The Walking Dead Season 5
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
We're talking about a show where people do insanely horrible and evil things to one another, and you're sitting here with your panties in a bunch about two guys kissing.
As your priorities go, they're pretty messed up.
If you had kids - and I hope you don't, I hope you're as sterile as they come - you'd be telling them "when that guy brutally murdered Herschel, that was totally cool, but these two guys kissing, that's just wrong."
C'mon man.
Someone with a half-functioning brain. Or someone who isn't a bigot and doesn't treat other people, their feelings for each other or stories about them as lesser for no actual reason but because they feel entitled to judge them on account of their own ignorant (and frankly disgusting) point of view.
Sure you're entitled to your opinion. We are also entitled to mock your opinion because it is ridiculous.
And guess what? I also have an opinion. And in my opinion Jax is correct.
Last edited:
Seeing her psychotically eyeing up the baby was gut turning too. In fact, any time they flirt with doing harm to that baby (Like that punk Tyrese let go), they are crossing into a dark zone that pretty well no one has ever dared to tread on public tv
Yeah, when you think about it compared to that, that anyone can be upset at a little dude on dude smooching is pretty well mindbendingly insane
Now I actually hope they're on the show for years. I mean hell, if Abe & Rosita can have a full on knock boots scene while Eugene gawks & stashes it away in his spank bank, then wtf is the problem here?
A pregnant woman had to be sliced open to save her baby and then her preteen son had to put a bullet in her head, her body was then eaten by a zombie that had a bulging stomach from her remains.Seeing her psychotically eyeing up the baby was gut turning too. In fact, any time they flirt with doing harm to that baby (Like that punk Tyrese let go), they are crossing into a dark zone that pretty well no one has ever dared to tread on public tv
Yeah, when you think about it compared to that, that anyone can be upset at a little dude on dude smooching is pretty well mindbendingly insane
Now I actually hope they're on the show for years. I mean hell, if Abe & Rosita can have a full on knock boots scene while Eugene gawks & stashes it away in his spank bank, then wtf is the problem here?
Two men kissing is wholesome in comparison to that.
Nah. Bob Hope established long ago which political party comprises the bulk of the zombies in America: http://youtu.be/4a6YdNmK77k
In any event, I thought the following might be of interest given some of the discussions of where one should go in the event of a zombie attack: Cornell researchers find safest place to hide from zombies
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015...chers-find-safest-place-to-hide-from-zombies/
An article about zombies is probably the closest to reality FoxNews will ever get.
And with the rebuttal against Bob Hope, here's Bob Hope to tell us that zombies are bipartisan:
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_AgoX_jam8[/yt]
So, the heroes are off to another, seemingly peaceful outpost, when you know that is not going to last long.
The fact Morgan recognizes the carved symbols on his tracking adventure (and his scenes are in a different time period than the "A" story with the heroes) implies he's after a person or group with ties to Rick--possibly one which caused harm. Everyone points to the butchered walkers and graffiti on the walls of Noah's destroyed home base as the key to the next conflict, but Morgan's tracking cannot be left out in the wind with no connection to something. Probably game changing for the entire series.
Sasha's been a total ass in two episodes. No one grieves the same on this show, but her attitude was just distasteful, especially her line to Abraham.
In other news...
..and yet, you cannot see that from your position from "on high" (secular version), you are as intolerant and hateful as you (and others in this thread) are claiming the targeted member to be. Read your own post.
Not uncommon in this sociopolitical climate, where abuse and judgement are terrible..unless directed at those who do not share and promote your mindset of choice.
The blinders of hypocrisy at work.
The fact Morgan recognizes the carved symbols on his tracking adventure (and his scenes are in a different time period than the "A" story with the heroes) implies he's after a person or group with ties to Rick--possibly one which caused harm. Everyone points to the butchered walkers and graffiti on the walls of Noah's destroyed home base as the key to the next conflict, but Morgan's tracking cannot be left out in the wind with no connection to something. Probably game changing for the entire series.
Sasha's been a total ass in two episodes. No one grieves the same on this show, but her attitude was just distasteful, especially her line to Abraham.
In other news...
..and yet, you cannot see that from your position from "on high" (secular version), you are as intolerant and hateful as you (and others in this thread) are claiming the targeted member to be. Read your own post.
Not uncommon in this sociopolitical climate, where abuse and judgement are terrible..unless directed at those who do not share and promote your mindset of choice.
The blinders of hypocrisy at work.
I have to keep reminding myself that at some point Morgan will reappear. If it's this season, now I'm not entirely convinced it will be pleasant, considering what's happening now. These new people only seem to be willing to trust a person if they've vetted them with surveillance, & I doubt that's going to have happened if Morgan can track them to this new place, despite Rick vouching for him
& let's face it. Old Morgan wasn't exactly shuffling with a full deck the last time we had any interaction with him. I could see this new community rejecting him. Can't say for certain that's going to happen of course
Great, an extra half hour.
Surprised to see an episode description 5 epicodes in advance.
Intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance.
People didn't tolerate the actions and laws against blacks during the Civil Rights Era and spoke out in protests, marches, riots and so forth against those favoring Jim Crow laws and treating minorities like second-class citizens.
The difference is one group of intolerant people wanted to treat an entire group of people, based on nothing more than their skin color, as second-class citizens.
The other group of intolerant people wanted everyone to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and by society as a whole.
Same thing here.
We have people who have problems with homosexuals and them being portrayed on TV as being in normal, loving, relationships. Feeling that such a thing does not belong on a TV series featuring enough brutal, bloody, slaying of corpses on a weekly basis that a montage of it is dedicated to it in the following program. These people do not feel this belongs on TV and that it being here is part of some agenda by a group of people wanting to be accepted as equals.
On the other side? We have a group of people think there's nothing wrong with having gay people portrayed normally on a TV series, and feel that people who DO have a problem with it are living in an old, backwards, time of intolerance towards others.
These are two very different things.
If someone has a problem with homosexuals and it being on TV they are certainly entitled to have that opinion and to feel that way. I just happen to think that they are wrong and that there's nothing at all wrong with showing to adult men and a committed, loving, relationship and showing genuine affection for one another. Nor do I think it is part of any agenda or is out of place on a TV series that has and has had numerous mixed-sex relationships portrayed and has a great deal of violence in it.
If a government agency or some other legal entity wants to tell people they cannot express their problems with homosexuality I'll be right there with you say that that is wrong.
I support a person's right to say things, even if I may disagree with it.
There's nothing wrong with the homosexual relationship seen in this episode. Nothing. Was a bit ham-fisted in how it was portrayed and revealed? Perhaps. But the existence of it is not a problem for me. It belongs on TV as much as the heterosexual relationships do. Nor do I think it's part of any "agenda" other than the "agenda" of wanting to be seen and treated as equal people.
And I think anyone who does have a problem with it is living in the past and needs to ask themselves why they have a problem with this when nothing else on the show bothers them, including the gay character we already have. Or why the idea of homosexuality is a problem for them -other than Biblical reasons- in such an aggressive manner to be so turned off by it when they see it on TV.
Hey, I can't say I'm entirely comfortable seeing two men kiss or behave in such a loving manner, it's awkward for me to see simply because it's not something I have great exposure to. But I don't have a problem with it, the idea with it, nor do I think it's part of any agenda. I also think it's great that it's there and more open, it's a pretty big risk for a TV series to take. Any TV series.
But, I don't understand the reaction of thinking it's unnecessary or playing to an agenda when a few episodes ago we saw Abraham's baby-seal smooth backside thrusting into Rosita's lovehole while the mulleted Eugene watched over it.
So that's perfectly okay and not worth of an "out of place/heterosexual agenda" comment. But two men showing some degree of romantic love is?
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was referring to ghosts, not zombies, in that clip, insofar as its from a different film, "The Cat and the Canary," which is a haunted house movie.
Yeah, the current idea of zombies were invented by George Romero in Night of the Living Dead. Before that zombies were associated with voodoo and living humans under a spell. Although Romero called them ghouls in the film, which are traditionally corpses that eat flesh.
...which does not justify the overt hate, insult and assumed "correct" position used against that member. In their quick attempt to attack and bury someone not following the current sociopolitical issue is the textbook example of hypocrisy, as that behavior--the attackers love to say--caused them so much pain, etc.
If they cannot see than their aggressive attempt to crush the opinion of another is no different than opposing attempts making the same, slightly reworded arguments, then they deserve no respect whatsoever, as respect in their eyes is--apparently--only suited for their like-minded mob.
Remember, once someone or a group feels they are in the "driver's seat", all of the cloudy words of equal airing of opinions and the alleged "mosaic of beliefs" are hurled out of the window like hot coal, as they feel THE lone packaged opinion belongs to one, so all others must be silenced / ridiculed / despised, etc.--as seen in this thread.
The perfect self-imposed boomerang waiting to happen.
It is now--as it always has been in horror film/TV history--to expect the focus to be on......the horror elements, without the externally influenced or soap opera elements that have their own genres. Make no mistake: i'm not saying character interaction is not necessary in horror, but one of the criticisms of TWD is that it is more soap opera that merely uses the occasional zombie / gross violence to say it is not a soap opera.
Imagine the outcry if for all of the typical plotting of Grey's Anatomy or Scandal was suddenly showered with overtly supernatural plots, such as werewolves, demon possession, man-made monsters or..hmm...reanimated, flesh-eating corpses?
The base would howl in protest. That is the basis of the complaint about certain plotting elements which have found their way into TWD. Need I direct this board to the many WD boards, where (for example) "shipping" or politically-laced threads number in the hundreds, and only steer the conversation away from real plot development?
Did anyone fail to say it was an unwelcome sight? I recall some fans finding it unnecessary, and only served to make Eugene appear to be a bigger misfit than already established...and they were right.
Crept in? You mean like the drama elements that have been there since the second episode? That came straight from the source material?
And now you're using the free speech argument? You are aware this is a privately run website and not bound by the bill of rights?
You might want to check on your use of the word "hypocrisy".
And now you're using the free speech argument? You are aware this is a privately run website and not bound by the bill of rights?
You might want to check on your use of the word "hypocrisy".
As you've noticed, anybody who's not a bigot is able to tell you that you're wrong.
Indeed. The show has never been about the threat the zombies pose. Pretty much from the beginning they've been little more than a nuisance that the characters have had to deal with. Or a plot device to push the characters a certain way (so we're not still on that god-forsaken farm!) The show has always been about the characters and the drama there; what happens to people, what can happen to people and how a group of people stripped of society and civilization cope and behave.
Way to miss the point. I don't recall anyone saying anything about that scene beyond that it made Eugene look like a creeper. Which, well, it did. But wasn't my point.
My point was that here we have Abraham and Rosita engaged in an almost not-safe-for-even-basic-cable sex scene and no one batted an eye or complained. People with hyper-religious values didn't moan that Abraham and Rosita weren't married or even seemed to be in a committed relationship beyond "fuck-buddies" but it happened.
Shane, as a plot-point, nearly rapes Lori. No problems.
Lori and Shane have sex in the woods, her having just lost her husband and him his best-friend (as far as they both know). No problems. Maybe some judgment on Lori's choices and devotion to her husband and Shane his best friend's, but overall no problems and chalked up to being desperate for any sense of normalcy in the face of overwhelming tragedy. (The fall of society.)
Maggie drops her clothes and all-but mounts Glenn before he even knows what's happening simply because it's the end of the world and her options are limited. No problems.
Andrea has at least two romantic nights with The Governor, one at a point where we know he's a manipulative mad-man with his own agenda. No problems.
Carol and Daryl with their sorta/notta relationship that's given birth to a brand of shippers. Daryl's passiveness and reluctance to it having raised questions to his true sexuality. No problems.
Tara, moans about being denied by a female co-worker and hooks-up with a woman at the camp found by The Governor, we get no real romance scenes or sex scenes with them, but the show made no shame about Tara being a lesbian. No problems.
The Governor and What's-Her-Name do it in a box-van in the presence of her sister and grade-school aged niece. No problems.
But, here, we have two male characters sharing a heart-felt moment of closeness, tenderness and romantic love and now some people have a problem with it and are saying it was unneeded and out of place. Only there to serve some-kind-of agenda.
See what's going on here?
We've had love triangles, heterosexual relationships, heterosexual sex scenes and even already implied lesbian relationships/sex. No problems. No relationship focusing problems, no heterosexual-agenda problems, no homosexual-agenda problems. Nothing.
But, two men in a relationship? NOW there's a problem for some people?
Sorry, that smells just a bit fishy.
Similar threads
