706 - "Swear"

1235»

Comments

  • I just found out the Masterson family has several kids who are TV actors & Alana spent a lot of time on film sets as a child watching her brothers perform. Speculation: Her family pulled a few strings to get her this role and an entire episode to herself...? 

  • I think she defiantly got the role through family connects, but a whole episode, that's on the writers and Gimple
  • I'm brand new to this forum and bald move in general.  I got pulled in via Westworld.  I get the idea from catching up on Watching Dead for season 7 that people here have hated the Morgan idea of trying not to kill.  At this point, it seems no one is even interested in discussing it, but maybe someone could give me a brief rundown on what the argument against is.

    For me, the entire point of Walking Dead is that you need to try and hold on to your humanity, or there is no reason at all to survive.  Surviving just to survive is pointless.  If you were making a show like that, then Negan would be the hero.  Since he clearly isn't the hero, I'm assuming the writers are making a show where it's important at all opportunities to reflect on the issue of when to kill and to try desperately not to kill, so of course characters are going to repeatedly discuss this issue from season one on, and this season and every season.  BECAUSE THAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF THE SHOW.

    so, could someone explain to me what the general consensus is here, so I don't waste my time listening to a show that doesn't even understand the point of the show they're watching?
  • gathly said:

    I'm brand new to this forum and bald move in general.  I got pulled in via Westworld.  I get the idea from catching up on Watching Dead for season 7 that people here have hated the Morgan idea of trying not to kill.  At this point, it seems no one is even interested in discussing it, but maybe someone could give me a brief rundown on what the argument against is.

    Morgan is debating whether to kill people in situations that don't warrant debate, e.g. serial killer Wolf leader whose life Morgan previously spared turns up at Alexandria, murders a ton of people and promises to murder more if Morgan doesn't kill him.
  • voodooratvoodoorat Atlanta
    edited December 2016

    gathly said:

    I'm brand new to this forum and bald move in general.  I got pulled in via Westworld.  I get the idea from catching up on Watching Dead for season 7 that people here have hated the Morgan idea of trying not to kill.  At this point, it seems no one is even interested in discussing it, but maybe someone could give me a brief rundown on what the argument against is.

    Morgan is debating whether to kill people in situations that don't warrant debate, e.g. serial killer Wolf leader whose life Morgan previously spared turns up at Alexandria, murders a ton of people and promises to murder more if Morgan doesn't kill him.
    yeah.  well, there's a kernel of some interesting moral dilemmas in there:  in a situation with limited resources and no recourse to the law, you would have to defend yourself and that would mean sometimes you might have to preemptively eliminate perceived threats--or even possible threats.  you might also have to be immoral (by current standards) by turning away those you could help but by doing so would put other people at risk.  taken to the extreme, this might mean a moral calculus where for the greater good of your friends and family you preemptively straight up murder people who might or might not be threats, or where you might take slaves or something with the justification that a life of slavery is better than dying.  and there's always the question of, if we have to do this, how are we different than anybody else who are evil from our perspective--do we lose the moral authority if we turn away a starving child because they only hurt us and it might result in all of our deaths?  carol's character has sort of touched on some of this although she doesn't act like a real, consistent-if-evolving person either.  if she did, she wouldn't swing wildly from philosophical position to philosophical position without any real explanation or reason. 

    but yeah, instead of all that the facet of this they chose to explore was someone who literally risked the life of everybody they know and supposedly love for the sake of the possible redemption of a known murderer who'd pledged to commit more murder.  yeah, the wolf guy was sort of redeemed by an out-of-character turn at the end, but the situation from which he redeemed himself wouldn't have ever been at play without over-the-top morgan--and the writer strings being pulled on all that stuff were all so inorganic and obvious that they were visible from space.

    *edit* note that probably a lot of that kind of stuff would be a pretty hard story to tell at 9pm on sundays on basic cable, but there's a lot of grey area between the starkest possible story and the fluffiest.
  • @gathly said-

    could someone explain to me what the general consensus is here

    Only my opinion, but I think there isn't consensus on the underlying issue, but there is a feeling that there were some really compelling interesting moral questions Morgan was struggling with, but the writers bungled it.  Morgan is portrayed as this intelligent enlightened guy and yet he had a really hard time articulating his position.  He never just said, "I was batshit crazy and the only thing that pulled me out of it was realizing that all life is precious".  

    So instead we ended up with a lot of these back and forth conversations (Morgalizing) where he seemed to be proposing that "all life is precious" is a black and white, one size fits all people and situations kind of philosophy.  The writers never seemed to take this where they should have which would have been Morgan having actual conversations with people about this issue.  Instead it most often got boiled down to this weird-"you should't kill people" oversimplification which was silly.

    I could be wrong, but that's my take on it
Sign In or Register to comment.