• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

‘The Walking Dead’ - Season 3 - Sundays on AMC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prologue

Member
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.
 
kcJdCAx.gif
 

Tom_Cody

Member
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.
Ok. Makes sense.
 

Kinyou

Member
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.
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.
 

LakeEarth

Member
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 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.
 

SickBoy

Member
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.

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).
 

Tom_Cody

Member
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).
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.

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.
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.
 

GulAtiCa

Member
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.
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 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 think they wanted it to be ambiguous, but that was not how it was shot. Going by what was seen, Carl was in the 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 did feel a little bad when she died because I met Laurie Holden at a con once after Season 1 aired and she was really nice. We talked about the Silent Hill movie and what it was like working with Christopher Gans. Carl was there too. The show hadn't really taken off at that point but she was really excited about it.

She was definitely one of my most hated characters. I can see why she would be upset but I guess there isn't much you can do when your character is being written that way.
 
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.

No, it's not good shit. I don't know if a single fucking person wanted yet another season with the governor as you suggest. He's outworn his welcome, she show needed to completely conclude his storyline and move on. We're in a zombie apocalypse, it just seems there should be a wider, more macro picture, this season for me just came off as small potatoes, warring with a guy/a town for the entire fucking season and in the same damn location. What wasted potential, when they could be travelling, constantly discovering new places, in survival mode, instead of using an entire season to hype up a "war" that never happens.
 

Kinyou

Member
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.
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.
 
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).
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.

From Hereschel's POV I can see why he would as he (and the viewer) can definitely take that scene as Carl killing the guy in cold blood, that the victim was giving up his weapon and was not a threat.

You have to take into account that the individual charachter's (and by extension the viewers) are perceiving events differently. And that was clearly the intent of the editor and director in this scene.
 

jonezer4

Member
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.

If the clear intention is ambiguity, then don't have Herschel comment on it like it was completely unambiguous in the following scene. Or have Carl himself make no reference to the dubiousness of the situation. ("Dad, I told him to drop the gun and he started creeping up on me -- I didn't trust him.")

I don't think anyone has a problem with the scene itself. It's the two following scenes where all the characters involved for whatever reason completely gloss over THE DUBIOUSNESS that WE the audience saw. That disconnect is why people are commenting and confused, not the scene itself.

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

Lol. This! It would have made sense if Hershel had some kind of ulterior motivation to exaggerate what happened. But as it happened, I think Herschel really did come off as some twat just trying to start shit.
 

Onemic

Member
I thought the season finale sucked major balls, but I'm soooo happy Andrea got, got. She had it coming a mile away and was the biggest dumbass on the show.
 

Martian

Member
first of all



10/10



Secondly; weird season finale

I feel they had better killed off Governor, as I can't see his role in the next season.
Or (and I'm speculating, and haven't read the comics) he going away and coming back a few season from now with a new crazy army.



A couple of remarks

- why was Carl mad at Rick at the episode beginning?
- 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.


Alright episode, somewhat mediocre as a season finale. I want some more stuff like 'Ricktatorship' and I want to bloody see the new season now.
Now i feel like waiting a couple of months because I'm totally stuffed on TWD.

The music in this episode was awesome, though.
 
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.

-dude was being shady when putting down his shit. carl told him to drop it, not inch closer to him with the gun still in hand
-smart people who dont want to attract walkers
-probably because they were shocked. look at their faces when they got in the car with him, it was more a "WTF?!" expression rather than approval
-as am i
-we dont know if it'll a whole season or just a couple episodes. nothing is confirmed yet
-they should and they probably will
-the time it takes to turn varies. if it was a filipino in that situation, they would've been out of there with time to spare.

FYI, filipinos are very skilled at using their feet as a third hand. it's both amusing and disturbing at the same time.
 
What made Carl's decision so jarring is that he didn't give a second warning. Usually, its something like:
1. drop your weapon!
(doesn't follow order)
2. Dammit I said drop it!!
(still doesn't follow order)
3. BLAM!!!

The kid didn't immediately follow the first direction and Carl plugged him. Herschel was right to be distressed about it...after all he did just see one child kill another kid and is remorseful about it. Carl understandably fired first and explained later.

In fact, Carl has pretty good reason to tell everyone to fuck off. He went to the infirmary, finding supplies to bandage Herschel's leg. He made the call to rescue Michonne outside the gates. He rescued Tyreese's group from the Tombs. He saved his father from being shot by Morgan, and found a keepsake for his little sister. So the young man would kindly appreciate it if you got off his balls for a moment and stop treating him like an idiot. Last season I kept hoping he'd get devoured, but hes developed a brass pair this season and should be recognized for it.


About the "war" that didn't happen: remember that the governor had his little army of henchmen, and over the course of the season they were whittled down. Michonne took out a couple, a few more when the Prison group rescued their hostages, Merle left, and came back to take out some more. By the end, the governor was left with "civilians" that really didn't know what he was about.

Oh one last thing about about the shell casing and Andrea: I didn't think Rick gave her his own personal hand cannon. I thought he was carrying a spare, after all they were loaded for assault on Woodbury.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom