[TV] The Walking Dead (*Spoilers*)

[Kelimbror]

Show me where they are hinting that Rick et al are turning evil. Of course they are not angels, no one is saying otherwise, but they are the good in the world, such as it is, and you can see that almost every episode when they meet up with the truly evil people.

He's definitely getting colder, but not detached. He listens to his people almost without question. I just watched the finale last night after we talked about Rick and Daryl a little...man...they are still doing an awesome job with them. It's really great to see Daryl becoming Rick's moral compass. I thought it was also pretty meaningful that Daryl was the one who instantly pulled the trigger on Dawn while Rick was in shock. Their characters are constantly in flux, rubbing off on one another and...man.

They are doing some really complicated and nuanced things with those characters and it is awesome to watch.

[Graeham]

I wouldn't say Daryl is a great moral compass. His attitude and disrespect towards the wealthy who died during the outbreak is pretty horrific. First in the country club and then in the office building where he was hiding out with Carol. Plus he murdered Dawn in cold blood after she instinctively/accidentally shot Beth after Beth decided to stab her with a pair of scissors.

That's not to suggest that he doesn't try, but he's not as pure or righteous as he thinks he is. Much like Rick.

[Kelimbror]

I wouldn't say Daryl is a great moral compass.

I didn't say he was a 'great moral compass' and also didn't provide anything to be debated or brought into an argument. Please stop twisting words when people simply present opinions....especially when you aren't even talking about what I am. Sorry to sound so irritated, but it comes off as rude. (JUST MY OPINION)

[Faltemer]

Rick stopped him, and the guys back was broken. Too bad, but not murder.

Well once the back was broken, short of saving him it was definitely murder. The zombies would have gotten him. Hell, even without zombies he would have just laid out here and died, unable to do anything. Even giving Rick incredible benefit of the doubt, he still at best unintentionally killed him with the car. He just finished it up with the gun.

I'm understanding the writers and the show just fine - it's you who is not seeing what is happening on the show.

Show me where they are hinting that Rick et al are turning evil. Of course they are not angels, no one is saying otherwise, but they are the good in the world, such as it is, and you can see that almost every episode when they meet up with the truly evil people.

Well I am glad you know everything I know nothing. Even though others have corroborated what i said, and what i say lines up with what the show makers are saying. But okay!

If i stated they were evil before, that was me misspeaking. Like I told Dray, I am not saying they are evil, just saying they aren't still good. I mean people at woodbury/the hospital may have never actually killed anyone or done anything too wrong, so they would still maintain a moral highground over Rick's group. And it isn't hard to imagine that somewhere in this world at least one group is surviving without killing other people. On a black is evil white is good scale, they are gray, even for this world.

Rick doesn't have to save the world, and you suggesting otherwise really demonstrates your misunderstanding of this show's overall message.

You suggesting bob the cop is bad, but Rick isn't shows you don't really grasp the point.

[cubby]

Well once the back was broken, short of saving him it was definitely murder. The zombies would have gotten him. Hell, even without zombies he would have just laid out here and died, unable to do anything. Even giving Rick incredible benefit of the doubt, he still at best unintentionally killed him with the car. He just finished it up with the gun.

Can't really save someone with a broken back in the zombie apocalypse. You are once again asserting that Rick has to save everyone he comes across - that is not in his mandate.

Well I am glad you know everything I know nothing. Even though others have corroborated what i said, and what i say lines up with what the show makers are saying. But okay!

So far you are the only one stating that "all the writers" agree with you. All I'm asking is for you to show some proof.

If i stated they were evil before, that was me misspeaking. Like I told Dray, I am not saying they are evil, just saying they aren't still good. I mean people at woodbury/the hospital may have never actually killed anyone or done anything too wrong, so they would still maintain a moral highground over Rick's group. And it isn't hard to imagine that somewhere in this world at least one group is surviving without killing other people. On a black is evil white is good scale, they are gray, even for this world.

The Governor and his group mowed down that convoy of military personnel. End of story - Woodbury was bad, or ignorant - but not good. (Andrea gets a pass because she didn't know, and once she did, she was outta there)

And I'm asserting (hopefully respectfully, apologies if not - I love these discussions) that Rick's group can still, relative to the situation (zombie apocalypse), call themselves good. I'm not seeing real proof of anything other than that, even from your examples.

Also, not helping someone in this world is still not bad/evil - every encounter could be another Merle, after all.

You suggesting bob the cop is bad, but Rick isn't shows you don't really grasp the point.

I'm not sure what you're saying here - could you clarify?

[draykorinee]

I hate woman and childrenand want them all to die. Sorry, it had been a while since that came up. Also the rules on black men look set to be broken, Morgan, Noah and tyreese!

[Kelimbror]

I hate woman and childrenand want them all to die. Sorry, it had been a while since that came up. Also the rules on black men look set to be broken, Morgan, Noah and tyreese!

Inb4 2nd half premieres and Noah and Ty both die making way for Morgan.

[Faltemer]

Can't really save someone with a broken back in the zombie apocalypse. You are once again asserting that Rick has to save everyone he comes across - that is not in his mandate.

I could possibly agree with you, but if you cause the injury I don't understand how it can be viewed as the same thing. He didn't make people get "saved" by the hospital so I understand people saying he has no obligation to save them. He kidnapped Bob, then when bob did the understandable move and escaped, he broke his back, whether intentional or not he did. HE DID. He personally created the bad situation bob was in. And while I doubt there was a solution to this problem i think causing it is a good look at who Rick is.

So far you are the only one stating that "all the writers" agree with you. All I'm asking is for you to show some proof.

Kirkman on Talking dead after Coda said something along the lines that the group is scary, for both people in the show and hopefully for the audiences. Earlier in the year Gimple on there said Rick wasn't really good anymore. I guess I might be overstating all who have said this, but these are the two most important people to the show. Plus this is a major quote of the show, and while they debated it on there Rick said and im fairly certain stuck to "we are too far gone".

The Governor and his group mowed down that convoy of military personnel. End of story - Woodbury was bad, or ignorant - but not good. (Andrea gets a pass because she didn't know, and once she did, she was outta there)

And I'm asserting (hopefully respectfully, apologies if not - I love these discussions) that Rick's group can still, relative to the situation (zombie apocalypse), call themselves good. I'm not seeing real proof of anything other than that, even from your examples.

I mean ignorance or ignoring what governor is doing if you live inside or out is basically the same thing. The people doing the bad stuff obviously aren't debatable but the normal citizens, the children, they can't be expected to rally against this man. I don't see it being different enough.

I am sure we are both coming across fairly rude, and I am sure neither are doing it intentionally, just a side product of discussing things over the internet. As far as their bad deeds, its more of eventually murdering people who aren't a immediate threat becomes too much. IE the Claimers had to be killed, no question, but Tomas and I might even say Shane could have been handled different. After a certain point being aware of different evils and allowing it happen isn't okay. And I agree that relative to the major other groups on the show they are good. As a random note, Hershel and his group to my knowledge hadn't killed anyone or even zombies really until Rick and his group shows up, and that didn't last long.

I wish i could give more evidence, to be fair I have only seen the show through once and other then big details I don't recall a lot of the stuff that has occurred. This feeling about them is more something that has been building slowly since the show began, which i feel is something they wanted to occur. I mean if rick had murdered someone in the first few episodes it would have been perceived as much different then now, although this might just be a look at how the world has evolved.

Also, not helping someone in this world is still not bad/evil - every encounter could be another Merle, after all.

But at the same time this is a great argument for Bob, how can he know Rick isn't as bad as someone like Merle?

I'm not sure what you're saying here - could you clarify?

Saying Rick doesn't have to save the world should entitle Bob to the same thing. Given this Bob isn't for all we know bad guy. So him escaping is exactly what Rick would do in that scenario yet somehow killing Bob is justified?

[eschatological]

Nope, no justification for rape, no justification for cannibalism, sorry.

Question: Does Gareth's group have a justification for self-defense after their experience with the "bad guys"? Do you think a plan where they accepted anyone willing to be a part of their community, and slit the throats of anyone not willing to go with the plan, sans cannibalism, would have been justified?

If so, what does the cannibalism matter? The people they slaughter in the name of justifiable self-defense are already dead. There's no immorality there, just a question of taste. Some tribes throughout the world have ritualistically practiced cannibalism of their dead as as a sort-of spirit-absorption thing. Are they immoral, or do they just have a different culture/sense of taste than we do as Westerners?

If not, and their murder of people unwilling to go with their plan is immoral....then what does the cannibalism matter? The immoral act is the killing of people not willing to go along with your authoritarian plan.

[cubby]

I wouldn't say Daryl is a great moral compass. His attitude and disrespect towards the wealthy who died during the outbreak is pretty horrific. First in the country club and then in the office building where he was hiding out with Carol. Plus he murdered Dawn in cold blood after she instinctively/accidentally shot Beth after Beth decided to stab her with a pair of scissors.

That's not to suggest that he doesn't try, but he's not as pure or righteous as he thinks he is. Much like Rick.

You seem to be "re-watching" these episodes attempting to prove you're right, instead of just watching them for their enjoyment. Dawn KILLED Beth. She didn't do it instinctively - she just did it. She was a dead woman walking (lol), didn't matter who killed her. It was just lucky that cooler heads prevailed and the rest of the two groups survived.

I don't even understand your statement about his "attitude" about now-dead rich and wealthy - you are really reaching for something that is not there.

Remember that Daryl talked Rick out of just killing the kidnapped people - he argued in favor of the trade rather than the attack. Kelimbror is completely correct about the moral compass.

[eschatological]

Rick doesn't have to save the world, and you suggesting otherwise really demonstrates your misunderstanding of this show's overall message.

I'm sorry, if you can't see that the message of this show is about the loss of one's own humanity in the midst of ongoing, constant, horrifying trauma, that's on you, not the writers. Rick is clearly becoming more ruthless. You may argue ruthlessness is what is necessary in this world, but the juxtaposition of characters like Tyrese, Carol (who flip flops from ruthless at the prison to different after killing the girls), and Beth show that it's not necessarily necessary. In fact, the major arc of Carol this season has been her struggle with keeping her humanity. Even Daryl struggles with this, when he takes that book from the shelter about overcoming childhood abuse.

[draykorinee]

Question: Does Gareth's group have a justification for self-defense after their experience with the "bad guys"? Do you think a plan where they accepted anyone willing to be a part of their community, and slit the throats of anyone not willing to go with the plan, sans cannibalism, would have been justified?

If so, what does the cannibalism matter? The people they slaughter in the name of justifiable self-defense are already dead. There's no immorality there, just a question of taste. Some tribes throughout the world have ritualistically practiced cannibalism of their dead as as a sort-of spirit-absorption thing. Are they immoral, or do they just have a different culture/sense of taste than we do as Westerners?

If not, and their murder of people unwilling to go with their plan is immoral....then what does the cannibalism matter? The immoral act is the killing of people not willing to go along with your authoritarian plan.

I made an error, there is justification for cannibalism, I think I meant no justification for the cannibals to entice people in and then cannibalise them, thats wrong on so so many levels. If you ahve killed someone who had deserved it/done you harm then I guess from a moral point of view there is some justification. It is icky though.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry, if you can't see that the message of this show is about the loss of one's own humanity in the midst of ongoing, constant, horrifying trauma.

Not entirely sure what that has to do with the quote you responded to.

[Graeham]

You seem to be "re-watching" these episodes attempting to prove you're right, instead of just watching them for their enjoyment. Dawn KILLED Beth. She didn't do it instinctively - she just did it. She was a dead woman walking (lol), didn't matter who killed her. It was just lucky that cooler heads prevailed and the rest of the two groups survived.

I don't even understand your statement about his "attitude" about now-dead rich and wealthy - you are really reaching for something that is not there.

Remember that Daryl talked Rick out of just killing the kidnapped people - he argued in favor of the trade rather than the attack. Kelimbror is completely correct about the moral compass.

Dawn looked to be genuinely shocked and apologetic. People react instinctively when they're suddenly hurt and Beth stabbed her with little justification. It put everybody in the corridor at risk as well. We're lucky that it was only Beth and Dawn that were killed since things could have been much worse.

As for Daryl's attitude regarding the wealthy he's shown blatant disregard for the deceased if they happened to be rich in life on two separate occasions. If I recall correctly he even picks up a guy's family photograph when hiding out in a wealthy individual's office and begins firing off insults. How would he feel if someone mocked Sophia or Beth after they died, I wonder?

Granted that's more of a personal pet peeve of mine since a lot of shows seem to attack the wealthy at any possible turn just because they're perceived as being well off.

[Faltemer]

You seem to be "re-watching" these episodes attempting to prove you're right, instead of just watching them for their enjoyment. Dawn KILLED Beth. She didn't do it instinctively - she just did it. She was a dead woman walking (lol), didn't matter who killed her. It was just lucky that cooler heads prevailed and the rest of the two groups survived.

I don't even understand your statement about his "attitude" about now-dead rich and wealthy - you are really reaching for something that is not there.

Remember that Daryl talked Rick out of just killing the kidnapped people - he argued in favor of the trade rather than the attack. Kelimbror is completely correct about the moral compass.

To me it seemed instinctual, I mean her face was immediately shock, that turned to fear. She got stabbed and responded like someone with a gun in their hand tends to do.

In the two episodes he is referring to Darryl did show a lack of compassion towards dead/turned rich people, but thats mostly unimportant and not telling of how his actions would actually be.

I mean sure he told him the less killy plan there, but otherwise I don't remember many spots where Darryl convinced rick to doing a more humane thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Not entirely sure what that has to do with the quote you responded to.

because it seems you and cubby and kelim seem to be taking an entirely different message from the show.

[cubby]

I'm sorry, if you can't see that the message of this show is about the loss of one's own humanity in the midst of ongoing, constant, horrifying trauma, that's on you, not the writers. Rick is clearly becoming more ruthless. You may argue ruthlessness is what is necessary in this world, but the juxtaposition of characters like Tyrese, Carol (who flip flops from ruthless at the prison to different after killing the girls), and Beth show that it's not necessarily necessary. In fact, the major arc of Carol this season has been her struggle with keeping her humanity. Even Daryl struggles with this, when he takes that book from the shelter about overcoming childhood abuse.

The show isn't about the loss, it's about holding onto one's own humanity during the apocalypse, while some many others have lost their way. It's about discovering who you have become, and what might be lost, while combating the daily trials of death and despair.

And I'm sorry if you can't see that.

Everyone is becoming more ruthless, no one has a choice - it's about going to the edge of the abyss, looking over but not jumping (and hopefully not having the abyss look back at you).

And yes, Rick goes back and forth mentally, but he never crosses the line - which is my main point.

It's not just me who argues that ruthlessness is necessary, even Tyrese agrees (S5.8, chatting with Sasha on the roof, about not killing Alex, and how he should have) - there's no argument that it's a harder world.

The major arc of Carol this season is discovering who she is becoming after all she's done.

- - - Updated - - -

Dawn looked to be genuinely shocked and apologetic. People react instinctively when they're suddenly hurt and Beth stabbed her with little justification. It put everybody in the corridor at risk as well. We're lucky that it was only Beth and Dawn that were killed since things could have been much worse.

As for Daryl's attitude regarding the wealthy he's shown blatant disregard for the deceased if they happened to be rich in life on two separate occasions. If I recall correctly he even picks up a guy's family photograph when hiding out in a wealthy individual's office and begins firing off insults. How would he feel if someone mocked Sophia or Beth after they died, I wonder?

Granted that's more of a personal pet peeve of mine since a lot of shows seem to attack the wealthy at any possible turn just because they're perceived as being well off.

Hmmmm, I seem to recall the same thing regarding Beth vs Dawn.

I think we can put aside the wealthy thing - I hear what you're saying, and Daryl has done what you describe. I'm just sure it's a huge change in his behavior from pre-apocalypse.

One thing re Daryl, he certainly has almost become more humane post apocalypse. Caring for people (Carol, Beth), having a "real" family.

The Rick/Daryl arc/relationship has been absolutely terrific, as has already been said in here.

[draykorinee]

because it seems you and cubby and kelim seem to be taking an entirely different message from the show.

I think this is the biggest problem I have, when people claim to know the truth or pull "the writers want this message" bullshit, you, me, escha, cubby dont know the message (it certainly seems you and escha think you do), the message is what each individual takes from it. For me, its not about losing humanity, its about fighting to keep humanity, about keeping those fragile bonds together while the rest of the world is falling to shit around you and your friends, anyone who comes in here and claims to know what message the writers are trying to get across are talking out of their ass. You do not know what the message is, clear?

Edit: cubby beat me to it.

[cubby]

because it seems you and cubby and kelim seem to be taking an entirely different message from the show.

We're not taking a different message from the show, we are taking the message from the show. Respectfully, I think it's you who is not seeing what is going on with the group.

No one has yet to point to an evil or gratuitous violent act by the current group, just fyi.

[draykorinee]

we are taking the message from the show.

I'm not, I'm taking what I see as the message, I don't claim to be correct, because I don't think there is a correct

[Faltemer]

We're not taking a different message from the show, we are taking the message from the show. Respectfully, I think it's you who is not seeing what is going on with the group.

No one has yet to point to an evil or gratuitous violent act by the current group, just fyi.

You are. Dray made it clear he isn't stating "the" message. Considering this is a discussion it sort of points to the fact that there isn't one message. And I think you are once again focusing too much on the main group. Seeing the world lose it's humanity collectively and the same happening to the group is important. Yes it shows they aren't completely evil but it also shows various members of the group have turned evil over time and that potentially everyone has that in them and is working towards it as this world continues.

Well I mean violence is easy to remember but most of those were necessary, violence =/= evil. I guess they could have just shot the termites in the head, instead of slaughtering them, the claimers got exactly what they deserve. I would say Tomas and Shane dying were borderline evil, since both came by sort of breaking agreements although the other person certainly was trying to do the same. I would also sort of argue the absolute negligence Rick and Lori showed towards Carl was dangerous for everyone and got Dale killed. Although I guess that isn't evil. And since I seem to be the main advocate of Rick Grimes group is bad, I already stated it isn't one super evil act but all of the things they have done in the name of surviving, and keeping their people alive.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not, I'm taking what I see as the message, I don't claim to be correct, because I don't think there is a correct

Beat me to it

[cubby]

(btw, no sarcasm here in case it comes across that way - "interwebs" conversations can be dicey, as you pointed out)

Kirkman on Talking dead after Coda said something along the lines that the group is scary, for both people in the show and hopefully for the audiences. Earlier in the year Gimple on there said Rick wasn't really good anymore. I guess I might be overstating all who have said this, but these are the two most important people to the show. Plus this is a major quote of the show, and while they debated it on there Rick said and im fairly certain stuck to "we are too far gone".

I remember that line from Rick, but saying it and doing it are very different things. He has yet to inflict a gratuitous act of violence against someone. I mean an evil act, not a retributive act.

I mean ignorance or ignoring what governor is doing if you live inside or out is basically the same thing. The people doing the bad stuff obviously aren't debatable but the normal citizens, the children, they can't be expected to rally against this man. I don't see it being different enough.

Ignorance and Ignoring are not the same thing. If you don't know it's happening, you cannot condone or not condone it (ignorance). If you do know it's happening, and you choose to pretend it's not happening, that's Ignoring. Andrea was ignorant of the Governor's acts, and when she found out, she gtfo.

I am sure we are both coming across fairly rude, and I am sure neither are doing it intentionally, just a side product of discussing things over the internet.

Well said. No rudeness meant, I just love these discussions and I get all excited and verbose about them.

As far as their bad deeds, its more of eventually murdering people who aren't a immediate threat becomes too much. IE the Claimers had to be killed, no question, but Tomas and I might even say Shane could have been handled different. After a certain point being aware of different evils and allowing it happen isn't okay. And I agree that relative to the major other groups on the show they are good. As a random note, Hershel and his group to my knowledge hadn't killed anyone or even zombies really until Rick and his group shows up, and that didn't last long.

Lol, good point about Hershel's group. Being aware of different evils and allowing it to happen is precisely why they slaughtered the cannibals the way they did.

I wish i could give more evidence, to be fair I have only seen the show through once and other then big details I don't recall a lot of the stuff that has occurred. This feeling about them is more something that has been building slowly since the show began, which i feel is something they wanted to occur. I mean if rick had murdered someone in the first few episodes it would have been perceived as much different then now, although this might just be a look at how the world has evolved.

You have great recollection for just one time through - seriously. I was just re-watching a few of the first season's episodes, and Rick says very clearly, "we don't kill people." So, in contrast to my own points, Rick certainly has changed his view.

But at the same time this is a great argument for Bob, how can he know Rick isn't as bad as someone like Merle?

Good point, but so far Rick's actions towards Bob had been very civil. Could have all been a farce, of course, but Bob hadn't seen any outright evil

Saying Rick doesn't have to save the world should entitle Bob to the same thing. Given this Bob isn't for all we know a bad guy. So him escaping is exactly what Rick would do in that scenario yet somehow killing Bob is justified?

This point is hard to argue because I think you can go at it from both perspectives and be right. Like Rick's actions were right from his point of view, and yet Bob's were right from Bob's point of view. Hmmmmm . . . . thoughts?