AMC's The Walking Dead

And that's exactly why the ending sucked, especially after the great scene that preceded it. There's no fucking way that the Governor and Woodbury become the focal point. Because aside from the Governor, everyone who lives there is a non-entity in the series. No character development for a reason. The creators don't want viewers to give a shit about that town.

That last scene would have been fine if Rick just talked about his thoughts and uncertainty. He could have opened up to Hershel and it would have been a great way to show how vulnerable/confused he's become as he struggles to feel his way back to a post-apocalyptic sense of normalcy while at the same time illustrating that he understands his role as leader. But setting it up as, "Ooh, what WILL Rick do?" is fucking stupid. I mean, he's Machiavellian enough to give that speech to scare the group into following him, but he's still so wishy-washy that he's seriously considering giving up Michonne for a happy ending he knows won't happen? Ridiculously schizophrenic last 5 minutes.

 

I see what you're saying but I look at it this way.

He needs to be strong in front of that group for their own good. But yet he knows he has problems, they know it, but if he starts showing more of the Rictatorship instead of the Rickisslippingship then they'll be more confident.

I thought he did a good job of explaining that to Hershel. At least it came off to me that way.

 

I think he knows he can't do it, but the possibility of the Governor even keeping his word about letting the rest of them live is a big temptation. One that's forcing him to even think the unthinkable.

 

But when he asked about talking him out of it, that set up the possibility of it happening. It can't happen.

And in the context of his character, the ONLY way it's a possibility is if he loses his mind, loses his soul and loses his ability to lead. But the previous scene showed that wasn't the case.

I wished the episode either ended before that last scene or ended with that last scene but without the previous one. They don't go together at all.

 

I don't know, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to show him debating it.
I mean, after all, isn't this the exact scenario he was considering when he was debating whether or not to kill that kid in the barn last year?
Do you sacrifice one innocent person to potentially save the rest of the group?
If Rick had just executed that kid when he said he was going to, chances are Shane is still alive, chances are the group isn't splintered that night on the farm when the horde came through, chances are most of the group makes it to the prison, and maybe (just maybe) Lori is still alive because there are more hands available to tend to the zombies that the black prisoner let loose.
Hell, come to think about it, if Rick had just been a hard-ass and killed that black prisoner when he had the chance instead of letting him go to what looked like a certain death, maybe Lori doesn't die in the first place.
Every time Rick has chosen one life over the lives of the rest of the camp, it's led to death for members of the camp.
I think he's more than entitled to think it over at this point, even if the odds are the Governor would never honor his word.

 

Will the Governor have problems within his own group now that some of his right hand men have met the 'enemy' and found them not too different from themselves? Harder to kill people when you know them.

 

Watching The Wire for the first time while watching this season has only increased my frustration about this show's predictability. You never know who will win the war on The Wire. This show is painting too black-and-white on good and bad and doesn't have the balls to let bad win. The Governor was much more compelling before his zombie daughter had her head split open. Instead of becoming an emotionally ravaged leader trying to hold on to what he has, he's simply become a one-note villain.

 

The Wire was built differently, though. It showed both sides, the good and the bad, through the series. Sure, the players changed, but you still had both sides being shown as more than just something the other side is playing against. It was non-traditional in that sense. Heck, there were really even more than two sides, and even among the sides there were "good guys" and "bad guys."

The Walking Dead is more like an old Western in that sense. The main characters are clearly the "good" side. You know in the end they'll win. You can't be sure some of them won't die; in fact, you kinda expect it. But comparing the make-up and predictability to the wire is unfair. The shows just aren't the same kind of shows. That doesn't mean both aren't great.

And I could go deeper into this, but I'd totally spoil The Wire for you.

 

I don't see it that way. I think you're seeing a leader who made a decision and this is it: He's going to betray Michonne, but to do so, he has to show the people he's in charge of exactly what's at stake. He has to show them that if they don't surrender Michonne, then they will be going to war. Some of them, maybe all of them, will die. He has to get that thought into their heads, because if they aren't thinking that they're going to die, they won't accept what he thinks they have to do.

The go-to-war speech wasn't a rallying cry; it was, in a way, emotional terrorism. He wanted them frightened so they'd come to the conclusion he had already reached -- that, even though it was a risk, their best shot at getting out of this with the lowest casualty count was to risk turning her over. In that regard, the two scenes work perfectly together.

When he asked to be talked out of his decision, he was still doubting that he was doing the right thing. He doesn't want to see his people die, and he knows even if he hands Michonne to the Governor, there's a heavy chance that they could all still die. Heck, he even admitted it was more than likely the Governor would betray them. But in the end, even the small chance that the Governor was telling the truth was worth risking if it meant the core group from the farm would survive.

 

I agree. Certainly, with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you knew who would win every battle. And that's one of my favorite shows ever. But the difference was there weren't main characters (not counting Riley) who completely sucked ass and made it difficult to be happy to see them survive.

And it's fine to have characters we're supposed to hate, but I don't get that impression about Andrea and I didn't get that impression about Lori. I think the writers genuinely think of Andrea as an empowered woman in a man's world, facing off with the chauvinist leadership and making bold moves toward change. And I think they thought of Lori as a woman conflicted, trying to make the right choices when there were none. And they definitely view The Governor as a sympathetic villain, which he was initially but which completely disintegrated as they plunged him further toward cartoonishness.

The show isn't great. It's good. It's occasionally very good. And if they made better choices and edited tighter and stopped forcing everything to be a slogging crawl because they think it's artistic, it could easily be great.

 

He's showing one side for the full group, then another in front of just Hershel. Doesn't seem that far off to me.

Also, I don't think it's a matter of if he will turn her over or not. That seems like a fairly obvious red herring to me. The point was to show why he is going to refuse. It isn't a matter of loyalty to Michonne, who he admits has earned her place. It isn't a matter of morality. He simply doesn't trust the Governor to keep his word.

 

Someone actually thinks he's not only going to end up handing over Michonne, but he's already decided? Complete and total misread.

And it is most definitely a matter of morality. That's why Rick is the good guy, despite all the shit he's gone through.

The show's not worth watching if he becomes the simplistic douchebag you're describing, oop.