more generally down. I can't speak for anybody else, but I have stayed with it out of genre loyalty and the hope it can regain its footing. With a new showrunner next season, that hope remains alive.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

When Andrea was fumbling with the pliers, I just went ahead and fast forwarded through that whole sequence, because I knew that no matter how long it took Milton to die and turn, it would take Andrea a few seconds more or less, so everything until that point was worthless.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

I liked Carl in this episode quite a bit. The guy was handing over his gun. He wasn't asked to do so. He was asked to drop his gun. 

He didn't comply. Carl done good.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

What was the governor's line in the beginning? 

You either kill or die, or die and then kill?

Whatever it was, that was a good line.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

sharkster said:


> Re: Talking Dead (nothing spoily of course)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I challenge you to find more than 1 or 2 photos of him anywhere/any time with good looking hair- the man is cursed in that regard. Even back in his modeling days he didn't look any better.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I'm on Carl's side. The guy was told to DROP his weapon, not creep forward and hand it over. It seemed obvious that the guy saw Carl (a kid), Herschel (old man on crutches) and Beth (girl hiding behind Herschel) and thought he could over power them.. That guy could easily overpower Carl (sorry son, puberty hasn't set in yet). Carl did the appropriate thing given the circumstances, no better than Rick bringing the young and old of Woodbury to the prison.

Like it has been said before, if the characters actually talked to each other more often, Rick would hear Carl's side and probably accept it.

I think the prison makes a better set for a post apocalyptic community than woodbury. It has a lot of it's own contained infrastructure to make the place modern and nice. All they would need to get are the solar panels from Woodbury for electricity, and a pump to siphon water from the creek into the lines of the prison (after filtering and cleaning it) so they could maybe get the boilers going and have hot water (showers).. Then line the outer fence with vehicles (I've seen lots of them sitting on the sides of the road on this show) to cushion the fence against a super herd or another attack against people..

But then the "show" could get boring.



JohnB1000 said:


> I wish this thread had less threadcrap stuff. As has been said in many threads, if you don't enjoy the show don't watch.


I enjoy the show, it just frustrates me sometimes..


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

I musta missed the threadcrapping, posting negative comments about a show is not all threadcrapping, it's about context and content.

Picking nits, picking it apart, pointing out the errors, yes. Threadcrapping no,


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

pmyers said:


> How is you posting your critique any different than us posting ours?


Funny how this works with him.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

BradJW said:


> What was the governor's line in the beginning?
> 
> You either kill or die, or die and then kill?
> 
> Whatever it was, that was a good line.


That was it...and it was a good line!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> I'm on Carl's side. The guy was told to DROP his weapon, not creep forward and hand it over...


True...but it was obvious (to Herschel) that it was just a scared kid who had 2 guns pointed at him.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> True...but it was obvious (to Herschel) that it was just a scared kid who had 2 guns pointed at him.


Yeah, it was an ambiguous situation...he was probably trying to surrender, but he could have been (and was kind of acting like he was) trying to get the jump on them.

Rule 1 of surrendering: Do as you're told. That's the whole point of surrendering.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> True...but it was obvious (to Herschel) that it was just a scared kid who had 2 guns pointed at him.


Yeah but - wouldn't it still make more sense to just comply by dropping the gun and not risk further pissing off the people with guns pointed at you?

Well, ok, he's a kid. I just kind of got that in my head. But still - there is no way you could trust that he didn't see what looked like an opportunity to take over what looked like a little kid, a one-legged old guy, and a meek girl. In this world you have to make decisions and you don't have the luxury of mulling over options. By this point, the kid probably should have known that.

I agree with many here that Carl explained it pretty well to his dad, in regard to the fact that his father didn't make the decisions he needed to make and that didn't pay off. But I still hate the thing where nobody actually tells the other what happened. I'd have said that I told him to freeze and drop the gun, and he kept coming at me with gun in hand. It doesn't take much to realize that that means I had to kill the guy becauase I had no idea what he was planning.


----------



## Boot (Mar 15, 2000)

BradJW said:


> What was the governor's line in the beginning?
> 
> You either kill or die, or die and then kill?
> 
> Whatever it was, that was a good line.


I think it was "kill and then die, or die and then kill".


----------



## purwater (Aug 25, 2005)

I was expecting the guy to keep creeping towards Carl and then grab him and put a gun to his head making Herschel and Beth drop their guns like always happens in TV and movies. Carl actually shooting was a nice surprise for me.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Seems like each season has an overall arc of looking for a safe place, finding one with an invalid leader there, then removing/replacing the leader.

Season 1 - the CDC center with the crazy scientist
Season 2 - Old man who thinks everyone should be nice to the zombies
Season 3 - Governor, running a seemingly nice community, but really up to no good

Were the comics like that?

And as I was watching this last season, Woodbury really reminded me of the rabbit community in Watership Down which the protagonists are tempted to stay in. I get the feeling that there's some conscious nods to Watership Down. 

We saw the same kind of story structure with the latest Toy Story - the toys arrive in the kindergarten and everything seems wonderful, but you find out that the leader (Lotso) is not unlike the Governor.

BTW - if anyone hasn't read Watership Down and you like the idea of a band of survivors looking for a new home, drop everything and read it. It's one of the best books ever written (IMO). Don't let the fact that it's about rabbits put you off for one second.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

robojerk said:


> I'm on Carl's side. The guy was told to DROP his weapon, not creep forward and hand it over. It seemed obvious that the guy saw Carl (a kid), Herschel (old man on crutches) and Beth (girl hiding behind Herschel) and thought he could over power them.. That guy could easily overpower Carl (sorry son, puberty hasn't set in yet). Carl did the appropriate thing given the circumstances, no better than Rick bringing the young and old of Woodbury to the prison.


I'd have had no problem with Carl's actions if he'd actually warned the kid one more time: "Drop the gun right where you are. Do not take another step toward me or I'll be forced to shoot you."



robojerk said:


> I think the prison makes a better set for a post apocalyptic community than woodbury. It has a lot of it's own contained infrastructure to make the place modern and nice. All they would need to get are the solar panels from Woodbury for electricity, and a pump to siphon water from the creek into the lines of the prison (after filtering and cleaning it) so they could maybe get the boilers going and have hot water (showers).. Then line the outer fence with vehicles (I've seen lots of them sitting on the sides of the road on this show) to cushion the fence against a super herd or another attack against people..
> 
> But then the "show" could get boring.
> 
> I enjoy the show, it just frustrates me sometimes..


The prison simply makes more sense from a RV show production standpoint. It's a set they built and they can control it and do with it whatever they want. Woodbury is an actual town and every time they film there, they have to take a normal looking town and dress it all up to look post-apocalyptic and they have to coordinate with residents and city people, etc. Much easier to move everything to the prison next season.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Looks like I'm late to noticing that Toy Story 3 and Walking Dead Season 3 have essentially the same story structure:

http://geektyrant.com/news/2013/3/27/proof-that-the-walking-dead-and-toy-story-are-the-same.html


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

TeddS said:


> We saw the same kind of story structure with the latest Toy Story - the toys arrive in the kindergarten and everything seems wonderful, but you find out that the leader (Lotso) is not unlike the Governor.


You did see this, right?



http://imgur.com/a


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Hank said:


> You did see this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a


Yep, 2 seconds before you wrote that.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> What was the show where the bad guy said, "What are you gonna do, shoo..." BLAM! And down he goes with a hole in his head. (Justified? I know The Following had a similar scene recently.)
> 
> It was quite a jolt, but it shouldn't have been. TV has trained us with bad, suicidal habits.
> 
> ...


Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

When the townies came in and starting blowing up stuff I told my wife that they must be done with the prison set and that I was excited for them to hit the road again!


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

TeddS said:


> I think it was pliers. And pliers are excellent for fighting zombies - you can use it to remove their teeth. This guy knows what I'm talking about...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


THANK YOU!!! I thought MY head was going to blow up from everybody using the wrench word.

This is an "adjustable open-end wrench". More commonly known as a Cresent wrench:










This is a stand open end wrench (or spanner):










This is a monkey wrench (or pipe wrench):










[samualjackson]And this is a standard pair of Mutha-fkin PLIERS:[/samueljackson]












During that whole scene, I just kept thinking, "Just get one hand free and then shove the one side handle into the eye socket when he comes your way." Obviously that was too tough to do. Just chalk it up to poor writing and the fact they just wanted to kill the character off.

It was a seriously touching moment for my new main girl Michonne though. You really got to see how much Andrea meant to her.

Speaking of Michonne, I couldn't help but notice Rick giving her the eyeball undressing when he was telling her that she was welcome to stay with the group. I guess somebody quit seeing his dead wife cause there is a real world booty call on the near horizon.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Philosofy said:


> Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."


No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.

I think it was Justified, in the episode with the school.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Nobody piped up on that yet Rob?

It was Kevin Bacon in the Followers.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.
> 
> I think it was Justified, in the episode with the school.


But after that happened, that other marshall looked a Raylan and asked, "Who do you think you are, that Stevie Seagull dude?"

Well, maybe not. But that would have been pretty funny.


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

Philosofy said:


> Rob, I think it was the movie "Above the Law" with Steven Seagal. It went kind of like this: "You can't shoot us all" BLAM "No, but I'll get an A for effort."


IT was right after they emptied their mags on the car. He caught them during the reloading effort. Which just proves that machine guns and high capacity mags are ok cause hey, if you're Stevie Seagull, you can still kill the bad guy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

SeanC said:


> Nobody piped up on that yet Rob?
> 
> It was Kevin Bacon in the Followers.


That was a different one...Bacon ordered him to drop the weapon, he froze, and Bacon dropped him.

In this one, the bad guy taunted him and he shot him mid-taunt.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> That was a different one...Bacon ordered him to drop the weapon, he froze, and Bacon dropped him.


It was a her -- not a him.  And she didn't freeze completely. She turned a bit and started to say something.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'd have had no problem with Carl's actions if he'd actually warned the kid one more time: "Drop the gun right where you are. Do not take another step toward me or I'll be forced to shoot you."


You're not wrong, but I don't think what Carl did was wrong either..

If the guy Carl shot happened to come across them in a different situation, say just randomly ran into them, no previous battle, just happenstance, then Carl's actions without a second warning could be seen as cold blooded. The Woodbury gang had blood lust on their minds. They came, shot up the home of their enemy, blew stuff up, then got ran out while being shot at.. The situation only called for 1 warning, he failed to comply.

I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.


----------



## nycmiddle (Oct 21, 2010)

I stand by my point in the prior episode thread. The Governor's "army" really wasn't an army and the prison was a great place to defend.

I don't think Woodbury is working out for him to well now..


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

I really wonder if our reaction to Carl here on this forum is what the Walking Dead folk expected. They probably expect us to all see Carl as this little monster completely unjustified in his thirst for blood. 

If that's the case, they really screwed up that scene.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Enough with the Following spoilers. I've got the episodes sitting waiting for summer. I will forget by then but still.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Hank said:


> You did see this, right?
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a


That was very well done :up:


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> ...I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.


Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.


The thing is, I agreed with Herschel until Carl explained himself. Now, had the guy dropped his gun right away, it would be a little different. But I still think Carl should have shot him. The only problem is that Carl is a kid.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

nycmiddle said:


> I stand by my point in the prior episode thread. The Governor's "army" really wasn't an army and the prison was a great place to defend.
> 
> I don't think Woodbury is working out for him to well now..


Playing devil's advocate here....were one of your stratagies for defending the prison to include having people in the guard tower? I would have hated to be on guard duty that day 

I do agree I'd rather defend the prison than the town though if it came down to it.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

pmyers said:


> Don't forget that Herschel is also a religous person. I thought it was perfectly in Herschel's character to do that as he believes Carl shot him in cold blooded murder.





Anubys said:


> The thing is, I agreed with Herschel until Carl explained himself. Now, had the guy dropped his gun right away, it would be a little different. But I still think Carl should have shot him. The only problem is that Carl is a kid.


My last post on this... I do think the show people want us to debate Carl's actions..
If Herschel thinks what Carl did was in cold blood, you could make the argument that what Rick did to the 2 guys in the bar last season was also in cold blood. The events of what happened in the finale make Carl's shooting of that guy justified IMO, no less than Rick drawing down on the guys in the bar.
If we want to talk about "what ifs", in my mind there are 2 Carl's. The Carl from the "Clear" episode would not have shot the guy if he had dropped his gun. The Carl we saw in the finale (with a bug up his butt), maybe, but after what we saw from Carl just a few episodes back it would have been very shocking...


----------



## retrodog (Feb 7, 2002)

robojerk said:


> You're not wrong, but I don't think what Carl did was wrong either..
> 
> If the guy Carl shot happened to come across them in a different situation, say just randomly ran into them, no previous battle, just happenstance, then Carl's actions without a second warning could be seen as cold blooded. The Woodbury gang had blood lust on their minds. They came, shot up the home of their enemy, blew stuff up, then got ran out while being shot at.. The situation only called for 1 warning, he failed to comply.
> 
> I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.


This was a no win situation. The poor kid had the governor's lies playing non-stop in his head. Carl's people had just been attacked by a paramilitary group (seemingly) who were there to exterminate them. The kid didn't trust them enough to actually "drop" the gun like he was instructed. Carl (last name Goldstein) didn't trust someone who was part of the Nazi (yes, I said it) army. So he shot the bastard. It wasn't Carl's fault. It wasn't the kids fault. It was the freakin Governor Adolph's fault (yeah, I went there again).

The simple fact is that the situation was too out of control, and each character had too much on their mind due to external forces, for us to narrow it down and judge them on their actions harshly.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

Unlike last season's finale, this finale had me not really caring about next season.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

robojerk said:


> My last post on this... I do think the show people want us to debate Carl's actions..
> If Herschel thinks what Carl did was in cold blood, you could make the argument that what Rick did to the 2 guys in the bar last season was also in cold blood. The events of what happened in the finale make Carl's shooting of that guy justified IMO, no less than Rick drawing down on the guys in the bar..


Having multiple guns already drawn on somebody and what Rick did in the bar, are 2 totally different things, IMHO.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I decided to watch the entire show this week before the season finale.

It was kind of amazing to see both how much I had forgotten and how my attitude towards characters changed.

First time viewing - I really disliked Carl, Lori and Andrea yet I loved Shane.
Watching from the beginning Carl, Lori and Andrea became my favorites and Shane really felt like a tool.

The second episode with Morgan took on a whole new meaning having watched the first episode over again 2 days earlier.

Carl's actions in this episode seemed like a perfect story arc that absolutely resulted in Rick's decision to bring the Woodbury folks back to the prison.

I highly recommend a marathon viewing.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

SeanC said:


> Nobody piped up on that yet Rob?
> 
> It was Kevin Bacon in the Followers.


Best scene of that episode.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

pmyers said:


> When the townies came in and starting blowing up stuff I told my wife that they must be done with the prison set and that I was excited for them to hit the road again!


Was I the only one who thought that they didn't learn enough about booby-trapping from Morgan?

My thoughts were that, whether or not they were still there, they should have booby-trapped that place to the hilt with mega-destructive traps.


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

How did they get the tear gas or flash grenades to go off?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sharkster said:


> Was I the only one who thought that they didn't learn enough about booby-trapping from Morgan?
> 
> My thoughts were that, whether or not they were still there, they should have booby-trapped that place to the hilt with mega-destructive traps.


They weren't trying to kill all the Woodbury peeps. Had they wanted to, you're right, it would have been very easy. They were trying to get them to think the prison was abandoned and let their guard down. Had the Governor's group been caught in booby traps, they'd have been much more careful and alert.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I definitely think that anyone who had a chance to kill the Gov (and there were lots of them) and didn't deserves to be eaten by a zombie and then become one. 

Twice in this show I screamed at the screen, which I don't usually do--first at Andrea to shut up and get the PLIERS. And then, "All right, Carl." So I guess it was pretty good, for me. :up:

It was nice of Tyrese to stay and guard the kids and old people, but what he really should have done is pack up supplies and weapons and RUN. They would have been in trouble if the Gov came back.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Langree said:


> her feet were still tied when he lunged, one hand may have been too.


Her feet were never tied. She brought her feet up to her lap when she was picking up the pliers.



Peter000 said:


> Are we supposed to think they brought the entire remaining population of Woodbury to the prison?


Yes, since he drove the bus that was their main gate, the entire town is now overrun with zombies. I don't think he'd have left anyone back there.


JohnB1000 said:


> I wish this thread had less threadcrap stuff. As has been said in many threads, if you don't enjoy the show don't watch.


It's a fine line between honest critique and threadcrap, but I haven't seen that line crossed yet.


Philosofy said:


> How did they get the tear gas or flash grenades to go off?


I thought boobytrap, but they didn't make it clear. Again, they're writing for convenience rather than believability.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

purwater said:


> I was expecting the guy to keep creeping towards Carl and then grab him and put a gun to his head making Herschel and Beth drop their guns like always happens in TV and movies. Carl actually shooting was a nice surprise for me.


+1 this. I think the whole Carl/Herschel thing is just to give the fanbase something to wring their hands ceaselessly during the hiatus.

I miss the living on the run aspect of the show. Lots more new characters to interact with and many more situations. The whole prison vs townies thing was crap. Trouble is they're made the prison too good a home (script-wise) so we'll likely be stuck with them using it again next season.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

jradosh said:


> ...Yes, since he drove the bus that was their main gate, the entire town is now overrun with zombies. I don't think he'd have left anyone back there...


good catch. I didn't realize that was THAT bus.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I have one question.

Way back in season 1 we had one of the group die. I want to say Andreas sister, but I can't remember for sure. In any case, she stayed there with the corpse overnight, and the girl didn't turn until the next day, at which point she was killed again (through the head).

So, if it takes a long time to turn, as established in season 1, why is it now that you can kill people and expect them to be useable zombies in a short time (Merle and Milktoast both).


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I didn't recognize the bus either--so they don't intend to go back to Woodbury. I would think it would be better to leave it intact till they can scavenge all the stuff that's there.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Yes, it was Andrea's sister. Time to turn varies from a few minutes to hours or more. It varies based upon a number of factors, the primary one being plot exigencies. The show addressed this through the character of Jenner at the CDC in the episode TS-19, where he said the brain stem reanimates anywhere from a few minutes to 8 hours after death.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Yes, they turn at the speed of plot.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Ereth said:


> I have one question.
> 
> Way back in season 1 we had one of the group die. I want to say Andreas sister, but I can't remember for sure. In any case, she stayed there with the corpse overnight, and the girl didn't turn until the next day, at which point she was killed again (through the head).
> 
> So, if it takes a long time to turn, as established in season 1, why is it now that you can kill people and expect them to be useable zombies in a short time (Merle and Milktoast both).


There is no established time frame for "turning". I think I either read a Kirkman interview or maybe he just talked about in on TD once, and he basically said "it depends".

Now, he may have meant physical factors, like health/physical condition of the victim, or like Rob said, he probably meant plot considerations. 

ETA: I don't recall this, but according to the Walking Dead wiki, Dr. Jenner from the CDC told the group that transformation can take place anywhere between 3 minutes and 8 hours after death.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Is this thing on?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

This was a terrible season finale. They should have killed the governor off an moved onto something else next season. I like the "Buffy" formula. One Big Bad per season.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

danterner said:


> Is this thing on?




My apologies. I somehow missed yours.


----------



## billboard_NE (May 18, 2005)

stellie93 said:


> It was nice of Tyrese to stay and guard the kids and old people


Anyone else cringe when the Gov handed Tyrese the sniper rifle and Tyrese casually pointed it all over the place including people.

The rifle should be pointed In the air or directly at the ground, not sure if this was to reinforce the fact the Tyrese has little experience with a gun or just a random action.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

billboard_NE said:


> The rifle should be pointed In the air or directly at the ground, not sure if this was to reinforce the fact the Tyrese has little experience with a gun or just a random action.


Heh, I wondered the same thing. "Is it just luck that this is a guy who has been shown to be bad with guns?"


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

I was surprised by the protagonists' plan. I guess they voted to stay. I thought for sure they were going to booby trap the heck out of that prison, take the usable vehicles or disable them all and lock the Woodbury "army" IN (it IS a prison for crying out loud). Every Woodbury casualty would become another biter for the Woodbury "prisoners" to have to deal with. At worst Rick's group could have given themselves a heck of a head start.

What were Rick, Daryl and Michonne going to do against the remaining Woodbury force, really. If the Governor hadn't gone crazy that mission was baffling.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

BrandonRe said:


> She wasn't doing anything to the handcuffs. She was working on the chair she was handcuffed to. When Rick et al find her, she still has the cuffs on.





Anubys said:


> The way I saw it, she cut the chain connecting the handcuffs. So one side of the handcuffs was still on her wrist while the other was still on the chair.


This is the way I saw it to. Granted I was not paying close attention to the details, but this is how I feel it played out.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yes, they turn at the speed of plot.


This.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I enjoyed this episode and how it played out. Loved it when the smoke bombs and noise and lights went off in the prison. I mean, I knew something was going to happen, but at one point I thought "well maybe they did just leave". Then BAMM and whoop whoop whoop! And the Gov going on pyscho on his town of people - not trained fighters, but just regular old village people, so what did he really expect. But gunning them all down and then the one gal alive to survive and tell Rick. I am glad they brought them all back to the prison and and can make that into a new community. I think that will bring a change to the show. I imagine we haven't seen the last of the Governor though. He will be back with a stronger nastier group of guys.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Looks like they have fun


----------



## billboard_NE (May 18, 2005)

Did the Governor know that girl was alive, or did he just run out of bullets?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

billboard_NE said:


> Did the Governor know that girl was alive, or did he just run out of bullets?


It was my impression that the Governor just ran out of steam or got himself under control. And he didn't see her alive under the the corpse.


----------



## rimler (Jun 30, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.
> 
> I think it was Justified, in the episode with the school.


It was Justified. Raylan shot the guy in the bar after pulling the fire alarm.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Peter000 said:


> It was my impression that the Governor just ran out of steam or got himself under control. And he didn't see her alive under the the corpse.


He was shooting dead people in the head, and when he got to the guy who was lying on top of the woman, his gun either jammed or ran out. Then he settled down and walked away.


----------



## rimler (Jun 30, 2002)

re Carl shooting the kid when he didn't comply, and expecting the guy to drop his gun and not move forward. As a police officer, I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people do the STUPIDEST things when guns are pointed at them...by real cops. I or we will scream "show me your hands!" or "Don't move!" or whatever, and people STILL put their hands in their pockets, under the car seat, whatever. And these are innocent people. Well, sort of. Most totally innocent people don't have cops' guns pointed at them.  Point is, they do the dumbest ****. And we aren't 12 year old kids, like Carl.

All that said, Carl did the right thing. This isn't our world anymore, it's the ZA world. You can't take a chance on people. Misjudging one person is gonna get someone or someones killed. That kid didn't comply, in fact he did the opposite. One warning given, the next one is a bullet coming at ya. Fast, as Raylan would say.

I also liked how Carl looked so dubious about the Woodbury survivors arrival. That gives Carl the slight push away from "I'd do that" to psychopath. But again, I think he's the only one thinking about what world they are in. I'd say give them a chance, but I'd be very very guarded about it. Although most of them looked like very little threat.


----------



## rimler (Jun 30, 2002)

I thought the ep was good, I enjoyed it a lot...despite the absolute idiot things the writers had the characters do. Andrea sitting there not working her butt off to get lose was soooooooooo stupid it was distracting. And I remember in the first ep what a well oiled fighting machine our heroes were....and this episode they have the bad guy army in a....you know...PRISON WITH NO KEYS...and they didn't take advantage of that. Instead they tried to SCARE 
the psychopath away. Whaaaaa?

And the whole handcuff thing, the zombie headshots vs. never hitting a real person, and.....well, a whole bunch of small stupid stuff that really wears over time. Lazy writing, IMO.

As much as I disliked Andrea, waiting on that shot to go off while the characters were outside with their heads down in sorrow knowing that Michonne was inside saying goodbye...that was well done.


----------



## nycmiddle (Oct 21, 2010)

pmyers said:


> Playing devil's advocate here....were one of your stratagies for defending the prison to include having people in the guard tower? I would have hated to be on guard duty that day
> 
> I do agree I'd rather defend the prison than the town though if it came down to it.


That would not have been a good day!


----------



## nycmiddle (Oct 21, 2010)

aadam101 said:


> This was a terrible season finale. They should have killed the governor off an moved onto something else next season. I like the "Buffy" formula. One Big Bad per season.


And that is one of the reasons Boardwalk Empire and True Blood are lacking for me. The story arc is understood and I am just watching it play out.

GoT changed all that for me. So, I must respectfully disagree. It was a refreshing change to not have the "villain" dispatched either at the ten or sixteen hour mark based on the number of episodes in a given show.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Were people actually expecting this episode to be a showdown between Rick and the Governor, with the Governor ultimately being killed? I definitely figured the Governor would not be killed off so quickly, so I wasn't expecting that. I wonder if people who were expecting that were more underwhelmed by this episode than those that weren't expecting it.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

> *Originally Posted by Rob Helmerichs*
> No, it was a very recent TV show...the hero was aiming his gun at a bad guy who was armed but not threatening. The hero insisted the bad guy obey (I think it was to drop the weapon), and the bad guy started to say "What are you going to do, shoot me?", when in the middle of the sentence he shot him and moved on.


Not the scene you are describing, but this one comes to mind as well:


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

re Carl and the kid - 
the kid is running he has the rifle in his right hand not cocked and pointed
Hershel and Carl tell him to drop the gun
the kid says 'here take it'
He doesn't point it at them but he doesn't drop it either.
They could have told him to drop it again but I say Carl is justified also.

re the Gov and friends in the Tombs
someone else pointed it out - 2 smoke bomb grenades are dropped in their midst but how they did that i have no idea

when they are running out - Maggie and Glenn are the only 2 shooting at them

after they leave Michonne, Rick, Carol and Daryl appear

what the heck were those 4 doing during that time?

lastly - i have to say i think they killed Andrea for the sake of killing Andrea - this was the first major character death that seemed to happen for no good reason for me.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I have a question: Carl says to Rick that Rick didn't kill Andrew; and Andrew came back to kill Lori (he said "mom").

huh? I thought Lori died at childbirth and Carl shot her so she doesn't turn. Who is Andrew and what is Carl talking about?


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> lastly - i have to say i think they killed Andrea for the sake of killing Andrea - this was the first major character death that seemed to happen for no good reason for me.


I'd be curious to hear your reasoning behind this statement.

In my opinion Andrea's death was textbook "tragedy"... she had a fatal flaw (her desire to save everyone's life which ultimately caused more death, even her own) and paid the price for it. Classic Greek tragedy stuff.

You could argue that the old guy with the RV (forget his name) from Season 1 was a "no good reason" death. The only reasoning behind his killing (thematically I mean... of course there are always random deaths in the ZA) was to provide a counter-point to Shane's death (since they were on opposite ends of the survivalist's spectrum).


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Anubys said:


> I have a question: Carl says to Rick that Rick didn't kill Andrew; and Andrew came back to kill Lori (he said "mom").
> 
> huh? I thought Lori died at childbirth and Carl shot her so she doesn't turn. Who is Andrew and what is Carl talking about?


Yeah, that was confusing.



DevdogAZ said:


> Were people actually expecting this episode to be a showdown between Rick and the Governor, with the Governor ultimately being killed? I definitely figured the Governor would not be killed off so quickly, so I wasn't expecting that. I wonder if people who were expecting that were more underwhelmed by this episode than those that weren't expecting it.


The only thing I was expecting was better writing! Seriously, I wasn't "expecting" anything.


----------



## fmowry (Apr 30, 2002)

jradosh said:


> I'd be curious to hear your reasoning behind this statement.
> 
> In my opinion Andrea's death was textbook "tragedy"... she had a fatal flaw (her desire to save everyone's life which ultimately caused more death, even her own) and paid the price for it. Classic Greek tragedy stuff.
> 
> You could argue that the old guy with the RV (forget his name) from Season 1 was a "no good reason" death. The only reasoning behind his killing (thematically I mean... of course there are always random deaths in the ZA) was to provide a counter-point to Shane's death (since they were on opposite ends of the survivalist's spectrum).


I thought they killed her off because she was no good with tools.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

jradosh said:


> I'd be curious to hear your reasoning behind this statement.


What I perhaps meant to say is that it was unsatisfying.
I feel like the writers did it for shock season ending value more than anything else.

I dunno maybe it's because it's one of a few major character deaths we didn't see on screen.



Anubys said:


> Who is Andrew and what is Carl talking about?


Thank you - I wanted to ask that also!


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

fmowry said:


> I thought they killed her off because she was no good with tools.


For me showAndrea was simply too stupid to live.
I hated the character and hated the actress and was delighted to see her die because of her own stupidity.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

Anubys said:


> I have a question: Carl says to Rick that Rick didn't kill Andrew; and Andrew came back to kill Lori (he said "mom").
> 
> huh? I thought Lori died at childbirth and Carl shot her so she doesn't turn. Who is Andrew and what is Carl talking about?


Andrew was the con Rick chased outside when Tomas turned on him. Andrew wasn't killed by walkers, and started the zombie attack that killed T-Dog.

As to Carl blaming Andrew, Carol was practicing C-sections in case Hershel wasn't able to do it. But because of Andrew's zombie attack, they were scattered around the prison, and Lori went into labor without the people prepared to help her.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Cearbhaill said:


> For me showAndrea was simply too stupid to live.
> I hated the character and hated the actress and was delighted to see her die because of her own stupidity.


"stupidity"... "fatal flaw"... 
to-may-oes/to-mah-toes 



Vendikarr said:


> Andrew was the con Rick chased outside when Tomas turned on him. Andrew wasn't killed by walkers, and started the zombie attack that killed T-Dog.
> 
> As to Carl blaming Andrew, Carol was practicing C-sections in case Hershel wasn't able to do it. But because of Andrew's zombie attack, they were scattered around the prison, and Lori went into labor without the people prepared to help her.


Thank you! :up:


----------



## McGonigle (Nov 7, 2001)

I thought it was a good finale if not completely satisfying. I thought for sure someone was gonna step up and kill the governor when he started shooting his own people but the writers couldn't let someone so significant be killed by someone so insignificant.
Also, did we ever find out who drove the truck (zombie bomb) into the prison a few episodes back? What was the point of hiding their identity?


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

sharkster said:


> As much as I still don't love Carl, I think the old guy was wrong. Carl told the guy to DROP the gun - not edge toward him, acting like he's going to hand him the gun. Drop the gun means drop the gun and nothing else. Kill or be killed...


This. I'm still in the camp that doesn't like Carl (or the actor), but I will give him this -- he took some bad ass pills this season and they kicked in nicely....


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

McGonigle said:


> Also, did we ever find out who drove the truck (zombie bomb) into the prison a few episodes back? What was the point of hiding their identity?


I'm not sure his/her identity was being hidden, so much as he/she was dressed/armored for zombie-wrangling...


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I'm not sure his/her identity was being hidden, so much as he/she was dressed/armored for zombie-wrangling...


And to protect him/her from the bullets that were going to be flying as soon as s/he got out of the truck.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

retrodog said:


> ....It was a seriously touching moment for my new main girl Michonne though. You really got to see how much Andrea meant to her...


Agreed....one of the few emotional moments in this series.



retrodog said:


> Speaking of Michonne, I couldn't help but notice Rick giving her the eyeball undressing when he was telling her that she was welcome to stay with the group. I guess somebody quit seeing his dead wife cause there is a real world booty call on the near horizon.


Wow...I'm glad I wasn't the only one who got that vibe. Does that make me a dirty old man?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

They also mentioned it on The Talking Dead.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Were people actually expecting this episode to be a showdown between Rick and the Governor, with the Governor ultimately being killed? I definitely figured the Governor would not be killed off so quickly, so I wasn't expecting that. I wonder if people who were expecting that were more underwhelmed by this episode than those that weren't expecting it.


I'd say this finale was ant climactic. The Gov wasn't defeated, beaten, by Rick. Instead the Gov defeated himself by being too arrogant, and taking noobs with him on his witch hunt. Rick & co. still need to be worried about the Gov.. Status quo remains.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Were people actually expecting this episode to be a showdown between Rick and the Governor, with the Governor ultimately being killed? I definitely figured the Governor would not be killed off so quickly, so I wasn't expecting that. I wonder if people who were expecting that were more underwhelmed by this episode than those that weren't expecting it.


Plus it was a VERY poorly kept secret that the Guv was signed through next season...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Plus it was a VERY poorly kept secret that the Guv was signed through next season...


Although that doesn't really mean anything...contracts can always be canceled by the network. That's why nearly everybody has a seven-year contract at the beginning of a series...so the network can have them if they want them. I bet, e.g., that Laurie Holden's contract still had years to go when they killed her.

Knowing how seat-of-the-pants Walking Dead is, I wouldn't be surprised if they signed him for two years because they just didn't know how long they wanted him for, and given how this season ended, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make the decision to keep him for another year until quite late in the game.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

You would think shows would "sign" someone for multi-years but tell them that it's really one year. Do that to keep it from leaking out.

I wonder if that happens, or if the real years still get leaked out when they are looking or getting more work on other projects before it airs.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

MikeMar said:


> You would think shows would "sign" someone for multi-years but tell them that it's really one year. Do that to keep it from leaking out.


As an actor you'd expect me to sign (what I think is) a one year contract when it's really a 7 year contract???


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Although that doesn't really mean anything...contracts can always be canceled by the network. That's why nearly everybody has a seven-year contract at the beginning of a series...so the network can have them if they want them. I bet, e.g., that Laurie Holden's contract still had years to go when they killed her.
> 
> Knowing how seat-of-the-pants Walking Dead is, I wouldn't be surprised if they signed him for two years because they just didn't know how long they wanted him for, and given how this season ended, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't make the decision to keep him for another year until quite late in the game.


So agree with this. They know how much they need to pay an actor to cancel a contract early and work that into the budget. No problem. I'm sure they did something similar with Lennie James.

Speaking of which, I hope they revisit the booby traps Morgan built. They covered one in Talking Dead not seen in that episode which needs to be implemented in the prison now that everyone is there. Also, I detected a little Michonne feeling (or at least empathizing with) Rick in that episode. She must have felt like a chump when she heard he wanted to turn her over to the monster.


----------



## voripteth (Apr 9, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I wish this show had less showcrap stuff. It was great at the beginning, but ever since the first season it's been lurching down and up, but more generally down.


Clearly the show needs..... BRAINS!!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Beryl said:


> So agree with this. They know how much they need to pay an actor to cancel a contract early and work that into the budget.


I'm not sure they even have to pay anything. My understanding is that a seven-year contract (e.g.) is in practical terms a one-year contract with 6 annual options for the studio.

In a sense, this sucks for the actors, who might become huge stars on a show and have a contract for seven years at scale. But in reality, contracts are pretty easy for actors to walk away from as well in that studios rarely try to force an actor to stay against his will (what kind of performance would you expect?), and are open to renegotiation to keep their actors happy, which happens all the time.

As for Lennie James, I suspect he was just a guest star for that one episode.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

jradosh said:


> As an actor you'd expect me to sign (what I think is) a one year contract when it's really a 7 year contract???


No, they would tell him, but on paper it would be more years, to not tip their hand about a character getting killed off

-Or what Rob said covers it


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> re Carl and the kid -
> the kid is running he has the rifle in his right hand not cocked and pointed
> Hershel and Carl tell him to drop the gun
> the kid says 'here take it'
> ...



I thought his act of "handing" it to Carl was turning the barrel towards Carl while keeping his hand in firing position.
Was it 'Here, take it?' or 'I'll hand it to you.'? In either case, answering with a sentence made it seem like he was pulling something, not too surprised to drop it quickly.
Carl should lead the group next year.

I find it hard to imagine an interesting show with the group dynamics of caring for a such a large group of untrained people. They'll need some type of scattering incident like when they left the farm.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

I think the reason the group is so large is so they have plenty of folks they can kill off in next season's opener. No way are they keeping the group that large.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

BradJW said:


> I think the reason the group is so large is so they have plenty of folks they can kill off in next season's opener. No way are they keeping the group that large.


They could do it like Lost (40 or so survivors, only care about 10 of them). Then eventually do to the others what they did to them on Lost (kill them off, dispose of them).


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Spoiler















Just a joke pic about the governor snapping.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

tlc said:


> I thought his act of "handing" it to Carl was turning the barrel towards Carl while keeping his hand in firing position.
> Was it 'Here, take it?' or 'I'll hand it to you.'? In either case, answering with a sentence made it seem like he was pulling something, not too surprised to drop it quickly.


He said "here, take it." I just re-watched that part. The barrel was not pointed towards Carl. It was pointed at an angle to the right. His eyes were shifting between Hershel and Carl.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Test said:


> Just a joke pic about the governor snapping.


That's hilarious!

Because it's true!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Test said:


> Just a joke pic about the governor snapping.


Perfect!!!!


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

KyleLC said:


> He said "here, take it." I just re-watched that part. The barrel was not pointed towards Carl. It was pointed at an angle to the right. His eyes were shifting between Hershel and Carl.


Then he'd grab Carl's arm and use him as a shield against the others. Carl was correct to grease him.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Beryl said:


> So agree with this. They know how much they need to pay an actor to cancel a contract early and work that into the budget. No problem. *I'm sure they did something similar with Lennie James.*


Lennie James was never under contract. He was simply a guest star.



KyleLC said:


> He said "here, take it." I just re-watched that part. The barrel was not pointed towards Carl. It was pointed at an angle to the right. His eyes were shifting between Hershel and Carl.


Just because he wasn't pointing the barrel at Carl doesn't mean he was giving up his gun. How many times have we seen in movies where the bad guy puts his hands up but continues to move toward the cop with the gun, and eventually gets close enough that with some quick movements he disarms the person that was pointing the gun.


----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

TeddS said:


> Then he'd grab Carl's arm and use him as a shield against the others. Carl was correct to grease him.





DevdogAZ said:


> Just because he wasn't pointing the barrel at Carl doesn't mean he was giving up his gun. How many times have we seen in movies where the bad guy puts his hands up but continues to move toward the cop with the gun, and eventually gets close enough that with some quick movements he disarms the person that was pointing the gun.


I was just getting the facts straight. I wasn't arguing one way or another whether Carl did the right thing.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Just because he wasn't pointing the barrel at Carl doesn't mean he was giving up his gun. How many times have we seen in movies where the bad guy puts his hands up but continues to move toward the cop with the gun, and eventually gets close enough that with some quick movements he disarms the person that was pointing the gun.


or the guy puts one palm/hand up and then quickly points and shoots with the other hand (holding the gun)?

oh wait...that happened IN THIS EPISODE!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

purwater said:


> I was expecting the guy to keep creeping towards Carl and then grab him and put a gun to his head making Herschel and Beth drop their guns like always happens in TV and movies. Carl actually shooting was a nice surprise for me.


This. This bit of silliness where the good guy lets the bad guy continue to close in on him happens in EVERY tv show. I'm glad Carl was having none of that nonsense. Carl had obviously been watching 24 where Jack Bauer doesn't mess around. "Drop your weapon!" means exactly that or die.

What the heck is on the end of Carl's gun, a silencer? If so, why is he the only one with a silencer and does a silencer affect shot accuracy?

The Governor's STILL alive? Jeez, Louise. He's overstayed his welcome by half a season already.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

cheesesteak said:


> What the heck is on the end of Carl's gun, a silencer? If so, why is he the only one with a silencer and does a silencer affect shot accuracy?


I'm not a gun expert, but I believe I recall reading that it is an aluminum baseball bat, which apparently can actually work as a silencer in real life.










Carl's not the only one with a silencer - Rick has one, too. His is a MagLite flashlight. Supposedly that can be rigged to work in real life, too.


----------



## Mr. Merkin (May 6, 2005)

http://thechive.com/2013/04/03/a-few-things-that-make-no-sense-about-the-walking-dead-33-photos/


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Mr. Merkin said:


> http://thechive.com/2013/04/03/a-few-things-that-make-no-sense-about-the-walking-dead-33-photos/


The one asking who's been cutting everyone's grass during the zombie apocalypse made me laugh.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Those were great.

Okay, #3 - the Gov looking through the scope - it looks like it would be through the injured eye but it really could also be through the good eye and just held away - and a bad camera angle for that.

#30 - sleeveless and puts on a vest made me laugh out loud!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

On the commercial for the Talking Dead, it looked like Norman Reedus really does have a stupid looking hairdo something like his character's. I didn't watch the actual TD show.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Mr. Merkin said:


> http://thechive.com/2013/04/03/a-few-things-that-make-no-sense-about-the-walking-dead-33-photos/


Most of these had me laughing out loud and some brought tears.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

robojerk said:


> You're not wrong, but I don't think what Carl did was wrong either..
> 
> If the guy Carl shot happened to come across them in a different situation, say just randomly ran into them, no previous battle, just happenstance, then Carl's actions without a second warning could be seen as cold blooded. The Woodbury gang had blood lust on their minds. They came, shot up the home of their enemy, blew stuff up, then got ran out while being shot at.. The situation only called for 1 warning, he failed to comply.
> 
> I don't get Herschel's reasoning for tattling on Carl like that. I get he's kind of a pacifist, but Herschel just set a thing into motion that will probably make Carl act out. By treating Carl like a cold blooded killer, just after we saw him feel bad for having to shoot Morgan a couple of episodes back in "Clear". Or the writers are badly lazy, make Carl feel sympathetic for having to shoot someone one second, make him a cold blooded killer the next.


If you recall, when he was apologizing to Morgan for shooting him Morgan told him to never be sorry.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I wonder how Carl will interact and play with the new group of kids that Rick brought back. Will he play well with others or will it be some "Give you your ball back? Where's my gun? I'll teach you to ask for your ball back" situations.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I wonder how Carl will interact and play with the new group of kids that Rick brought back. Will he play well with others or will it be some "Give you your ball back? Where's my gun? I'll teach you to ask for your ball back" situations.


"These week on Walking Dead, Carl teaches the new kids how to shoot, and hilarity ensues."


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> I wonder how Carl will interact and play with the new group of kids that Rick brought back. Will he play well with others or will it be some "Give you your ball back? Where's my gun? I'll teach you to ask for your ball back" situations.


LMAO

I don't see Carl interracting with other kids at this point - at all. I think he left that far far behind him. He totally fancies himself one of the protectors-in-charge of the group.

Of course I could be wrong. It's been quite a while since I've been in a zombie apocalypse and my memory doesn't serve me very well anymore.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

wprager said:


> If you recall, when he was apologizing to Morgan for shooting him Morgan told him to never be sorry.


In Morgan's defense, he was trying to kill Rick, Carl, Michonne.. I think his point was to never be sorry about killing someone who is trying to kill you.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

cheesesteak said:


> I wonder how Carl will interact and play with the new group of kids that Rick brought back. Will he play well with others or will it be some "Give you your ball back? Where's my gun? I'll teach you to ask for your ball back" situations.


I predict (like somebody else mentioned already) that there will quickly be a "clearing" of these new people in the next season to get back to a core group.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Will they be able to get Carl to go to the school they set up? I doubt it. I think he will be arguing that he is grown up and done with all that.

I saw Carol walking right over to the newbies to almost embrace them.

And what have they got now, a bunch of women and children and only a few that could be trained for defense.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

And they have to feed them all, and deal with all their "waste". 

I say the smaller the group, the better. In a Zombie Apocalypse. I think Morgan had the right idea. Find a house, fortify it, and just be by yourself. None of this other crap to put up with.


----------



## TeddS (Sep 21, 2000)

Hank said:


> And they have to feed them all, and deal with all their "waste".
> 
> I say the smaller the group, the better. In a Zombie Apocalypse. I think Morgan had the right idea. Find a house, fortify it, and just be by yourself. None of this other crap to put up with.


Must I wait for a zombie apocalypse?


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Hank said:


> And they have to feed them all, and deal with all their "waste".
> 
> I say the smaller the group, the better. In a Zombie Apocalypse. I think Morgan had the right idea. Find a house, fortify it, and just be by yourself. None of this other crap to put up with.


If I'm in a small house, I totally agree that I'd want a small number of people.....but in a place like the prison or the town, I'd want more people to divide labor. That being said....I would't want a bus load of woman and children (well maybe  )


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)




----------



## KyleLC (Feb 6, 2002)

Lol


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

LMAO @ Chris Hansen


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Mr. Merkin said:


> http://thechive.com/2013/04/03/a-few-things-that-make-no-sense-about-the-walking-dead-33-photos/





Beryl said:


> Most of these had me laughing out loud and some brought tears.


Perfectly done...As much as I like to analyse TV shows, story-wise, I rarely pay attention or notice the stuff they're point out, but it's definitely hysterical when you lay it out like that.

#12 is great... I wonder the same thing...
#28 made me actually laugh out loud. hysterical. 
#25 makes a great point. Andrea's whole arc this season was that she was trying to "save everyone" and Laurie Holden mentioned that Andrea was a human rights lawyer before so she's very sensitive to that stuff... but yet when the group had Randall last season she was all for killing him. No consistency. 
#32 made me laugh too... I wasn't finding it that funny and then scrolled down to the picture of Lori with no commentary. hilarious.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> He was shooting dead people in the head, and when he got to the guy who was lying on top of the woman, his gun either jammed or ran out. Then he settled down and walked away.


I saw it more as him shooting them in the head out of habit (it was "Woodbury Policy") and then just deciding "---- it, let 'em turn."


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

MacThor said:


> I saw it more as him shooting them in the head out of habit (it was "Woodbury Policy") and then just deciding "---- it, let 'em turn."


I thought it was pretty clear that he ran out of ammo.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

DreadPirateRob said:


> I thought it was pretty clear that he ran out of ammo.


That's how it looked to me, also. It was pretty much - 'click' 'oh damn' 'oh well' 'I'm outta here'.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sharkster said:


> That's how it looked to me, also. It was pretty much - 'click' 'oh damn' 'oh well' 'I'm outta here'.


Except that he had another gun slung over his shoulder, so if he was really interested in finishing the job, he definitely could have. So I think it was more of the, "oh well" attitude than it was the running out of ammo.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

As he did with Merle, he thinks leaving them to become Walkers is good revenge. So it wasn't strange to me that he left some of them to eat the others once he ran out of ammo.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

FYI

Chris Hardwick the host of The Talking Dead also hosts a show on BBC America called The Nerdist.

It premieres this Saturday and Robert Kirkman and Michael Rooker (Merle) are listed as guests.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

He also has a weekly podcast called The Nerdist that has 338 back episodes


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)




----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR4lLJu_-wE[/media]


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Hank said:


> [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR4lLJu_-wE[/media]


:up::up:


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

What is this new leader that people are talking about? Don't see any articles about it.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

Sorry to drag this up (though it's only been about a month)...

Hadn't been watching this at all, I'm not really a zombie officianado, but seeing reports here about what a good show it was. Four day Independence Day holiday, three season marathon on AMC, thought I'd at least give it a try.

Just finished up the entire 36 hours tonight!  Overall, I really enjoyed it, and will be watching season 4 when it airs this fall. Now I'm going back and reading the threads (up to season 2), but jumped in here to the latest one to thank those who recommended the show in various "What should I watch now that I've finished X" threads. Probably could have used my time more wisely, but enjoyed it all the same.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

I have finally caught up as well. I watched the first 2 seasons on Netflix and caught #3 on AMC over the last few days.

I've been very pleasantly surprised. I didn't expect to like it nearly as much as I have and am really looking forward to season 4 in a couple months!


----------



## janry (Jan 2, 2003)

I just finished watching all 3 seasons also. Really enjoyed it and am looking forward to season 4.

I wonder where they are headed. Maybe not so much in season 4, but afterwards. I would not be surprised at the beginning of season 5 or 6 to see them jump ahead 15 or more years to find a group headed by an adult Carl. I think he is a natural born leader and killing machine.


----------

