The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion *Spoilers* - Page 116

Sindatur · March 27 2012, 03:18 PM

DarthTom wrote:

Caligula wrote:

Sindatur wrote:

With Michonne's Zombie belt having their arms removed (and, I didn't notice, but, another poster pointed out the jaws were removed as well), the idea is not much different from Ricks idea of smearing Zombie guts all over their bodies

Agreed. Her method just happens to be a bit more efficient seeing as how Rick's idea went POOF! once the rain came down.

You guys lost me. So Michonne had actual zombies in tow or just body parts? I missed that on the final scene if so.

I can't host pictures, but, if you google images, for "walking dead michonne zombies", the first picture that comes up, is what you're looking for.

@wissaboo maybe you should watch reruns, and give yourself nightmares, that'll be like having new episodes that no one else gets to see

Caligula · March 27 2012, 03:21 PM

DarthTom wrote:

Caligula wrote:

Actual zombies, just without their arms or lower jaws.

I wonder if anyone can pull a screen capture of that.

The screen captures I found were too dark to demonstrate the missing lower jaws of the zombies, but here's a neat comparison between the TV screenshot and the comic book panel:

http://www.movievine.com/wp-content/.../Picture-1.png

Reverend · March 27 2012, 10:21 PM

DarthTom wrote:

Caligula wrote:

Sindatur wrote:

With Michonne's Zombie belt having their arms removed (and, I didn't notice, but, another poster pointed out the jaws were removed as well), the idea is not much different from Ricks idea of smearing Zombie guts all over their bodies

Agreed. Her method just happens to be a bit more efficient seeing as how Rick's idea went POOF! once the rain came down.

You guys lost me. So Michonne had actual zombies in tow or just body parts? I missed that on the final scene if so.

As others have already said, yes; actual zombies *missing* certain body parts. The very body parts that would pose a threat to her. The idea being that by having them around and safely disarmed and de-fanged, other walkers will leave her alone (provided of course that she does nothing overt to draw attention to herself.) Just carrying around body parts wouldn't work as well since, as rain washes the stench away, whereas a pair of walkers have an inexhaustible supply of stench. It also allows her to get up close to stray walkers for a quick, easy and silent kill, as we clearly saw.

There are other reasons for her travelling like that, but I don't want to spoil anything.

Captain Craig · March 27 2012, 10:30 PM

^^^
My friend and I felt it would hinder her from moving very fast.
Walkers stumble and generally move slowly(with exception) so we questioned how she seemingly 'just there'.

We see Andrea struggling on the ground in a fairly open, fairly flat if wooded area and then *slice* the hooded figure is just suddenly there. How exactly did she just appear? Seems Andrea should've seen her at some point in that final stretch before she ends up on her back struggling with the one Walker.

Sindatur · March 27 2012, 10:46 PM

Captain Craig wrote:

^^^
My friend and I felt it would hinder her from moving very fast.
Walkers stumble and generally move slowly(with exception) so we questioned how she seemingly 'just there'.

We see Andrea struggling on the ground in a fairly open, fairly flat if wooded area and then *slice* the hooded figure is just suddenly there. How exactly did she just appear? Seems Andrea should've seen her at some point in that final stretch before she ends up on her back struggling with the one Walker.

Well remember, Andrea started out at the farm, not too long after sun down, in the middle of a massive horde of zombies, when Michonne caught up with her, it appeared the sun was just coming up, so, she's been fighting for her life every second, all night long, she's gotta be exhausted, and therefore can barely run or stand. michonne on the other hand, is just slowly sauntering along, blending in with the zombies, Andrea may simply have not seen her, or Michonne may have been behind a tree or something

Reverend · March 29 2012, 01:23 AM

^Indeed. Slow and steady wins the zombie race. I mean come on, if a person is travelling exclusively on foot, I can't see that those walkers are going to slow her down *that* much. It's not as if she's liable to be able to sprint all day if only she didn't pull those two along.

Plus of course, being at a walking pace is part of the disguise. You can be pretty sure that if she just suddenly started jogging that every walker with a line of sight would instinctively chase after her...then the ones that seem them dash off instinctively follow and so on and so forth and before you know it, there'd be a bloody horde slowly running her down.

Immolatus · March 29 2012, 06:24 AM

Reverend wrote:

^Indeed. Slow and steady wins the zombie race. I mean come on, if a person is travelling exclusively on foot, I can't see that those walkers are going to slow her down *that* much. It's not as if she's liable to be able to sprint all day if only she didn't pull those two along.

Plus of course, being at a walking pace is part of the disguise. You can be pretty sure that if she just suddenly started jogging that every walker with a line of sight would instinctively chase after her...then the ones that seem them dash off instinctively follow and so on and so forth and before you know it, there'd be a bloody horde slowly running her down.

plus were was she going? all alone with nowhere to go. Were would you go. world is gone. I'm not sure were I would head out after the first few months.

Mutenroshi · March 29 2012, 11:48 AM

So The Walking Dead pulled in a 9 million rating and Mad Men's season premiere pulled in 3.5 millions.
Remind me why was Darabont shafted?

Hugo Rune · March 29 2012, 03:32 PM

^^ And yet, for all of that, the back stretch of episodes (specifically 9-13) were significantly more entertaining than pretty much anything else the show has done since the pilot. And it's not due to "significant deaths", but rather a sense of direction and purpose building in the characters.

Only season 3 will truly tell, but I think the show is actually in better hands with Mazzara and Kirkman than Darabont. Kirkman himself said in an interview that Shane was a detriment to the story growing and evolving, because in the end it is Rick's story. Having Shane around pricks up the tension a touch, but holds Rick back. Removing Shane was the biggest and best move the show could have made - and I actually liked him and especially the actor.

What is really frustrating about those finale ratings is that it shows the Execs they were "correct" to cut the budget on season 2. The show's overall ratings on Season 2 were higher than season 1, so the sad truth is: why give the show any more money for season 3?

For all of the annoyed fans complaining about the fact that we spent the vast majority of 12 episodes at the Farm, the ratings didn't reflect it.

Expect to see Season 3 concentrated in one setting too.

Though fans of the comics will know that this will almost be a certainty anyway.

What I am interested in is (barring Lori, ugh) I find the general dialogue writing of the show to be significantly greater than the comic. The characters are harder to like, but I prefer what they say. In fact I had to stop reading the comic because the writing was so damned trite. What the comic does better, however, is the general storytelling, the motivations of the characters. Kirkman to me is a little like George Lucas - nice, fun, big ideas, can't write them for shit.

So, for me, I am hoping to see more of those big Kirkman ideas tailored by Mazzara's writing. And in my opinion, he's a damn fine TV writer.

Still, it's a shame that Darabont couldn't bring his vision to the screen, but I'm not mourning the loss. I'll look forward to his new show, LA Noir AND the new season of TWD.

Hugo - re-convert to TWD

Tom Hendricks · March 29 2012, 03:53 PM

My only issue with how Shane died, was how he died. As in being killed by Rick and then put down by Carl. I personally would have preferred that Carl actually killed Shane to protect his father. You could have kept the same setup, with Shane leading Rick out into the woods, with Carl following them. I would have had Carl find the gun that Shane hid and that Shane would have been killed with his own gun. I think it would have been a little more satisfying in the end, to me at least.

sojourner · March 29 2012, 04:32 PM

Hugo Rune wrote:

What is really frustrating about those finale ratings is that it shows the Execs they were "correct" to cut the budget on season 2. The show's overall ratings on Season 2 were higher than season 1, so the sad truth is: why give the show any more money for season 3?

I wouldn't say it meant they were "correct", more that they got away with it. You cite yourself that the last half of the season was better than the first half. How much of that is due to money saving measures in the first half? How much better would the entire season have been? how much higher could the ratings have been if not for the bad word of mouth generated by the first half of the season?

marillion · March 29 2012, 09:38 PM

Tom Hendricks wrote:

My only issue with how Shane died, was how he died. As in being killed by Rick and then put down by Carl. I personally would have preferred that Carl actually killed Shane to protect his father. You could have kept the same setup, with Shane leading Rick out into the woods, with Carl following them. I would have had Carl find the gun that Shane hid and that Shane would have been killed with his own gun. I think it would have been a little more satisfying in the end, to me at least.

Might that be chalked up to "cultural sensitivity" toward seeing a child commit such an act of violence? Zombies, sure.. But an actual human life?

I know it's a stretch, but with the way networks think, these days, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason.

Then again, it could have just been the writers giving Carl an "act of redemption" for not killing the zombie that killed Dale...

Takeru · March 29 2012, 10:00 PM

marillion wrote:

Might that be chalked up to "cultural sensitivity" toward seeing a child commit such an act of violence? Zombies, sure.. But an actual human life?

I know it's a stretch, but with the way networks think, these days, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the reason.

I'm pretty sure the reason was that Rick had to kill Shane to not look like an even bigger idiot than he already is. In the comics Carl saving Rick worked because Rick had no reason not to trust Shane, in the series after everything that happened it would have been ridiculous if Rick had walked into Shane's idiotic trap unprepared. No one in the audience could ever accept Rick as a leader if he had done that.

davejames · March 30 2012, 12:58 AM

Hugo Rune wrote:

What I am interested in is (barring Lori, ugh) I find the general dialogue writing of the show to be significantly greater than the comic. The characters are harder to like, but I prefer what they say. In fact I had to stop reading the comic because the writing was so damned trite. What the comic does better, however, is the general storytelling, the motivations of the characters. Kirkman to me is a little like George Lucas - nice, fun, big ideas, can't write them for shit.

Yeah I know a lot of fans seem to want that simpler, more comic booky approach, but I really like how the writers are attempting to make the show feel as real and emotionally honest as possible.

Even if that risks it being a bit too slow or soapy at times, I still find that a lot more interesting than if it was just a string of crazy characters and shocking events.

wissaboo · March 30 2012, 01:01 AM

am I the only one who wanders around thinking things like....

do any of them know how to make cheese? what if they reform some sort of society and cheese becomes a lost art.

or chocolate. How long will it take before they can import cocoa again?

or bread. where does yeast come from? how are they going to make bread? do any of them know how to make baking soda? how are they going to make cookies? do I want to make cookies without chocolate chips? would a life without cheese even be worth living?

March 27 2012, 10:30 PM	#1729
Captain Craig Vice Admiral Location: Nashville,TN	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers ^^^ My friend and I felt it would hinder her from moving very fast. Walkers stumble and generally move slowly(with exception) so we questioned how she seemingly 'just there'. We see Andrea struggling on the ground in a fairly open, fairly flat if wooded area and then slice the hooded figure is just suddenly there. How exactly did she just appear? Seems Andrea should've seen her at some point in that final stretch before she ends up on her back struggling with the one Walker. __________________ "Picard never hit me." Q-Less(DS9) "Freedom is the Right of All Sentient Beings" Optimus Prime Twitter:http://twitter.com/#!/CaptainCraig1

March 29 2012, 01:23 AM	#1731
Reverend Rear Admiral Location: UK	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers ^Indeed. Slow and steady wins the zombie race. I mean come on, if a person is travelling exclusively on foot, I can't see that those walkers are going to slow her down that much. It's not as if she's liable to be able to sprint all day if only she didn't pull those two along. Plus of course, being at a walking pace is part of the disguise. You can be pretty sure that if she just suddenly started jogging that every walker with a line of sight would instinctively chase after her...then the ones that seem them dash off instinctively follow and so on and so forth and before you know it, there'd be a bloody horde slowly running her down. __________________ Star Trek Logos - Dark Knight Adventures - DeviantArt

March 29 2012, 11:48 AM	#1733
Mutenroshi 亀仙人 - 武天老師 Location: Mutenroshi	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers So The Walking Dead pulled in a 9 million rating and Mad Men's season premiere pulled in 3.5 millions. Remind me why was Darabont shafted? __________________ Let There Be Rock! Jack Beauregard: "You shine like the door of a whorehouse!" *Nobody:* "I like folks to see me."

March 29 2012, 03:32 PM	#1734
Hugo Rune Fleet Captain Location: On The Beat...	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers ^^ And yet, for all of that, the back stretch of episodes (specifically 9-13) were significantly more entertaining than pretty much anything else the show has done since the pilot. And it's not due to "significant deaths", but rather a sense of direction and purpose building in the characters. Only season 3 will truly tell, but I think the show is actually in better hands with Mazzara and Kirkman than Darabont. Kirkman himself said in an interview that Shane was a detriment to the story growing and evolving, because in the end it is Rick's story. Having Shane around pricks up the tension a touch, but holds Rick back. Removing Shane was the biggest and best move the show could have made - and I actually liked him and especially the actor. What is really frustrating about those finale ratings is that it shows the Execs they were "correct" to cut the budget on season 2. The show's overall ratings on Season 2 were higher than season 1, so the sad truth is: why give the show any more money for season 3? For all of the annoyed fans complaining about the fact that we spent the vast majority of 12 episodes at the Farm, the ratings didn't reflect it. Expect to see Season 3 concentrated in one setting too. Though fans of the comics will know that this will almost be a certainty anyway. What I am interested in is (barring Lori, ugh) I find the general dialogue writing of the show to be significantly greater than the comic. The characters are harder to like, but I prefer what they say. In fact I had to stop reading the comic because the writing was so damned trite. What the comic does better, however, is the general storytelling, the motivations of the characters. Kirkman to me is a little like George Lucas - nice, fun, big ideas, can't write them for shit. So, for me, I am hoping to see more of those big Kirkman ideas tailored by Mazzara's writing. And in my opinion, he's a damn fine TV writer. Still, it's a shame that Darabont couldn't bring his vision to the screen, but I'm not mourning the loss. I'll look forward to his new show, LA Noir AND the new season of TWD. Hugo - re-convert to TWD __________________ inconsessum persequor

March 29 2012, 03:53 PM	#1735
Tom Hendricks Muad'Dib Location: Syracuse, NY	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers My only issue with how Shane died, was how he died. As in being killed by Rick and then put down by Carl. I personally would have preferred that Carl actually killed Shane to protect his father. You could have kept the same setup, with Shane leading Rick out into the woods, with Carl following them. I would have had Carl find the gun that Shane hid and that Shane would have been killed with his own gun. I think it would have been a little more satisfying in the end, to me at least. __________________ I believe in the teachings of the middle ground. I maybe blind but my heart can see. Of course I'm a creationist. I believe man created god.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

March 30 2012, 01:01 AM	#1740
wissaboo Captain Location: canada	Re: The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion Spoilers am I the only one who wanders around thinking things like.... do any of them know how to make cheese? what if they reform some sort of society and cheese becomes a lost art. or chocolate. How long will it take before they can import cocoa again? or bread. where does yeast come from? how are they going to make bread? do any of them know how to make baking soda? how are they going to make cookies? do I want to make cookies without chocolate chips? would a life without cheese even be worth living?