# The Walking Dead OAD 10/12/14 "No Sanctuary"



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

LOVED IT.

I love that Carol emerged as the bad ass hero.

_really just starting the episode thread _


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah shocked there was no thread yet!

I like that we learned that the cannibal guys really became that way mainly due to letting the WRONG people in and having to fight back. I wouldn't trust people either after that (but I also wouldn't eat them, well most likely)


----------



## NatasNJ (Jan 7, 2002)

I am so thankful that this episode basically fixed everything wrong with previous seasons. Instead of a FULL season of Terminus BS and us wanting them to get out of there they set it on fire in the very first episode.  Glad we moved on from it so quick so other stories and things can develop or play out.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Great kick off to the season, might have been my favorite episode ever. 

The only small (very small) negative for me is that Rick didn't kill the one Sanctuary dude after telling him he was going to kill him when he was kneeling in front of the trough. Of course, that still might happen down the road.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Yeah...I understand not trusting people but how do you leap to eating them from there?


----------



## TonyTheTiger (Dec 22, 2006)

Loved the episode. So much action compared to last season.

I like the fact that Carol saved them all and is welcomed back into the fold. I did think that it was a darn good shot with the firework rocket to hit first time, though. And how conveniently the 'butchers' killed four people and then just stopped long enough for the heroes to be saved!

The show is good enough to let that all slide.

Intriguing ending (after the credits and scenes from next week).

Oh, and sneak peeks are sponsored now? Any way to make a buck, I guess!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Yeah...I understand not trusting people but how do you leap to eating them from there?


Hunger will do crazy things to people, I guess???

And how many fireworks do they have to use that to keep the hoards away? Seems like an odd solution, but it works I guess


----------



## Maui (Apr 22, 2000)

TonyTheTiger said:


> Intriguing ending (after the credits and scenes from next week).


Which my TiVo cut off just as he was beginning to take off the mask  I think I learned who it was already but it looks like it is time to add another minute to my padding.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Excellent, excellent episode! So glad it's back.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

spartanstew said:


> The only small (very small) negative for me is that Rick didn't kill the one Sanctuary dude after telling him he was going to kill him when he was kneeling in front of the trough. Of course, that still might happen down the road.


Rick's a man of his word. He can't kill the guy until he gets Michonne's sword. 


Anubys said:


> Yeah...I understand not trusting people but how do you leap to eating them from there?


More generally, does being captured by evil people justify turning into evil people, even when there's no need (i.e., they don't do evil things because they have to to survive; they do evil things because, well, why not? All the cool kids are doing it). Well, no, duh.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> More generally, does being captured by evil people justify turning into evil people, even when there's no need (i.e., they don't do evil things because they have to to survive; they do evil things because, well, why not? All the cool kids are doing it). Well, no, duh.


They tried to justify it with the "if you are not the butcher, you are the cattle" claim. What are they, brain damaged after their ordeal? That is like a bumper sticker, not a philosophy of life.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Great episode, and particularly gruesome. I didn't feel the tension of the bath tub scene because by focusing on Glenn we knew he would not go.

Weirdly accurate firework shot.

Glad this was all resolved in one episode.

I think they failed to justify their point about turning cannibal with the now/then thing. As stated you might turn evil and kill people but such an organized butchers process from people you are trying to sell as originally good makes no sense. I suppose it was foreshadowing of what is going to happen to our group this season, at least in some way.

Here's the post "next week" scene, if you missed it


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JohnB1000 said:


> Great episode, and particularly gruesome. I didn't feel the tension of the bath tub scene because by focusing on Glenn we knew he would not go.


Yeah, if they wanted any suspense at all they would have put the black guy whose name I don't know before Glenn.


----------



## supham (Jan 15, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Yeah, if they wanted any suspense at all they would have put the black guy whose name I don't know before Glenn.


I'm surprised he lived. They are currently +1 over their black guy quota.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Bob


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Here's the post "next week" scene, if you missed it


What's with the mask anyway? Is that a gas mask, a riot mask, a kinky sex mask?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

markz said:


> What's with the mask anyway? Is that a gas mask, a riot mask, a kinky sex mask?


It's a Surprise Reveal mask!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

markz said:


> What's with the mask anyway? Is that a gas mask, a riot mask, a kinky sex mask?


Looks like one of these. For cold weather.

http://www.amazon.com/Seirus-Innovation-6805-Original-Masque/dp/B0018BCC6U/ref=sr_1_1


----------



## Balzer (Nov 12, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Rick's a man of his word. He can't kill the guy until he gets Michonne's sword.


I thought it was an axe from the hidden bag that Rick said he was going to kill the guy with. The Terminus people took Michonne's sword. Hopefully she gets that back by the way.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Balzer said:


> I thought it was an axe from the hidden bag that Rick said he was going to kill the guy with. The Terminus people took Michonne's sword. Hopefully she gets that back by the way.


No, it was a machete with a red handle that Rick was going to use to kill him. He did say it was from the hidden bag.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> It's a Surprise Reveal mask!


LOL!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> Great episode, and particularly gruesome. I didn't feel the tension of the bath tub scene because by focusing on Glenn we knew he would not go.


Well you knew they would get out, I just thought Rick would cut the ties and get out WITHOUT the help of a PERFECTLY time explosion


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

JohnB1000 said:


> ...Weirdly accurate firework shot....


Didn't have to be....she'd put a hole in the tank and it was leaking, so the firework just had to be in the vicinity...


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Didn't have to be....she'd put a hole in the tank and it was leaking, so the firework just had to be in the vicinity...


True, still would have been better if she picked up the gun and pointed it at the tank.

Conan was pretty good on Talking Dead. I liked that he pointed out how clean the trough was...sounds like he would be a great poster in this forum.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Some of the timeline of the episode seemed out of place. 

Carol and Tyreese happen upon the herd of walkers. All of the sudden distant gunfire erupts. From where? At that point in Terminus nothing is happening. They haven't even gassed the train car yet. Then Tyreese and Carol find the cabin and the dude about to set off fireworks, And Carol decides to trek out to Terminus to check stuff out and gets there just as they're dragging Rick et al to the slaughterhouse. Just ahead of the herd of Walkers. The rest is pretty straightforward. 

So where did the first gunfire come from?


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Peter000 said:


> Some of the timeline of the episode seemed out of place. Carol and Tyreese happen upon the herd of walkers. All of the sudden distant gunfire erupts. From where? At that point in Terminus nothing is happening. They haven't even gassed the train car yet. Then Tyreese and Carol find the cabin and the dude about to set off fireworks, And Carol decides to trek out to Terminus to check stuff out and gets there just as they're dragging Rick et al to the slaughterhouse. Just ahead of the herd of Walkers. The rest is pretty straightforward. So where did the first gunfire come from?


Was it not from when they were herding them toward the train cars?


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> Some of the timeline of the episode seemed out of place.
> 
> Carol and Tyreese happen upon the herd of walkers. All of the sudden distant gunfire erupts. From where? At that point in Terminus nothing is happening. They haven't even gassed the train car yet. Then Tyreese and Carol find the cabin and the dude about to set off fireworks, And Carol decides to trek out to Terminus to check stuff out and gets there just as they're dragging Rick et al to the slaughterhouse. Just ahead of the herd of Walkers. The rest is pretty straightforward.
> 
> So where did the first gunfire come from?


Could have been new (human) visitors showing up there and then getting herded into other cars?


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

Jstkiddn said:


> Was it not from when they were herding them toward the train cars?


This was how I interpreted it as well. That was the gunfire from the final episode last season.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I also loved this episode. Yeah, a couple of weird (unbelievable) spots but then - hey, is ANY of it believable? About the only really odd-feeling thing for me was at the trough when they knocked off the first four guys pretty quickly and something kept interrupting the knocking off of the guys we know. It just felt forced. But I got over it. 

Loved the Carol/Daryl reunion and that she brought his weapon. Also loved Michonne's new weapon. Oh, and the Rick/Carl/Judith reunion was pretty cool! 

Talking Dead was a hoot and a half this week. I seldom really laugh out loud and I was laughing a lot. Of course, I always love the 'behind the scenes' stuff too. Conan can tend to skeeve me out a bit, when it's just him, but he was more enjoyable as part of an ensemble. I always enjoy when they have guys like Nicotero and Gimple there, too.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

NatasNJ said:


> I am so thankful that this episode basically fixed everything wrong with previous seasons. Instead of a FULL season of Terminus BS and us wanting them to get out of there they set it on fire in the very first episode.  Glad we moved on from it so quick so other stories and things can develop or play out.


This.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

MikeMar said:


> Could have been new (human) visitors showing up there and then getting herded into other cars?





BrandonRe said:


> This was how I interpreted it as well. That was the gunfire from the final episode last season.


I guess that's probably it. But it seems like they were in the train car longer than the seemingly were. An afternoon perhaps?


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Did you notice the guy who plays Penguin in Gotham was the first to get throat sliced.


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

brianric said:


> Did you notice the guy who plays Penguin in Gotham was the first to get throat sliced.


He was also the guy half of the hippie couple that Rick and Carol met when Rick turned Carol away for killing Karen.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

NatasNJ said:


> I am so thankful that this episode basically fixed everything wrong with previous seasons. Instead of a FULL season of Terminus BS and us wanting them to get out of there they set it on fire in the very first episode.  Glad we moved on from it so quick so other stories and things can develop or play out.


And they also learned from the mistake they made separating the cast all last season. Now everybody's back together. (Well, almost everybody...they still have the girl to find.)


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

BrandonRe said:


> This was how I interpreted it as well. That was the gunfire from the final episode last season.


I thought at least a week or two passed from the final episode last season to the first episode this season.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

brianric said:


> Did you notice the guy who plays Penguin in Gotham was the first to get throat sliced.


He had to get back quickly to the Gotham set to shoot a scene there...


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And they also learned from the mistake they made separating the cast all last season. Now everybody's back together. (Well, almost everybody...they still have the girl to find.)


The fact that was not covered in the "last season" thing made me forget about it all together. It's kind of odd that it doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all. Especially when everyone is back together and Carol didn't even ask. I wonder if they are just going to drop that ?

I think this episode was almost immediately after the last one but no way to really tell.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

spartanstew said:


> I thought at least a week or two passed from the final episode last season to the first episode this season.


I figured it was minutes, hours at most...Rick said "They picked on the wrong people" (last season), and then they started making weapons (this season). I thought they picked up right where they left off.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

JohnB1000 said:


> The fact that was not covered in the "last season" thing made me forget about it all together. It's kind of odd that it doesn't seem to have been mentioned at all. Especially when everyone is back together and Carol didn't even ask. I wonder if they are just going to drop that ?


It was mentioned - in the very beginning when they were making the weapons in the train car, each group was doing some light voice over catching up the others. And Daryl mentioned the car with the white cross and chasing it.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I figured it was minutes, hours at most...Rick said "They picked on the wrong people" (last season), and then they started making weapons (this season). I thought they picked up right where they left off.


Could be, just seemed they were a bit too organized (all working on making weapons, etc.) for it to have been minutes or hours. Several of them already had manufactured weapons and Rick seemed like he was several hours into trying to cut off that wood blade with the zipper (and they had already done a few others). I took it to mean that they had already spent a few days coming up with a plan and arming themselves for when they'd get pulled out.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Enjoys this episode immensely. I loved the reunion of Daryl and bad-azz Carol.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

I was totally fine with the 1 shot firework explosion. I was very impressed that they had her use the firework to blow up the tank instead of her just shooting it with the rifle and KABOOM, which is what they normally do.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

I loved the scene where Rick and CO watched the Terminus people walk past them while blowing away the walkers, and you kind of expected Rick to just sneak everybody back the other way, but instead he just turns on them and opens fire mercilessly.

I watched the last episode from last season right before, and it made it more poignant. Rick is a farmer no more.

-smak-


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Thing about the gang being herded into the car is the termite that was setting up the fireworks already new about the chick with the blade and called dibs on carls hat. He also mentioned hearing the gun shots, so it wasn't them being originally herded into the trailer.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Clearly has some spelling and grammar issues but the point is made


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

JohnB1000 said:


> Clearly has some spelling and grammar issues but the point is made


I always laugh about the memes with misspellings!


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

John - Love that! Well, ok, except for the truly dreadful lack of word usage and grammar ability.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Who is Rory Williams?


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> Who is Rory Williams?


The only Rory Williams that I am aware of is a character in Doctor Who. It really doesn't fit the meme though as he wasn't necessarily known as a tough guy.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Azlen said:


> The only Rory Williams that I am aware of is a character in Doctor Who. It really doesn't fit the meme though as he wasn't necessarily known as a tough guy.


Are you kidding? He was a Roman Legionnaire for 2000 years!


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

Looks like they have finally found something that can beat the NFL. The dem rating for last night's premiere was an 8.7. That is astronomical considering that it only takes a 2.0 rating anymore for a show to be considered a hit. The SNF game last night scored a preliminary 6.0 rating.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...-series-highs-in-adults-18-49-viewers/313670/


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Test said:


> True, still would have been better if she picked up the gun and pointed it at the tank.


If she did that, it would have hit the ground before it got to the intended target.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

What a strong start to the season! I really enjoyed this episode.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Test said:


> Thing about the gang being herded into the car is the termite that was setting up the fireworks already new about the chick with the blade and called dibs on carls hat. He also mentioned hearing the gun shots, so it wasn't them being originally herded into the trailer.


Between this and the fact that all the gang had made some type of weapon and seemed to have a strategy for what happened when the doors opened, I think it's pretty clear they'd been in the boxcar for longer than just a few hours.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Azlen said:


> The only Rory Williams that I am aware of is a character in Doctor Who. It really doesn't fit the meme though as he wasn't necessarily known as a tough guy.


It was a meme on a meme. There's tons of meme's and Reddit's etc about how tough Rory was.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Am I the only one that noticed how much weight Tyreese (Chad Coleman) put on between seasons?!?!


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

I had to watch a good portion of this episode through my fingers, especially at the beginning. That was some really graphic stuff.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

No talk about Eugene (that his name) and the talk about how he was planning on fighting "fire with fire" with biological weapons and such


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Are they going to buy his story and head for Washington?


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> And they also learned from the mistake they made separating the cast all last season. Now everybody's back together. (Well, almost everybody...they still have the girl to find.)


I hate that this is regarded as a "mistake" though - to me the back half of last season was totally necessary. We had three seasons of them as a group, staying together through almost impossible odds - having them actually get sepatrated, and have to make their way back to each other - was the right call, story-wise. It strengthed existing relationships and also put characters together that didn't interact much, making the whole group dynamic much stronger. And it makes all of them ending up in a nightmare together that much more revitalizing because after all that, they're back together as a group. I thought they handled it perfectly.

This episode was great. Even though you know Glen's not gonna die, the sick savagery of that scene is enough to raise your heart rate - you just want them to get out of there, lol... I figured Carol would save everyone but I couldn't figure out how because as far as she knew, Terminus was a good place so she'd just wander in and get capture - I loved that the writers had her overhear the guy on the walkie so she'd know they're a threat, and that they have her friends.

I don't really buy the Terminus people starting Terminus, getting captured by psychopaths, then becoming equally horrific psychopaths just because that's what happened to them. I'm hoping there's some more to that. Like others said, I can buy becoming messed up after something like that, but I'm not sure I buy becoming messed up so much that you kidnap, torture, and eat people who mean you no harm. So we'll see. I'm looking forward to an eventual Rick/Garrett show down.

I can't believe what this show does in the ratings - highest rated show on ALL of TV in the demo. Crazy.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

scandia101 said:


> If she did that, it would have hit the ground before it got to the intended target.


And the skyrocket exhaust would have burnt the cr*p out of her face! If she's from the South she undoubtedly has experience aiming those things.

Does anyone doubt the writers of "Walking Dead" are "Mythbusters" fans? I'm thinking particularly of the episode where they showed just how hard it is to ignite propane with a bullet...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I hate that this is regarded as a "mistake" though - to me the back half of last season was totally necessary. We had three seasons of them as a group, staying together through almost impossible odds - having them actually get separated, and have to make their way back to each other - was the right call, story-wise. It strengthened existing relationships and also put characters together that didn't interact much, making the whole group dynamic much stronger. And it makes all of them ending up in a nightmare together that much more revitalizing because after all that, they're back together as a group. I thought they handled it perfectly.


Separation is one thing. For me, it was WAY too dragged out and artificial (they had to do strange things to the story to keep all the characters in).


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Separation is one thing. For me, it was WAY too dragged out and artificial (they had to do strange things to the story to keep all the characters in).


I think had you watched it in binge mode it would have played better.
However watching in realtime - 8 weeks is a long time.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I usually FF through the commercials, but I loved the Hyundai Zombie Survival Machine! "It's a stick" "Yeah, but it's a really sharp stick"


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

The only thing that really bothered me is that once you knew what was coming, that they hit you in the back of the head with the baseball bat and slit your throat, why continue to sit in the appropriate place? Why not roll sideways or flip backwards or anything at all to not have your head there when the bat arrived?

Sure, you are tied up and likely not going to get out of it, but it buys time. It makes it harder for the SOBs to kill you. Why make it easier on them? If I'm going to die, I want them to work for it.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Record ratings for this one -- something like 17+ million...


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

I was briefly confused about the "THEN" because I interpreted it as "(and) THEN (this happened)" as opposed to "(this is what happened back) THEN" and it made no sense


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?

I, too, didn't get why they would just sit there and wait...after the first baseball bat and throat cut, I'd be up and kicking in no time.

Hell, Rick was going to wait until his turn to fight (after his 3 buddies would have been dead).


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?


I made the same comment while watching it.

oh well.

awesome episode. I forgive them all their foibles.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?


Because it's possible that they would flail around a bit while still conscious.. getting blood everywhere... and boy, that's a mess you don't want to clean up.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Hank said:


> Because it's possible that they would flail around a bit while still conscious.. getting blood everywhere... and boy, that's a mess you don't want to clean up.


Yeah, it would defeat the purpose of having those spiffy catch basins...


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

And, you know, with ebola going around these days.....


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

Their Now is our Then!


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

hummingbird_206 said:


> I usually FF through the commercials, but I loved the Hyundai Zombie Survival Machine! "It's a stick" "Yeah, but it's a really sharp stick"


I was slow to the FF button, at that moment, and caught that one. Loved it.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

It's been on for 2 seasons now...I guess that's why they keep playing it.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?


I thought it was merciful. I'd rather be knocked out before getting my throat slashed.

Also, maybe they were avoiding zombie activity by hitting them in the head first and saving bullets.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?
> 
> I, too, didn't get why they would just sit there and wait...after the first baseball bat and throat cut, I'd be up and kicking in no time.
> 
> Hell, Rick was going to wait until his turn to fight (after his 3 buddies would have been dead).


I don't think Rick was going to wait, I think he was just waiting for the right time. I can't imagine any of those guys just waiting. Daryl looked like he was ready to go crazy on whoever got behind him.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?


I think it was simply a ham-fisted attempt to extend the cattle/slaughterhouse analogy by including an example of percussive stunning.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Isn't that how you slaughter cattle? Knock them out then slit their throat to bleed them?


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that how you slaughter cattle? Knock them out then slit their throat to bleed them?


The stun them with a bolt gun. They won't bleed out properly if their hearts are not beating.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Isn't that how you slaughter cattle? Knock them out then slit their throat to bleed them?


That's the way I understood it, an extension of the cattle/butcher analogy. It's also the more humane way to do it.

I really liked this season opener. Count me among those who are really glad to find out that we're not stuck in Terminus for the next half dozen episodes. They resolved their predicament quickly and efficiently.

I also liked the then/now on the leadership of Terminus and I liked the use of the cattle/butcher analogy. I can see that happening. The people were brutalized for an extended period of time. It messed them up. The victims became the victimizers. The cannibalism was not only a means of maintaining control, but also of providing a food source. One would assume when they came across like-minded individuals, they recruited them to the group.

I'm assuming from Rick's promise to the Terminus leader, that they're going to meet up again, and Michonne's sword is going to come into play. Bad guys seem to have nine lives in this series.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

smbaker said:


> One would assume when they came across like-minded individuals, they recruited them to the group.


The producer on The Talking Dead outlined this.. they invite people in to "have a plate, relax"... they size up who is strong enough to help their mission, and take those folks aside and say "hey, this is how we actually survive. That plate you have, that's people, if you're down with that, you can join us.. if not, it's back into the boxcar".


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Hank said:


> The producer on The Talking Dead outlined this.. they invite people in to "have a plate, relax"... they size up who is strong enough to help their mission, and take those folks aside and say "hey, this is how we actually survive. That plate you have, that's people, if you're down with that, you can join us.. if not, it's back into the boxcar".


They must also have a pretty good process for screening which groups would find this morally repulsive, as I don't remember them trying to recruit any of our merry band of do gooders.

I'm imagining they would have something like Rick's "3 questions".


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

smbaker said:


> They must also have a pretty good process for screening which groups would find this morally repulsive, as I don't remember them trying to recruit any of our merry band of do gooders.
> 
> I'm imagining they would have something like Rick's "3 questions".


I'm just telling you what the producer said. He implied that they don't take the whole group aside, they cherry-pick the strongest people and then individually and ask them if they want to join their group.

eta: I don't think we saw anyone taken aside and asked this question. I think it's more backstory about how Terminus worked.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Hank said:


> I'm just telling you what the producer said. He implied that they don't take the whole group aside, they cherry-pick the strongest people and then individually and ask them if they want to join their group.


It's just that Rick's band has numerous very strong people. If strength and ability were the primary concerns, then I'd expect Rick, Daryl, Michonne, and Abraham to all be excellent candidates.

I suppose there's plenty of room for reading between the lines in the producer's statements. For example, especially close-knit groups are going to be a problem to recruit from, because the recruits would inevitably be asked to eat their weaker unselected companions.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

smbaker said:


> For example, especially close-knit groups are going to be a problem to recruit from, because the recruits would inevitably be asked to eat their weaker unselected companions.


It goes down better with some fava beans and a nice chianti.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Abraham looks like a Clash of Clans character. Yes, that's my contribution to this thread.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Gotta say, as a continual critic of Talking Dead, I thoroughly enjoyed it this week. Enough so to create an SP (at least until it becomes bad again...)


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> Gotta say, as a continual critic of Talking Dead, I thoroughly enjoyed it this week. Enough so to create an SP (at least until it becomes bad again...)


Same here with being a critic and creating an SP.

I think Conan made the difference. He's so on point and funny at the same time. He says everything you wish you could say if you were on the show.

The should just have him on every week.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> Abraham looks like a Clash of Clans character. Yes, that's my contribution to this thread.


Is that the red haired dude? I was thinking he looked like the barbarians


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?
> 
> I, too, didn't get why they would just sit there and wait...after the first baseball bat and throat cut, I'd be up and kicking in no time.
> 
> Hell, Rick was going to wait until his turn to fight (after his 3 buddies would have been dead).


You have obviously have never had the pleasure of attending a hog butchering. The baseball bat to the back of the head is the killing blow; the purpose of slitting the throat is to drain the blood before you cut the body up for meat. I would image that not shown is the operation of hanging by the heels over the catch basin to complete the drainage, but thankfully we didn't get that far.

As far as kicking goes, the first thing we saw in the abattoir was a zip-tie being applied to Rick's ankles. Obviously lining them up all at once was for dramatic effect; when butchering hogs or cattle if you let them see what's about to happen they will panic and flail about as you suggest, causing problems.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

That meat wouldn't taste very good, too much stress before the slaughter.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Hank said:


> Same here with being a critic and creating an SP.
> 
> I think Conan made the difference. He's so on point and funny at the same time. He says everything you wish you could say if you were on the show.
> 
> The should just have him on every week.


I'd be cancelling my SP on TD. Can't stand Conan.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

ej42137 said:


> You have obviously have never had the pleasure of attending a hog butchering. The baseball bat to the back of the head is the killing blow; the purpose of slitting the throat is to drain the blood before you cut the body up for meat. I would image that not shown is the operation of hanging by the heels over the catch basin to complete the drainage, but thankfully we didn't get that far.
> 
> As far as kicking goes, the first thing we saw in the abattoir was a zip-tie being applied to Rick's ankles. Obviously lining them up all at once was for dramatic effect; when butchering hogs or cattle if you let them see what's about to happen they will panic and flail about as you suggest, causing problems.


In reality that is how it would be done, but this is tv.
I think were are supposed to believe that they are killed and drained at the trough and then butchered on the table that's just 10 feet away - the table that had a body (Alex, Gareth's brother) on it that was being butchered. If they were to hang them for draining, they would have to move them to another location then brought back to the same room they were killed in to be butchered and I just don't see that being their process.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

brianric said:


> I'd be cancelling my SP on TD. Can't stand Conan.


You'd cancel your SP because you didn't like 1 guest on 1 episode. That makes a lot of sense.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

scandia101 said:


> You'd cancel your SP because you didn't like 1 guest on 1 episode. That makes a lot of sense.


Did you read the statement that I was responding to. Comment was made Conan should be on every week. JHC.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> In reality that is how it would be done, but this is tv.
> I think were are supposed to believe that they are killed and drained at the trough and then butchered on the table that's just 10 feet away - the table that had a body (Alex, Gareth's brother) on it that was being butchered. If they were to hang them for draining, they would have to move them to another location then brought back to the same room they were killed in to be butchered and I just don't see that being their process.


#overthinkingit


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Hank said:


> The producer on The Talking Dead outlined this.. they invite people in to "have a plate, relax"... they size up who is strong enough to help their mission, and take those folks aside and say "hey, this is how we actually survive. That plate you have, that's people, if you're down with that, you can join us.. if not, it's back into the boxcar".





smbaker said:


> They must also have a pretty good process for screening which groups would find this morally repulsive, as I don't remember them trying to recruit any of our merry band of do gooders.
> 
> I'm imagining they would have something like Rick's "3 questions".


They were offered food. Rick slapped it to the ground because he recognized things that the termites were wearing as things owned by his group members and I suppose he suspected the food was soylent green.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

ej42137 said:


> As far as kicking goes, the first thing we saw in the abattoir was a zip-tie being applied to Rick's ankles.


Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't then roll over backwards and use your legs as a whole. You probably won't win, I'm not suggesting that, but it's better than just passively waiting for death.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Anubys said:


> Why the baseball bat? why not just cut the throat?


How do you kill a walker, or keep a dead body from reanimating? Damage the brain. The blow with the bat is the killing blow, and it damages the brain to keep the bodies from reanimating. Doing it this way (kill the brain, drain the blood) keeps the meat the cleanest. If they just cut the throat, the bodies would still turn.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

MikeMar said:


> No talk about Eugene (that his name) and the talk about how he was planning on fighting "fire with fire" with biological weapons and such


It will be interesting to see how this plays out, since he basically said exactly what someone would say in that situation if they're bluffing and don't really have any answers. Just lots of jargon and technical mumbo-jumbo that they know the rest of the group won't comprehend but will be intimidated enough not to ask further questions.



stellie93 said:


> Are they going to buy his story and head for Washington?


I think this is exactly what they'll do, if for no other reason than that it gives them a direction and a purpose. Without that, they're just continuing to wander around aimlessly, while also willingly obstructing the guy who *might* be able to end the epidemic. No harm in at least indulging him and seeing how it plays out.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

PennyD said:


> I am going to watch it again tonight, but I am really not feeling this episode....


Really?  I thought this was one of the best eps of the whole series. Lots of action. A troubling plot development resolved. The band got back together, etc. What's not to like?


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> It will be interesting to see how this plays out, since he basically said exactly what someone would say in that situation if they're bluffing and don't really have any answers. Just lots of jargon and technical mumbo-jumbo that they know the rest of the group won't comprehend but will be intimidated enough not to ask further questions.
> 
> I think this is exactly what they'll do, if for no other reason than that it gives them a direction and a purpose. Without that, they're just continuing to wander around aimlessly, while also willingly obstructing the guy who *might* be able to end the epidemic. No harm in at least indulging him and seeing how it plays out.


I agree that going to Washington is as good a plan as any, but I can't quite believe he knows how to cure it. And also (and this has been discussed here before, I believe) if he _does_ know, then he needs to be telling people some particulars. I realize the prospect that he knows something is his bargaining chip to get all these people to protect him, but no matter how hard they try, there is a very real possibility that he could die.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Bierboy said:


> Gotta say, as a continual critic of Talking Dead, I thoroughly enjoyed it this week. Enough so to create an SP (at least until it becomes bad again...)


Bierboy! Welcome to the dark side!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> It will be interesting to see how this plays out, since he basically said exactly what someone would say in that situation if they're bluffing and don't really have any answers. Just lots of jargon and technical mumbo-jumbo that they know the rest of the group won't comprehend but will be intimidated enough not to ask further questions.


But it's annoying because the mumbo-jumbo would be recognized as pure grade A BS by anyone with half a brain (ha ha).


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Dawghows said:


> I agree that going to Washington is as good a plan as any, but I can't quite believe he knows how to cure it. And also (and this has been discussed here before, I believe) if he _does_ know, then he needs to be telling people some particulars. I realize the prospect that he knows something is his bargaining chip to get all these people to protect him, but no matter how hard they try, there is a very real possibility that he could die.


I'm certain he doesn't have a cure and that he's just BSing. But I agree that if he really did have an answer, he should be doing everything in his power to document his knowledge because the chances of any individual surviving in this environment, especially over a 600+ mile trip through unknown territory.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

Ereth said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean you can't then roll over backwards and use your legs as a whole. You probably won't win, I'm not suggesting that, but it's better than just passively waiting for death.


I'd rather just die than make it more traumatic and prolonging the inevitable.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

DevdogAZ said:


> Really?  I thought this was one of the best eps of the whole series. Lots of action. A troubling plot development resolved. The band got back together, etc. What's not to like?


This...thoroughly enjoyed this one. In the top five of the series IMO...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

sharkster said:


> Bierboy! Welcome to the dark side!


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Anubys said:


> But it's annoying because the mumbo-jumbo would be recognized as pure grade A BS by anyone with half a brain (ha ha).


I loved how his mumbo-jumbo included "red ringed" as a euphemism for death.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

scandia101 said:


> I'd rather just die than make it more traumatic and prolonging the inevitable.


I don't know, I'd rather have the one in a million chance than the no chance at all.

I remember how outraged I was when I was playing Civilization, and my battleship was moving along a shore, and a spear-man sank it. But I wanna BE that spear-man when they come for me with the baseball bat and the knife!


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I don't know, I'd rather have the one in a million chance than the no chance at all.
> 
> I remember how outraged I was when I was playing Civilization, and my battleship was moving along a shore, and a spear-man sank it. But I wanna BE that spear-man when they come for me with the baseball bat and the knife!


your geekness is showing...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Anubys said:


> your geekness is showing...


*gasp*


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

danterner said:


> I loved how his mumbo-included "red ringed" as a euphemism for death.


Yeah, that made me laugh.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I imagine a scenario wherein someone rolls right out of the way of the baseball bat, swings their legs up and catches the head of the guy with the bat between them, with their ankles behind his head, bringing his head down hard on the ground, cracking his skull.

I probably couldn't do it, but Batman could. In fact, you'd be disappointed if Batman didn't try. So why not Glenn? Or Rick?


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

I had another question, though, while watching the herd come out of the woods.

Why are there no fat walkers? Surely some fat people were killed? I'd think they'd be the most likely to be killed, as we don't run so well. So where are the fat walkers? Does stored fat still get used after you are dead, if you are a walker? All that walking being good exercise? Because if it does, then it would imply other bodily mechanisms might still be at work, too, right? Otherwise, why would a fat dead guy turn into a skinny walker?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Haven't we seen emaciated walkers who were held someplace where they couldn't get food? So maybe it's not that walking is good exercise, but walkers don't consume enough calories to maintain the fat.


----------



## danterner (Mar 4, 2005)

Ereth said:


> I had another question, though, while watching the herd come out of the woods.
> 
> Why are there no fat walkers? Surely some fat people were killed? I'd think they'd be the most likely to be killed, as we don't run so well. So where are the fat walkers? Does stored fat still get used after you are dead, if you are a walker? All that walking being good exercise? Because if it does, then it would imply other bodily mechanisms might still be at work, too, right? Otherwise, why would a fat dead guy turn into a skinny walker?


I seem to recall the Well Walker at the farm as being fat. But he was definitely the exception to the rule. Maybe ALL the fat walkers are in wells, and that's why we haven't seen any.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Ereth said:


> I had another question, though, while watching the herd come out of the woods.
> 
> Why are there no fat walkers? Surely some fat people were killed? I'd think they'd be the most likely to be killed, as we don't run so well. So where are the fat walkers? Does stored fat still get used after you are dead, if you are a walker? All that walking being good exercise? Because if it does, then it would imply other bodily mechanisms might still be at work, too, right? Otherwise, why would a fat dead guy turn into a skinny walker?


It's a good question and I don't have a direct answer. But I did hear that on The Talking Dead they mentioned how they're trying to make the walkers a little more emaciated and a little more decayed each season, so maybe in this particular iteration of zombie lore, the zombie feeds off the flesh of the body and eventually falls apart when there's nothing left to "feed" it.

But that still doesn't explain why fat people who die don't appear as fat zombies for at least a little while. Unless the explanation is that the vast majority of these walkers we're seeing have been dead since the original outbreak and there are very few "fresh" walkers among these herds.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

scandia101 said:


> I'd rather just die than make it more traumatic and prolonging the inevitable.


Maybe someone would come along and blow up a propane tank with a fire cracker. If the second guy that got killed put up a little fight and stalled enough maybe the third guy would still be alive...or if not him and he put up a little fight and stalled enough the fourth guy would definitely still be alive? right?

That would have been a good time to introduce a new character, have the butcher stop at him (instead of Glen) then there might have been some "will he get the bat next" tension.

The more I think about this episode the more I feel like it was the season finale of last year. Wrapped up the story line from last season, got everyone back together and had a small cliff hanger at the end.


----------



## JLucPicard (Jul 8, 2004)

The Terminus woman in the box car at the end was NOT Mary (Denise Crosby's character) was it? It seemed that Carol left her in a totally no-way-out situation, but the darkness of the scene was enough that I really couldn't tell.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JLucPicard said:


> The Terminus woman in the box car at the end was NOT Mary (Denise Crosby's character) was it? It seemed that Carol left her in a totally no-way-out situation, but the darkness of the scene was enough that I really couldn't tell.


That scene at the end was preceded by a "THEN" caption, so I think it was the Terminus Mary character, but it was just showing us something that happened to her in the past.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

I've watched too much _Supernatural_. When I saw the word "Then" on the screen, I expected to hear Kansas's "Carry On Wayward Son."


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

I did like how Carol opens the door to let the walkers in (to eat the Star Trek lady) and all the walkers oblige by leaving Carol alone and going inside the room to do her bidding!


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Anubys said:


> I did like how Carol opens the door to let the walkers in (to eat the Star Trek lady) and all the walkers oblige by leaving Carol alone and going inside the room to do her bidding!


She's still covered with Walker blood and all that

So is somewhat invisible to them


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

danterner said:


> I seem to recall the Well Walker at the farm as being fat. But he was definitely the exception to the rule. Maybe ALL the fat walkers are in wells, and that's why we haven't seen any.


I think the well walker was fat because he had absorbed so much water. He was probably skinny when he first fell in.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Did anyone catch the brief ad for the Walking Dead pinball machine? I have a Limited Edition version on order, which I should hopefully be getting later this month or early next month. I'm a big time pinball guy, and this is a dream theme for me. The game looks like it will be a lot of fun. I think Stern did a fantastic job with the artwork ...

http://sternpinball.com/


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

That looks fun! I have always wanted a pinball game, but don't have the space or money for one.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Is that 'Well Walker' I see in the middle pic? My favorite walker, and walker retrieval scenario (poor Glen!) ever!


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

Ereth said:


> I had another question, though, while watching the herd come out of the woods.
> 
> Why are there no fat walkers? Surely some fat people were killed? I'd think they'd be the most likely to be killed, as we don't run so well. So where are the fat walkers? Does stored fat still get used after you are dead, if you are a walker? All that walking being good exercise? Because if it does, then it would imply other bodily mechanisms might still be at work, too, right? Otherwise, why would a fat dead guy turn into a skinny walker?


My guess is the big ones get eaten. I mean, a decent sized fat guy could probably feed 20 walkers easily...


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

sharkster said:


> Is that 'Well Walker' I see in the middle pic? My favorite walker, and walker retrieval scenario (poor Glen!) ever!


Yep. You get to bash him with the ball, and if you hit him enough times, he leans back and exposes his guts. There is also a really cool little fishtank in the upper right corner ...


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Absolutely WOW - that was a GREAT way to start the season.
Two things for the season:
I want to know about Beth sooner rather than later.
I want to see Rick in a show-down with Gareth (and making good on his promise to kill him with that machete with the red handle)
I want to see Michone get her sword back. Don't get me wrong, the Sith-Blade thing she's got going on is pretty cool, but it's going to break in a heartbeat and then she's screwed.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Now I want a Breaking Bad pinball machine.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Now I want a bunch more money to GET these machines!!!


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Necromancer2006 said:


> I want to see Rick in a show-down with Gareth (and making good on his promise to kill him with that machete with the red handle)


I hope it happens very soon. I hope Rick v. Gareth does get drawn out like Rick v. The Governor.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Really good "making of" video:

http://www.amctv.com/the-walking-de...-of-episode-501-the-walking-dead-no-sanctuary

Also on the site are a couple of cut scenes from TTD.


----------



## MonsterJoe (Feb 19, 2003)

I keep reading "wes welker"


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Hank said:


> The producer on The Talking Dead outlined this.. they invite people in to "have a plate, relax"... they size up who is strong enough to help their mission, and take those folks aside and say "hey, this is how we actually survive. That plate you have, that's people, if you're down with that, you can join us.. if not, it's back into the boxcar".


This was THE best part of the TD show! Actual insider information that we wouldn't have known...and I loved it!

It sounded a little more detailed and drawn out of a process where they make them comfortable...give them a couple of "bbq" meals and then present them with a choice.

Our group was never given that chance because they came in fighting!


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

MikeMar said:


> She's still covered with Walker blood and all that
> 
> So is somewhat invisible to them


That was genius. They should do that more often.


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

pmyers said:


> This was THE best part of the TD show! Actual insider information that we wouldn't have known...and I loved it!
> 
> It sounded a little more detailed and drawn out of a process where they make them comfortable...give them a couple of "bbq" meals and then present them with a choice.
> 
> Our group was never given that chance because they came in fighting!


Well Rick, Daryl, Michonne and Carl didn't get that choice. But perhaps Glenn, Maggie and the others were.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

MonsterJoe said:


> I keep reading "wes welker"


Ha--I did that too.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

They commented that the group with the guy who wants to go to Washington were never given the choice because they announced they were going on to Washington and so the termites knew they weren't going to be around, and thus put them in the "don't attempt to turn" list, assuming their purpose would make them un-turnable.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Vendikarr said:


> Well Rick, Daryl, Michonne and Carl didn't get that choice. But perhaps Glenn, Maggie and the others were.


I would also imagine that it is easier if they don't come in as a group. More likely for a single to agree than a group.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

pmyers said:


> I would also imagine that it is easier if they don't come in as a group. More likely for a single to agree than a group.


But they don't ask the "group".. they cherry pick individual members out of the group first. Then give them a real simple choice: Butcher, or cattle?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

The fight fire with fire cure makes no sense unless he doesn't know that everyone is already infected. Which I guess is possible... but seems rather unlikely at this point.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

pmyers said:


> This was THE best part of the TD show! Actual insider information that we wouldn't have known...and I loved it!


Hey y'all, the Talking Dead is a different show from The Walking Dead. Discussion of that show either needs its own thread (preferably) or at the very least spoiler tags.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

betts4 said:


> That was genius. They should do that more often.


 They've done that a bunch of times


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Finally watched it late last night (been out of town). Very good start of the season. I agree with the others that I'm glad they didn't drag out the capture and pretty much resolved Terminus although I know the leader guy will show up at some point.

I also missed the very end where the guy pulls off the mask. I'll have to add a minute to the ending for the future. Have we seen him already at some point or is he new??


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

2004raptor said:


> Finally watched it late last night (been out of town). Very good start of the season. I agree with the others that I'm glad they didn't drag out the capture and pretty much resolved Terminus although I know the leader guy will show up at some point.
> 
> I also missed the very end where the guy pulls off the mask. I'll have to add a minute to the ending for the future. Have we seen him already at some point or is he new??


He's a (fan-favorite) character from S1E1 and also made an episode appearance in S3. He's looking much better nowadays.


----------



## 2004raptor (Dec 31, 2005)

Necromancer2006 said:


> He's a (fan-favorite) character from S1E1 and also made an episode appearance in S3. He's looking much better nowadays.


Is he the one that had a kid and Rick stayed with for a while??? That was my first thought but I know they ran into him again in some "booby trapped" town and couldn't remember if he was killed.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

heySkippy said:


> Hey y'all, the Talking Dead is a different show from The Walking Dead. Discussion of that show either needs its own thread (preferably) or at the very least spoiler tags.


Here we go....


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

2004raptor said:


> Is he the one that had a kid and Rick stayed with for a while??? That was my first thought but I know they ran into him again in some "booby trapped" town and couldn't remember if he was killed.


Yeah Morgan

I should go back and watch that episode with that town, that was AWESOME


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

MikeMar said:


> Yeah Morgan
> 
> I should go back and watch that episode with that town, that was AWESOME


Morgan's season 3 episode "Clear" is one of my favorite Walking Dead episodes ever- probably #1.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Speaking of Talking Dead Conan made a reference to the Governors little town and how it seemed like the Gilmore Girls universe.

Last night I was binging Gilmore Girls and in that episode there hosted a town theatrical event because the neighboring town had a flood and was unable to do it. The neighboring town was Woodbury. The timing was just to funny.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Wait... what? I'm confused. There was a scene after the previews? This explains the video on page 1 that I assumed was from the previews I guess?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> Wait... what? I'm confused. There was a scene after the previews? This explains the video on page 1 that I assumed was from the previews I guess?


Correct. It was oddly placed.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

TAsunder said:


> Wait... what? I'm confused. There was a scene after the previews? This explains the video on page 1 that I assumed was from the previews I guess?


There's a thread about it. It will explain everything.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


> Morgan's season 3 episode "Clear" is one of my favorite Walking Dead episodes ever- probably #1.


Totally agree. It cool to see Morgan and that booby-trapped town and we got the first Carl/Michonne moment.


----------



## dslunceford (Oct 19, 2000)

heySkippy said:


> Hey y'all, the Talking Dead is a different show from The Walking Dead. Discussion of that show either needs its own thread (preferably) or at the very least spoiler tags.


Do we really need two separate threads weekly to discuss an episode? One for the show, and another for talking about "the show that talks about the show"?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

dslunceford said:


> Do we really need two separate threads weekly to discuss an episode? One for the show, and another for talking about "the show that talks about the show"?


Hi, you must be new here.


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

dslunceford said:


> Do we really need two separate threads weekly to discuss an episode? One for the show, and another for talking about "the show that talks about the show"?


  Yes, it has been discussed / debated and a decision made.



Rob Helmerichs said:


> Hi, you must be new here.


:up:


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

dslunceford said:


> Do we really need two separate threads weekly to discuss an episode? One for the show, and another for talking about "the show that talks about the show"?


The mature answer is "no", but for whatever reason, there are lots of folks who get uptight about it so the practical answer winds up being "sadly, yes".


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Necromancer2006 said:


> The mature answer is "no", but for whatever reason, there are lots of folks who get uptight about it so the practical answer winds up being "sadly, yes".


Your post makes me want to throw a temper tantrum...


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

Its not as if TD has ever given any spoilers. I think people feel like they are left on the outside of a conversation other people are having. 

Spoilers are best, a second thread is stupid. 

Yes, stupid. 

TD does the exact same thing the weekly threads do. There is no reason for a second thread.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

Shaunnick said:


> Its not as if TD has ever given any spoilers.


I think that's a rather large assumption. But:



> I think people feel like they are left on the outside of a conversation other people are having.


That's not how I feel, I just feel people should discuss a show that is not the show the thread is about in a thread that is dedicated to that show.



> Spoilers are best, a second thread is stupid.
> 
> Yes, stupid.


Now you're just trolling.



> TD does the exact same thing the weekly threads do. There is no reason for a second thread.


Except for forum rules and all that stuff, but why bother with them, just do what you feel like.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Woodburry doesn't seem so bad now, does it? If it wasn't for the crazy Gov!


----------



## BlearyEyed (Jun 11, 2002)

Wouldn't the easiest solution to the problem be that Sunday night someone starts a thread called "Walking and Talking Dead, OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"? It would seem that would allow the 90% of people who don't seem to care about Talking Dead spoilers to discuss both episodes? And then, if the vast minority wanted to they could start a (sure to be response filled) separate thread "Walking Dead OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"? 

As far as the episode itself went, I really enjoyed the scenes with Tyreese and the captive guy in the cabin. The other scenes were well done, but only so much drama can be built up with Rick and Darryl in the scene when you know they aren't getting killed. But in the cabin? I wasn't sure how that might shake out, beside the dude not snapping Judith's neck.


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

pmyers said:


> Woodburry doesn't seem so bad now, does it? If it wasn't for the crazy Gov!


The Governor was the Krazy Glue that held Woodburry together.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

BlearyEyed said:


> ... I really enjoyed the scenes with Tyreese and the captive guy in the cabin. The other scenes were well done, but only so much drama can be built up with Rick and Darryl in the scene when you know they aren't getting killed. But in the cabin? I wasn't sure how that might shake out, beside the dude not snapping Judith's neck.


Speaking of those scenes, I really felt some sense of recognition of that actor who threatened to kill Judith. Who was he and where has he appeared before?


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

I think he might have been on Talking Dead.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

getreal said:


> Speaking of those scenes, I really felt some sense of recognition of that actor who threatened to kill Judith. Who was he and where has he appeared before?


He was on Treme. Did you watch that?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

JETarpon said:


> I think he might have been on Talking Dead.


You've received two demerits for talking about The Talking Dead in a The Walking Dead thread. :down:


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

The Walking Dead


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

No Talking just Walking? 

Can't we all just walk and talk!


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

zalusky said:


> Can't we all just walk and talk!


No. The dead can walk, but they cannot talk.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

zalusky said:


> The Walking Dead


I think something got lost in translation.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

For my comment.. the things mentioned on Talking Dead that I posted were specifically explained as back story that the writer and director worked out that would never be in the show itself. So it's not really spoilers and I only responded based on someone asking a question that could only be answered by that backstory.

I'm sorry if that offended anyone.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I can't think of anything discussed on TTD that could be considered a "spoiler". All they're doing is talking about the show.. no different than what we're doing here in this thread. The info I posted from TTD was the same as Ereth -- some interesting backstory about Terminus (well, more "insight" from the producer than backstory) that would never be shown on the show. As long as nothing that can be construed as a "preview" of future shows (which can happen on TTD), I can't conceive how anyone would get upset at any TTD discussion about the current show here. But it wouldn't be the first time I don't get people.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

zalusky said:


> The Walking Dead


Sorry HTML didn't take - I was trying to do a strikeout.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

zalusky said:


> Sorry HTML didn't take - I was trying to do a strikeout.


This forum doesn't let you do html tags. You have to use BBCode

```
T[s]he W[/ s]alking Dead
```
The Walking Dead


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I'm surprised no one has speculated what Abraham and Rosita were talking about when Abraham said "I'll tell him (assuming Rick). Later" at the end of the episode after the reunion of Rick's daughter.
Wild guess is it's about Judith, maybe she's immune, or the virus will do something else to her?

Or that there is no cure.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

If that guy had killed Judith, then we would know if people born after the outbreak are immune or not.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

robojerk said:


> This forum doesn't let you do html tags. You have to use BBCode
> 
> ```
> T[s]he W[/ s]alking Dead
> ...


I'm not sure that's what he was going for.. the first tag was not



> The Walking Dead


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

robojerk said:


> I'm surprised no one has speculated what Abraham and Rosita were talking about when Abraham said "I'll tell him (assuming Rick). Later" at the end of the episode after the reunion of Rick's daughter.
> Wild guess is it's about Judith, maybe she's immune, or the virus will do something else to her?
> 
> Or that there is no cure.


I think it's not related to the cure... more that Abraham is going to want to split off and do their own thing (or lead the group, or have a mutiny), causing more "drama" and a face-off between Rick and Abraham.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

BlearyEyed said:


> Wouldn't the easiest solution to the problem be that Sunday night someone starts a thread called "Walking and Talking Dead, OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"? It would seem that would allow the 90% of people who don't seem to care about Talking Dead spoilers to discuss both episodes? And then, if the vast minority wanted to they could start a (sure to be response filled) separate thread "Walking Dead OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"?


I like it



Hank said:


> I can't think of anything discussed on TTD that could be considered a "spoiler". All they're doing is talking about the show.. no different than what we're doing here in this thread. The info I posted from TTD was the same as Ereth -- some interesting backstory about Terminus (well, more "insight" from the producer than backstory) that would never be shown on the show. As long as nothing that can be construed as a "preview" of future shows (which can happen on TTD), I can't conceive how anyone would get upset at any TTD discussion about the current show here. But it wouldn't be the first time I don't get people.


They sometimes annoyingly go so far to avoid spoilers. Like the episodes where they have Kirkman on and the host keeps asking all these questions that the guy can't/refuses to answer because they MIGHT be spoilers. You're probably more likely to run into a spoiler here.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Hank said:


> I'm not sure that's what he was going for.. the first tag was not


No he got it right but I got sloppy.


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

dslunceford said:


> Do we really need two separate threads weekly to discuss an episode? One for the show, and another for talking about "the show that talks about the show"?


Yes.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Yes.


Since you appear to be one of the few advocating that position, can you elaborate as to why?

What if someone were to come in the WD thread and simply share the same info that was shared on TD but not attribute it to TD? Would that bother you?

Are those who watch WD but not TD actively wanting to avoid the behind-the-scenes info shared on TD? If so, why?


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

It does not bother me either way, but technically, the rules of the forum do not permit discussing another show in a thread without spoiler tags.

As for why some people might not like it...I can think of one possibility -- a person who watches both shows, but watches WD first, and then wants to discuss WD here without being spoiled for what will be on TD that they have not watched yet.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

john4200 said:


> It does not bother me either way, but technically, the rules of the forum do not permit discussing another show in a thread without spoiler tags.
> 
> As for why some people might not like it...I can think of one possibility -- a person who watches both shows, but watches WD first, and then wants to discuss WD here without being spoiled for what will be on TD that they have not watched yet.





BlearyEyed said:


> Wouldn't the easiest solution to the problem be that Sunday night someone starts a thread called "Walking and Talking Dead, OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"? It would seem that would allow the 90% of people who don't seem to care about Talking Dead spoilers to discuss both episodes? And then, if the vast minority wanted to they could start a (sure to be response filled) separate thread "Walking Dead OAD 10/19/14 "Strangers"?


Problem resolved.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

There's no logical reason why TD can't be discussed in the paired WD ed thread as long as you spoiler anything that could be construed as discussion about a future ep (which is HIGHLY unlikely on TD). I know what the "rules" state, but, being a child of the 60s, I'm advocating anarchy here....


----------



## Zevida (Nov 8, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Since you appear to be one of the few advocating that position, can you elaborate as to why?
> 
> What if someone were to come in the WD thread and simply share the same info that was shared on TD but not attribute it to TD? Would that bother you?
> 
> Are those who watch WD but not TD actively wanting to avoid the behind-the-scenes info shared on TD? If so, why?


Because I don't watch TD and it's annoying and creates a disjointed conversation to have posts about that show in this thread if you don't watch TD. I'll start to read a post, get confused about what they are talking about, then realize it's about a completely different show. Then the next post same thing. And no, I don't want to read about the behind the scenes stuff, if I did want that as part of my WD experience, I'd watch TD. This is no different to me than the GoT issue with the books. There should be a single, separate thread for people who want to discuss the outside the show stuff (TD, comics, behind the scenes, etc), and the show thread should be the show thread.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Zevida said:


> Because I don't watch TD and it's annoying and creates a disjointed conversation to have posts about that show in this thread if you don't watch TD. I'll start to read a post, get confused about what they are talking about, then realize it's about a completely different show. Then the next post same thing. And no, I don't want to read about the behind the scenes stuff, if I did want that as part of my WD experience, I'd watch TD. This is no different to me than the GoT issue with the books. There should be a single, separate thread for people who want to discuss the outside the show stuff (TD, comics, behind the scenes, etc), and the show thread should be the show thread.


Well said Zevida. I agree.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Zevida said:


> Because I don't watch TD and it's annoying and creates a disjointed conversation to have posts about that show in this thread if you don't watch TD. I'll start to read a post, get confused about what they are talking about, then realize it's about a completely different show. Then the next post same thing. And no, I don't want to read about the behind the scenes stuff, if I did want that as part of my WD experience, I'd watch TD. This is no different to me than the GoT issue with the books. There should be a single, separate thread for people who want to discuss the outside the show stuff (TD, comics, behind the scenes, etc), and the show thread should be the show thread.


I agree that people shouldn't be talking about the TD show in this thread (stuff like "Conan was funny" or "Lauren Cohan's legs looked awesome"). But I think this thread should be fair game for sharing and discussing the information learned on TD about the WD episode being discussed in this thread. There is frequently good info about what the writers intended for a specific scene, or why a character decided to make a certain decision.

I don't agree that this is analogous to the GoT show vs books. The GoT books are very different from the show so that's frequently what that discussion is about, and frequently those who have read the books let out spoilers about upcoming plots. But in TD they are always very careful not to share spoilers about upcoming episodes, and they rarely discuss the comics at all, because those are treated as a completely separate entity.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

Yeah I see the TD is no different than saying

"Hey I heard this theory on this other website about..." or saying "So and so who wrote that episode wrote an article about it and his thoughts, here it is" 
Neither having any spoilers

TD is just another source like that

TD is a PERFECT source to keep this thread moving along with new information about what you just watched and drives the discussion about certain parts.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Whether you think it makes sense or not, a lot of people don't watch TD and don't want stuff from TD coming into the WD thread. There's a rule about it. Follow the rule.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

JETarpon said:


> Whether you think it makes sense or not, a lot of people don't watch TD and don't want stuff from TD coming into the WD thread. There's a rule about it. Follow the rule.


Ok, I'll post links and quotes from articles that talk about stuff that was talked about stuff on TD 

That is fully allowed  Just kidding of course, but it's the same thing basically


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

JETarpon said:


> Whether you think it makes sense or not, a lot of people don't watch TD and don't want stuff from TD coming into the WD thread. There's a rule about it. Follow the rule.


:up:I agree.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Is there a thread to discuss the latest episode?


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

JETarpon said:


> Whether you think it makes sense or not, a lot of people don't watch TD and don't want stuff from TD coming into the WD thread. There's a rule about it. Follow the rule.


I agree also!!!

Gerry


----------



## Philosofy (Feb 21, 2000)

If we have a separate thread on Talking Dead, then someone will complain about someone spoiling an aspect of Walking Dead that wasn't covered on Talking Dead.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

A lot of people DO watch TD. It had very high ratings. There are no spoilers in the show.
I would say that more people watch it then don't.

To say that it gets confusing to follow threads is very different than to say it ruined your actual viewing of WD. Can anybody say they did not enjoy a WD episode because of anything anybody posted here about TD?

While I respect people's decisions to not watch TD. I think its patently unfair to expect us to try to segregate our conversations that are all about the same thing. The people on the show are talking about their reactions to the same thing we are talking about.

I suppose we should stop posting comments about ratings for the show or when it comes back on after hiatus or even recommend some other work the actor might have done.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

I see the Nazis have arrived...


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

It's simple... talk about WD in WD threads, and TD in TD threads.


----------



## MikeMar (Jan 7, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> It's simple... talk about WD in WD threads, and TD in TD threads.


It's simple, talk about the WD in the WD thread as long as it's not a spoiler, have at it

If you got info from another site, TD, your friend, your dog, or your own idea. Have at it


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Ok, so instead of saying "I heard on TTD..." we should just say "I heard somewhere..."


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I usually don't watch TD because it's another hour that I don't have. If I come here and find out info from there it's a plus. If people here say it was good, like this week, I watch it myself. I appreciate getting all this info in one thread. I don't mind having to click on spoiler tags to get it. 

Do they ever revisit the rules? Decide if they are still what the majority wants? Spoiler bans are fine, but if you get info about the making of an episode already watched, or what the writers intended that maybe didn't come through clearly, why ban that?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

stellie93 said:


> Do they ever revisit the rules? Decide if they are still what the majority wants? Spoiler bans are fine, but if you get info about the making of an episode already watched, or what the writers intended that maybe didn't come through clearly, why ban that?


This.. I've beem away from my computer all day and couldn't type out a long response. Sure there are rules about posting about one (different) show in another show's thread.. but this is a special case, it's not just "some other show".. it's a show about a show, where all they do is talk about the show, and take every effort not to disclose spoilers. Perhaps the rules need to change. We live in a democratic era, right? I mean (_and I mean this with absolutely no disrespect_) it's not like some religions and their texts that forbid themselves from being changed, and/or never change or update themselves with the changing times we live in.

When the TCF rules were written, perhaps there weren't shows talking about other shows like TTD, so perhaps the rules need to be modified? But just saying "the rules say you can't talk about show x in the thread about show y" and TWD is one show, and the TTD is a different show isn't what the rules were meant to enforce.

I understand peoples' need to be dogmatic about "the rules", but in this specific case, I think talking about insights or other cool facts revealed on TTD only help to enhance the discussions that take place here. There are no spoilers on TTD, it's more like reading the liner notes on a record album. Or what if the entirely of TTD was posted on the web in blog form? That seems like fair game to discuss in TWD thread, no? Just because the medium is "tv show" all of a sudden the exact same content is forbidden? Is there that much harm is allowing people who are interested in the main show (TWD) to occasionally mention some insights or funnies or behind the scenese stuff mentioned on TTD?


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Reading TD posts in WD threads (and the reverse, of course) seems appropriate because we are "Talking Dead" in WD threads anyway. Also, I've never heard spoilers on TD. 

However, I can avoid mentioning TD in WD threads if that is the consensus. No biggie. I'd hate for those who vehemently oppose or support the practice to stop contributing whichever way it goes.


----------



## n548gxg (Mar 7, 2003)

Hank said:


> We live in a democratic era, right? I mean (_and I mean this with absolutely no disrespect_) it's not like some religions and their texts that forbid themselves from being changed, and/or never change or update themselves with the changing times we live in.


Put up a poll and lets vote.


----------



## scandia101 (Oct 20, 2007)

I have a very strong feeling that starting with the next episode, we'll have combined episode threads as suggested by BlearyEyed and I'm sure people like Zevida will still read the new dual titled episode threads because that's where everyone will be.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

n548gxg said:


> Put up a poll and lets vote.


This ain't a democratic society here at TCF...it's a dictatorship run by the MAN


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Bierboy said:


> This ain't a democratic society here at TCF...it's a dictatorship run by the MAN


[Bierboy gets dragged into a black SUV, never to be seen again]


----------



## CraigK (Jun 9, 2006)

R. I. P.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

The rules haven't been updated since 2008 and they should be. Shows like TD and those on Netflix and season threads didn't exist back then and should be addressed in the rules. 

I don't remember this being a problem last year. TD had a season thread and it worked well.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I thought we went through all this drama seasons ago.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> [Bierboy gets dragged into a black SUV, never to be seen again]


That should read "African American SUV" ... racist! 

_PS: For the hyper-sensitive people, this entire post is meant as a joke._


----------



## DUSlider (Apr 29, 2005)

Can we create a separate thread for the discussion unrelated to the actual TWD/TTD episodes?

To me, the discussion of whether or not TTD should have it's own episode thread in TWD episode thread is more annoying than the discussion of what actually happened in TTD in the TWD episode thread.

I think it would be better to spoiler TTD related comments for those that are all bent out of shape about it, even if they aren't spoilers. To me it's more hassle to have to read two threads about technically the same thing.

It's like having a thread for World Series Game 1, and a separate thread for the Post Game show...


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

I don't watch Talking Dead, but I certainly don't mind it being mentioned in the Walking Dead threads. Their observations are really no different then the observations of folks that contribute to this thread. If I didn't want to read peoples observations, I wouldn't read this thread at all.

I like to read about things I might have missed in the episode and various views on what things mean. I don't care where the information came from.


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

getreal said:


> Is there a thread to discuss the latest episode?


Considering the number of threads here that frequently veer far away from the actual show the thread is supposed to talk about the only appropriate response to this question is "Are you new here?"


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

I can see why some people don't want what happens on TD mentioned in WD threads; TD is a much different show with a different mood and a different ethic. We don't want to sully the purity of our WD discussion with the fanboy antics of TD.

Can we also agree that what happens on WD should never be mentioned in TD threads?


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

ej42137 said:


> Can we also agree that what happens on WD should never be mentioned in TD threads?


Sounds fair 

My vote goes to "lump 'em together- it's the same damn episode we're talking about."


----------



## Jstkiddn (Oct 15, 2003)

To me it is no different than talking about Jeff Probt's blog in the Survivor thread.


----------



## David Platt (Dec 13, 2001)

There's online Conestoga footage that people discuss in the Survivor thread. It's always spoiled. That seems like a happy medium.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

David Platt said:


> There's online Conestoga footage that people discuss in the Survivor thread. It's always spoiled. That seems like a happy medium.


But there's almost nothing on TD that needs to be spoilered...so you end up with the equivalent of "My friend says [spoiler tags]..."

Spoiler tags do disrupt the flow of the discussion, especially when there are a lot of them. They should be saved for actual, you know, spoilers, and not a pedantic "Somebody said this somewhere else so I demand it be put in spoiler tags because a very careful, squint-eyed reading of rules written before this kind of thing existed makes it absolutely positively possible that it may be required."


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Can we not talk about "not talking about TD stuff in a WD thread"

It kills the thread for those of use that just do not care.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

robojerk said:


> Can we not talk about "not talking about TD stuff in a WD thread"
> 
> It kills the thread for those of use that just do not care.


I agree though the show talk would have probably ended before now.

I don't watch TD but don't care if it's discussed here, it's no different than the boring "Sepinwall says" stuff.


----------



## Beryl (Feb 22, 2009)

Should a poll be put up for 5 days and everyone agree with the results?


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Beryl said:


> Should a poll be put up for 5 days and everyone agree with the results?


A poll about whether to follow the forum rules or not?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Somehow I feel like Taylor for Gilmore Girls is hanging around this thread.
It's pretty clear more people than not are OK with discussing TD.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Jstkiddn said:


> To me it is no different than talking about Jeff Probt's blog in the Survivor thread.


At least in the survivor thread, if your want to go read the blog when discussion comes up, you can.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

Beryl said:


> Should a poll be put up for 5 days and everyone agree with the results?


Only if it's unanimous will everyone agree with the result, by definition.


----------



## JETarpon (Jan 1, 2003)

zalusky said:


> Somehow I feel like Taylor for Gilmore Girls is hanging around this thread.
> It's pretty clear more people than not are OK with discussing TD.


Hooray for the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

JETarpon said:


> Hooray for the tyranny of the majority.


Hooray for democracy!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Beryl said:


> Should a poll be put up for 5 days and everyone agree with the results?


hahahahaha.....you seriously think "everyone (would) agree/abide by the results?"

Dream on...


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

hummingbird_206 said:


> A poll about whether to follow the forum rules or not?


Sure, because, well, you know, EVERYONE follows the rules here....


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

JETarpon said:


> At least in the survivor thread, if your want to go read the blog when discussion comes up, you can.


And if there's something from TD discussed in the thread, you can go watch it if you want. I don't see the difference.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

scandia101 said:


> I have a very strong feeling that starting with the next episode, we'll have combined episode threads as suggested by BlearyEyed and I'm sure people like Zevida will still read the new dual titled episode threads because that's where everyone will be.


I sure hope this is what happens, but being in the west, I won't see the episode until several hours after the folks on the East Coast have seen it, so I'm hoping someone out there does the sensible thing and just creates a combined thread.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Wow, this blew up! I don't understand the spoiler concern about TD. Each week's episode discusses THAT week's episode of WD. Even their little preview bit is about 10 seconds of nothing. But any time anybody has posted anything that could be a spoiler (like from the little preview they have on TD each week), that I've seen, it's spoiler-tagged.

Devdog - Where I live, we have the east coast feed of the HD version of AMD (I'm in Pacific time) so WD airs at 6pm and TD airs right after, at 7pm. Before we had HD, the times were 9pm and 10pm respectively. So, either way, WD airs before TD. I don't know if that's helpful or not.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Hooray for democracy!


How would you know?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

sharkster said:


> Devdog - Where I live, we have the east coast feed of the HD version of AMD (I'm in Pacific time) so WD airs at 6pm and TD airs right after, at 7pm. Before we had HD, the times were 9pm and 10pm respectively. So, either way, WD airs before TD. I don't know if that's helpful or not.


I was simply saying that since I don't get WD until 9 pm PT and TD until 10 pm PT, and since I never watch live, I wouldn't be able to start the thread for the next episode because I won't see it until at least 3-4 hours after most everyone else.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

The TD/Wd thread handling is not like the GoT ep/GoT Book reader thread at all.

In one situation you have an ongoing thread for people who have spoiler knowledge to discuss actual spoilers. In the other situation you have people commenting on information that pertains to that week's episode, by people talking about that week's episode. There are no spoilers, it is not off topic, and in no way harms their viewing experience for the Walking Dead. The main complaints are 1. "I don't watch that show," and 2. "The Rules!!!"

I rarely watch TD. I discuss it even less. When I see people posting stuff from TD I find it interesting.

When I post something from TD it is so far and few between I am not going to go start another thread for it. I can be respectful enough to spoiler it in the show thread. But I will stick to my earlier assertion. A separate thread is stupid. There is not enough discussion from TD to garner its own thread, and it is quicker and easier for all involved for the TD viewers to just drop a spoilered post in the show thread. Its a compromise, since the TD stuff is not actually spoilers, and it allows conversation to continue with the least amount of fuss.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

Beryl said:


> Should a poll be put up for 5 days and everyone agree with the results?





hummingbird_206 said:


> A poll about whether to follow the forum rules or not?


Rules can be changed. Exceptions can be made. I'm a moderator on a fairly active forum, and we always try to listen to what the community is saying. If enough people think a rule should be changed or tweaked, it's definitely something we will give a lot of thought to.


----------



## ducker (Feb 21, 2006)

Shaunnick said:


> The TD/Wd thread handling is not like the GoT ep/GoT Book reader thread at all.


Except for the fact that it isn't like this at all.

since TD is based just on the WD universe from that episode prior.

Where as GoT Book is future knowledge.

I for one really like the TD references - as I don't feel like watching it but love the feedback from people who do.

the analogy of TD like blog posts from Survivor on Entertainment Weekly is a prime example of it. And I love that, if you so chose you can go read it and participate with that knowledge as well.. Or don't. There is nothing spoiling about it.


----------



## Shaunnick (Jul 2, 2005)

ducker said:


> Except for the fact that it isn't like this at all.
> 
> since TD is based just on the WD universe from that episode prior.
> 
> ...


Yes, we agree. I think you misunderstood what I posted.


----------



## desulliv (Aug 22, 2003)

smbaker said:


> That's the way I understood it, an extension of the cattle/butcher analogy. It's also the more humane way to do it. [/SNIP]


And those termites are nothing if not humane.

#latetotheparty

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

