Or the kid was pretending to be enthusiastic because he wanted Shane to actually come with him to the other group rather then either kill him or lock him back in the barn.
Honestly, the whole thing with Randall was sort of convoluted. If they’d just left him locked in the barn till his other group moved on they would’ve been fine. They claim food was a problem, but in the same episode they talk about having to round up a dozen escaped cows. And there’s a world full of abandoned convenience stores with Twinkys and multivitamins to draw on. And if they had let him go, and he had found his way back to the other group, and that group really had been full of murders and rapists, even then it doesn’t seem really likely that group would make their way through zombie infested territory to attack the prepared and well armed Hershall Farm just out of spite.
Anyone that has read the comics know if there will be new additions to the group? I’m assuming there will have to be or else they’ll run out of characters. Are the comics worth reading? I’ve been thinking about starting them, but don’t want to spoil the show too much.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, there are a lot more characters. In general the comics are a lot bloodier, more violent, and pessimistic than the series. There are some major differences between the series and the comics so one doesn’t spoil the other too much.
Just saw the episode and the complaints about the dropped gun being a plot hole are nonsense.
He had to drop the gun so he would be justified in running away from the zombie.
Because Carl lost the gun, he’s forced to retreat. If Carl kept the gun, he’d have just shot the zombie ten seconds later after gaining some distance on it. Carl would have had his come-to-Jesus moment sooner, which would have made the scene where he shoots Shane less intense.
So he drops the gun, can’t confront his fear about shooting the zombie. Then later, he overcomes the fear to save his dad.
“Pretty much resolved?” That’s a joke, right? I remember you going into one of your irrational tirades about how there couldn’t possibly be a no-gun rule because Otis shot Carl with a rifle so there had to be guns so na na na na na na. I just rolled my eyes at how superior someone could act despite being clearly proven wrong by the source material.
Even in this very thread you implied that there was no such no-gun rule at all, completely ignoring explicit dialogue to the contrary.
We also have on-screen confirmation that Otis not having his own gun was communicated to another person offscreen, because Daryl came out and said it. And really, why is it a surprise that the no-gun rule got around among the group? It’s not a secret, it’s a rule that Hershel very much wanted everyone to know.
If you’re trying to say that both Dale and Daryl had to have been psychic to know this, and the writing left no other alternative, I don’t know what to tell you except that your critcism is laughably stupid.
The comic has a habit of cycling characters through at a decent pace. New people join up, often they stay long enough for the reader to get an emotional attachment to them, then sometimes they die. Not every character that was in the comic (by this point in the story) has shown up in the show, but there are several who are so memorable that their exclusion from the show would be utterly bewildering to me.
I don’t know about that. There are long stretches of psychodrama in the comics, too, and Rick is just as much the melancholy Dane there. They may seem more violent just because you can skim over that stuff in the comics and get to the zombie-killin’.
Dude, you’re just making shit up. Earlier I was accused of relying on a long list of assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that Carl could not have retrieved the dropped gun the next morning. That long list of assumptions was a list of one – that he wouldn’t be allowed to roam the woods the day after Dale was killed because they were more vigilant now, as shown in the montage where they’re shoring things up. But in that thread you rely on the following assumptions: that the group (or at least Dale and Darryl) are aware that Otis didn’t have a handgun because Hershel has a no-gun policy (the issue is not that there was a no-gun policy, but that the presence of the policy explains why Otis didn’t have a gun (even though he did) – this is an important point and one you’ve clearly missed), for which he obviously made at least one exception (for Otis, no less) as evidenced by the the presence of the gun that shot Carl (na na na notwithstanding – impeccably logical refutation, by the way). From this, they must then discern that Otis had Rick’s gun, such that when it reappeared, it revealed an inconsistency in Shane’s story.You seem to think the fact that Darryl apparently also knew vindicates you, when in fact, it is evidence of more sloppiness as he, as well as Dale, now also has to have learned that Otis borrowed Rick’s gun.
The “source material” is silent on all of this. You are simply fankwanking away a hole. Moreover, you were the only person in that whole thread advancing the theory that Hershel’s no-gun policy was the giveaway. Suggesting that you somehow came in and dropped knowledge that shut everyone up is fanwanking that thread. Jesus, man. Say I’m obsessing over a point. Say I should let it go. But, don’t act like you straightened shit out. The point of this is not that Dale and Darryl couldn’t have found out. I have no problem with the return of Rick’s gun being the inconsistency that puts the lie to Shane’s story. The problem is with the fact that the writing requires me to speculate how they found out.
I am in awe of how unaware you are regarding the fact that your explanation is hardly universally accepted. Apparently it’s that sort of disconnect that allows you to enjoy this show so uncritically.
This is not a single assumption. First of all, even by itself, it’s not incontrovertibly supported by the text. Second, it harbors within it further assumptions, one of the biggest being that even if they had decided that Carl wouldn’t be allowed to roam around that they would be able to enforce it effectively. It’s already well established that Carl has the means and motive to get loose when he wants to.
I was just remarking on this with a co-worker today. The comic does have a similar ratio of drama to action, but it didn’t bother me as much in the comics, since reading a trade paperback can be done in about the same time as it takes to watch a single episode of the show, and often encompasses an entire season (or most of a season) worth of events. The net result has me wanting more every time I finish a volume of the comic (the trade paperbacks are released on a 3-5 month schedule), and largely bored with the slow progression of the show.
[QUOTE=crookedteeth]
Are the comics worth reading? I’ve been thinking about starting them, but don’t want to spoil the show too much.
[/QUOTE]
I would say yes. As Sampiro already mentioned, the show is deviating a good bit from the comic. However, the show is using a lot of elements from the comic, and I expect it to follow the same basic arc, so reading the comics may well give you an idea as to what’s to come. I’ve heard rumors of certain major comic characters showing up in Season Three of the show, so if you want to go in fresh, you may want to avoid the comics for now. But they’re great pulp comic material; if Neil Gaiman’s Sandman is a perfectly cooked tenderloin served with mushroom risotto, The Walking Dead is a delicious plate of cheese fries with ranch dressing.
In regards to Otis and the gun, Shane is never seen giving Rick his gun back but Rick had it the next day. If we assume Daryl was there when he gave it back or that Daryl saw Rick without it and said “Where’s your gun? I hardly recognized you without it” then the problem is completely solved.
Actually, Daryl just said that Shane came back with the dead mans gun. He might have meant Otis’ rifle, but I can’t remember if he took it from him it not. If he did, Shane may have given it to the group to use or Daryl may have seen it somewhere and asked where it came from. Rifles are big and obvious so the appearance of a new one would be easily noticed.
The fact that Daryl knew Shane returned with extra guns proves that something like this happened.
There are a lot of legitimate things to complain about but this is just something that wasn’t shown because it was a very minor and normal thing. Same with Carl’s pistol. He lost it then had it again. The only obvious explanation is that he went and retrieved it. Was there time for him to do that? Yes. That proves he did. If he lost it then went and got shot again and woke up in bed with it, that would be a problem. But he lost it, had time to retrieve it, and is shown with it.
He wouldn’t even have had to kill the walker himself, it would have been sufficient to go back to the house and tell the adults that there’s a walker wandering nearby, and let them deal with it. He didn’t do that because he knew he’d be in trouble for wandering out there alone, and in DEEP* trouble if anyone found the gun. In other words, he behaved EXACTLY like you’d expect a twelve-year-old to behave. You’re exactly right that guilt isn’t helpful, but he needs to understand that the world sucks now and no one gets to be 12.**
*Something they really should not have dropped so easily, IMO. He should have a gun. He should NOT steal guns from other members of the group. Very Much Not Okay.
**Are we absolutely sure that Carl is 12? He looks 9 or 10 to me.
Am I the only one who dies inside a little bit after the mandatory weekly unearthing of the psychic Dale/Otis/Shane/gun thing? How many weeks has this been going on now? I was kind of hoping that now that all of the characters involved are dead it would go away.
I agree with everything except the conlsuon that requirng these assumption is not a big deal. But that’s cool. We can disagree on how important it was to establish the basis for Dale’s Darryl’s conclusion. This is a far cry from what Ellis is saying though, i.e., that the issue is completely explained by the gun-ban.
I apologize, and I agree. It’s over, and I am through arguing the merit of how that was handled. I originally brought it up in this thread as a joke in reference to Carl dropping the gun – as this thread shows, I am not the only one who thinks the Carl gun drop was an example of bad writing. I am bothered by Ellis’s persistence in claiming that the gun ban explains all, but I’ll let that go as well. I don’t see how someone could read these threads and come away with that conclusion. If they do, well, then the problematic writing probably doesn’t bother them either. Hell, I envy the folks who don’t flinch at this. For them the universe of potentially fullfilling fiction is almost infinite.
