S06.E08: Start To Finish

[JackONeill]

Yeah, that dude needs major dental work. Better ask Dr. Denise to read up on it.

 

See, they should have kept Andrea's cosmetics bag. I'm sure there was something in there that would have done the trick.

[AngelaHunter]

Didn't realize his character development would pretty much start and end with 'pee-pants'

 

Don't be so hard on our dear FPP. It wasn't JUST pee-pants. There was terror-puking and tattletaling too.

 

And when it's his turn to stand there, holding perfectly still, arms at sides and shrieking while a zombie eats his face, I shall mourn.

 

Just kidding.

[JBody]

FPP is gonna show you all! He's graduated to pull-ups *annoying ad jingle: "I'm a big kid now!"*

[JackONeill]

You know, talking about FPP, it makes you really realize how there are some woefully underwritten characters on this show. I'd argue that none of them, even Rick and Michone, are all that fleshed out.

 

But putting aside the 1st string (Rick, Michonne, Carl, Carol, Daryl, etc), the second string has been even more . . . forgotten about.

And, honestly, what string does Glenn and Maggie belong in? If you only saw the last season and a half of this show, you might wonder.

 

But Morgan(?!?) gets a ninety-minute, all-to-himself show. And I have a feeling he won;t be around next season.

 

I mean, what the hell?

[diebartdie]

And yeah, I actually like Unfair Wolf a lot. He gets such a compassionate look on his face...SO sincere. Never lies. Tells everyone just exactly what his intentions are. I love him. Except when he smiles, cause that's just nasty.

Yeah he has SO MUCH compassion when he is slaughtering people with axes or knives....

 

I was loving the Unfair wolf.  He made me laugh and he was snowing the 'psychiatrist'.  Here too is another case of the show building up a bad group and wasting them.  I wanted more of the Termites.  They build the wolves up and then it's 10 people??  That Carol can take out?  Oh and Rick.  I hope Mr Sly Wolf gets away but kills Denise first.

 

Yeah he was SO HILARIOUS when he was slaughtering people who were just minding their own business, especially children...

I'm starting to think the Wolf might be the new hero of the bunch. Seriously. He's somewhat witty. He's stealthy. And he's cleaner, by a mile, than Daryl. Just my random Monday afternoon thoughts.

I always expect MY HEROES to just ruthlessly, mindlessly SLAUGHTER PEOPLE.

 

What the ever loving fuck people? The Wolves are not "compassionate" or "hilarious" or "heroic", they are the boiled down distillation of absolute hatred and nihilism. They are Termites minus the free barbeque. The Gov was never like that because the Gov wanted his people at least to have a nicer, safer existence. The Wolves dont want anyone to have a nicer, safer existence, not even themselves. Have no doubt, if the Wolves dont find fresh supplies of innocents, they turn on each other. The deliberately create zombies! Man fuck the idea of keeping the Wolf alive, I am Team Carol/Rick/Michonne/Daryl on this (and pretty much all things). Kill that motherfucker and burn its body.

 

Edited December 8, 2015 by diebartdie

[NoWillToResist]

Not that I am interested in him...but lame forehead cattle brand should be a deal breaker before getting to bad teeth.

 

True, but bangs could hide that little youthful indiscretion. ;)

 

Or, he could later claim that he was branded without his consent...(not that he will because he's been drinking the Wolf Kool-aid for too long, IMO)

Edited December 8, 2015 by NoWillToResist

[SometimesBites]

Yeah he has SO MUCH compassion when he is slaughtering people with axes or knives....  Yeah he was SO HILARIOUS when he was slaughtering people who were just minding their own business, especially children...I always expect MY HEROES to just ruthlessly, mindlessly SLAUGHTER PEOPLE. What the ever loving fuck people? The Wolves are not "compassionate" or "hilarious" or "heroic", they are the boiled down distillation of absolute hatred and nihilism. They are Termites minus the free barbeque. The Gov was never like that because the Gov wanted his people at least to have a nicer, safer existence. The Wolves dont want anyone to have a nicer, safer existence, not even themselves. Have no doubt, if the Wolves dont find fresh supplies of innocents, they turn on each other. The deliberately create zombies! Man fuck the idea of keeping the Wolf alive, I am Team Carol/Rick/Michonne/Daryl on this (and pretty much all things). Kill that motherfucker and burn its body. 

You're killing me here. The wolf isn't getting a positive reaction because we somehow imagine he's a force for good in the walking dead universe. Of COURSE he's evil--that's the whole point!

His character is perfectly consistent, and the actor playing him is doing a brilliant job of it. The wolf understands his place in the ZA world, and never wavers from acting in harmony with his stone-cold motives. That's why, when he widens his big brown eyes in a soulful "gosh, you're so mistaken" look, he KILLS--you know damn well there's nothing truly empathetic underneath. He's a character who's been written well, and has been perfectly realized by the actor, and that's why I love him. He elevates his villainy into three dimensions by dint of glorious acting. I don't want that guy to live in my actual neighborhood; I'm watching TV here, looking to be entertained, and the big bad wolf entertains me. Long may villains of his caliber populate this world for our heroes to struggle against. Otherwise, we're back to arguments about doing the laundry and watching Carl have a slow-motion romp with Enid.

[NoWillToResist]

You're killing me here. The wolf isn't getting a positive reaction because we somehow imagine he's a force for good in the walking dead universe. Of COURSE he's evil--that's the whole point!

His character is perfectly consistent, and the actor playing him is doing a brilliant job of it. The wolf understands his place in the ZA world, and never wavers from acting in harmony with his stone-cold motives. That's why, when he widens his big brown eyes in a soulful "gosh, you're so mistaken" look, he KILLS--you know damn well there's nothing truly empathetic underneath. He's a character who's been written well, and has been perfectly realized by the actor, and that's why I love him. He elevates his villainy into three dimensions by dint of glorious acting. I don't want that guy to live in my actual neighborhood; I'm watching TV here, looking to be entertained, and the big bad wolf entertains me. Long may villains of his caliber populate this world for our heroes to struggle against. Otherwise, we're back to arguments about doing the laundry and watching Carl have a slow-motion romp with Enid.

 

What I find so interesting is that the Wolf should, IMO, be boring. He's just evil. He kills innocents without remorse and plans to continue doing so. He's awful and doesn't appear to have any dimensions or grey area; no conflict about his actions etc.

 

Yet, I found myself amused by him. And in the dreary, drudgery of the ZA, I guess that counts for a lot! :)

[JackONeill]

What's interesting about this wolf are the parallels between him and the guy in the cabin with Tyrese and Judith. (You know, the guy Tyrese should have killed, said he killed, but didn't kill.)

Both characters are similar: evil, murderers, give no inch. But there's something about them. Both seem to be "better written" than even the leads in this show, yet they are only in it for a few minutes. But they make an impression. If they weren't so evil, you might want to spend time with them.

[CletusMusashi]

Yeah, that dude needs major dental work. Better ask Dr. Denise to read up on it.

Stay tuned for a special Christmas episode, in which she smashes out his teeth with a hammer and forces him into a life of tree-decoration slavery. I mean, hey, everyone thought it was adorable when Herbie the elf did it...

And then maybe Rick can have him lead the Easter parade.

[JackONeill]

Do you think we'll have a Very Special Christmas episode of The Walking Dead?

 

Think of all the ghosts from Christmas Past?

[Raven1707]

Here are the Cable Live +3 Ratings for "Start to Finish":

 

“The Walking Dead” fall finale rose 2.3 points in adults 18-49, going from a 7.0 to a 9.3, a 33 percent bump. It also added 4.3 million viewers (+31 percent). [18.281 million]

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/12/04/cable-live-3-ratings-nov-23-29-unforgettable-makes-an-unmemorable-return-on-ae/

[AngelaHunter]

But Morgan(?!?) gets a ninety-minute, all-to-himself show.

 

I thought maybe there was something I just wasn't getting, which considering my short attention span was entirely possible. Now, after seeing the ninety minute bore/snooze fest, I'm even more "Huh?"

 

Really, if we have to watch flashbacks I'd much rather see what Merle went through from the time they left him chained on the roof until he ended up in Woodbury. I'm pretty sure that would be more gripping than watching Morgan, artistically backlighted and learning how to dance with a stick.

[Bec]

They should make a miniseries of Merle's adventures between getting cuffed to the roof and working for the Governor. I would watch the hell out of that.

 

But, know how these shows seem to go, they would probably skip over all the stuff that could make for exciting stories, and we would end up watching Merle walking through the woods for most of it.

[Nashville]

What's interesting about this wolf are the parallels between him and the guy in the cabin with Tyrese and Judith. (You know, the guy Tyrese should have killed, said he killed, but didn't kill.)

Both characters are similar: evil, murderers, give no inch. But there's something about them. Both seem to be "better written" than even the leads in this show, yet they are only in it for a few minutes. But they make an impression. If they weren't so evil, you might want to spend time with them.

 

Funny that you mention Shed Dude.  During his conversation with Tyrese, I remember thinking he really wasn't much more than a couple of life experiences removed from the suburban next-door neighbor to whom you'd lend your lawn mower, or invite over for a barbecue, or to watch the Titans pound the Jaguars' asses on a Sunday afternoon.  He was still essentially that same personality; he'd just made a couple of steps down a fairly horrific path of personal survival in the name of pragmatism.  The scariest thing about Shed Dude was simply how accepting he was of the Terminus New World Order; he treated the cannibalistic commune like it was simply a different way of doing things, and one with which he was pretty much okay. 

 

Frankly, for the next week or so after Shed Dude's appearance, I found myself looking at some of my neighbor/acquaintances - some of whom I've known and been comfortable with for a few years - and wondering how easy it would be for some of them to make the same moral hop/skip/jump into Shed Dude's shoes.  More disturbing was the fact I saw two or three who IMHO could probably do so with a minimum of fuss.  But the actor who can make you think about such, with an access window of not much more than a half-dozen or so scenes...?  Pretty dern good.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Nashville

[bad things are bad]

I don't really understand all the kudos for Deanna

 

Deanna was the only person (along with Reg) who seemed to think of a future. She was proactive. Rick and CDB are reactive. Of course she had that luxury and CDB other than the time at the prison has not. Maybe Michonne will take up that mantle.  

 

I agree with another poster who said they wanted to see the world rebuilding; the tentative nature of civilization restarting, figuring out the lower-tech ways things got done 150 years ago. You'll always have the zombie threat, but there really does have to be some point other than JSS. 

[JBody]

Agree about Shed Dude, who I always remember as Gum Chewing Dude (Martin?).

Also third on the Merle miniseries. I bet Rooker would be up for it.

[Lii]

Frankly, Aaron didn't seem that worldly, despite being the only Alexandrian who wasn't a complete worthless moron. So even the best of the bunch still clearly had no idea what was going on. It makes you wonder if the people in Georgia went fucknuts wayyyyyyyyyyy sooner and wayyyyyyy worse than the people in VA or wherever they are now, like maybe the Wolves and the Negan and whoever else there is there just started being a thing relatively recently. Otherwise, how would their FREAKING RECRUITER not only never have accidentally recruited a trojan horse from one of these idiot groups, but not even know they exist, and be so naive as to tote around pictures of children playing in la-la-land?

[Nashville]

This discussion is too good to get lost in an episode thread. If y'all don't mind, im going to start a new topic, and post my responses there.

[HalcyonDays]

^^ Yup - Nashville is right about the interesting discussion and has created a fascinating thread to discuss this topic (with a hilarious thread title to boot).

 

Here is it ---> Post-ZA Society Standards: What Wine Goes With Bob...?

 

I've moved some of your posts (the last 4-5) discussing this topic into that thread. Now go discuss!

 

_______________

 

ETA: Oh and guys...let's watch the sniping over the Wolf and whether he is a "good" person or not. You are starting to get personal with the sniping at each other, which is NOT civil. Make your point and move on.

[paigow]

Here is it ---> Post-ZA Society Standards: What Wine Goes With Bob...?

FYI. Link is broken.

[morgankobi]

Don't be so hard on our dear FPP. It wasn't JUST pee-pants. There was terror-puking and tattletaling too.

 

And when it's his turn to stand there, holding perfectly still, arms at sides and shrieking while a zombie eats his face, I shall mourn.

 

Just kidding.

 

Father Terror-Puking is also an awesome name.

[Nashville]

FYI. Link is broken.

Try this one.

[HalcyonDays]

FYI. Link is broken.

 

Link fixed. Thanks!

[SharonH58]

His character is perfectly consistent, and the actor playing him is doing a brilliant job of it. The wolf understands his place in the ZA world, and never wavers from acting in harmony with his stone-cold motives.  

 He's a character who's been written well, and has been perfectly realized by the actor, and that's why I love him. He elevates his villainy into three dimensions by dint of glorious acting. 

How is it that the writers have actually done a good job with this character??   IMO they haven't done so with our main group in awhile.  And I wholeheartedly agree that this actor nails his character.   Too many of the bad guys are cartoonish or maybe one dimensional is a better word.   I know next to nothing on the new bad guy but I hope he isn't one dimensional.

[Yolapukka]

 

How is it that the writers have actually done a good job with this character?

 

Maybe it's because the writing for him is purposeful , he is what he is, they aren't trying to tease anything out or make us wonder, so the writing for him supports his characterization rather than misdirects us or fills time. The actor is also a huge part of what makes him work, he plays him straight and knows when to underplay rather than go big. His soft voice is a lot more menacing than a shout or snarl. There isn't that much on the page to make him an impressive character but what is there supports interest and the performance fills in what isn't there. Contrast that with Dawn, who I think could have been a fascinating character if the part had not been cast with a wooden, stilted actress, It was a flawed storyline overall, but that particular character had some writing that would have really come alive in the hands of someone who could bring layers and charisma to the table.

Edited December 13, 2015 by yuggapukka

[wrlord]

I think I may be the only person that likes Morgan and the stance he's taken.  He seems to be the only principled character left in the ZA.  It was one thing for Deanna to be against killing when her world was all sunshine and rainbows.  But when put to the test she changed her tune.  Morgan, on the other hand, has been through it.  He knows full well the consequences, immediate and potential, of his decisions to not kill.  And he sticks to it, despite his own instincts.  People act like he doesn't want to kill; I think he very much does want to. He just knows that survival of humanity is more than merely human beings living through the ZA. It's the survival of what we're truly about that counts.  Otherwise, what difference does it make whether we survive or not?

 

Ever since 9/11, I've been appalled at how willing some people are to give away our Constitutional liberties.  This has stunned me.  Values are meaningless until they're put to the test. And it is then that they truly matter.

 

So count me in Morgan's corner for good and all.

Edited December 12, 2015 by wrlord

[Mattipoo]

Was the wolf in the basement played by Skeet Ulrich of "Jericho" fame? Looks like him but I couldn't really tell. I can't stand Morgan especially after that awful "Karate Kid" episode and when he hurt my precious favorite Carol. Hopefully he is the next main character killed.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Mattipoo

[lulee]

Was the wolf in the basement played by Skeet Ulrich of "Jericho" fame? Looks like him but I couldn't really tell. I can't stand Morgan especially after that awful "Karate Kid" episode and when he hurt my precious favorite Carol. Hopefully he is the next main character killed.

"Alpha Wolf" is played by Australian actor Benedict Samuel, who when clean shaven looks less like Skeet Ulrich. I also saw that he co-stars with Kristyn Ritter in an indie film called Asthma. Edited December 13, 2015 by lulee

[AnnaMayWong]

I am no longer going to watch The Show. It's become ridiculous. The planning, the writing, the directing--not only the scaffolding, but also, the overall structure--has collapsed.

I use to ENJOY this show. However, that feeling has abated. I have long left behind 'becoming tired'. I, now, skirt disinterest

Edited December 24, 2015 by BookElitist

[SometimesBites]

I am no longer going to watch The Show. It's become ridiculous. The planning, the writing, the directing--not only the scaffolding, but also, the overall structure--has collapsed.

I use to ENJOY this show. However, that feeling has abated. I have long left behind 'becoming tired'. I, now, skirt disinterest

Okay.

I, on the other hand, will continue to watch the shit out of this show. Imperfect as it sometimes is, I still find it quite entertaining, and I'm happily willing to see what happens next.

I'd also like to see new episodes of Bates Motel and Better Call Saul--the only other TV I watch regularly when its on--but those are conversations for other fora. ;)

[Nashville]

Okay.

I, on the other hand, will continue to watch the shit out of this show. Imperfect as it sometimes is, I still find it quite entertaining, and I'm happily willing to see what happens next.

 

Agree.  Rough patches notwithstanding, TWD is still better than 90% of what else passes for entertainment in BoobTubeLand.

[Watcher0363]

Life in the ZA will always boil down to the greatest Pembletonism.

 

Pembleton: I'm saying you got a darkness, you, Tim Bayliss, you got a darkness inside of you. You gotta know the darker, uglier sides of yourself. You gotta recognize them, so that they're not constantly sneaking up on you. You gotta LOVE 'EM, 'cause they're part of you, because along with your virtues, they make you who you are. Virtue isn't virtue unless it slams up against vice. So consequently, your virtue's not real virtue. Until it's been tested. . . tempted.

[NorthstarATL]

I think I may be the only person that likes Morgan and the stance he's taken.  He seems to be the only principled character left in the ZA.  It was one thing for Deanna to be against killing when her world was all sunshine and rainbows.  But when put to the test she changed her tune.  Morgan, on the other hand, has been through it.  He knows full well the consequences, immediate and potential, of his decisions to not kill.  And he sticks to it, despite his own instincts.  People act like he doesn't want to kill; I think he very much does want to. He just knows that survival of humanity is more than merely human beings living through the ZA. It's the survival of what we're truly about that counts.  Otherwise, what difference does it make whether we survive or not?

 

Ever since 9/11, I've been appalled at how willing some people are to give away our Constitutional liberties.  This has stunned me.  Values are meaningless until they're put to the test. And it is then that they truly matter.

 

So count me in Morgan's corner for good and all.

I'm not against Morgan's stance until his stance affects others. I believe that the show wants me, as a viewer, to side with Morgan, however, and that's why we had an extended episode devoted to him, and why we saw no ill effects from the attack on Rick by Wolves that Morgan had let go (with arms), and why Carol, who is generally diametrically on the opposite side, was written as crazed in the last episode, but the fact remains that Morgan's personal code endangered others, and that only works when one is not a part of a group. (Also, as I always like to mention, Morgan has the luxury of making a choice not to kill, given his gender, skill level at fighting and height and weight.)

[maplebrew]

Morgan has the luxury of making a choice not to kill, given his gender, skill level at fighting and height and weight.

 

 

That is precisely why Morgan has the luxury not to kill. Someone built like Carol MUST take the kill shot if it is presented to her. If she doesn't take advantage of the opportunity to keep an assailant down, he might get up and she will be seriously injured or killed (notwithstanding her superhero ability to be hit head on by a speeding car and be up around two episodes later). Having said that, it was gallingly stupid to have Carol and Morgan fight each other while AZ is over run. It makes no sense that the two of them couldn't agree to bind up wolf guy and agree to deal with him later. 

[AngelaHunter]

it was gallingly stupid to have Carol and Morgan fight each other while AZ is over run.

 

That's hitting the nail on the head. "Improbable", "unlikely" and even "somewhat silly" I can take. "Gallingly stupid" is much more difficult to swallow.

 

I really wanted - and still want -  to enjoy this show since it's the only series I've watched in years, but lately I spend too much time rolling my eyes and shouting, "Oh, FFS!"

 

To whoever mentioned wishing to have seen more of the Termites: Seriously, they built that storyline up and up until we were in a frenzy of anticipation and then it's all over in what? four minutes?

 

And yes, the "bad guys" are cardboard cutouts of evil - no shades of gray, no nuances, no conflict - just pure, unadultered evil and that IS boring. I know this show is from a comic book and character development can't really explored within those confines, but these are live-action people and adjustments needed to be made.

 

But, yeah. I'll watch when it comes back.

[NorthstarATL]

That's hitting the nail on the head. "Improbable", "unlikely" and even "somewhat silly" I can take. "Gallingly stupid" is much more difficult to swallow.

 

I really wanted - and still want -  to enjoy this show since it's the only series I've watched in years, but lately I spend too much time rolling my eyes and shouting, "Oh, FFS!"

 

To whoever mentioned wishing to have seen more of the Termites: Seriously, they built that storyline up and up until we were in a frenzy of anticipation and then it's all over in what? four minutes?

 

And yes, the "bad guys" are cardboard cutouts of evil - no shades of gray, no nuances, no conflict - just pure, unadultered evil and that IS boring. I know this show is from a comic book and character development can't really explored within those confines, but these are live-action people and adjustments needed to be made.

 

But, yeah. I'll watch when it comes back.

But the "bad guys" DO often have shades of gray. Shane was a complicated character. The Termites had a reason for what they did, flawed though it was. Dawn was overcompensating. Even the Governor loved his daughter. Most of the time, though, I do agree that we see what our POV characters see, and that's the behavior. But it's analogous to the threat that they face from the walkers. The walkers are hungry. They will eat you. That's simple, but still something that has to be dealt with. Then there are other humans, largely behaving at a base level that cannot be easily ascertained, which make them far more dangerous, and also makes "dealing" with them problematic, as seen with Morgan and Carol. She seems to have decided that both humans and walkers are the same threat level, where he does not, either because he doesn't have to or because he does not wish to. No matter how nuanced the motivation for a bad guy/gal is, though, the effect on someone we are following is the same.

[Watcher0363]

Having said that, it was gallingly stupid to have Carol and Morgan fight each other while AZ is over run. It makes no sense that the two of them couldn't agree to bind up wolf guy and agree to deal with him later. 

I laughed very hard at the last line. In your scenario Morgan would clearly be the frog and Carol the charming scorpion. 

[GodsBeloved]

I'm not against Morgan's stance until his stance affects others. I believe that the show wants me, as a viewer, to side with Morgan, however, and that's why we had an extended episode devoted to him, and why we saw no ill effects from the attack on Rick by Wolves that Morgan had let go (with arms), and why Carol, who is generally diametrically on the opposite side, was written as crazed in the last episode, but the fact remains that Morgan's personal code endangered others, and that only works when one is not a part of a group. (Also, as I always like to mention, Morgan has the luxury of making a choice not to kill, given his gender, skill level at fighting and height and weight.)

Even when Morgan was alone and let the Wolves live, it can be argued that his act while alone did endanger and even resulted in the death of others. 

 

My issue with the show is they have not given Morgan's stance a fair chance if you will. They put his stance in light of people who are vicious and unrepentant yet they have not really put Rick/Carol's stance to the test where they killed someone they shouldn't have. Even with Karen and David, Carol still had an out because they were infected, infectious and it was implied that they were beyond the point of no return. They have killed and only killed the right people while all we've seen from Morgan is him allowing the (obviously) wrong people to live.

[NorthstarATL]

Even when Morgan was alone and let the Wolves live, it can be argued that his act while alone did endanger and even resulted in the death of others. 

 

My issue with the show is they have not given Morgan's stance a fair chance if you will. They put his stance in light of people who are vicious and unrepentant yet they have not really put Rick/Carol's stance to the test where they killed someone they shouldn't have. Even with Karen and David, Carol still had an out because they were infected, infectious and it was implied that they were beyond the point of no return. They have killed and only killed the right people while all we've seen from Morgan is him allowing the (obviously) wrong people to live.

As you said, what Carol did at the prison is a morally gray area for the show. Whether the writing for Carol was just sloppy or a choice by the writers in this last episode is questionable, but she certainly came off as the "wrong" party, and Morgan in general is supported by the show, given again his solo episode.

  The code that is followed by Morgan is also the morally ethical one for the world in which we live. What Carol, Rick, and others have had to do (or felt they had to do) is applicable within the relatively new situation of the ZA, which is why Morgan's doesn't require as much defense in the story. We the viewers are more likely to see it as the code of choice for us. But we don't live under the conditions presented by the show.

[AwesomO4000]

Even when Morgan was alone and let the Wolves live, it can be argued that his act while alone did endanger and even resulted in the death of others. 

 

My issue with the show is they have not given Morgan's stance a fair chance if you will. They put his stance in light of people who are vicious and unrepentant yet they have not really put Rick/Carol's stance to the test where they killed someone they shouldn't have. Even with Karen and David, Carol still had an out because they were infected, infectious and it was implied that they were beyond the point of no return. They have killed and only killed the right people while all we've seen from Morgan is him allowing the (obviously) wrong people to live.

 

As you said, what Carol did at the prison is a morally gray area for the show. Whether the writing for Carol was just sloppy or a choice by the writers in this last episode is questionable, but she certainly came off as the "wrong" party, and Morgan in general is supported by the show, given again his solo episode.

 

The code that is followed by Morgan is also the morally ethical one for the world in which we live. What Carol, Rick, and others have had to do (or felt they had to do) is applicable within the relatively new situation of the ZA, which is why Morgan's doesn't require as much defense in the story. We the viewers are more likely to see it as the code of choice for us. But we don't live under the conditions presented by the show.

 

Taking some of my response to the "Post-ZA Society Standards..." thread.

 

Short version: I tend to look at the two things as almost different questions in some ways. One is a "code," while the other is acting on one's morals and changing behavior accordingly. A code is sometimes not changing behavior no matter what - which applies to Morgan's code here I think. A real world example might be a priest taking confession. What if someone confesses to a murder? The code the priest lives by is not to say anything, but is it the moral thing to let a murderer go free? Does the morality of it matter when weighed against the priest's code? Once a code is adopted and promised, wouldn't not following it be just as bad even if not following it can be argued to be the "moral" thing?

 

So maybe the question isn't is Morgan's "code" itself the moral thing to do - because maybe in some ways that doesn't matter because of the nature of most "codes" - but should Morgan even have a strict code of any kind in the ZA? Should anyone given the situation?

Edited January 4, 2016 by AwesomO4000

[AngelaHunter]

The Termites had a reason for what they did, flawed though it was. Dawn was overcompensating. Even the Governor loved his daughter

 

I don't really count Dawn or Shane as "villains". The real villains - Gareth, the Governor, the Wolves - delight in their evil. Yes, the Termites had reason behind their way of life (certainly IRL this has occured) but they eat people with sadistic glee and not as something they feel they are forced to do to survive. Cannibalism, including eating someone alive, is fun when you're Evil! The wolves slaughter people joyfully, seemingly just for the pleasure of it. These villains show not an ounce of remorse, pity or conflict over what they do. The Governor had an entire room equipped with an array of tools devoted solely to torture people because torture is fun too when you're - you know - EVIL.  ;)

 

It's JMO, but when someone shows that they struggle or do have humanity/a human side it makes their evil acts more horrific and shocking when they occur.

[Nashville]

Morgan's dilemma- the degree of inherent conflict between personal motivations versus societal obligations - is nothing new in humanity; it is merely amplified by the circumstances, and by the microscope TWD by its very nature focuses on CDB.

Personal motivations (philosophy, ethics, morals,, goals, desires, etc.) are selfish by definition - and I mean no negative connotations by use of the term 'selfish', simply that they are self-oriented. This works great if one is alone, and is not responsible for or obligated to anybody else. When one endeavors to become part of any established community, however, some of the rules of that societal structure will almost certainly conflict with that individual's selfish interests - which is only to be expected, as (with the exception of monarchies) societies are not generally designed for the personal promotion of any one individual. The trade-off of personal interest for community participation is an integral part of virtually every society; you give up some selfish interests for participation in and protection by the community. Not ALL, of course, unless you are agreeable to becoming either a slave or a cult member, and participation in the first is rarely voluntary.

This is where Morgan comes into conflict. Morgan accepts the benefits of the community - food, shelter, protection, social contact, etc. One of the established rules of the community, however, is lethal defense of the community against aggressors both human and non-human. It's a necessity of the community, insofar as many individual members are currently unable to defend themselves effectively against aggressors; their participatory role is to provide support to those who can fight effectively, in exchange for protection. Morgan totally fails in his fulfillment of this portion of the social contract. Morgan's "I will not kill" credo serves his personal ethical framework well - but every aggressor he does not kill or otherwise incapacitate poses a direct and immediate threat to those community members depending upon him for protection. Any attacker Morgan engages but does not kill or incapacitate does NOT throw up their hands and say, "Well, lost THAT fight - guess I better leave"; they simply disengage from Morgan, go hunting for someone easier to kill, and kill them.

Philosophically speaking, Morgan wants to have his cake and eat it too - accept all the benefits of the community, without providing the contributions required by the community which he has judged to be in conflict with his moral code. As a result, his cake is flavored with the blood of innocents; those who he was supposed to protect, who depended upon him for protection, and who he willingly failed to protect. Morgan is perfectly happy to join the crowd at the dinner table; he becomes an island when it comes to a fight, however, and everybody else is left to sink or swim on their own.

IMHO Morgan needs to personally resolve these conflicts before accepting the benefits of community; to do otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme. YMMV.

[rab01]

It's weird to me that some people upthread say that the show is on Morgan's side when I see it as completely the opposite -- that the show assumes that there are some viewers who would naturally be on Morgan's side so they stack the deck against it and for the "Rick" side of the argument. To air Morgan's point of view juxtaposed an antagonist like the wolves who are clearly unworthy of sympathy or second chances is not to give it an even playing field.

 

All that said, I disagree that Morgan needs to be a killer before being allowed into the community. He's already more useful than any five ASZhats put together (other than maybe Aaron). There are even other CDB people who haven't killed others -- i.e. Glenn -- to equally destructive effect (without Dickolas, more of them might have made it home). Morgan's problem isn't pacifism, it's mutiny.

 

Morgan wasn't empowered to make any decisions for the community. He shouldn't get to put people inside a prison within the walls and he doesn't get to ask the doctor for resources to be expended on that prisoner.  That decision needed to be run by Deanna or Rick or Michonne - one of the people that's been chosen to make those decisions or put to a community vote (like they were doing with Rick's expulsion last season).  So, Morgan taking the decision by himself to secretly harbor a fugitive inside the walls was flat out mutiny.

[GodsBeloved]

This is where Morgan comes into conflict. Morgan accepts the benefits of the community - food, shelter, protection, social contact, etc. One of the established rules of the community, however, is lethal defense of the community against aggressors both human and non-human. It's a necessity of the community, insofar as many individual members are currently unable to defend themselves effectively against aggressors; their participatory role is to provide support to those who can fight effectively, in exchange for protection. Morgan totally fails in his fulfillment of this portion of the social contract. Morgan's "I will not kill" credo serves his personal ethical framework well - but every aggressor he does not kill or otherwise incapacitate poses a direct and immediate threat to those community members depending upon him for protection. Any attacker Morgan engages but does not kill or incapacitate does NOT throw up their hands and say, "Well, lost THAT fight - guess I better leave"; they simply disengage from Morgan, go hunting for someone easier to kill, and kill them.

Philosophically speaking, Morgan wants to have his cake and eat it too - accept all the benefits of the community, without providing the contributions required by the community which he has judged to be in conflict with his moral code. As a result, his cake is flavored with the blood of innocents; those who he was supposed to protect, who depended upon him for protection, and who he willingly failed to protect. Morgan is perfectly happy to join the crowd at the dinner table; he becomes an island when it comes to a fight, however, and everybody else is left to sink or swim on their own.

IMHO Morgan needs to personally resolve these conflicts before accepting the benefits of community; to do otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme. YMMV.

But is that Morgan's credo? He will not kill?

 

Am I suppose to believe that if the only way Morgan can save say Judith's life is to kill the Wolf that he would sit on his stick and let the Wolf do the killing? If this is how the writers' are framing Morgan then ... double yikes!

It's weird to me that some people upthread say that the show is on Morgan's side when I see it as completely the opposite -- that the show assumes that there are some viewers who would naturally be on Morgan's side so they stack the deck against it and for the "Rick" side of the argument. To air Morgan's point of view juxtaposed an antagonist like the wolves who are clearly unworthy of sympathy or second chances is not to give it an even playing field.

You said it so much better than I did.

Morgan's problem isn't pacifism, it's mutiny.

 

Morgan wasn't empowered to make any decisions for the community. He shouldn't get to put people inside a prison within the walls and he doesn't get to ask the doctor for resources to be expended on that prisoner.  That decision needed to be run by Deanna or Rick or Michonne - one of the people that's been chosen to make those decisions or put to a community vote (like they were doing with Rick's expulsion last season).  So, Morgan taking the decision by himself to secretly harbor a fugitive inside the walls was flat out mutiny.

Good point. What Morgan did here is similiar to what Carol did with Karen and David. Now the question is will Rick cast him out of the group or just but a bullet in his head.

Edited January 5, 2016 by GodsBeloved

[Nashville]

But is that Morgan's credo? He will not kill?

It is at present.  Morgan started out the ZA with a pretty rational outlook, relatively speaking; kill those who pose a threat - zombies and (presumably) any survivors who threatened him or his son Duane - and help those who don't.  From what We The Audience were shown, Morgan only weakened on this resolve in one instance - Jenny, his wife-turned-walker, who Morgan couldn't bring himself to shoot.  That one exception through weakness born of love ended up destroying Morgan's remaining world, however, when the still-roaming Jenny bit and turned Duane, who couldn't bring himself to defend himself against the image of his mother.

 

Guilt over Duane's death drove Morgan insane for at least a period of time, and his once-stable outlook became a spinning pendulum.  Believing his act of mercy cost him his son, Morgan swung to the opposite extreme; Morgan's "Clear" methodology led him to perceive EVERYBODY as a threat, and he killed them accordingly - and indiscriminately.  Morgan persisted in this homicidal state until he encountered Dr. Cheese, who slipped him a copy of Aikido For Dummies and swung Morgan's pendulum to the other extreme - from killing everybody to killing nobody.

 

At present Morgan is afraid to kill anyone - even those who would kill him happily - for fear of sliding back into the insanity of "Clear".  Presumably Morgan's psychological pendulum will eventually settle down, and he will return to a more pragmatic view of the post-ZA world and how to survive in it.  The only question is - how many innocents will die while Morgan wrestles with his apocalyptic angst?

 

ETA: expansion

Edited January 6, 2016 by Nashville

[The Mighty Peanut]

 

Philosophically speaking, Morgan wants to have his cake and eat it too - accept all the benefits of the community, without providing the contributions required by the community which he has judged to be in conflict with his moral code. As a result, his cake is flavored with the blood of innocents; those who he was supposed to protect, who depended upon him for protection, and who he willingly failed to protect. Morgan is perfectly happy to join the crowd at the dinner table; he becomes an island when it comes to a fight, however, and everybody else is left to sink or swim on their own.

 

ITA. I think I may have said this before, and if that's the case I don't mean to be all "let me just reiterate my excellent point", but I think it bears repeating: Morgan's philosophical views are ok when it's just Morgan, or Morgan and Dr. Cheese, or Morgan and someone else who has accepted how Morgan views the world. It would even be ok if Morgan was in charge of a community and the people living there agree to abide by his pacifism. That way, anyone who is killed by what may have been a containable threat knew and accepted death was a potential consequence of consenting to live by his terms. His house, his rules. It's not fair for him to impose a policy of their house, his rules in Alexandria because he's foisting the consequences of his actions onto a community that not only has no obligation to him, but to whom he is obligated.  Hence, The Bloody Cake Phenomenon.

Edited February 8, 2016 by The Mighty Peanut