hepcat
3141
On a side note, they nailed the Tyreese casting.
Yeah, Tyreese is already one of my favorite characters after just five minutes of screentime. I hope he’ll break this show’s black male curse.
Wolff
3143
I hope so tdog was on screen so much with so little development. When he died I didn’t care except for a feeling of a wasted character.
From my understanding Tyreese is an actual character in the comic, one that apparently has fans, so maybe he’ll get stuff to do, an arc, those things that proper characters get to do.
And the whole Highlander thing the show seems to have going irt black men (and it’s still too early to call irt black women, not like there’s been loads of them in the show until this season), it might stop being funny a-ha if it keeps on happening.
Kyle700
3145
you’re looking at this from a logical, well thought out point of view, rather then a “oh god we’ve been running from zombies for months and we’ve killed people and oh god what do we do” point of view. I imagine it is quite hard for people to take the initiative and do what is needed to be done. At least when it involves murdering people.
And from a writing standpoint, it’s be pretty stupid to kill everyone you meet; you’d have a pretty hard time of adding new characters to the show! I think the way they handled Michonne showing up at the gate was a pretty accurate way to do it, anyway.
I’m just not buying the idea that morality would need to change because there are zombies. I think the idea that we would all have to devolve into roving bands of killers or be killed ignores human nature. We are social creatures by nature, cooperative by nature, and when things get crazy that social nature is what most of us are gonna revert to, not morph into reavers. There are, y’know, women in the ZA too, right? ;)
Just look at Shane, the poster boy for the “new ZA morality.” He dies not because a more badass killing machine comes along but because he loses track of his loyalty to his pre-ZA best friend. And just last episode Carl’s handling of Tyreese’s group was exemplary: uncomplicated, uncompremizing, and humane. When (I think it was) the woman in Tyreese’s group demands to know why Carl won’t help them, his simple answer is, “I did.”
I think the change that would need to happen in a ZA is that we’d all have to grow up and take life and death seriously all of a sudden. Some of us would be up to the task, and some of us would go off the rails. And a lot of us would be up to the task for a while, go off the rails and then come back. And The Walking Dead seems to bare that out.
I’m not saying you’d need to kill everyone you meet, just the ones who threaten your group. For instance, if Rick and his people had met Tyreese’s group living in the prison- no need to kill them. If anything, those are who you’d absorb into your group. Meeting Herschel at his farm would not mean you have to kill them. If Herschel and his family tried to kick you off the farm, which you believe puts your wife and kid(plus everyone else) at risk, THEN you’d need to think about killiing them.
I don’t think morality would need to change, I think morality is an additive. In other words, it’s something that we have now but won’t have then. That’s because we have all sorts of social constructs in place that allow for the existence of this morality. If you’re scavenging in town and someone tries to kill you, but your group captures the guy, there are no police to call. He will not be arrested and put on trial for attempted murder. What happens to him is entirely up to you. There is no question of right or wrong here, only the question of what you want to do with him.
hepcat
3148
But some folks are essentially saying just that.
mok
3149
Interview with the shooter: “I was just being an asshole”
So… the dude is a few fries short of a happy meal? Who da thunk it? :D
Well, then they’re being unreasonable. For one thing, you need to reproduce. So unless incest is your thing, your group will have to add members or ally with another seperate group.
Of course you could simply survive and not grow your community, but I don’t see the point of that. The idea of spending the last 40 years of life with the same five people doesn’t really appeal to me. To each his own though.
Kyle700
3152
Ha! Like you’d last 40 years! That’d be interesting though… Never seen the “aftermath” of a ZA.
I doubt they are thinking that far ahead, either. Probably more along the lines of “can I last until next week?”
I woudn’t trust Tyreese at all (and don’t). Reading this thread I see he is a comic character but I haven’t read the comic. Based on what is presented in the show though, something appears super fishy.
You have a small group of people who have supposedly been living on their own this whole time. They come in and are screaming their heads off (which they should know attracts more walkers). They have rudamentary weapons. The boy and the dad look like they have never seen anyone die before. And then he says a statement like “look around this is the best we have had in weeks” implying they have had good shelter in the past. I immediately assumed that Tyreese and the girl were “strong men” from Woodberry and the others in the group were “sacrifical” and that the intent was to show up at this prison in dire need, lose a couple people and appeal to Ricks group on the hope of infultrating and destroying them.
hepcat
3154
What seemed fishy to you? His appearance and demeanor gave no hint whatsoever to anything even remotely sinister, in my opinion.
BobM
3155
Naa… they killed off so many of Rick’s group, the writers needed to add new blood. Tyreese is not a Woodbury plot.
I would just like to say that this last line of thinking is very troubling. I don’t really understand your perspective, it seems to be saying that morality only exists because of those social constructs.
In fact that’s the furthest from the truth that you could be. Cops, the concept of fair trials, and indeed laws were put in place to codify the morality that everyone feels innately and for a large part agrees on. Put another way, if morality didn’t exist before these constructs, why did we construct them? There must have been a sense of morality beforehand.
So you’re scavenging for food, someone tries to kill you, you capture them. You have a decision to make with how to deal with him. How do you figure there is no question of right or wrong there? There are at least 50 shades of moral grey in this situation, depending on context.
Did he try to kill you out of desperation? mistaken identity? pure malice? territorial defense?
If you decide to kill him, do you do it quick and painless? Slowly and cruelly? Torture him for information? maybe abuse him sexually?
If you decide to set him free, do you leave him handicapped with no weapons or supplies? do you give him enough supplies to find shelter?
Do you decide to let him live, but not set him free?
These are all moral considerations to make, and there will be a morally right action to take and a morally wrong action to take, depending on the situation.
Morality changes when you’re in a survival scenario, but to explicitly say that it goes away when the cops stop patrolling demonstrates to me that you have not thought very hard about morality, or that perhaps you are an immoral person.
Never seen the “aftermath” of a ZA.
Another reason why WWZ (the book) is great.
Well, you have to admit, he’s pretty black.
Hugin
3159
It’s a miracle you’re still alive, and this isn’t even a ZA world.
Maybe you didn’t notice that I’m Canadian. Sorry!
