http://i.imgur.com/kcJdCAx.gif
Ok. Makes sense.Randall said he came from a group of ~30 people. 8 months later, Woodbury is around 70 people. It's possible but I don't think they ever implied it.
Also: the guys in the bar claimed to travel a lot, so it doesn't sound like they were in one place all the time.
But this isn't what Carl argues.I find the comments about that scene to be very strange. It was clearly intentionally edited to make the validity of his decision ambiguous.
If the kid had been younger and/or he had directly dropped the gun it would be a no brainer that Carl should not have shot him.
If the kid had been older and/or he had motioned to fire at them (or was even was aiming the gun directly at them) them it would make his action completely understandable.
The director/editor clearly wanted the audience to debate this issue themselves. The clear intention was ambiguity.
Because Andrea didn't kill the governor, she did not only kill her self but also merle, milton and more than half of Woodsbury.
If thats not an example of consequences, I don't know what is.
I find the comments about that scene to be very strange. It was clearly intentionally edited to make the validity of his decision ambiguous.
If the kid had been younger and/or he had directly dropped the gun it would be a no brainer that Carl should not have shot him.
If the kid had been older and/or he had motioned to fire at them (or was even was aiming the gun directly at them) them it would make his action completely understandable.
The director/editor clearly wanted the audience to debate this issue themselves. The clear intention was ambiguity.
The camera intentionally cuts to Carl when he takes the shot so we as viewers don't know for sure what the kid was doing when Carl pulled the trigger. Because of this Hershel's perspective and Carl's perspective can both be seen as valid. That is the point I was trying to make, that the kid's actions and intentions were subject to interpretation based on the way the scene was edited.I would agree, but I wonder if that really was the intent based on the later dialogue about it ("he drew on us!" -- which he clearly didn't do).
To speak to your larger point, I completely agree. The quandary of what to do with strangers/outsiders was one of the central themes of the season and one of the reasons I liked this season so much. What I was trying to say in my post is that the scene was clearly edited in order to make the specifics of the encounter ambiguous. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me on that or not. If it had been more explicit that the kid was gunning for them or that he was trying to surrender then we as audience members would not be forced to debate the issue you refer to in your post.But this isn't what Carl argues.
When he talks to Rick he makes pretty clear that he takes zero chances. When you let someone live he might come back and kill a loved one. With that line of reasoning he would have shot the boy no matter what.
And the thing is that Carl sort of has a point. That is the ambiguity. Not that the kid was handing the gun over in a weird way.
EXACTLY! I hated her since start of season 2. This whole season I've been hoping she would finally be killed off. I do feel a little sad for the character. That's a lot more then I can say for Shane.I remember hearing that the actress was upset that everyone hated her character. How can we not hate Andrea? She a selfish know-it-all that ALWAYS makes the wrong choice.
I find the comments about that scene to be very strange. It was clearly intentionally edited to make the validity of his decision ambiguous.
If the kid had been younger and/or he had directly dropped the gun it would be a no brainer that Carl should not have shot him.
If the kid had been older and/or he had motioned to fire at them (or was even was aiming the gun directly at them) them it would make his action completely understandable.
The director/editor clearly wanted the audience to debate this issue themselves. The clear intention was ambiguity.
Right.
I remember hearing that the actress was upset that everyone hated her character. How can we not hate Andrea? She a selfish know-it-all that ALWAYS makes the wrong choice.
I expected a full blown battle between woodbury and the prison. Other then that, the finale wasn't that bad. Andrea death was surprising. Carl became a bad ass, and the governor became a crazy fucking big bad for next season. Also, the prison became a full blown community that will only bring more characters and plotlines to the story. Good shit.
Yeah, not really disagreeing but I think having him surrender more clearly would have been a better way to bring the point across. This way many just say that Carl was acting in self defense, while going by the talk he had with Rick it seemed more like he was killing him as a precaution.To speak to your larger point, I completely agree. The quandary of what to do with strangers/outsiders was one of the central themes of the season and one of the reasons I liked this season so much. What I was trying to say in my post is that the scene was clearly edited in order to make the specifics of the encounter ambiguous. I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me on that or not. If it had been more explicit that the kid was gunning for them or that he was trying to surrender then we as audience members would not be forced to debate the issue you refer to in your post.
Earlier in the season neither Carl nor Rick flinched when they encountered the hitchhiker at the start of "Clear". By the end of "Welcome to the Tombs", how might Rick and Carl have individually decided to deal with the same situation? I think that is going to be one of the central conflicts of the 4th season.
From Carl's POV I can see why he (and the viewer) would have perceived that the guy drew on him. He was eying Carl's gun, approaching him as he was about to make a move. When Carl mentions that "he drew on us" he is own POV of what happend.I would agree, but I wonder if that really was the intent based on the later duologue about it ("he drew on us!" -- which he clearly didn't do).
I find the comments about that scene to be very strange. It was clearly intentionally edited to make the validity of his decision ambiguous.
If the kid had been younger and/or he had directly dropped the gun it would be a no brainer that Carl should not have shot him.
If the kid had been older and/or he had motioned to fire at them (or was even was aiming the gun directly at them) them it would make his action completely understandable.
The director/editor clearly wanted the audience to debate this issue themselves. The clear intention was ambiguity.
Right.
What I hated about the finale was how Hershel fucking sensationalized the story to Rick about Carl
"HE GUNNED HIM DOWN, RICK"
"HIS GUN WAS ON THE FLOOR RICK, HE WAS BEGGING FOR HIS LIFE, BEGGING NOT TO GET SHOT RICK"
Stop Hershel - STAHP; or Carl will show you what it means to be gunned down
A couple of remarks
- Why doesn't anyone mind Carl murdering an innocent person? Everyone was like: 'Oh you murdered someone? Just tell us about how you want to join the adults and we'll forgive you.
- Who puts a suppressor on a sniper rifle?
- Why didn't the Governor's Homies kill him after he shot all those people? I remember the hispanic dude saying he had a wife (so he's not completely desentizised)
- I'm glad Andrea is dead
- Another season in the prison? Seems a bit boring to me (as in another S2 incoming)
- They should be heading for the coast, or at least a new destination.
- Why does it take Andrea 6 hours to pick up a pair of tweezers? I remember it taking 6 hours for a zombie to turn, unless the writers forgot that.