Great point about the high shot. There were a lot of other similarities. Did anyone notice the fire escape on one of the buildings in the alley? Kinda like the one Rick had to get to in episode 2. It was in an alley with a fence, just like that episode. The protagonist was covered by something that was providing…

Glenn calling Rick "dumbass" was definitely a callback. The whole thing seemed like a callback. It looked a lot like the setup from the first two episodes of season 1 - an alley between two buildings, a fence, a fire escape, someone trapped under something that's temporarily saving them (the tank for Rick, Nicholas'…

It doesn't work that way. Zombies stay away from things coated in zombie guts because it doesn't smell fresh. If Glenn was coated in Nicholas' guts, that would be like putting BBQ sauce on something for humans. It just makes it more tasty.

There's no way a loud noise lures away the ones who are already eating. MAYBE those near the back, but eating a body has to be priority#1.

But how would he even get to it? The only thing that's quasi-saving him is Nicholas' body on top of him, and to get to a tunnel, he'd have to get out from beneath his body, which would surely mean he'd be torn apart. There's really no way to slide beneath a body that's on top of you when you're on the ground.

My thought was: just skip the "In Memorium" segment. That's what really made it obvious, because if he died, of course he'd be in it. You can't include Glenn in that segment - purposefully lying about a character's fate is a bit too much - so you just omit it and don't talk about it. The host and guests can…

As I'm sure other people have noted, Nicholas fell on Glenn, so it's virtually certain it was Nicholas' guts that were being ripped out, although the shot was designed to make us think it was Glenn. That at least explains how he wasn't killed right then and there. Which leaves us with Glenn beneath a disemboweled…

The thing that really torpedoed it was Talking Dead. If that didn't exist, we would all have assumed Glenn was dead and then when they revealed he didn't, at least it would be a surprise. The fact that there's an In Memorium segment that didn't include him and the fact that they felt the need to specifically say…

Why would the wolf kill Judith? Unless he's taking her hostage, but then why would he kill her? As soon as he does that he's dead. At worst he'd use her as a hostage to gain his freedom - like that guy from Terminus did with Tyreese - and then get rid of her (still alive) once he's free. He wouldn't want to take…

It was basically a turning point where Rick made a moral decision that this is what our community is going to be. It wasn't so much "this has to stop" as it was his way of making a statement about the direction he's going to be taking his community. We don't kill. It's basically a counterpoint to who he became…

Wait - you're ignoring the circumstances and the motivation of the Wolves. In the "old world", people generally aren't committing crimes because they're in danger of starvation. You can get a job and buy food at the grocery store. If you're committing a crime, it's your choice to do that.

But it's not an either/or situation. Eastman's philosophy is in a sense more true in a group context: every life is precious because the more people you have, the better your chances of survival. To survive, the group is going to have to start farming. They're going to have to raise animals. They're going to have…

While true, that's simplistic. The guy is one of the Wolves, sure, but do you think the Wolves are bloodthirsty murderers for no good reason? No. This is how they survive. They presumably don't have a safe haven where they can thrive because if they did, they'd just stay there. There's no good reason to go out…

I thought Lennie James had an interesting comment on Talking Dead. He mentioned that Eastman is basically the voice in Morgan's head saying what the right thing to do is, but that Morgan may or may not heed it. It makes me think that Morgan may ultimately end up killing the captive even though it's not what Eastman…

"Cheap parlor trick of storytelling" seems unfair. The previous episode was what I'd call a cheap parlor trick. Take a favorite character and appear to kill him off to get the fans interested, then immediately walk that back and make us think we've been duped and he's actually still alive. That's a cheap trick. …

I guess I could sort of agree that it wasn't a good "The Walking Dead" episode if we're grading on whether it hit all of the things one would normally expect - action, danger, wall to wall zombies, gore, maybe some funny lines, contribution to ongoing plot lines, moving the story forward, etc.

I'm interested purely in the "are they actually going to keep him alive even though there's no way he would have gotten out of that situation alive" part, but I agree, he's not particularly interesting for me right now. He really has nothing to do with the current arcs, which are basically those who see killing other…

Why can't things just be for a certain audience and be left alone? If you want to see dudes fucking, teen sex comedies aren't for you. Go watch something else.

There's so much about this review I don't understand.

It's not just them. T-Dog wasn't exactly imposing. He was another gentle giant type. Noah didn't last long but when alive he wasn't exactly an action hero. Bob was an alcoholic. Father Gabriel is useless. Oscar got shot. Shumpert was sort of badass for a while but also fairly evil so that's not really a…