'Walking Dead' writer Robert Kirkman talks about tonight's episode and THAT shocking death: 'It was a somewhat justifiable homicide'

dead

Image Credit: Gene Page/AMC

How shocking was that death on the latest episode of AMC’s zombie show, The Walking Dead? Let me count the ways…

Actually, let me not, or we’d be here all day. Suffice it to say, the decision by Jon Bernthal’s Shane to sacrifice Pruitt Taylor Vince’s Otis so he could escape from a herd of zombies came as a shock — not least to the unfortunate Otis himself, who didn’t seem to appreciate getting sacrificed at all.

Below, Walking Dead writer and executive producer Robert Kirkman — who also pens the Walking Dead comic — talks about the death of Otis and why the other Walking Dead scribes wouldn’t recognize poison ivy if it bit them on the butt.

Entertainment Weekly: So, I want to ask you about Shane’s shooting of Otis and, using all my years of journalistic experience, here’s my question: What. The. F—?
Robert Kirkman: [Laughs] Well, you know, the Walking Dead is a world where you have to do what you have to do to get by. Starting with [this] episode, we’re going to see that Shane is appearing to be uniquely suited for this world.

It was quite possibly the least heroic act I’ve ever seen a theoretically “heroic” character commit.
I mean, it ends up being a somewhat justifiable homicide in that they were trapped, Otis was slowing him down, and Carl’s life hangs in the balance. It’s the Walking Dead and we’re existing in that gray area and we’re really pushing the boundaries of that. But at the end of the day, Shane shot that guy and left him for dead and ran off. It’s a pretty dark moment and it informs Shane’s character and sets up a lot of things that are going to be happening moving forward.

One of my colleagues said that she thought it was partly a revenge killing because Otis had, accidentally, shot Carl. The worrying thing is that she said she also thought Shane’s actions were completely reasonable because of that. And the really worrying thing is that her office is just across the way from mine.
I have been writing the Walking Dead — if you count the comic books — for coming up on 9 years now. And I’m constantly made uncomfortable by the things I learn about human nature from people that read the comic and watch the shows. So…Welcome to my world on finding out that your colleague thinks revenge killing is totally fine. Be mindful of how many of her paper clips you borrow!

As a fan of the comic, in which Shane is killed very early on, I’ve always regarded his onscreen incarnation as a dead man walking. I often think, “Why is he still around?” But in the course of one episode, he’s has gone from being the character I’m least interested in to the one that I’m most fascinated by.
Yeah, exactly. This episode really does answer the question, “Why is this guy still around?” very clearly. He’s an integral part of the show.

The most famous villain in the Walking Dead comic book is the Governor. After this episode, I’m now wondering if Shane could ultimately transform into that character.
Everyone is dying to know who is going to become the Governor. Will it be Merle? Will it be Shane? Nobody knows!

You do! Or do you? Do you know? Tell me if you know!
I know exactly who the Governor is.

Fair enough. How did Jon Bernthal react when he read this week’s script?
Jon Bernthal is a tremendous talent and he’s got a lot of professionalism. A lot of the actors came in to the room as we were starting this season and Bernthal was one of those actors. He was aware of a lot of the things that were coming up  and we talked to him about his character and what we had planned for him this season and he was on board with a lot of it. It was nice being able to run though scenarios with him and get his opinion on how he perceived his character. Because actors, a lot of times, think about their characters more than the writers because they’re focused on that single character for months of their lives, if not years. He was all prepared for this.

Can you confirm Otis is definitely dead?
That guy got torn apart!

Well, we didn’t see him getting quite the full Captain Rhodes-in-Day-of-the-Dead, “Choke on ‘em!” treatment.
Were he to come back, I believe he would be discolored and shambling.

dead2

Image Credit: Bob Mahoney/AMC

There was another, earlier, moment on the show when I thought that maybe you were going to kill Carl. Just after he talked about the deer but before he started convulsing, his eyes kind of glazed over and I thought, “They’re going to kill the kid!”
That’s great. We want people to have that sense that anything can happen in this show and any character could go at any moment, because it is such a dangerous world. And we will be trying to instill that more and more into the mindset of the viewer as the season progresses. But I’ve got to say, let’s give it up for Chandler Riggs. I almost start crying every time I watch that scene. It is just absolutely horrifying. And the performances from Andrew Lincoln and Sarah Wayne Callies, watching their son go through that. That whole scene is just a stupendous chunk of acting.

On a lighter note, I enjoyed Norman Reedus’ Daryl recalling the time he wiped his rear with poisoned oak. Is that something that’s ever happened to any of you guys?
[Laughs] I can say it’s never happened to me. I cannot speak for all of the writers in the writer’s room. There are a few where it seems likely. But you know what? No! I’m going to go on record and say that never happened to anyone in the writer’s room. Because, when we were all gearing up to go to Atlanta, everyone was panicking about being in the woods and having to deal with ticks and snakes and what kind of bug spray to use. It was an entire ordeal. One of the writers actually got onto a website and showed me a bug suit that he was thinking of investing in. I’m not going to name which one it was but he was totally serious. He was basically going to go to Atlanta wearing a space suit. As a person who’s from Kentucky and has been in the woods before and has dealt with insects and thinks that kind of stuff is somewhat normal and mundane, I was having a field day chuckling at all the hubbub. So I don’t think any of these people have even encountered poison ivy before. That was all just writing!

What did you think of the latest episode of the Walking Dead? Do you think Shane was “justified” in shooting Otis?

Read more:
‘Walking Dead’ gets third season
Robert Kirkman talks last night’s ‘Walking Dead’
InsideTV Podcast: Rick Moranis to join forces with ‘The Walking Dead’? Robert Kirkman and Steven Yeun explain
‘Walking Dead’ season 2 delivers record premiere ratings


Comments (182 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 5
  • wierdalexj

    What Shane did to Otis made me sick to my stomach. I still can’t believe how cold-blooded that was. (There’s a similar scene like that in Centurion but this is by far more %$^@&! up!!!)

    I get it. Otis was slowing him down. But the most humane, decent thing Shane could have done was to shoot Otis in the skull and leave his dead body to be torn apart, NOT shoot him in the effin’ leg and leave him lying there.

    Otis didn’t want to die like that and fought to stay alive, only to be torn apart by the walkers while he was BREATHING and CONSCIOUS.

    Revenge or not, Shane, NOT COOL!!!

    • Katrina

      I agree. Why wouldn’t you shoot him in the head? It must have been a revenge killing. Only a barbarian would do that.

      • shuido

        Hated him in the beginning but he is definitely growing on me!!BTW,I wanna share a good news to you.My best friend ,she just has announced her wedding with a millionaire man who is a businessman!they met via Millionaireloving.C óM ..it is the largest and best club for rich people and their admirers to chat online. …You do not have to be rich or famous. ,but you can meet one , It’s worthy a try,Maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends!

      • @@iron

        While I enjoy this show, I feel like the whole point of Shane shooting Otis was to get people talking on the boards. And it seems like it worked.

        George and Lennie, anyone? Of Zombies and Men?

      • Andy

        If he shot him in the head then Otis would be dead and therefore not much of a meal to the zombies, who are also dead. He needed live bait to give to the zombies. Its totally unacceptable, but understandable considering the circumstances.

      • becca

        My best friend ,she just has announced her wedding with an excellent man! They met via βlαckwhitеPlanet.СòM … it is the largest and best community for black white singles & friends to chat online. get to know each other, and talk about religion, work, sports, life, relat-ionsh\ip, or more.…view photos of singles near you and meet one there. It’s worth a try!
        His body would still have been warm. You can’t tell me zombies would pass by A nice big chunk of warm body just because the heart stopped beating a few seconds before.

      • Scott

        why not take his bag and let him run and live if he can out run the zombies. if he gets caught and eaten…oh well. if he can keep up and live great.

    • Kristyn

      He couldn’t shoot him in the head because then the Zombies would not want him. They feed on the living and Otis would have been dead. As terrible as it is, Shane was smart in that instance. He needed a distraction and got it.

      • Ann

        Here’s the thing, though. When I watched the episode it definitely looked to me like shane was slowing Otis down through much of it, especially toward the end when Otis was almost dragging Shane along. I don’t care if it makes me weak, I just cannot comprehend doing something like that to someone. I had to look away, it made me so sick. I get that it’s the end of the world, and every man for himself and all that jazz, but how anyone could ever do that to another human being is totally beyond me.

      • Cookie951

        This is what I was thinking as I watched.

      • NIGHTWIN6

        The walkers don’t exclusively eat on the living, they feed on the dead too, and you don’t have to look further than this same episode to know that. A guy hung himself and died and walkers still came by to eat his legs. Shooting Otis in the head would have been the right thing to do, but a whole lot less dramatic for tv.

      • KristenV

        With Shane limping, HE was just as slow – or slower – than Otis. Otis had a wife to go back to and he had worked to establish a semblance of civilization at he farm. Electricity! Food! Otis shooting Carl was accidental and no justification for his sacrifice. Shane just thought of, and acted on, the companion-as-a-food-diversion first. Ugh. It was horrific to see Otis fighting to survive and grab at Shane.

      • Snsetblaze

        Agree with Nightwing6 – not to mention that the deer the walker was eating in the first season was dead.

      • Snsetblaze

        And if a guy duys while being eaten, before the walkers have torn off all the meat, do the walkers stop eating because he’s dead?

      • Baronmind

        Do zombies eat dead things? Maybe he thought that if he actually killed Otis, the zombies would just turn their attention on him. It’s like snakes eating live food. They won’t go after something that’s already dead, they want to kill it first. It’s possible that he wasn’t trying to kill Otis so that he would suffer, but keeping him alive made him viable bait for the zombies. It sucks that he did it at all, but that’s a possibility and a little less evil than just killing him so that he would suffer while dying.

      • sue

        Good point about why Shane shot him in the leg. So I guess in Zombie world if you are shot in the leg, play dead and the Zombies may pass you up.

      • Aggie

        That’s stupid. The guy would have been dead like 2.5 seconds. His body would still have been warm. You can’t tell me zombies would pass by A nice big chunk of warm body just because the heart stopped beating a few seconds before. And as some one already mentioned, they showed a zombie eating a dead deer earlier.

      • Um

        So even if the zombies did eat the “recently dead” or dying, having Otis struggle with the zombies as opposed to him just laying there for the taking without a struggle probably did save Shane some precious time. I’m not condoning what Shane did, but if he WAS gonna sacrifice Otis to get the maximum amount of getaway time for himself, that was the way to do it.

    • Carlos

      I agree, Shane was so wrong for doing that and I hope Otis ghost come back and get revenge on Shane’s a&&.

    • Don’t judge me.

      It was sad. Otis was a likeable person and genuinely sorry and trying to make ammends for shooting Carl. On the other hand, if I were in the situation, and my son’s life was dependant on me getting home, there’s no limit to what I might do. If it were just me, I’d have put a bullet in my head long ago. But if my kid was in danger, I’d stomp over all of them. While I was watching the scenes, I kept thinking “why doesn’t Shane shoot the fat guy?”. I was a Paramedic and Firefighter, and I am now in the police academy. So, it’s in my nature to protect people. I’m not some heartless psycho. I just am admitting that in the same circumstances, I’d probably have done the same thing as Shane. Good episode. Could use a little more action.

    • maggie325

      My best friend ,she just has announced her wedding with a millionaire old man Ronald who is the CEO

      of a MNC ! They met via —-Agé Min glé.CòM–.- ..it is the largest and best club for men

      date with rich and beautiful women and their admirers to chat online. …you don’t have to be rich

      there ,but you may meet one ,maybe you wanna check it out or tell your friends !

      • BobS

        Could the losers like you, pushing some lame dating/porn site please stop going on these boards? PLEASE????

    • TerryD

      I was disgusted by Shane’s actions, too. Though not surprised. He came THIS CLOSE to shooting Rick.

      There was zero justification for what he did to Otis. Shane was the one slowing them down. Otis was an EMT. If Shane was really thinking about the greater good, he would have sacrificed himself so Otis could get back to Carl with the med equip.

      All that aside, Shane is going to be a love to hate character now. It will really rack up the tension even more not knowing what amoral act he will commit next.

      • steph

        Completely agree. Otis was keeping up just FINE. Shane was the loser with the limp, and if he hadn’t shot him then got into a fight with him, they both could have made it back. Sacrificing an EMT…real smart Shane. Ugh!

      • Allan Howard

        Shane has gone through some vary strange changes.. inhuman changes.. We will see.

    • Mircat

      He had not choice but to shoot him in the leg. The zombies don’t eat dead things, they only eat live things. What’s the choice, chance getting taken down with Otis and lose both their lives or put down Otis and get back to save the kid and his own life. Sorry, in a world that has arrived at the place they are in, it’s every man for himself. Stay alive is your primary goal and how you do it is up to you. No heroes in that world. He did what he had to do.

      • Faye

        Uhm, no. Just check the first webisode, you can see zombies eating a dead person.

    • zimzyma

      I don’t see it as revenge. Consider the name of the episode “Save the last one”, which refers to in survival situations saving your last bullet to end your own suffering. They were both down to the last bullet, and it meant they both die…as would Carl. Shane’s actions were noble in a sense – it saved his best friend’s son, and someone that weeks earlier was his surrogate son. But the whole point this episode was that some people in these horrible circumstances would choose death or seriously consider it (Lori, Andrea, Hanging Geek) rather than fighting to live. It’s a choice that each character has to make in their world (look at Merle). Shane made his choice, probably justifying it to save Carl, but I have a feeling he will question his motivations for killing Otis in the coming episodes.

    • citizenbfk

      I agree that the treasonous and merciless killing of Otis was evil. The ‘thing,’ about unreasonable murderers is they might decide to kill again and again and next time it might be you — so society tends to punish such people to protect ourselves. — Otis had not only just shot to save Shane but also was trying to help Shane hobble along. Starting to believe the ‘end justifies the means,’ often means evil. They both could have gone down fighting and the kid could have died — and it would be a better world. If I was in the cast and knew this, I shot Shane ASAP.

      • Bryan

        When people fall into utilitarian morality, numbers games of “the greatest good for the greatest number” it isn’t too long before they decide one man must die so his organs can be divided up amongst 4-5 needy people, or that one man with food must die so 2-3 can eat his food. Similarly when the idea of “the ends justify the means” becomes popular and accepted by the masses, organized society/civilization rapidly falls apart.

        People who want to operate under utilitarian ethics or “the ends justify the means” need to be avoided at all costs, or neutralized, when society collapses. If you can identify such sociopaths, or you see them sacrificing others, or you learn of their misdeeds, you either need to avoid them or destroy them.

      • Bryan

        If the zombies were about 20-30 seconds behind them when they stopped because of Shane shooting Otis and a struggling ensuing, which lasted about 10-20 seconds (long enough for Otis to pull out part of Shane’s hair, and Shane to kick Otis in the face and take the bag), then they had plenty of time to keep limping/huffing away. Shane was slowing Otis down and Shane shot Otis because he wasn’t content with “we’re both probably going to make it, Otis is going to make it for sure, and I might make it, but with this ankle who really knows?” he wanted a 100% guarantee, “I, Shane, am going to make it!”

        He shot Otis to save himself, not to save anybody else.

        He could have handed the other bag to Otis and said, “I’m messed up, I can barely walk, get to the truck as fast as you can and meet me over that way, I’m going to lead them away from you to get you a clear shot to the truck, but pick me up down the road” and then with the zombies following a limping Shane, Otis would have made it to the truck within a minute or so, and then probably arrived just in time for Shane to jump into the bed so they could speed away before being swarmed by zombies.

        Shane didn’t want to accept the possibility that he wasn’t getting out of there. Both men PROBABLY could have survived, Otis ABSOLUTELY could have survived, but that wasn’t good enough for Shane. Shane wanted an ABSOLUTELY for himself and he didn’t care about Otis surviving. He killed Otis to get a guaranteed ticket out of the situation for himself.

      • xav

        But then you would be exactly like Shane because you’d be killing someone for yourself and revenge.

      • Kevin

        @xav, Bryan’s comments were the sanest comments so far. Your comment back is retarded. Bryan just stated what Shane most likely decided; Bryan didn’t say that he would make that same decision himself. Then again, when it’s you or death, I think most people would think like Shane.

    • eaw62995

      As talked about on Talking Dead, I believe that he did not shoot Otis in the head because he needed to be alive and moving around for the zombies to be more interested. That was kind of the theory they were talking about on the show.

      • Bryan

        Killing somebody who survives by killing others is NOT revenge, it is punishment/justice.

        Revenge is essentially doing something far beyond what justice calls for… If somebody steals your cow and you burn down their house and kill their daughter, that is revenge.

        If somebody kills your brother and you track them down and kill them that is justice/punishment.

      • Bryan

        Most people have trouble making the distinction between killing for justice/punishment, killing in terms of cold-blooded murder, and revenge killing.

        They will justify away a killing when it benefits them or when it suits their needs, but then condemn somebody else who engages in a killing to obtain justice and punish a killer.

      • Kevin

        @Bryan, while I agreed with another post you did above, I think you’re slightly misguided re: revenge and justice/punishment. Revenge doesn’t need to be over top of the original action or what justice calls for. Revenge is the victim retaliating just enough to satisfy whatever desire/need that victim has to feel better temporarily. Justice/punishment is entirely subjective based on the person/group looking in.
        If a dude steals my cow, I might be content to get revenge by stealing his goat. This is not justice, nor is it revenge by your definition; however, it is clearly revenge.
        If a dude kills my brother and I hunt down the dude and slay him, this is also revenge; however, I don’t know if it can be called justice by all those who witness/investigate it.
        In the eyes of the law, if a dude steals my cow or kills my brother, justice is only achieved if I stick my tail between my legs and do nothing while the man does whatever ‘the man’ does and gets the dude or doesn’t.

      • Bryan

        That’s because we have a very legalistic society with a lot of civil law, but the historical precedent of common law is that justice is when the victim is made whole again, or made as whole as possible, or when the perpetrator has to suffer as the victim suffered. If somebody stole your car and chopped it up for parts, justice is not when the state puts them in a prison at a cost of $50,000 dollars per year to tax-payers, justice is when they are made to replace your car so you can get back on with your life. The state/government intrudes into the justice process and they divert/take the obligations owed by the criminal to the victim. If somebody burns your house down, the government will put them on trial for the crime and hit them with a prison sentence and a fine. You are free to sue them in a civil court but you are unlikely to recover anything as anything they had likely went to attorney’s fees for their criminal case and the fine the government imposed. The government wasn’t the one that lost a house, you were, but they don’t care about that, they intrude and become a middle man in the justice process but they add little of substantive value when it comes to making you whole and placing you back where you were before you were injured/harmed.

      • Erik

        @Bryan – If you watch the episode again you’ll notice that Shane was thinking about sacrificing Otis for the better part of the last half of the episode, when they both dropped to their knee’s for the last time and they’re talking about their ammo reserves Shane asks him to take the respirator and get to the truck, leave him there, Otis says no he will not leave him; this is the moment Shane finally decides that to save Rick’s son, he’ll need to sacrifice Otis because Otis was not capable of leaving him there. Shane is willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill his mission, Otis was not, so Shane made the choice Otis couldn’t. At least, that’s how I saw it.

    • Bobby

      Shane was right in what he did – they were either both going to die as was Carl if they didn’t get the supplies, or sacrifice Otis and Carl and Shane live. This is Zombie apocolypse, not present day so normal rules don’t apply. You could see Shane was all disturbed when he returned – when the world is over ridden with zombies, you gotta do what you gotta do to survive and frankly fit good looking Shane is more useful to the group then fat slow Otis.

      • Jeff

        Actually “fat” Otis was the only provider for his own group and wasn’t part of Shane’s group. He wasn’t worthless because he was fat!

    • Tammy’s Mother

      Otis was fat. He deserved to die.

  • Jenny

    Collis is such a transparent poser. What an amateur.

    • Suck it, Jenny

      Oh, because you’re ever so much more professional? Why don’t you resume lying on your back with your legs up, sweets, because that’s the only marketable talent you have.

      • What?

        I love the internet. Makes everyone think they are important.

    • jaydee92

      Haha okay there, Jenny. Your work on a major publication is much more impressive…oh wait.

  • JM3

    If he had shot him in the head the walkers may have passed him by and kept chasing Shane for the fresh living meat. It seemed as if he was thinking…… it’s one of us, or both of us. Justice for Carl? Maybe…but I think he’s just that type of guy. After all he did make the moves on his best friends wife a little too soon in my opinion. All in all, great characters, and great portrayals by the actors.

    • Sam J

      Am I the only one that forgot that Otis shot Carl? I never saw the Otis shooting as a “revenge” angle, I only saw it as the harsh reality of survival w/o dignity. Shane was trying to survive while not caring about “living”.

      • Jodes

        Plus, Shane is obviously shocked by what he did himself and feeling guilty, considering he wouldn’t stay in the same room as anyone and was avoiding as much conversation and eye contact as possible. So I don’t think it had anything to do with revenge, just survival.

      • TerryD

        Otis shot a deer. To feed his friends/family. He had no idea there was a dumbass kid on the other side of that deer, obscured from sight, staring at the deer in a trance during a zombie apocalypse, and that his bullet would go through the deer and into the hidden brat behind it. Otis did nothing wrong.

      • yellow

        Great acting. I could tell he did it the moment he got out of the car. He had that perfect shellshocked look mingled in with guilt. Made me feel sorry for ol’ racist Otis.

        Never saw it as revenge either. It’s just one of those things you do to survive the zombie apocalypse. The rules of our society would be gone and if it’s you or me I choose me 7 out of 10 times. I’m not a happymeal.

    • NIGHTWIN6

      The walkers don’t exclusively eat on the living, they feed on the dead too, and you don’t have to look further than this same episode to know that. A guy hung himself and died and walkers still came by to eat his legs. Shooting Otis in the head would have been the right thing to do, but a whole lot less dramatic for tv.

      • PennyBeGood

        Perhaps Shane thought Otis was a better distraction alive then dead.

      • Joe

        Let’s be honest… it would have taken the walkers a lot longer to get through all of Otis than it would have Shane, thus buying Shane more time than Otis would have had if Shane had decided to sacrifice himself. As a fat man myself, I understand the situation and in the case of a zombie outbreak or being stranded somewhere and the survivors have to turn to cannibalism, I understand I’m the first to go. Rest In Peace… err… Pieces, Otis.

      • MattS

        Understood, but Shane was not in the woods with Darryl and does not know that walkers eat dead meat. I also agree that an alive and injured Otis might buy him the extra minute or two of distraction that he needed to escape.

        Shane was clearly messed up by his decision, as can be seen in his eyes once back to the house.

      • Kno

        The guy in the tree didn’t die and THEN get eaten — he attempted to hang himself and failed, then got his legs chewed off and turned into a zombie himself.

        These dead only eat the living — a struggling fat man on the ground was exactly what Shane needed to survive.

  • Brian

    I’m just glad we finally got an interesting character. Totally horrible thing to do but makes Shane far more interesting than the majority of the sort of plain cast (except Daryl, because Daryl is awesome).

  • Vincent Hanna

    The past two episodes have been SOOOOOO draggy. Thank heavens there was this payoff at the end finally. The most exciting part of the episode was all of the last two minutes. This is what happens when you have an idea (Zombies) but no story. The last two episodes have been nothing but conversation after conversation back to back to back. How about a balance between talking and action. If it continues down the long exposition highway…it’s going to lose me.

    • Cookie951

      Just started watching this. Caught up on season one on Netflix I agree too much conversation. Season two just seems so slow!! Last two minutes were the best of episode 3. Please pick up the pace!!

    • Cookie951

      Agreed. Fast forwarded thru a lot of it.

      • immature viewers

        lots of absent minded people here saying they cant sit through adut conversation. pathetic. this show is serious. the dialougue gives character development, which this show desperately needs. the action usually isnt the best part of the episode. if you just want to see mindless zombie killings for an hour, go play a video game. otherwise, just shut it.

      • MattS

        Think that you are in the minority. I would imagine that the reason why this show is doing so well and growing viewership is character development. Hopefully, I speak for most of the audience when saying that if the show was primarily violence and gore and killing with less conversation and character/plot development, the ratings would not have remained steady or increased… The depth of the show (or the “draggy” parts you fast-forwarded through) are the reason why I watch this show.

    • zombiecakes

      Fast forward??? Obviously you are 12. The dialog has been AWESOME and riveting! It’s building the characters and showing us who they are… were… The quiet moments make for real excitement, I’m always on the edge waiting…
      We can’t just have zombie attacks e/o minute or it would be like a silly cartoon! I think a great job has been done of redirecting and giving us a gut-punch when we least expect it! LOVE TWD!!!

    • Kat

      @Vincent – we who need and enjoy ‘conversation’ in an intelligent adult drama will not miss you.

  • Andrea

    EW, come on. On the front page of the site there’s a headline talking about Shane’s “shocking decision” and also this article’s leader about a “somewhat justifiable homicide.”

    Are we of the West Coast just not welcome after 5PM? It hardly takes a genius to put together that Shane kills someone. Love your site, want to be able to come to it and NOT see spoilers (and I didn’t even have to click an article! This is the HOME PAGE!).

    • Carlos

      Andrea, why do you come here and read the spoilers, if you are on the west coast?

      • Catca

        Carlos,
        Andrea’s point was that it was in the headlines so if she’s on the site reading other stories, she still gets the spoilers.

  • James

    Justice for Carl? If Carl hadn’t gotten close enough to like the deer he wouldn’t have been shot in the first pace. Otis was just trying to get food for his family, and Carl, unfortunately got in the way. Revenge killing for what?

    • llevinso

      I don’t see it as revenge for Carl at all. Otis was doing all he could to make it right. And yes, it was a total accident that he shot Carl in the first place.

  • Brandy

    Why IS Shane still there? Where the hell is Tyrese? I need me some Tyrese, Kirkman, you hear me?!

    • Jim

      Tyrees AND MICHON!!!!

      • Brandy

        Michonne shouldn’t come into the series until season 3, based on the comic. It’s been confirmed she’ll be in the show, but I don’t expect her until then.

  • obihave

    OTIS: Shane…come back Shane. Come Back

    • Bobby’s Robot

      LOL

    • Trey Kenyon

      For the approximately 12 of us who get this reference, I thank you!

    • Kevin

      lol – priceless. Took me a minute…

  • dc

    This was great work by Kirkman and his team, and far preferable to a gratuitous “fat guy gets taken down by zombie herd’ – fat guy gets taken down by comrade, but not before taking some of comrade with him? Much better!

  • Shadow

    I think the scene was tough to watch, but one of the intriguing things about WD is that it makes us (the audience) contemplate the hard choices the characters face in this new world. How long do you keep looking for the missing girl, for example? Potentially endangering everyone else? In the case of last night – do you both die, and thereby also doom the wounded boy? A lot of awful choices, granted…but part of what makes the show intriguing.

  • Mika

    Compared to season 1 and the graphic novels, season 2 is really dragging along slowly. I miss the fast pace of season 1.

    • zombiecakes

      Do you chew your food? How do you know if it’s gourmet or fastfood if you just swallow it whole?
      S1 only had 6 episodes to hook us… now S2 will have what, 16 eps?
      Of course we want more but just chew what you got and the next bite will taste better!

  • Pete

    It’s not how you see the situation, it’s how Shane and Otis did. Shane obviously thought they wouldn’t make it, and Otis thought they would. In that, Otis was obviously wrong. Shane recognized the situation properly and employed the correct means to solve it. You might think its cruel, but armchair morality really works only when you’re, well, in an armchair. It all goes away when horde of zombies start chasing you and you have a kid’s life to save. So it comes down to who would you choose in that situation – Carl or Otis? If you let Otis live, but failed to save Carl, your hands would be clean, but your responsibility would be just as great, and then you would, in fact, be weak.

    • Bryan

      As a matter of pragmatism, Otis is worth far more than Carl. Otis is a certified/trained EMT and he is clearly handy with a rifle and pistol. Carl is just another mouth to feed and won’t have any potential utility in regards to defense until he’s about 12 or so, so he’s a few years from even having the potential to become useful. I would try to save both, but I wouldn’t sacrifice one to benefit the other. You cannot decide to sacrifice somebody, only they can decide if they are going to do that. If Shane was so concerned with Carl, why didn’t he hand his bag to Otis and say, “your feet are still working, get out of here” and then lead the zombies off in the other direction. Shane’s ankle was busted up and he just wanted to save himself, so he shot Otis. He couldn’t very well show up without the bag, so he had to take the bag and say “Otis gave me the bag and told me to go! He volunteered to cover me!”

      Otis was moving better than Shane, even though Otis was huffing and puffing from being out of shape, at least both of his ankles were intact.

    • Bubba Zanetti

      Pete, armchair immorality only works, well, when you are in your armchair ;-)

  • Cookie951

    Hated him in the beginning but he is definitely growing on me!!

  • dlj

    I was shocked when Shane shot Otis in the leg.. but the more I thought about it… would I sacrafice an acquaintance to save one of my children? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! Let’s not forget, Shane & Lori had a “thing” going and I got the impression that he had deep feelings for both Lori & Carl, so in a sense, he did it to save Carl’s life.

    • Bryan

      My recommendations to friends/family are that in an extreme situation they have NOTHING to do with anybody that is not immediate family or a long-term close friend. Most people are creeps who will readily harm others or at least view them as disposable. I plan to hunker down on my property and I have no problem putting my skills to use taking care of people who don’t know the meaning of “NO TRESPASSING” in the event of a major collapse that is. I had considered it possible to roam around the area and help those in need, but after seeing that 39% of people on the Talking Dead poll agreed with shooting somebody in the knee to use them as a distraction, I have no intention of putting myself around such people. Anybody who comes around my property without having been explicitly told, “you’re welcome to come to my place if things get really bad” is likely going to wind up dead. I also recommend that people do not trust single mothers, there’s a reason they are single, they probably view men as disposable, marry a guy, get a kid or two, take a lot of his money, divorce him, and then try to “go it on your own,” these women will drain your resources and will throw you under the bus to save their own hide. If they come around you in a collapse situation, either run them or otherwise get rid of them.

      OPSEC dictates that if somebody comes across your property and they now have a reasonable good idea of what your layout is, what you have, how many people you have around, you cannot just let them leave because they will go and tell some organized band of raiders/looters all about your setup. In a post-collapse society, people who ignore NO TRESPASSING signs may very well wind up dead.

      About 40% of people were willingly to openly admit that they wouldn’t have an issue with throwing somebody under the bus to guarantee their own survival. In a post-collapse situation people had better respect NO TRESPASSING signs and propery lines/fences, just saying…

      • Heather

        Bryan, so much of that post is messed up but “I also recommend that people do not trust single mothers, there’s a reason they are single, they probably view men as disposable.. ”
        SERIOUSLY?

        Yeah, husbands can’t die, or leave their wives without a choice, or have been beating their wives…

        From your post here, you seem to be the soulless one people should be cautious around.

      • Bryan

        My point is that a lot of women will easily throw any guy under the bus to save themselves and/or their kids.

        Some woman posted that if her kids were in danger she would instantly sacrifice a stranger to save them. Those aren’t the sort of self-absorbed sociopaths I want to be around.

        I don’t want anybody trying to help me survive at the expense of somebody else.

        If a child is raised right, I believe they would easily hate a parent who threw somebody under the bus to assure their survival.

        Imagine you killed four or five people and stole their food to feed your son when he was 8-9… What happens when he is 16-20 and learns of what the truth was and understands what it means, he would probably hate you forever.

        There comes a time where survival is no longer an option, where the price is too high. If you’re a religious person and you believe in God and you love God, then it doesn’t matter in the end.

        My survival rule is simple- “fight as long and as hard as you can to survive, but never at the expense of somebody else.” If you have to kill somebody to stop them from killing you or to stop them from robbing you blind, then you do it, but you never steal, you never rob, you never murder, you never take anything from anybody unless they freely and voluntarily offer it to you or trade it to you. Nobody has a right to survive at the expense of others.

        When it is your time to go, go with a clean conscience. That’s how I want to go.

        It’s a fact of life in the USA that 60% of marriages end in divorce and that 70% of divorces are initiated/filed by women, with about 20% of divorces initiated/filed by men at the request of the woman. Only in 10% of divorces does the man actually want/seek the divorce. The most common reason cited in divorce is “irreconcilable differences” not abuse and not infidelity. It seems plenty of women in the USA view men as either unnecessary or disposable. I don’t view people as disposable and I refuse to be used by people who see me as an expendable resource.

      • Bryan

        I didn’t read about any women on the Titanic giving up their seats on the lifeboats, I did read about how men were held back, often by other men, because no woman wanted to be inconvenienced by having a man in her lifeboat, and plenty of boats were launched with less than 1/5th of the seats filled because with the first group of lifeboats they wouldn’t let any men, insisting that all the seats were filled with women.

        Men are expected to sacrifice and die for what? For my family, yes… For some random woman who expects to be treated like family just because she’s a woman and I’m a man? Random men don’t exist to serve random women. God didn’t put me on this Earth to cater to the whims of random women.

        You’ve been in one too many women’s studies classes if you think otherwise.

        Look at the Occupy Wall Street signs, one woman was holding up a paper which read, “I am a single mother with three kids, let the dudes pay my bills” as though random men owe her money. I have news for, I’m not paying your bills honey.

        A lot of women are what I call “lifeboat feminists” they want to be the equal of men, empowered, tough, they insist on being in the military, in the police, in the national guard, working all the high powered corporate jobs, but when the ship starts to sink they expect to be the first in the lifeboats.

        As far as I’m concerned that culture, that world, it is gone and it isn’t coming back. This isn’t the Victorian era, you don’t get everything handed to you just because you were born with different anatomy. If you want to be an equal then you’re going to be equally liable to dangers and hardships, no automatic pass to the lifeboat, wait in the same line everybody else waits in…

        I thought all of that had to be said because I see plenty of women in the survival community who anticipate having random men cater to them in a collapse situation just because they’re female. I’m a man so I cannot expect anybody to cater to me, nor would I want to count on it anyway. I don’t base my hopes for survival on the expectation of charity from strangers.

      • muhahaha

        Whoa, Bryan, why all the women hate? Clearly, you have some issues that stretch beyond not trusting women with children (your mother must be proud). I couldn’t even bring my self to read all the rubbish you spouted in those posts. But, as a completely capable woman – with no children (yet) to cloud my judgement, I can tell you that in the event of a zombie apocalypse, you would absolutely be the first one I would sacrifice.

Page: 1 2 3 5
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Advertisement

Latest Videos in TV

From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP