The Walking Dead (Season 2)


Recommended Posts

Also, is there a need to black out the spoilers we have in this thread? I haven't bothered since I would think anyone who cares about the show would be watching it...

Neowin rules are that when an episode has aired, you don't need to use spoiler tags. If something has not aired, such as an upcoming death, then you use spoiler tags.

About Carl.. I really feel Rick and his wife suck at raising him. I can understand developing a vengeful attitude, but they don't talk to him at all. He's just left to his own thoughts without his parents giving context to what's going on. No one is ever watching him so he just wanders into the shed to watch them kill Randall. Carl doesn't even think that it's wrong to blurt out "kill him". He's completely detached and it's because they suck as parents.

I completely agree, they seriously need to discipline the insolent little ******; and severely punish him when he disobeys them. (Easier said then done, sorry Carl no TV for you, no xbox and no you can't go to that party next week)

I'll bet that Daryl's brother Merril is one of the "30 guys" that Randall was talking about.

This is a very interesting thought.

Neowin rules are that when an episode has aired, you don't need to use spoiler tags. If something has not aired, such as an upcoming death, then you use spoiler tags.

I find spolier tags so annoying and pointless when they are about an aired episode. I mean seriously anyone who watches a TV show knows what day the episodes come out and if they are so stupid to come and read a thread about the show if they haven't watched the latest episode then more fool them.

This is a very interesting thought.

It was thought for a long time that he would be The Governor. That isn't the case. Probably means he will be with the group, though. When Rick meets that group in the comics --

he gets a hand chopped off. I wonder if Merle will do that to Rick as payback for Merle losing his hand on the roof.

I find spolier tags so annoying and pointless when they are about an aired episode. I mean seriously anyone who watches a TV show knows what day the episodes come out and if they are so stupid to come and read a thread about the show if they haven't watched the latest episode then more fool them.

Agreed. If its within an hour or two of the episode airing, I can understand. But once its the next day, its fair game, to me. The problem is, when people use them wrong, its hard to tell if they are using them about an upcoming episode or an aired one.

As others have already said i'm pretty gutted about Dale's death while I didn't necessarily like him he was a good character, just like Shane I hate him but he is a good character. Now if they had got rid of Andrea or Carol or Theodore then that would have been good and wouldn't have made the show any less interesting infact i think it would have probably improved it significantly if either of the women had been killed.

I like the fact that they're making Carl slowly turn into a psychopath due to the fact that he is growing up in a zombie apocalypse and knows no life before z-day (almost). I think that will continue to be really interesting material for the show later on.

I like it too. The series has greatly deviates from the comics, and the writers are doing a good job of it, but it seems they've put Carl's development on the same path. He ends up being cold-blooded.

I'll bet that Daryl's brother Merril is one of the "30 guys" that Randall was talking about.

I'll bet that they're setting up for the Governor story arc, or the AMC version of it at least.

D8RNE.jpg

HAHA! I'm not saying that you're implying the opposite, but it's something I think the writers are doing intentionally to build to something. Carl's parents are too busy trying to play parents to everyone else, and because of that, they end up, "loosing," their little boy.

In S2E11, at the very end when Daryl shoots Dale, my sound cut out. What did he say?

It sounded like he said "Sorry brother" then there was the gun shot right when the screen went black.

I thought the first season was bad with drama, drama, drama, but this season has been horrible. I get that they're trying to make this show as real as possible, but some of the characters they've got are dumber than a box of rocks and wouldn't last no time if this were real. Just like that image up there regarding parenting Carl. No one really talks to anyone until they're ready to blow up.

Rick said he wanted to sleep on the idea, but come on, he never once sounded like he was going to let him live. They blind folded him the entire way to the farm. It wouldn't be easy for him to find his way back to his camp, especially with walkers out there. I wouldn't see the harm in letting him go free. Well, before they tortured him.

And killing Dale off was such a bad idea. He had become the only voice of reason in the camp. I would much rather have see Shane get killed than Dale. I hate Shane.

[edit] Over at Talking Dead, they've got a poll up:

What should Rick have done when Carl walked in as he was about to execute Randall?

  1. Shoot Randall in front of Carl
  2. Tell Carl to leave. Then shoot Randall
  3. Let Randall live and lock him back up
  4. Shoot Shane

I vote for #4 :laugh:

any theories as to why shane came back?

im thinking its all the blood on him from when he previously took out zombies at the beginning of the episode.

Then what about Randall? He didn't have any contact with any walkers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!