Gobi

I suspect that the reason TPTB went for the cliffhanger is because of worry that they would lose a lot of fans over the summer if they killed off some favorite characters. This way, people will tune in for the season opener, and they can hope that they'll stay with it, and the show won't lose as many viewers.

Only justification that I can come up with is that because these zombies are "fresher", it takes less blood/guts for them to react. Of course, that assumes that all the TWD zombies are older, which is not always the case.

In the preview, Strand was seen lying a the ground with what looked like a wound. Probably just a fake out, though; I don't think they would kill him this soon. Which leads me to wonder - Who is wearing plot armor in this show? My guess is Madison, Travis, Nick, and Alycia.

Plus, the FBI always knows exactly where you are, except when you're dumping a dead body into a lake.

Thanks for the explanation!

Another unanswered question. Can someone more knowledgeable about boxing than I am, please explain how Hector, after his big loss in his last fight, is the 30 to 1 favorite in the rematch?

They are certainly building up the character in the media. Much more than, say, the Governor ever got, so I fear you may be correct. Does that mean that I Fear the Walking Dead?

It was entertaining, albeit contrived, how it was set up to look like Mickey was going to screw up placing the bet at any moment. Can someone explain to me how the FBI always knows exactly where Ray is when they want him? Is there a tracking device in his car? His phone? Is there a mole?

Anyone who could take on Wez and the Humungous wouldn't even blink at Neegan.

Mad Max's leather jacket?

Head shots are not that easy. I'm not sure whether Chris has ever fired a gun before; if not, he was lucky to even hit FJ. FJ should definitely be returning as a zombie next episode, though.

That was the prison form I referred to; I don't think the PTB are considering this as an explanation, I just like it.

Whatever.

I've been toying with a theory. No one ever seems to develop infections (other than the zombie one and that extreme form in the prison), even when splattered with zombie blood and guts. Could it be that the zombie virus bestows immunity from all other infections? That could even be the cause: It was developed as a universal immune agent (with one unfortunate side effect) that somehow escaped the lab.

I would very much like to see a storyline of Chris turning into a Governor/Neegan type character; perhaps with Strand, always the practical one, as his consiglieri. "Breaking Dead", as it were. I think it far more likely that we'll see Travis either kill Chris himself, or stand by and do nothing while walkers/bad guys do it.

That makes sense.

This is an interesting theme of which I'd like to see more - how regular people turn bad in extreme circumstances. TWD occasionally touched on it. How morally difficult choices can lead one down the path of evil. Going from: I have to kill this person because he's threatening to kill me, to: I have to kill this person because he may be a threat.

It would make for an interesting second season - the civil trial going on at the same time as the trial against the financial planner. A tatted up, drugged up Naz in one, the smug prostitute beating financial planner in the other. I'm not convinced these writers could pull it off, though.

Now that you mention it, I don't think we ever did. Plus, wasn't someone following Stone when he visited his son at the school playground?

I actually thought this episode was not bad; a least, there was nothing that had me yelling at the TV. Probably due to the low Madison content. Perhaps there should be a viewer advisory at the beginning: "Caution, this show contains substantial Madison content, viewer discretion is advised." With variations to reflect the amount of Madison content per episode.

I know the defendant does not have the burden of proof in a civil trial. My point was all that they have to do is convince the jury, through their defense, that Naz more likely than not was the killer for the jury to dismiss the case. Based on what we saw in the trial, not what we know from extraneous material, I can't see a law firm risking that in a case where half the jury in the criminal trial was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Naz did it.

I wonder if the drop in quality from the pilot (Gandolfi 's scenes were re-filmed with Turturro) was due to his absence. I did like the show, overall, but for me it failed to live up to that brilliant first episode.

Conversely, the State would only have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Naz did it for the civil case to be dismissed. A sympathetic figure, who may be a murderer, deserves compensation? A civil jury would be more likely to dismiss the case, thinking Naz should be happy he wasn't convicted. If I had been on the jury, based on the evidence in the trial, I would have voted guilty. Not murder necessarily, but some degree of manslaughter. First, we have to ignore the blood spray, because the show did; deliberately in my opinion, because the writers couldn't figure out a way around it. In the show's universe, blood splatters everywhere except on the killer or clothes lying next to the bed. Usually, the biggest hurdle for the prosecution is placing the defendant at the scene of the crime. No problem here, Naz testified that he was there (at the plea hearing), and there was copious DNA evidence, as well. Then he's stopped near the scene of the crime, with a knife that fits the wounds and has the victim's blood on it. The defense? "I passed out and didn't do it." Plus: Dwayne. He was there that night, and has an MO that matches the crime. Except that his MO includes robbing elderly men and single women living alone. I'm supposed to believe that he went back to a brownstone where he knew there were two people in their 20's? And if they put up a fight, they would give him time to look for a knife? Creepy hearse driver encounters them at a gas station. I'm supposed to think that he followed her home because she wouldn't lower her window to talk to him, waited a while and then got in somehow and stabbed Andrea 22 times? Evil Stepdad had a motive. Except that the prosecution never has to prove a motive, and juries are instructed to that effect by the Judge. It's nice to show a motive if you're the prosecution, not necessary. And motive doesn't establish guilt. Where's any evidence he was there that night? And am I supposed to think that all three of them broke in and stabbed her? Or that it was one of them, never mind who, and he was lucky enough to break in while Naz was passed out? Oh, and the real murder weapon was taken from the scene by the killer. The financial planner was never mentioned in the trial. The State didn't even have any evidence about him in its file; the evidence was obtained, illegally, by a retired cop. I'm not even sure the evidence about the financial planner was exculpatory. It certainly makes him a suspect, but it doesn't exonerate Naz or alter the evidence against Naz.

How could the Khans sue civilly? Naz wasn't found innocent, after all; nor has the financial planner been found guilty - he hasn't even been charged. Would Naz want to risk having a civil trial where what he did in Rikers could come out?

I think that is a principal source of disappointment with the show. All the people I've spoken to about it were expecting the show to be about the onset and development of the crisis. We got a little of that, then right into full-on ZA.