Yes, but if you saw the previews for next season, it has a clip of Glenn running up to someone and yelling something like “What is he doing here?!”. I’d assume, given his rage, it’s Merle.
According to Alan Sepinwall, “Glen Mazzara has talked in the past about his fondness for “Lost” and how parts of “The Walking Dead” are modeled on it.”
Agreed, that scene was sloppy, in that they cranked up the zombie-sounds, then had Michonne be surprised to find a zombie. It made her look pretty stupid.
Very consistent, yes: Overestimating her own abilities, desperate to prove herself, and heedless of a team or command structure in a time of crisis.
So you are upset that I was too inclusive in a list of negative character traits possessed by a fictional character? My mistake.
Merle told them about his brother and that he’s with the group. Even if Daryl didn’t talk I could see him slipping up and responding if the Gov or one of his guards called out “Daryl”.
Eh, it’s a post-9/11 world. “Terrorist” is just the first word that would come to mind; it sounds much more natural that vagabonds or brigands. One of which is very obviously an “escaped convict” what with being in a prison uniform. It’ll certainly help the governor with his propoganda.
Don’t be too hard on yourself. We’ve all wanted to shoot Daryl.
Well, they’ve only locked up two groups. I think if Rick had been there, he would have explained it more fully. Carl is just taking the actions that he thinks his dad would; having a 12-14 year old (how old is Carl?) not explain his action seems real to me. And he did tell them they were secure, with food and water.
Right? I found the inclusion of “promscuous” on that list as jarring as you did.
No, it was probably more about the overt sexism.
Right, which is why I found it a bit jarring, having a leader rally his people with fears of “terrorists”, who were actually only retaliating for the policies and actions of the leader, seemed like a political statement by the show itself.
And Tyreese got his people to settle down pretty quickly; Carl might have told them more if the situation demanded it. But I think he was just waiting for Rick to return to talk to the newcomers.
You’re going to have to clarify here. Are you saying that promiscuity is not a negative character trait, that the term is “overtly” sexist, what?
Yes, being promiscuous is not a negative character trait. Thinking that it is a negative trait for women is sexist.
EDIT: And even if it were, good grief, she’s been celibate for like 10 months. Your promiscuous bar is set super low, as in backwoods southern preacher low.
Count me in as someone who really hated the gunfight. They really need to get someone on this show who can choreograph a proper battle. So they pop smoke to obscure their run across the compound, then they stop in the middle and hunker down with no cover and start trading shots with men who are shooting down on them from high cover? And Rick comes out of that completely unscathed? They were in the middle of a bloody shooting gallery. The proper thing to do would have been to pop the smoke then RUN LIKE HELL until you’re under cover.
I’m also really, really sick of characters who won’t say what they know, for no reason other than that the writers couldn’t come up with another way to maintain the tension. Yes, they did that a lot on LOST, and that was also one of the worst parts of that show. It makes you want to throw things at the television. All Michonne had to say to Andrea was, “Governor tried to kill me. He killed the National Guard people. He had a zombie daughter and a room full of zombie heads in fish tanks. He’s EVIL!”. In fact, she could have saved them all a lot of grief if she’d just showed Andrea the bullet holes in the National Guard vehicles many episodes ago. But no… That kind of sloppy writing takes me right out of the story when it happens.
Also count me as an Andrea hater. I’ve disliked that character from the moment her sister died. Since then she’s just been an annoying pain in the ass who can be counted on to do the stupid thing every time, while the writers are trying to convince us that she’s smart and competent.
There’s no reason to apply any negative label to Andrea’s sexuality. That’s the point.
Can someone clue me in as to what the point of a mid season break is? As far as I know they don’t really do them here in the UK. What is it being replaced with in the downtime?
Well, we fundamentally disagree then. I think it is, regardless of gender.
I was referring to her sexual relationship with The Governor starting about 36 hours after meeting him. So, “promiscuous”, in the sense of many partners, might not be the correct term.
[quote=Acrenray]
There’s no reason to apply any negative label to Andrea’s sexuality. That’s the point.
[/quote.]
Eh. As written, she’s a pretty terrible person, so I don’t mind affixing any label that sticks, since I already dislike the character. Hope that makes sense.
Yes. If they had to have a big gunfight, it should have been a running affair, with the rescue team falling back quickly behind smoke while the Woodbury guards struggled to locate them, then pin them down or encircle them. Perhaps some friendly fire on both sides, the group getting split up…I think that’d actually be more exciting to watch as well as more logical.
One thing I did like: the poor Woodbury guards atop the buses, silhouetted against the night sky. About the worst possible way to position yourself in a gunfight, but they were up there as part of the anti-zombie force, where visibility and mobility are king, and cover doesn’t matter at all. The precautions and tactics developed to fight zombies left them vulnerable to humans, which serves the theme of the season, “fight the dead, fear the living.”
She’s easy to hate on two levels. As you say, her principal use is to make stupid decisions to drive the plot. Also, she has been defined almost entirely through her relationships with men: first Dale, then Shane, then The Governor. The latter two of whom were also her lovers, the former was implied to desire her as well. She takes on the outlook of each new man in her life, which obscures any real will of her own, other than to whine and complain. She and Lori are exhibits 1 and 2 in how poorly the show writes for women.
And if it’s still hard to see, try imagining that the character we’re talking about is male. Would the word promiscuous come to mind given the same circumstances and set of behaviors for a male character? For example, do you consider the Governor to be promiscuous? I mean we’ve seen him with two different women so far. Isn’t that the same number for Andrea? You shouldn’t have different views on these situations depending on the gender of the person in question.
edit after you posted right before this:
So you would also consider the Governor to be a promiscuous person then? Is that correct?
No, it doesn’t. It’s singling out the sexual behavior of a woman for scrutiny when her sexual behavior hasn’t been any worse than anyone else’s on the show. And also, the whole concept of promiscuity is a suspect one.
Yes.
Yes.
I don’t; that was your assumption.
Absolutely. If I were listing The Governor’s negative traits, it’d be something like: murderous, irrational, duplicitious, perfidious, obsessive, promiscuous. Makes Andrea look better, of course. But then, The Governor is a Villain, who exists solely to provide antagonism for the protagonist(s). Andrea is meant to be a more nuanced character, probably with an arc, but all the show has found for her to do is to complain and be wrong.
[quote=Ascenray]
No, it doesn’t. It’s singling out the sexual behavior of a woman for scrutiny when her sexual behavior hasn’t been any worse than anyone else’s on the show.
I was singling her behavior out because I was talking about her. Her sexual behavior has been “better” than Shane’s (attempted rape) or The Governor’s (threated rape, sexual assault, even more promiscuous), I’ll grant you.
Concept as in worthy of moral judgement, or concept period? Because it is most certainly a concept, with a pretty clear meaning.
Are you from that town in Footloose by chance? You know the one with the town elders that think dancing is akin to fornication? She’s slept with two people in the 3 seasons of the show so far. Should she be saving herself for marriage in case she meets another survivor of the zombie apocalypse that is perfect for her? What would you consider an acceptable amount of sexual behavior from one of our survivors? One person? Total celibacy?
What’s bad about being a rapist has nothing to do with promiscuity.
The first.
In addition to that, even if you accept promiscuity as a valid arena for moral judgment, she’s not promiscuous. She’s a young, single woman. In that context, her having had sexual contact with two different people over the course of a year is not even close to being promiscuous, and that’s not even considering that she’s living through a zombie apocalypse.
And then he kills him. 
I thought the use of the word “terrorist” was odd, too. “Intruders” would have been the one that came to my mind.
I think Andrea is stepping up and being responsible - they have to repopulate the world, you know.
Human Action: even if we grant that promiscuity is a bad thing, how does having only two sexual partners (separated by at least nine months in time) make Andrea promiscuous? I just don’t see it. How long must Andrea wait between partners to make her virtuous in your view?
Also, as the redoubtable* Acsenray has already noted, the problem with rape is not that rapists are behaving promiscuously. If it were, a man who repeatedly forced sex onto a single unwilling victim has not done anything wrong. The problem with rape is that by definition it si a violation of the victim’s right to control his or her own body. Do you disagree? If so, what would you say makes rape immoral?
- I’ve decided to use the word redoubtable once a day every day until someone shoots me. No special reason.
So if I knew you and you told me your brother was in Scout Troop 54, I would be able to immediately pick him out? It’s not logical, and it’s sloppy writing/editing.