The Lantern in "All That Remains"
So one interesting thing that I found recently on tumblr is, this:
Apoligies if the swearing bothers anyone, but what do you guys think? I personally found it to be somewhat of a cool little detail.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
I just saw that a while ago too, WELL FUCKING DONE to whoever worked that out, it's such a clever observation!!
Yep, nice observation there. Rather grim but it just goes to show that Carlos' group (aka S2E1 group) weren't taking any chances.
This is just a theory right? I've seen the lantern as well, but the statement above it wasn't a unused file someone dug up or something like that?
Well more like an interpretation.
Yeah the source came from me on another thread. I noticed it when watching the scene today XD it really freaked me the hell out.
Ahh all credit goes to Lilacsbloom, I put the source going back to where they posted about it in the "Details..." thread. Sorry for the confusion, it's not my idea at all.
But yeah I've been thinking about it a lot, it just shows how desperately Nick wanted to prevent what happened to his mom from happening again.
nice find
"Damn it... damn it, Nick".
That describes how I feel about this discovery.
Or just, you know...Lanterns are useful to find your way around outside at night.
They have more than enough candles around. And why would the lantern be shown right next to the gun? Wouldn't it be more towards the middle of the table, it distribute light more evenly in the room?
Nick was getting ready to take her out back and shoot her if Carlos gave him the go ahead. That's why he looked like such a nervous wreck, and that's why he stormed out when it turned out she was fine.
Goddamnit, Nick.
I'm just saying that it's not all that surprising that the cabin group would have a lantern lying around. I'd imagine that it's something that they use any time they need to investigate something outside or look for something inside. It's a portable light source. There are a multitude of uses for a portable light source beyond guiding little girls to a discrete, merciful death.
There are, however, very few uses for a gun in that situation other than giving a little girl a discrete, merciful death. So I do agree with you that that was what was about to happen if Carlos found something wrong. I guess I'm just kind of confused as to what people thought the gun was there for prior to noticing the lantern...
Because it's the zombie apocalypse, and people keep their guns around? It's one thing to just hold on to the gun in case she turns there in the kitchen, but it's another thing to plan it out where one of them takes her out back to shoot her. It's just disturbing to think about.
They didn't seem to have it when venturing outside to fetch her from the shed. If they just carried guns around with them all the time, you'd think that would be a time when they'd have it.
I always figured that was what the gun was there for. Didn't pay much attention to the lantern, but that does make sense now that I think about it. I never really found the thought to be that disturbing, though. You have a little girl who's about to die a painful death from infection and turn into a monster. Putting her down is the right thing to do. It's the only thing to do.
Regardless of whether or not she's going to die a painful death, it's still really terrible to have to kill someone.
If Nick is still so broken up after having to kill his mom, I can't imagine it's something where both he and players can just think, "Oh, well, logistically this is the better option, so I'm not going to be upset about it because it has to be done." Most people just can't think that way. It's easy to say for you to say that it's not a big deal, because it's fictional, but I've come to learn that people in the internet who talk a big game about apocalyptic pragmatism are usually all bark and no bite.
Well, seeing as how they were on the internet and a zombie apocalypse is not happening, I should hope that you haven't seen much "bite" when it comes to apocalyptic pragmatism. There's not very much proving that can be done when it comes to these sorts of things. And it's not a big game. I'm not saying that I wouldn't be upset if I had to do that. I imagine that I probably would (though I would also like to think that I could do something like that if necessary).
All I'm saying is that I don't find mercy killing to be a disturbing thing. Terrible, yes. Upsetting, sure (for the person carrying out the act). But you said "disturbing," which to me has as a bit of a judgmental tone to it (which I can also glean from the "Damn it, Nick" posts in here). I didn't see Lee putting down Duck as a disturbing thing to do. I didn't see Clem putting down Lee as a disturbing thing to do. I didn't see Clem putting down Sam as a disturbing thing to do. It was tragic and very difficult for the person to have to do, I'm sure, but it's not something to be disturbed by. I'm not disturbed by acts of mercy, no matter how upsetting they are. I'm disturbed when they aren't performed.
EDIT: It occurs to me that I might be getting bogged down in semantics again. Happens quite often with me. So let me just clarify. Something is disturbing to me when it shocks my conscience. When I come away from it with an uneasy feeling in my gut because I feel like something was wrong with the situation. I don't feel that way here. Even though the scenario is terrible, the fact that it's the right thing to do makes the act itself and all the planning that goes with it sit well with me.