The Walking Dead Season 2 Discussion *Spoilers*

[Kosh Naranek]

Why would they need to keep Hershel's farm? If they are trying to keep their humanity would strong arming an old man for his resources be the way to go? I would say no.

If they needed a safe base, could they not have established their own base of operations? If there was one big farm there, would their not be others?

I think some of them were still tied to the idea of going to Benning. Some saw the comfort and liked the stability. I don't know that they all had made a conscious choice. I think Rick had because Lori is pregnant. He wanted to stay at H's place. So did Carol and Daryl because of Sophia.

 

[davejames]

^^^
Watch Panic in the Year Zero, a dated film from I think the 50's but the point is also evident in Tom Cruises War of the Worlds, the weak, the soft will be left behind or put into tow with the strong.
Mankind is still an animal, we just pretend we are above such things, and when push comes to shove I'm sorry but The Joker in TDK is right. He just didn't push enough.

Thankfully, this show has so far been about people hanging on to their Humanity in the face of a dehumanizing apocalypse. That's what has made it great, and hopefully that's how it will continue.

Agreed. We all may know that we're animals at heart, but that doesn't mean our society and morality isn't worth holding onto and preserving for as long as possible, or that we toss them aside the second everything goes to shit.

To suggest that the ONLY way to survive in that world is by becoming as cold and ruthless as Shane wants to be is ridiculous. Yeah, that method may work, but it's not the only one, as we've seen.

 

[davejames]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

But he said the walkers in the barn could be "restored." Finding a cure for an infectious disease might be realistic, bringing half-rotted corpses back to life is pretty clearly not.

I get the impression all that was just an excuse, and it was more that Hershel just couldn't bring himself to kill his family and friends (as painful as it was to see Sophia like that, imagine if you had that same attachment to every person in the barn).

And everone's piling on Hershel for being so unreasonable, but the thing I loved about the episode is you could kind of understand everyone's point of view. I probably wouldn't be comfortable with all those unpredictable, hot-headed people on MY farm either, to be honest. Lol

 

[Horta Burger]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

I get the impression all that was just an excuse, and it was more that Hershel just couldn't bring himself to kill his family and friends (as painful as it was to see Sophia like that, imagine if you had that same attachment to every person in the barn).

And everone's piling on Hershel for being so unreasonable, but the thing I loved about the episode is you could kind of understand everyone's point of view. I probably wouldn't be comfortable with all those unpredictable, hot-headed people on MY farm either, to be honest. Lol

Good points.

 

[Silvercrest]

"... unpredictable, hot-headed, HEAVILY ARMED people..."

Yeah, funny about that!

 

[propita]

While Shane wants to be a leader, Rick IS a leader. He’s willing to take on the dirty jobs because they have to get done and no one else is willing to do them. Even Darryl couldn’t bring himself to shoot Sophia. At that moment, he must’ve understood Herschel as he hadn’t before.

I liked how Glenn asked Maggie if it was okay. She’s seen what they can do and realizes her mom and brother (or stepmom or whatever) are long gone. What’s left are unfeeling creatures intent on killing her.

Gotta wonder what all this is gonna do to Carl next season. His attitudes are still forming. Without sucking ALL the time, I hope they show his conflicts, because they’re likely to be the visible versions of what the adults cannot bring themselves to express as much. They’ll just be mad until they finally act, Carl will act out from the start. I hope.

 

[Morpheus 02]

But he said the walkers in the barn could be "restored." Finding a cure for an infectious disease might be realistic, bringing half-rotted corpses back to life is pretty clearly not.

I get the impression all that was just an excuse, and it was more that Hershel just couldn't bring himself to kill his family and friends (as painful as it was to see Sophia like that, imagine if you had that same attachment to every person in the barn).

And everone's piling on Hershel for being so unreasonable, but the thing I loved about the episode is you could kind of understand everyone's point of view. I probably wouldn't be comfortable with all those unpredictable, hot-headed people on MY farm either, to be honest. Lol

Amen!

That's why people hate evangelical Christians try to "impose their will" when get elected to office.

Funny, cause I hate when secularists try to impose their will but hey that's alright in your book I bet. Double standard works fine.

And yes property rights go right out the window over human lives/needs in this case. Society has fundamentally changed. Not by legislation, not by vote but by force of nature that can't be controlled or reasoned with. The stupid redneck who cut off his own hand would've been shot by me long before. No time for bigots and racists in my group. It's survival time, get with the program. It's a new world.

Actually, i'm a born again Christian. But i understand why people "hate" Christians mixed with politics, and was trying to connect with them.

While a lot has changed, there are some things that at least should remain the same, and can since the "zombie virus" didn't automatically kill human compassion -- that still remains a choice.

(And even though things have changed, are a person's property rights suddenly null and void?)

Are human lives more important than property rights? Yes. Rick would have been justified telling Herschel, too bad, old man, my people are staying right here. If I had been Rick, I would have said exactly that. And I would have stuck a gun in his face to make sure he got the point.

If Hershel had booted them off the farm, he would be exposing living people to danger in order to save dead people who as far as we know are unsaveable. The gang would not all have been able to bring themselves to leave the area, thinking Sophia was still in the woods. They would have split up, endangering everyone even more, especially those who keep combing the woods.

How long would it take for Darryl and Carol to give up? Most likely, they would have stuck with it until the zombies got them. It would only be a matter of time. Is it worth sacrificing their lives for Herschel's fucking property rights?

(And I'm assuming Herschel didn't realize there was a little girl zombie recently put in the barn - by Otis? But why would Otis be out zombie-catching on his own? One of the others would have been with him. If Herschel knew that girl most likely was the one everyone was searching for, it's absolutely unconscienable for him to have said nothing, and allow them to continue to expose themselves to danger for no reason. Darryl almost died!)

However, the writers have positioned Shane to be "right" only by dumb luck. When he started towards the barn, I honestly was thinking, Zombie Lunch! It could very well have turned out disasterously. Shane was acting like an out-of-control lunatic.

The fact that he was out of control, not the fact that he was willing to do anything he needed to safeguard Lori, Carl and Lori's unborn baby (if not the rest), is where the problem with him lies.

So basically, in that situation, I'd be Shane, but a whole hell of a lot more self-controlled. The group desperately needs a leader like that.

Lots of valid points. But the thing I like is that Shane was right about the big picture. His first reaction upon learning about the barn: "We clear it out or we go." That's spot on. Anything in between is ultimately going to be a fiasco, as we saw. Far from being a complete nut, Shane offers the leader a choice; Rick refuses to make one while clearly wanting to stay. Humoring Hershel is a half measure when full measures are needed, to quote Breaking Bad.

It's the half measures that caused the end. Would Shane have been so out of control about it absent that surreal moment with Rick and Hershel walking their walkers? Absent arguing with people he thinks have completely lost it? Probably not. Half measures made it worse.

Shane and Rick kind of remind me of Kirk split in two on the original Star Trek. Rick has the inner strength the group needs to sustain itself, but he's vacillating and indecisive. Shane has decisiveness in spades, but he doesn't have control of himself deep down.

I don't know why people are saying Rick was being indecisive. He was "negotiating". Though it was taking time, he was building Herschel's trust. By even mentioning the Walkers in the barn as people, it really grabbed Hershel's attention. Had Rick been allowed to continue to "negotiate", it might have opened Herschel up to reality.

But by Shane's disregard, i could see Herschel possibly playing along for a while, but then quietly plotting to find a way to kill Shane, before someone innocent, or someone just as "right" as Shane gets killed for defying him.

Shane's insistence that they had to kill the Walkers now is an hyperbole -- this was aYellow alert situation, not red alert. The walkers didn't eat them while they slept, as Dale noted. And they were keeping watch now, which could work while Rick was negotiating

For those who really stand with Shane's "leadership", consider this:

It's much wiser to inspire people to follow you to the gates of hell, than to inspire them to send there on your own.

 

[Aeon]

I'm sure this has been already said, but... the difference between Rick and Shane is that Rick is able to do all the same dirty and difficult choices, but he can still keep his humanity intact. Sure, he is also much more diplomatic, but when push comes to shove, he will deliver without a doubt.

 

[auntiehill]

^Exactly. It's why Shane froze when he saw Sophia, but Rick was able to step up, no matter how much it hurt him, and put her down.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I don't know why people are saying Rick was being indecisive. He was "negotiating". Though it was taking time, he was building Herschel's trust. By even mentioning the Walkers in the barn as people, it really grabbed Hershel's attention. Had Rick been allowed to continue to "negotiate", it might have opened Herschel up to reality.

That's it right there. As Aeon mentioned, Rick is a diplomat, not a nutcase.

 

[davejames]

Shane's insistence that they had to kill the Walkers now is an hyperbole -- this was aYellow alert situation, not red alert. The walkers didn't eat them while they slept, as Dale noted. And they were keeping watch now, which could work while Rick was negotiating

Yeah it was a very manageable situation, as unpleasant as it was. Even if Hershel never did change his mind, I think it would have been well worth playing by his rules if it meant being able to stay.

Hell, considering the crazy new world they find themselves in, an old man keeping a bunch of zombies in a barn doesn't seem all THAT strange. After a couple weeks, it would probably seem as routine as anything else.

 

[Kegg]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

But he said the walkers in the barn could be "restored." Finding a cure for an infectious disease might be realistic, bringing half-rotted corpses back to life is pretty clearly not.

Not really. They do appear to be half-rotted corpses that by known medical science shouldn't be moving and acting at all... and yet, they are moving and acting and biting and eating. Zombies don't just move, they move with intent - they desire to eat living flesh. It's really pretty plausible to entertain the notion that the zombies are still alive in some sense.

 

[Scout101]

They move because a zombie apocolypse show would be boring without zombies, not because there's any medical explanation that would allow them to do so. They've cut into zombies before, the flesh is just dead. They SHOULDN'T be able to move, intent or not. Horrible wounds=no blood=nothing to keep muscles alive and functioning=stationary, dead zombies. Plus without eating far more regularly, they wouldn't even have the energy to moan. And in the 100 degree (mentioned on screen) Georgia heat, they'd have exploded in the sun after a few days. No water, no way to cool down, etc. How long does rotting meat last in the fun before it just falls apart? Better yet, before it's covered in so many flies that it's eaten down to the bones?

It's ok to suspend disbelief and just go with it, not so much to entertain reasons for why it would make sense in real life, because there aren't any.

 

[Derishton]

I think Shane is becoming a Rorschach test - and by that, I mean the character from the Watchmen. If you read Watchmen and think Rorschach is the hero, you might be inclined to think Shane is in any sense admirable. In fact, Rorschach at least has ethics and not simply principles: Shane is all about his survival and, to a lesser extent, the survival of his personal group. Rick thinks about the bigger picture, the possibility of a bigger group whose needs might all be met. That's not vacillation. That's leadership.

 

[J.T.B.]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

Not really. They do appear to be half-rotted corpses that by known medical science shouldn't be moving and acting at all... and yet, they are moving and acting and biting and eating. Zombies don't just move, they move with intent - they desire to eat living flesh. It's really pretty plausible to entertain the notion that the zombies are still alive in some sense.

The zombie plague "process" that animates dead bodies is established as fact; it has to be for the nature of the show. But from what the CDC guy said and what has been show, it is actual death and decomposition. What has been shown to support the leap that the process is reversible?



Justin

 

[Jax]

I think Shane is becoming a Rorschach test - and by that, I mean the character from the Watchmen. If you read Watchmen and think Rorschach is the hero, you might be inclined to think Shane is in any sense admirable. In fact, Rorschach at least has ethics and not simply principles: Shane is all about his survival and, to a lesser extent, the survival of his personal group. Rick thinks about the bigger picture, the possibility of a bigger group whose needs might all be met. That's not vacillation. That's leadership.

Anyone who thinks Shane is anyway a leader or a hero needs their brain checking, he is a horrible evil person + a giant ticking time bomb.

 

[Derishton]

I'm not sure I'd go that far, although Allan Moore has always expressed surprise that anybody thinks Rorschach is the hero of Watchmen. Shane is built a little differently as a character, but it does look as though Shane would appeal to certain political sentiments or beliefs about leadership. Or would be like Rambo, in that he becomes a kind of fantasy site for those who crave strong-man bully leadership.

 

[Kegg]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

Quite. One of Shane's strengths as a character - and this episode is a great example of it - is exposing the whole 'if I was in a zombie apoalypse' logic. A lot of the appeal of the zombie apocalypse fantasy is picturing oneself as the person with the primal amoral will to survive, doing whatever it takes, and so on. The series kind of exposes this in Shane as basically a kind of sociopathic cowardice.

What makes Shane interesting as a character is despite how low he's sunk, and how naturally this lowness comes to him, he wants to be the hero. He wants to do good. He wants to believe that his ends justify all his means. He's the same guy who'll beat a man to a pulp for abusing his wife and then try to rape someone else's.

The man is a ticking time bomb, and also one of the best reasons to keep watching the show.

They move because a zombie apocolypse show would be boring without zombies, not because there's any medical explanation that would allow them to do so.

Of course, but the behaviour of zombies by necessity requires one to reasses how we define living or dead. They do behave like living things, that they consistently desire food - that they desire at all - is a pretty strong practical evidence of that.

So for Hershel to consider the zombies living makes perfect sense. And while it's possible there may be no cure, that can also be said about many illnesses - the response to an incurable illness isn't necessarily to kill your patient. The shed thus was kind of a moral equivalent to a mental hospital, which is no doubt why Hershel brought up the example of schizoprenics - schizoprenics may be dangerous, schizoprenics may never get better, but that doesn't mean you shoot them in the head.

But from what the CDC guy said and what has been show, it is actual death and decomposition.

Not something that Hershel was ever told, however. This was one of the bigger oversights for me in how the group behaved (not that they're known for their foresight or competence).

 

[davejames]

Something tells me Hershel wouldn't have put much stock in what the CDC said anyway.

 

[J.T.B.]

Re: What Hershel saw (and how it changed him)

But from what the CDC guy said and what has been show, it is actual death and decomposition.

Not something that Hershel was ever told, however. This was one of the bigger oversights for me in how the group behaved (not that they're known for their foresight or competence).

Why would he have to be told? The evidence before his own eyes (and nose) would seem pretty convincing. Why would Herschel think that he could "restore" a body with tissues in that condition any more than he could for one who had died the old-fashioned way? I can't think of any reason except he's not thinking rationally on that point.



Justin