The Walking Dead Season 3 Ep 13 - Arrow On The Doorpost

rick the governor the walking dead

The Walking Dead Season 3 Episode 9 - Arrow on the Door (218 )

What did you think of this weeks show?

  1. Excellent (80 [36.70%] - )

    36.70%

  2. Good- Some Critiques (95 [43.58%] - )

    43.58%

  3. Fair - Not What I Expected (33 [15.14%] - )

    15.14%

  4. Poor (10 [4.59%] - )

    4.59%

#226
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

Here's my problem with your statement, you state that people want to make themselves feel superior by pointing out flaws. Isn't calling them grocery baggers, indeed a way of making yourself feel superior to them?


Good point. Only if I'm not a grocery bagger myself, I guess.
  • 0

#227
Luv2readt.

Luv2readt.

    S-mart Employee

  • Members
  • 155

I think you missed the point. It was easy for Martinez and Milton to carry out TG's orders because they were fighting "the enemy". But now, the prison group has been humanized. Daryl's not an enemy soldier, he's a guy who offered Martinez a cigarette. Hershel's not an enemy soldier, he's a guy who thought Milton was being smart by recording Woodbury's history. Now that they're seeing them as people, not as enemy soldiers, they're going to increasingly start questioning TG's decisions, and most likely eventually turn on him.

Martinez did not think that the National Guard was "the enemy', he participated because he follows the Governor's orders. Martinez hating walkers and wanting to kill any in his path is understandable, they killed his family. The line is drawn at luring National Guard soldiers in and murdering them. Martinez and Merle are as murderous as any walkers, and they do it for profit, the good life as the Governor's Henchmen.
  • 0

#228
Judari

Judari

    Biter

  • Members
  • 947

I've been saying this for a while now, but I get accused of "complaining against the complainers."
I think it's a way that some people make themselves feel superior, the "Hey, I'm smarter than the writers 'cause I woulda done it different, and it would have been better."
Yeah. That's why they're writing for one of the highest-rated TV series of all time, and you're bagging groceries. But keep trying.


Not to get off topic, but just because you landed a certain job for whatever reason, and the work happens to be popular, doesn't mean you are good at it or its good either. E.L. James wrote that garbage Fifty Shades (after Twilight no less) and made millions not to mention landed on the NYT bestseller list. However according to your logic because of those accomplishments she's literary genius and everyone saying they could have written a better book is basically a hater.

Now I'm not comparing Fifty Shades to TWD, but its okay for people to be critical of something that they know could have been done better. That doesn't mean they think that they personally could have done better only that they have seen it done previously so the standard is higher. I agree with That Guy, you don't have to be a writer to recognize bad writing.
  • 2



#229
mr teaspoon

mr teaspoon

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 528

I think it's a way that some people make themselves feel superior, the "Hey, I'm smarter than the writers 'cause I woulda done it different, and it would have been better."
Yeah. That's why they're writing for one of the highest-rated TV series of all time, and you're bagging groceries. But keep trying.


OK two things

1) I literally don't think I've ever seen somebody offer up a critique that was anything like 'the way they did it sucked, my way would be better'.

2) You obviously know absolutely nothing about the industry if you're so baffled by the concept of failing up. I mean, just go Google 'Kevin Smith Superman story' if you really think shit doesn't rise to the top. The argument that 'they're writing for a really popular show, therefore they're good writers' doesn't hold up at all.
  • 1

#230
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

OK two things

1) I literally don't think I've ever seen somebody offer up a critique that was anything like 'the way they did it sucked, my way would be better'.


You haven't? Maybe not worded exactly like that, but that's definitely what is inferred when someone posts something like, "Why did Rick do this? He should have done that instead." Implying that the writer doesn't know the character that he is creating.
  • 0

#231
Blasko_Z

Blasko_Z

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,243

You haven't? Maybe not worded exactly like that, but that's definitely what is inferred when someone posts something like, "Why did Rick do this? He should have done that instead." Implying that the writer doesn't know the character that he is creating.


And sometimes, the writers genuinely write the characters poorly. You are still arguing that the writers are infallible, and that every little thing is thought-out by them, which, due to the existence of continuity errors and other minor plotholes, which is simply not true.

Also, I do not interpret comments like your example to be "I could have done this better" and I don't see how you could. Sure, some people get a little haughty, but it almost seems like you want to dislike posters on here, if that is how you view it.
  • 2

#232
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

And sometimes, the writers genuinely write the characters poorly. You are still arguing that the writers are infallible, and that every little thing is thought-out by them, which, due to the existence of continuity errors and other minor plotholes, which is simply not true.


And to that, I'll submit that numerous episodes have been nit-picked over this past season, "fault" found, but when looked at as a storyline over the entire season it makes much more sense. People are quick to jump on the criticism bandwagon.
  • 0

#233
Blasko_Z

Blasko_Z

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,243

And to that, I'll submit that numerous episodes have been nit-picked over this past season, "fault" found, but when looked at as a storyline over the entire season it makes much more sense. People are quick to jump on the criticism bandwagon.


And there have been numerous critiques made that were entirely legitimate and still have not been well-explained in the story itself. The fact of the matter is that these conversations, more often than not, open the door to deeper, more meaningful conversations that have really enriched the show, in my opinion. I have been very critical of the show since the beginning, but that only stems from my deep-rooted love of the show and its universe, and I try to praise just as often as I criticize. My criticisms are neither me stating my superiority to the writers, nor me trying to bring the show down, but me hoping to have questions and gripes discussed and fleshed-out. This is the entire reason I joined a forum for this show to start with.
  • 0

#234
Judari

Judari

    Biter

  • Members
  • 947

And to that, I'll submit that numerous episodes have been nit-picked over this past season, "fault" found, but when looked at as a storyline over the entire season it makes much more sense. People are quick to jump on the criticism bandwagon.


Really? In what ways do you think? Seriously, not trying to be snarky here I am actually curious to your thoughts. IMO, I feel as the episodes are stronger by themselves but its when you try to piece them together the plot holes appear and the feeling of continuity is a bit off. I find that to be the case because it has been mentioned in interviews, etc, that there has been a number of changes to plot or characters that have happened last minute/after production has already been started. Those are just the ones that have been made public. It's safe to assume more have been made the fans aren't aware off. Of course changes can happen on set, however too many changes can throw off continuity. It is a balancing act once you have already filmed episodes with an intended plot line to change it in the middle and continue forth with the new plot line still making sense in the big picture. Examples of bad continuity throughout episodes IMO are Michonne and Andrea's relationship, the development of T-Dog, the development of Axel and the development of the people of Woodbury. Those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head I am sure there is more.
  • 1



#235
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710
I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.
  • -3

#236
Blasko_Z

Blasko_Z

    Biter

  • Members
  • 1,243
I don't think that comment is going to do you too well around these parts, bub.
  • 2

#237
That Guy

That Guy

    Biter

  • Members
  • 2,105
  • LocationBumfuck, Nowhere

I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.


I can't tell whether this is a serious argument or not.
  • 0

#238
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

I don't think that comment is going to do you too well around these parts, bub.


Apparently not. It doesn't "run with the herd," that's for sure.
  • 0

#239
Dr Cank

Dr Cank

    Lurker

  • Members
  • 432
  • LocationWNC

I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.


yeah.....

good luck with that. :huh:
  • 0

#240
Serenity@sea

Serenity@sea

    Do ya want a cookie?

  • Administrators
  • 9,857

I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.


Okay, now I think that you are going to need some help from Oscar and Axel, digging your grave. ;)

The biggest difference, IMO, is offering constructive criticism and nit picking tiny details that aren't important to the story.
I agree with Judari. There were some plot lines that didn't add up. One of my biggest problems was with the Carol dying/missing storyline. The graves and her headscarf did not make sense. Now, we know that those scenes were changed but with the editing involved, it was not consistent with the final story.
  • 0

#241
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

Okay, now I think that you are going to need some help from Oscar and Axel, digging your grave. ;)

The biggest difference, IMO, is offering constructive criticism and nit picking tiny details that aren't important to the story.
I agree with Judari. There were some plot lines that didn't add up. One of my biggest problems was with the Carol dying/missing storyline. The graves and her headscarf did not make sense. Now, we know that those scenes were changed but with the editing involved, it was not consistent with the final story.


Honestly, I've seldom thought the criticisms from folks like That_Guy or Judari were "nit picking." I might not have agreed with them all, but I thought they were usually based on substance. But there's folks out there blasting the writers for Rick not shooting the Governor at the parley.
  • 0

#242
Mamaof3Littles

Mamaof3Littles

    Infected

  • Members
  • 76
I guess my thought is, if you hate the writing so much AND hate every episode/arc, don't watch it. But I don't think there is anything wrong with being critical... I think that is the only way to possibly shift the plots in directions we would be happy with.. if we assume that some of this HAS to get back to the writers. I know more than I probably should about "the industry" and I the best people work the hardest and get the least credit in any line of work but in television, it gets taken out on the fans. Anyway... just my 2 cents...
  • 0

#243
Nareen

Nareen

    Biter

  • Members
  • 864
  • LocationCanada

I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.


I partially agree with the first sentence but as for the second, well it's not even worth a rebuttal, but I suspect the poster has thrown away any credit he has with a number of posters on this board :lol:.

IMO opinion, Andrea's development this season has always made sense, it just has not been executed all that well. It's horrifying to me that people actually wish her or any other character to come to physical harm, to be raped and/or tortured; I wouldn't wish that on any character.

The following is just my opinion of course:


After half a year of living on the road, so sick she can barely walk and probably near death, Andrea (with Michonne) is taken in by thriving settlement that appears to be safe and well supplied, with happy denizens. Her illness is treated, she’s fed and housed in pleasant surroundings. She’s told that they aren't prisoners, that they can have their weapons back when they leave and that they are free to go. Michonne, who apparently can live with someone for months without communicating anything significant, tells Andrea that she has a bad feeling about Woodbury but refuses to tell her why. Eventually Andrea agrees to leave with her anyway and the gate is opened. Believing than that Michonne was wrong, Andrea decides not to leave this good place.

In the meantime, Andrea has met what appears to be a handsome, charming and intelligent man who is interested in her. She pursues the relationship and she starts to care about the people of Woodbury. The one run-in she has with him occurs when she ignores orders and jumps off the wall, and that is perhaps her own fault.

The next time Andrea sees Michonne is in a wreckage of glass, liquid, zombie heads and a dead zombie child, her lover stabbed in the eye and Michonne possibly about to kill him. How could she know what was happening? She holds her gun on Michonne but allows her to escape.

There are some weird things going on but Philip has plausible explanations and I doubt Andrea recognized the pilot’s head. Even the fighting in the arena attracts Andrea as much as it repels her. She understands the lure in a way that none of us truly can, though I could see why people might enjoy watching the slaying of the monsters that assail the remnants of humanity.

When unidentified intruders attack Woodbury, of course Andrea wants to help defend her home. It’s only when she sees Daryl in the arena that the little cracks in the façade of Woodbury really start to open up.

Her visit to the prison enables Andrea, for the first time, to understand what the Governor is. Even then she’s not told everything. Despite her feelings for Philip. she believes her friends. As Carol advised, she goes back to TG with the intention of killing him, but it’s not so easy for a normal person to murder anyone in cold blood and he had been her lover.

But Andrea still has hope that a negotiated settlement, a peace treaty, can be achieved and more bloodshed can be averted. By the end of the last episode she knows that peace isn't going to happen. Despite the danger to herself and her own inclinations, Andrea goes back to Woodbury with a yet unknown-to-us agenda.

Andrea has been naive, perhaps blind, and she's made mistakes but none of it was out of malice, greed or callousness. She's just human. Maybe we'll find that she's a hero.
  • 6

#244
backwoodsroamer

backwoodsroamer

    The Amiable Roamer

  • Members
  • 4,589
  • LocationThe Isle of Misfit Toys

I've been saying this for a while now, but I get accused of "complaining against the complainers."
I think it's a way that some people make themselves feel superior, the "Hey, I'm smarter than the writers 'cause I woulda done it different, and it would have been better."
Yeah. That's why they're writing for one of the highest-rated TV series of all time, and you're bagging groceries. But keep trying.


I really don't think this is a very good observation. I can't make a tasty chicken fried steak. That lack of ability does not prevent me from being able to tell the cook at the diner can't make a good one either when the chicken fried steak I ordered tastes bad. It also doesn't make me feel superior to send the steak back. Disappointed yes, superior no, and if someone asks me how the food is there I probably will suggest they not order the chicken fried steak.

"Pay no attention to what the critics say; there has never been a statue erected in honor of a critic." -- Jean Sibelius.


If we want to use quotes here's one. "I might not be able to define hard core pornography, but I know it when I see it." -Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Potter Stewart

I suspect the same standard could be applied to good story telling.

I'll say that Andrea's character development over the entire series is starting to make sense. Not saying that everything she's done is completely logical, but come on, she's a woman. All women are somewhat crazy.


Ah well now! This reminds me of the person telling you they've seen Bigfoot. You're willing to concede they may have seen "something." Then they tell you they were riding in a UFO when they saw Bigfoot. Awkward to say the least.
  • 2

"Kiss your Mother goodnight, and remember that God saves."

kxwjZFU.png


#245
Judari

Judari

    Biter

  • Members
  • 947

I partially agree with the first sentence but as for the second, well it's not even worth a rebuttal, but I suspect the poster has thrown away any credit he has with a number of posters on this board :lol:.

IMO opinion, Andrea's development this season has always made sense, it just has not been executed all that well. It's horrifying to me that people actually wish her or any other character to come to physical harm, to be raped and/or tortured; I wouldn't wish that on any character.


+1, I agree with your assessment of Andrea but IMO the reasons for a lot of people not liking her, especially in the beginning of the season, had more to do with the Michonne hype. So many people were quick to attack her for not trusting Michonne's instincts over her own personal survival instincts. They called her a bad friend, stupid, naive, etc. When it's as you pointed out, Michonne gave Andrea no real reasons to leave and wasn't even that close to her. Once further episodes aired and Michonne was revealed to be almost a one-dimensional caricature (up until the Morgan episode), is when I noticed the general populous giving Andrea more slack. However in the beginning it was as if Michonne could do no wrong and no matter how much Andrea was kept in the dark, everything was her fault.

This of course could be a case of correlation without any real causation. Nevertheless, it is something I did notice especially, because like you, I always thought Andrea's development made sense. So I was a little shocked that almost overnight people seem to be more sympathetic of her as her development has always been going down the same path. Due to that I reasoned it had more to do a Michonne vs. Andrea situation and taking sides rather than execution.
  • 0



#246
Deadpelican

Deadpelican

    Ad Victoriam!

  • Moderators
  • 2,551
  • LocationThe Prydwen

I've been saying this for a while now, but I get accused of "complaining against the complainers."
I think it's a way that some people make themselves feel superior, the "Hey, I'm smarter than the writers 'cause I woulda done it different, and it would have been better."
Yeah. That's why they're writing for one of the highest-rated TV series of all time, and you're bagging groceries. But keep trying.


I kinda agree here. Speaking as one who studied literature/ creative writing, this attitude is not uncommon among "artsy" types and those who fancy themselves writers.

*sigh* And once again I remind you that you don't have to be a writer to tell good writing from bad writing.


I know how to recognize bad writing in written material- I have no idea how to recognize bad writing in a TV show. In a book/ short story, I can tell you why a sentence is awkwardly worded, overly sentimental etc. But in all honesty, I have no earthly idea what bad writing looks like in a television show. Can't speak for everyone though- that's just me.

I can't defend the show against accusations of bad writing because I can't say that I know what good writing looks like or even if I care. With a TV show, I judge it in terms of acting, atmosphere, characters, and story/premise.

In my entirely subjective opinion, I think that Walking Dead does all of the above very well, and has done it well for all three seasons thus far. Yeah, there's some episodes that I've been more critical of than others, and I've done my own share of bitching at times, but even at it's worst, the show isn't terrible.


Here's my problem with your statement; you state that people want to make themselves feel superior by pointing out flaws. Isn't calling them grocery baggers, indeed a way of making yourself feel superior to them?


I see your point, but having spent time around writer wannabes, I can say for certain that this is a tried and true method that wannabes use to look/ sound superior.

Not accusing anyone of that here, just saying that I can understand where Steady Eddie is coming from.
  • 1

Shield yourself from those not bound to you by steel, for they are the blind. Aid them when you can, but lose not sight of yourself. 


#247
SteadyEddie

SteadyEddie

    Roamer

  • Members
  • 710

Andrea has been naive, perhaps blind, and she's made mistakes but none of it was out of malice, greed or callousness. She's just human. Maybe we'll find that she's a hero.


The previews for next week's episode seems to be advancing towards that, at least it seems that way. I think Milton's going to have a role in that too, but I suspect he won't survive. I think his pledge to "take a bullet" for the Guv'nor might prove prophetic.
  • 0

#248
Serenity@sea

Serenity@sea

    Do ya want a cookie?

  • Administrators
  • 9,857

I kinda agree here. Speaking as one who studied literature/ creative writing, this attitude is not uncommon among "artsy" types and those who fancy themselves writers.



I know how to recognize bad writing in written material- I have no idea how to recognize bad writing in a TV show. In a book/ short story, I can tell you why a sentence is awkwardly worded, overly sentimental etc. But in all honesty, I have no earthly idea what bad writing looks like in a television show. Can't speak for everyone though- that's just me.

I can't defend the show against accusations of bad writing because I can't say that I know what good writing looks like or even if I care. With a TV show, I judge it in terms of acting, atmosphere, characters, and story/premise.

In my entirely subjective opinion, I think that Walking Dead does all of the above very well, and has done it well for all three seasons thus far. Yeah, there's some episodes that I've been more critical of than others, and I've done my own share of bitching at times, but even at it's worst, the show isn't terrible.


What?!? It doesn't take any kind of degree to recognize when there is bad dialouge, scenes that do not make sense, large plot holes and on and on. Using that logic, there would not be a difference between Battlefield Earth and Apocalypse Now.
Now, of course there is more than just writing that makes or breaks a film or TV show. Direction, editing and acting are all major factors, as well. I don't think you need a degree to reconize any of those factors either.

I see your point, but having spent time around writer wannabes, I can say for certain that this is a tried and true method that wannabes use to look/ sound superior.

Not accusing anyone of that here, just saying that I can understand where Steady Eddie is coming from.


That sounds like a generalization based on your own experiences. For the most part, I don't get that vibe from the majority of people here.
  • 2

#249
Things&Stuff

Things&Stuff

    Lurker

  • Members
  • 289
  • LocationIn Lori's best interest

I'm still trying to understand why something bad needs to happen to her in your opinion for her to have "learned her lesson." I guess it might come from me thinking she is more a victim of bad circumstances/wrong place-wrong time rather than her having any real fault in it (like I explained things would have probably gone down worse if she had followed Michonne out as they might have not seen Merle kidnap Maggie and Glenn). No one from the group, except Michonne, who feels like she chose the Gov over her, is blaming her for her actions. Most of the guilt she feels is self inflicted as anyone in a similar situation would feel when you have been deceived by someone who has hurt others you care for. She seems to be putting herself through the wringer emotionally for this anyway, honestly I think that's more punishment then loosing a limb or something similar would give. You are always going to be harder on yourself than anyone else can be.


She's no more a victim than Michonne. She could have left, should have left with her friend. What would have happened after that really doesn't matter since it didn't. What matters is her choices and how they affected people. She can't claim to be a leader and be a victim, too. Shane's choice to kill Otis changed him, Rick's choices about people have almost devastated him. Andrea is going to come out of Woodbury virtually unscathed? What is she, a tornado or hurricane? I'm saying there are consequences and she's accumulated quite a long list of bad choices to be settled at her reckoning.


I think that comes from her not being very self aware or insightful. She seems like a trusting person who takes things for face value, which isn't necessarily bad but did not serve her well at all in this particular scenario with the Gov. Although I do give her a bit of slack since he had the rest of the town convinced as well, (Sidenote: I wish they would have fleshed out the towns people involvement/knowledge of the Gov better. On one hand they paint them as complete naive innocents but at other times like when Daryl and Merle were in the ring, make them appear as blood thirsty as the Gov. Makes it hard to really say if Andrea was truly being naive or if the Gov is just that charismatic and Michonne was overly paranoid but just happened to be right).



Back Pack Guy made me focus on how responsible everyone is for their own life and how their actions affect the people around them. I guess that goes back to what I was saying in the above remarks. Andrea's self confidence in her abilities is well founded for her walker killing ability, but she's had a habit since the beginning of the series of making every other person who disagrees with her justify themselves yet she doesn't like being questioned herself. That's ego.

As for the the character of the people of Woodbury, I don't think they are a factor. I think they are sheeple who've been protected by the Governor as a justification for his totalitarian behavior (killing anyone who stands in his way even if it's just a possibility). Andrea's concern for them is because they are people. They make her channel her Inner Dale. And as for that, how insulting was it when she wouldn't let Rick & Co into Woodbury because 'There are innocent people there!' So, what, she came out of Atlanta with him and still thinks he's capable of shedding innocent blood? And how she kept calling him 'Phillip' after learning how he lied about the attack had to be stunning to the group.


But even I had to roll my eyes a bit at Daryl and Martinez pissing contest a bit although I did find it funny. I don't give Andrea flack for not recognizing that kind of banter because I don't think a lot of characters have the leadership potential to recognize it except for Rick. He is the best leader, no one comes close to him in that aspect and because of that I don't expect as much from other characters. LOL besides after being kicked out of the meeting I don't think Andrea had the confidence or mindset to lead anyone as her authority had pretty much been reduced to insignificance by the Gov and Rick.


And yet the only reason she was there was because she thought she had the weight of a leader who could bring a war to an end. That's why she should not have just dismissed it as a pissing contest. Sometimes pissing contests are life and death contests, too. I thought I'd already made that point.



I don't know if I would say just yet that she doesn't recognize the difference between men and women. Other than that example, which is a bit of a read-in imo, I haven't seen any other scenes that would lead to that conclusion. Also on a certain level I think that statement is a cop-out and BS because regardless of gender people can't write off bad/ineffective behaviors on "well this is just how my gender acts so deal with it." That goes for both men and women. I think a lot of the feminist vibes people do get from Andrea is because of her drastic turn around from end of S1/beginning of S2 in her not wanting to be the victim anymore. I think that had less to do with gender and more to do with the self inflicted guilt of not being able to protect her sister.


Her and Lori in the kitchen post Beth's suicide attempt. Her decision to 'do something for the group' as defined by killing walkers. Her incredulity at the Governor for him wanting her to 'tuck people in' after the Glenn & Maggie rescue. Those come to mind. She still thinks that gender defined roles are archaic and out of date, something for the unenlightened. She hasn't realized that the brief window of freedom that women enjoyed post The Pill has virtually ended. Liberation from unwanted pregnancies will be a high priority because of the 'Everyone's Infected' implications, but for now, sex can very well equal death for a woman. I doubt it will be addressed like that in the series but if this were indeed a real ZA it would be important. Pregnant women would need to be watched in case of what Lori described to Herschel.


ETA- Plus lets not forget that the writers kinda suck at writing for women. The best so far I think has been Carol but even she has had her off times/moments.


I think they did an excellent job with Lori but I don't want to get off topic. I'll be more than happy to lay my case out where it's appropriate. I think Maggie is written well; she's strong, sensible and confident just as the daughter of Herschel should be. No dark closets for her or Beth who, now that she has a reason to live is coming alone nicely. Carol has been spot on for me. I'm stunned at her insight into her own situation and how she's used that to help Daryl.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on any one of my opinions. I do think that me wanting Andrea to pay a physical price for her blindness and ego is reasonable. Who else has come out unscathed? And it's not a matter of fairness. Survivor guilt may not be the right term to use, but if she doesn't pay a price she may feel that or go off on her own crazy train. Wouldn't that follow the same path they've laid out for other characters?
  • 0

#250
Things&Stuff

Things&Stuff

    Lurker

  • Members
  • 289
  • LocationIn Lori's best interest
For some reason I can't edit my posts. Here is the complete post as I really wanted it to be viewed. All content added to the previous post will be in boldface.

I'm still trying to understand why something bad needs to happen to her in your opinion for her to have "learned her lesson." I guess it might come from me thinking she is more a victim of bad circumstances/wrong place-wrong time rather than her having any real fault in it (like I explained things would have probably gone down worse if she had followed Michonne out as they might have not seen Merle kidnap Maggie and Glenn). No one from the group, except Michonne, who feels like she chose the Gov over her, is blaming her for her actions. Most of the guilt she feels is self inflicted as anyone in a similar situation would feel when you have been deceived by someone who has hurt others you care for. She seems to be putting herself through the wringer emotionally for this anyway, honestly I think that's more punishment then loosing a limb or something similar would give. You are always going to be harder on yourself than anyone else can be.


She's no more a victim than Michonne. She could have left, should have left with her friend. What would have happened after that really doesn't matter since it didn't. What matters is her choices and how they affected people. She can't claim to be a leader and be a victim, too. Shane's choice to kill Otis changed him, Rick's choices about people have almost devastated him. Andrea is going to come out of Woodbury virtually unscathed? What is she, a tornado or hurricane? I'm saying there are consequences and she's accumulated quite a long list of bad choices to be settled at her reckoning. I'm thinking of proportion, here. The degree of her mistake should require should require the same degree of correction or it won't feel as if Cosmic Justice had been achieved. I think we are seeing consequences that fit the actions with both the Governor and Rick and, most likely others in smaller ways. (italics indicate added text in editing.) Plus, just feeling terrible about something is not payment or we'd not need many jail cells. Real action requires real reaction.


I think that comes from her not being very self aware or insightful. She seems like a trusting person who takes things for face value, which isn't necessarily bad but did not serve her well at all in this particular scenario with the Gov. Although I do give her a bit of slack since he had the rest of the town convinced as well, (Sidenote: I wish they would have fleshed out the towns people involvement/knowledge of the Gov better. On one hand they paint them as complete naive innocents but at other times like when Daryl and Merle were in the ring, make them appear as blood thirsty as the Gov. Makes it hard to really say if Andrea was truly being naive or if the Gov is just that charismatic and Michonne was overly paranoid but just happened to be right).


Back Pack Guy made me focus on how responsible everyone is for their own life and how their actions affect the people around them. I guess that goes back to what I was saying in the above remarks. Andrea's self confidence in her abilities is well founded for her walker killing ability, but she's had a habit since the beginning of the series of making every other person who disagrees with her justify themselves yet she doesn't like being questioned herself. That's ego.

As for the the character of the people of Woodbury, I don't think they are a factor. I think they are sheeple who've been protected by the Governor as a justification for his totalitarian behavior (killing anyone who stands in his way even if it's just a possibility). Andrea's concern for them is because they are people. They make her channel her Inner Dale. And as for that, how insulting was it when she wouldn't let Rick & Co into Woodbury because 'There are innocent people there!' So, what, she came out of Atlanta with him and still thinks he's capable of shedding innocent blood? And how she kept calling him 'Phillip' after learning how he lied about the attack had to be stunning to the group.


But even I had to roll my eyes a bit at Daryl and Martinez pissing contest a bit although I did find it funny. I don't give Andrea flack for not recognizing that kind of banter because I don't think a lot of characters have the leadership potential to recognize it except for Rick. He is the best leader, no one comes close to him in that aspect and because of that I don't expect as much from other characters. LOL besides after being kicked out of the meeting I don't think Andrea had the confidence or mindset to lead anyone as her authority had pretty much been reduced to insignificance by the Gov and Rick.


And yet the only reason she was there was because she thought she had the weight of a leader who could bring a war to an end. That's why she should not have just dismissed it as a pissing contest. Sometimes pissing contests are life and death contests, too. I thought I'd already made that point.



I don't know if I would say just yet that she doesn't recognize the difference between men and women. Other than that example, which is a bit of a read-in imo, I haven't seen any other scenes that would lead to that conclusion. Also on a certain level I think that statement is a cop-out and BS because regardless of gender people can't write off bad/ineffective behaviors on "well this is just how my gender acts so deal with it." That goes for both men and women. I think a lot of the feminist vibes people do get from Andrea is because of her drastic turn around from end of S1/beginning of S2 in her not wanting to be the victim anymore. I think that had less to do with gender and more to do with the self inflicted guilt of not being able to protect her sister.


Her and Lori in the kitchen post Beth's suicide attempt. Her decision to 'do something for the group' as defined by killing walkers. Her incredulity at the Governor for him wanting her to 'tuck people in' after the Glenn & Maggie rescue. Those come to mind. She still thinks that gender defined roles are archaic and out of date, something for the unenlightened. She hasn't realized that the brief window of freedom that women enjoyed post The Pill has virtually ended. Liberation from unwanted pregnancies will be a high priority because of the 'Everyone's Infected' implications, but for now, sex can very well equal death for a woman. I doubt it will be addressed like that in the series but if this were indeed a real ZA it would be important. Pregnant women would need to be watched in case of what Lori described to Herschel.


ETA- Plus lets not forget that the writers kinda suck at writing for women. The best so far I think has been Carol but even she has had her off times/moments.


I think they did an excellent job with Lori but I don't want to get off topic. I'll be more than happy to lay my case out where it's appropriate. I think Maggie is written well; she's strong, sensible and confident just as the daughter of Herschel should be. No dark closets for her or Beth who, now that she has a reason to live is coming alone nicely. Carol has been spot on for me. I'm stunned at her insight into her own situation and how she's used that to help Daryl.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on any one of my opinions. I do think that me wanting Andrea to pay a physical price for her blindness and ego is reasonable. Who else has come out unscathed? And it's not a matter of fairness. Survivor guilt may not be the right term to use, but if she doesn't pay a price she may feel that or go off on her own crazy train. Wouldn't that follow the same path they've laid out for other characters?

And Michonne's character being allowed to be told by her actions only isn't something we see much these days but I love Clint Eastwood's Spaghetti Westerns and I was thinking all she needed was to steal Daryl's poncho! I didn't think of her as a caricature at all. As for Andrea's not trusting her instincts that was a huge instance of Andrea's poor character judgment. Michonne had survived on her own for some time before she saved Andrea. Heck, just for having saved her life alone Andrea should have been willing to give Michonne the benefit of the doubt. But having been on her own when everyone else is thinking Safety in Numbers is quite an accomplishment. Why then did Andrea act like Michonne was back to square one and having to prove herself?

I don't not like Andrea but I don't like her either. I think she is a great example of a person who's still judging people by civilized standards but in a different way than we've seen before. 67% of communication is nonverbal yet all Phillip has to do is talk her out of her disquiet? I think she's interesting.
  • 0





Welcome to RoamersAndLurkers.com, the largest walking dead forum and discussion board online. If you are a fan of AMC's The Walking Dead or Robert Kirkman's The Walking Dead Comic Book, we invite you to peruse and enjoy our discussion board, and don't be afraid of joining in!