Amph The Walking Dead and Spinoffs on AMC

Its not about explaining every bit of information. Its about definitively outlining the fate of a rather important character and events of disappearance having taken place entirely off-screen. That kind of vague information is usually one of two things. Either is poor film-making and communication of details, or its intentional misdirection in order to confuse or mislead the audience. It shouldn't be up to the audience to fill in the details when they are this important.

Again I don't buy the idea that they didn't want to show Lori's half eaten body, as they have never been squeamish about showing such things in the past. Within the same episode they showed T-Dog's half-eaten corpse laying there, which was pretty unnecessary as the appropriate conclusion could be drawn from a swarm of walkers consuming him. I also don't buy that they couldn't afford the effect, especially since they spent the money on T-Dog's corpse and a major character death that has a specific and deliberate build up would be something you budget for, not forget about until the last minute.

I can excuse bad plot details, inconsistent characters and writing and a vague mythology as part of the show. But when so many details in one instance are left vague pertaining to the remains of a rather important character, whose death will have specific long term effects on several lead characters, I don't buy for a second that its just poor communication. I think its deliberately poor communication. And if I am wrong its a rather glaring omission of detail, requiring a rather large leap in logic.

Spoiler

And given that they are leaping ahead to Rick's delusion where his dead wife is talking to him over the phone, it seems to me that the vagueness of Lori's whereabouts and his delusions are probably related matters.

 

Well, as for one of the things you've mentioned repeatedly that lead to ambiguity- Carl shooting Lori offscreen- that can be explained easily in a couple of ways. First off I think showing Maggie's reaction to the shot worked very well, and it wasn't necessary to actually see it happen. We can react with Maggie that way. And maybe they didn't want to show Carl shooting his mother because it's a kid shooting his mom. They generally let loose with the gore, but as has been pointed out they didn't show the actual shot when Rick shot Sophia (he was shown killing the little girl in the first episode, but that was a wham! scene to get people involved in the show, and we had no idea who the girl was so we didn't care about her as much) because of the disturbing image of a father shooting a child (even if not his own). Perhaps it could be reasoned that it could be equally as bad to show a child shooting a mother, especially a mother's corpse. Perhaps if she had been a zombie already it wouldn't have mattered, but she wasn't, and showing him shoot her would have been a very intense scene and I can imagine at least a few people not liking it. We've only seen them wipe out corpses in such a manner once before, in season 1, and that was all adults attacking adults.

Basically the only reason why Carl has been able to be shown killing a lot of zombies and acting the way he has been is because they are zombies, and therefore more animal than human. And that's aside from the fact that people dislike the idea of desecrating corpses.

I don't think there's any real ambiguity about what happened at all, to be honest. It's all fairly straightforward. Lori dies. Carl shoots her. Rick find a zombie in that area gorged on her remains (never mind whether it's physically possible or not; that's what willing suspension of disbelief is for) and proceeds to go to town on it. Rick hears the phone ring, and anyone who's read the comic knows what will happen next. I don't see how there's any other way to read it really.

Also, in regards to whether something is bad filmmakingor misdirection, please remember Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If you're choosing between bad plotting and trying to mislead, go with bad plotting until proven otherwise. I don't see how it's either, but that's me.

 

Seems pretty definitive to me. Dale's death was slightly more vague, but given that Daryl was holding the barrel of the gun directly to Dale's head, I feel much more comfortable with that assumption.

I maintain we don't know Lori's fate. We can assume she is dead due to blood loss, I think that's a pretty safe bet. We know Carl took a shot, but it happened completely off-screen, with no one to witness it. We find an engorged zombie with no indication that it was Lori it consumed and a trail of blood, no bones, no clothing (there are usually some remains left behind). Yes you could draw conclusions from that, they may even be the right conclusions. But that's an awful lot of assumptions being made, and an awful lot of details left to our imagination.

 

Okay, I stand corrected. Other people said it in the thread and not having seen the episode in awhile I took their word for it. I still think they might not have wanted to show a child shooting his mother's corpse though. And in any case I think they made it the way they did so we could share Maggie's reaction. I think it was a nice job of editing to elicit the right reaction.

 

Even if that were the case I think they still need to show me something besides a sound and a reaction. Give me a body or something distinct. I am willing to suspend disbelief, I can even give the show even more latitude with its logic given the ludicrous nature of zombies. But I am not willing to buy that a zombie could consume an entire human being. Even assuming that there were other Zombies that didn't consume as much of Lori and walked away, I am not willing to buy that they ate her skeletons and clothing, especially since its been otherwise demonstrated that they don't do that. And that still seems like a lot of information left for the audience to fill in, a lot of assumptions on our part, and that to me stinks of misdirection. After all they only just recently took for granted that Andrew had been killed...boy did that turn out well.

Again I could be wrong. I probably am. But I need more than a sound, a reaction and a bloody streak on the floor to take on faith that's entirely what happened.

 

In regards to the missing corpse, once again I must point to Hanlon's Razor. That bit could have been done better.

I don't see why it's hard to believe that Carl carried out the shot, even if we didn't actually see it. Yeah it was his mom and he's a kid, but he's clearly grown a lot and his state of mind right before seemed to me to be full of grim determination. I don't think he backed out of that.

 

Yeah, Carl shooting Lori, while disturbing, I actually found quite believable and realistic. He shot Shane last season, shot scores of Walkers since, and knows via his father that everybody turns into a Walker when they die. He's had to grow up quite rapidly in this world, and I could see him not wanting his mother to have the fate of reanimating as a Walker, shouldering the responsiblity and being the one to shoot Lori rather than leaving it up to Maggie.

 

You are missing my point. My question isn't whether he could carry out the shot, but rather whether he did carry out the shot. I very much doubt the intention to make the shot an off-screen moment was purely intended to spare the audience the horror of witnessing such an event. I think its much more deliberate than that, motivated by an attempt at misdirection.

Hanlon's Razor is all well and good and I could probably take faith that it was an out-of-character moment for the producers sparing the audience the horror of that moment, if so many other things surrounding Lori's apparent death were not left so vague. But there is a very important rule in comics and comic related media about the mysterious lack of body surrounding an assumed death. The show has already demonstrated the use of this rule rather recently with Andrew, leading to this very incident in question. So I am having a little trouble taking faith that a body could disappear entirely (a completely unprecedented circumstance) and the series of events are exactly how they look.

 

Well we know she died. We saw that happen. So I suppose your issue is whether or not she ranimated because you don't know if Carl went through with the shot. But my question is why wouldn't he? If he's capable of doing so and determined, then what reason would he have for not doing so?

 

I am not disputing that she is dead. While I don't think her loss of conciousness was her death (that would be rather sudden) clearly she would die due to blood loss. My issue is what actually happened to her body, whether she walked away reanimated or someone (perhaps Carol whose whereabouts are also a mystery) tried to remove her, or if they are going to be playing into

Spoiler

Rick's delusion

.

I couldn't tell you why Carl wouldn't. There are any number of reasons why a child would choose not to shoot his own mother (and wouldn't be the first time Carl made a poor decision), but that's really all just more speculation. What I do know is that this is a show that doesn't shy away from horror (I don't buy that its as simple cutting away to spare us the moment). I do know film language and the technique of an off-screen "death" like that is often used as intentional misdirection. I also know that it's a technique they've already used once this season with the case of Andrew.

Again I am willing to see where they go with it, and if I am wrong, I'm wrong. I just don't think the fate of Lori is something we should accept at face value. Until I see otherwise I will remain suspicious.

 

I suppose I could see some Carol involvement in perhaps removing Lori's body. I don't know. I definitely need something more about what's happened to Carol, though I suspect we'll probably get it.

 

Walking Dead's sense of humor is spectacularly dark. Pregnant Lori being replaced with pregnant zombie was pure wicked funny evil. I'd hate to think that it's all misdirection. It seems clear that Maggie saw what we think she thinks she saw, and we have no reason to doubt her testimony, even though she hasn't given it yet.

But the episode leaves me confused about zombie dietary habits. Are they or are they not carrion eaters? You'd think there would be a much smaller zombieland corpse problems if zombies were as diligent as that particular one about clearing out the remains.

 

Yes the Carol thing bugs me just as much. Especially since they seem to ready to bury her despite the lack of a body.

Maggie knows no more than we do. She was out of sight when Carl took the shot, and then he walked out and she followed, neither saying a word.

 

A big part of Carl's character in the comics is that he adapts to the zombie world much better than most adults he knows. This is especially relevant after Lori's death and Carl has time and time again shown that he's willing to do what other "intelligent" adults are not. We've already seen a little of that in the show when he appeared to be the only one willing to shoot Herschel if he became zombified despite his amputation. He's grown a lot in the 8 months between the 2nd and 3rd season. Nobody is asking "Why isn't Carl in the house?" anymore. I just don't see Carl shying away from shooting his mother to prevent her from coming back. The flashback to his sit down with Rick shows that he knows what needs to be done. He's grown up long before he would have in the regular world.

 

Again I am not disputing his growth or ability to make tough decisions. But would it really be that surprising that a kid would choose not to shoot his mother?

 

A kid? No.
Carl Grimes? Yes.

 

Spoiler

As I recall in the comics he hesitated and choose not to shoot his father whom he thought was dead and reanimating. After they walked away from the prison and the death of his mother and sister.

Regardless of how much he has grown, he is still a human being, still a child. I don't think its beyond belief that he might hesitate.

 

So, can we now put those two items to rest?

And here comes the run towards this season's climax.....

 

I really liked this episode, and I've loved this season. We can all agree that bringing zombies back into the show was probably a great idea.

 

Seriously, the actress that plays Lori was interviewed several days ago and she confirmed Lori's death. Unless it's a crazy conspiracy by the cast & crew to keep misleading the audience, that matter is pretty much laid to rest (no pun intended).

What I'm more concerned about is whether

Spoiler

Maggie will suffer Michonne's fate in the books

, because it pretty much looks that way.

 

I'd still like an explanation how zombies have the sudden ability to consume a human skeleton.

A few other thoughts about this episode:
- I'm glad to see Carol is alright.
- I'm shocked they burned through the phone storyline so quickly. I figured that would have taken place over a couple of episodes. But they seemed to have covered it for the most part.
- Once again Andre has wonderful taste in men. I can't wait to see how much trouble this brings upon her or the group.
- I'm also worried about Glenn and Maggie's fate particularly if they evoke a certain incident from the comics.
- I look forward to Daryl and his brother reuniting but I worry about what side he will choose and whether he makes it through the season.

 

WE HAVIN FUN YET?!

merle is now officially my new posting spirit animal

 

I really love the incredibly subtle romance between Carol/Daryl. Not something that's usually attempted or pulled off well.

Also the shot of Rick on the phone w/ the dead Lori walker in the back was just great.

 

[quote="Spider-Fan, post: 50193453, member: 1337660"
- I'm shocked they burned through the phone storyline so quickly. I figured that would have taken place over a couple of episodes. But they seemed to have covered it for the most part.[/quote]

Obviously I haven't read the comics, but as a TV writing person I would just say that I would never stretch that plotline out over more than one episode. That story seemed like it was perfect for a one-off episode. There's no reason whatsoever to drag that out. Everyone already knew that it wasn't a real phonecall. You weren't going to fool the audience over a few weeks. It's much better to get closure on that in one episode. It might work in the comic to have it go on for longer, maybe some people weren't sure if it was real or not, but in a TV show that wouldn't work and would be just as unnecessarily drawn out as parts of season 2 were.


I liked this episode a lot, though it felt very much like it was just a setup for next week. The two sides needed to come together soon and I think they did that at the right time. But I suspect that next week will be very exciting.