The Walking Dead

[DutchJazzer]

Al Jefferson has really been bad on defense since joining the jazz.

Oh wait, you mean "The Walking Dead" isn't about the Al?

FIXED LIKE A BAWS
btw i bet you a team of 5 walkers would play better defense than 5 al jeffersons.

how do the pet zombies work? like when andrea cut off that one zombie bros teeth and arms, how come it wards off other zombies and she can safely walk through a **** ton of them. it kinda made sense when rick and glenn covered themselves in zombie guts to walk through them so i guess its that kind of concept, but eh doesnt really make sense

back on topic HH about he guardian angel thing(a zombie pet).
as they explained in the tv show:
just pulled up the episode. gonna qoute the relvant parts
from the scene where they where on the roof and rick wanted to go to the truck
Rick: they're drawn by sound, right?
Glen: Right, Like dogs. They hear a sound, the come.
Rick: what else? Aside from they hear you?
some random dude from season 1 forgot his name: They see you, smell you and if they catch you, they eat you.(think he is wrong on the literally seeing you part)
Rick: They can tell us by smell?
Glenn: Can't you?
Andrea: they smell dead we don't it is pretty distinct.

now in the comic they explained the above passage if i'm not mistaken by saying and i pharphrase here: that if the walker hears a sound they try to smell. if they smell a DISTINCT dead odor. they know false alarm it's a colleague. and move on.
now you might say but what if 1 or more zombies are eating. i assume a zombie eating is a distinct sound and they know that sound from instinct and join in on the eating.

now what a guardian angel does is give your sound a distinct dead smell, and since they are not making the feeding sound/ so whenever other walkers here you walking they smell the dead sound.
here is the tricky part on why some walkers attack if they are really close to the sounds your making they "smell" a non dead odor comming from the place where the sound is then your screwed

in other words in when densely populated by walkers eg in Atlanta better go with a guts suit.
but in a sparsely populated area like forest/farms. you go with "guardian angel".
it seems the virus might have heightened the smell and hearing of walkers.

you might be to stupid to understand this HH, you where to stooopid to grasp the bite virus thingy(hershel leg being cut of). but hope this explanation suffices. or gets you imagination speculation running

 

[DutchJazzer]

I will see what I want to see and am not concerned with others views on it. To each their own man. We all have our quirks and tastes.

i will see iton home video not really a fan of going to cinema. since it is pretty expensive
tickets for 2, popcorn, coke, parking money, not counting gas runs me up to 35 euros.
for a frikcin movie
then i go into die hard.
and get crap like out of focus cinema,
shaky cams
lens flare
camera cant even find the cars in car chase sequence.
bruce willis mailing it in and repeating his vacation line 5 times.

so yeah i officially gave up on cinema.
only going to chris nolan, quentin t movies now.

and if the hobbit part 1 is to my liking maybe part 2 and 3.

 

[Nate505]

murder is never okay.
but killing is their is a differnece between murder and killing.

Actually I'd have to rephrase it. Murder is the unlawful killing of another this is done with malice. In this instance, well, I guess there are no laws so there is no such thing as an unlawful killing. But regardless of the legal structure in place, killing anyone that isn't for self defense is immoral, and I don't care what time period it was. Legality doesn't make morals. War rapes are very common and were encouraged by many governments, yet the raping of civilians was totally immoral, though "legal" in a sense.

In this case I think the group was trying to make the self defense justification when they voted to execute the kid, but it was a lousy justification, and thus immoral. Plus part of what also bugs me about this group is that they just refuse to bring in newcomers, and now it's biting them in the ***, which is poetic justice.

 

[Nate505]

Moral values generally stand weak against basic instincts and needs, when their satisfaction is on stake. We live in a world, let's say even in the US (as Dutch's civilized society example), two women can beat the crap out of each other to buy a dress they desire, to take it away from the other, to satisfy the ego. Ego is an extremely personal aspect of mind, but id is the most basic. Now in Walking Dead's universe, id (basic instincts) would be much more in front and motivate us to perceive the world as a much more cruel place that no hope for social values is left to stick up to.

In sum, even your own family could sell you out if the issue is their own lives. Or maybe they wouldn't. You never know.

I agree with all of this.

My issue is that the Prison group are painted as protagonists while the Woodbury group are painted as antagonists, when to me they are both groups of immoral people trying to survive (looking at it from a good light) or to me selfish jackasses that are going to doom humanity by not banding together (looking at it from a bad light). The Governor guy and the older brother with the blade from the hand are the two most evil people, and each side has one of them. Damn near all of them are seriously morally flawed (at least how it's being written).

 

[Nate505]

thats why i think killing that one guy is the right thing to do in walkingdead situation. and by right thing i mean for the greater good of the group.
destroy one live save a bunch(dont remember how big/small the group was back then)
and if by some miracle society resotres. they should not feel sorry they broke the mroal code of normal society

Their case for killing the kid was weak, that the other group would look for him. There was no justification whatsoever, especially since the kid actually helped save both Rick and Shane in an earlier episode.

 

[addictionary]

I agree with all of this.

My issue is that the Prison group are painted as protagonists while the Woodbury group are painted as antagonists, when to me they are both groups of immoral people trying to survive (looking at it from a good light) or to me selfish jackasses that are going to doom humanity by not banding together (looking at it from a bad light). The Governor guy and the older brother with the blade from the hand are the two most evil people, and each side has one of them. Damn near all of them are seriously morally flawed (at least how it's being written).

Bigger brother actually is not evil but he is the kind of bully kid in your neighborhood who tries to impress his friends by kicking the other one's ***, rooting from parental issues. I believe he is gonna get better, become a better person in time and take care of the group until Carl (the kid with the cowboy hat) is ready to come off the bench.

 

[The Fresh Prince]

I will see what I want to see and am not concerned with others views on it. To each their own man. We all have our quirks and tastes.

I'll see it when it hits Netflix in another 4 months.

Zombies that climb up walls in some army-ant fashion just seems absurd. It's just Hollywood's hot mess, why can't you see that?

I'm trying to help you save a couple dollars, that's all.

 

[Stoked]

I'll see it when it hits Netflix in another 4 months.

Zombies that climb up walls in some army-ant fashion just seems absurd. It's just Hollywood's hot mess, why can't you see that?

I'm trying to help you save a couple dollars, that's all.

When I go to the movies I am looking to be entertained for a few hours. That's it. I am not looking to be moved emotional, have a profound experience or be enlightened. Just be entertained for a few hours. Hollywood can accomplish that.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I agree with all of this.

My issue is that the Prison group are painted as protagonists while the Woodbury group are painted as antagonists, when to me they are both groups of immoral people trying to survive (looking at it from a good light) or to me selfish jackasses that are going to doom humanity by not banding together (looking at it from a bad light). The Governor guy and the older brother with the blade from the hand are the two most evil people, and each side has one of them. Damn near all of them are seriously morally flawed (at least how it's being written).

but that is the state of tv since oz/sopranos etc.

we get anti heroes.
from vic of the shield to tony sopranos.
from walter white breaking to raylan givins from justifed.
from the various members of sons of anarchy to the spies in the americans.

anti heroes are now a succes.

the exception to the case is the wire.
where every single charcater was flawed.
yet only a few where truly evil imho(eg marlo)
but can you say omar who was a "murderer" was a bad person.
or can you say bodie who even though he killed wallace was a bad person(he did what us soldiers do, they follow orders)

 

[addictionary]

Omar is bad? Man you suck.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Omar is bad? Man you suck.

I meant to put a question mark on it.

bad grammar english on my part.
sorry bout that

 

[addictionary]

I meant to put a question mark on it.

bad grammar english on my part.
sorry bout that

No problem man I thought you were crazy for a moment.