I think if Carver's character had remained closer to his setup in eps 1 & 2, as a sly tempter with a temper, then he could have lasted longer. But as the brutal, rather one dimensional thug with delusions of grandeur, I think his death was earned. I preferred how he was setup in 1&2, but it makes sense that his persona in the cabin was just a facade.
Carver was entirely "wrong". Sure, from his perspective, what you say makes sense, but that's because it's the perspective of a psychotic egomaniac who thought he was some shepherd that everyone had to follow, against their will if necessary. A good leader doesn't suffer from such delusions or use violence to ensure cooperation. There could have been a moral greyness to Carver at first, but then we learned that the group left because he was a violent, dangerous psycho. No longer any ambiguity there.
I thought that Episode 3 was going to be living at Carver's hellish camp and defending Rebecca while the baby came, then Episode 4 Clementin… moree snapped and murdered everyone.
Carver was a very interesting character, and wasn't necessarily "wrong." Put yourself in his shoes, what would you of done with these rebellious, shortsighted but useful people who would defy you at nearly every turn while you did nothing but try to save them from the apocalypse outside. While you devoted your "new life" to making this community something functional and working.
It wouldn't have been too soon if the episodes had been longer, and they actually developed his character a little... but instead, telltale … moretotally fumbled and dumped all his potential down the toilet. they made him too evil, which didn't make him interesting. had he had even a sliver of humanity, or a story that made you wonder... it would've been so much more amazing... but that would've taken more time.
they should change their name from telltale to tellsynopsis.
I think so, but I hated Carver. I'm glad he's not around any longer because the focus would've been on just getting away from him. If you think about it, we haven't seen the next episode. We don't know how good it will be till we see it and it may turn out its better becuase hes dead
A leader is not the entire constituency within a group, there must be cooperation. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he surely wasn't this "psychotic egomaniac" you portray him as. Alone and fumbling in the darkness of the apocalypse outside of the compound, they all would of died. Carver would shepherd them to survival with his community. Note that Carver didn't kill people for fun, nor did he ever do what wasn't needed as far as we can tell. He has reasons for all of his actions.
Raping Rebecca? He put her in a leadership position and had an heir to pass things on to.
Killing Walt? Kenny killed Carver's man.
Killing Alvin (at the lodge)? - Kenny wouldn't surrender and kept shooting him.
Holding Clem Hostage? - Kenny wouldn't surrender.
Just a few things that we saw are completely justified. Also, Carver isn't a psychopath, he's a sociopath. Psychopaths can't determine right from wrong, sociopaths just don't care.
Carver was entirely "wrong". Sure, from his perspective, what you say makes sense, but that's because it's the perspective of a psychotic eg… moreomaniac who thought he was some shepherd that everyone had to follow, against their will if necessary. A good leader doesn't suffer from such delusions or use violence to ensure cooperation. There could have been a moral greyness to Carver at first, but then we learned that the group left because he was a violent, dangerous psycho. No longer any ambiguity there.
Sure, cooperation is key, but if you have to enforce cooperation through violence, you've already failed as a leader. And he was entirely the "psychotic egomaniac" I said he was, or sociopathic egomaniac if that suits him better, because someone who isn't an egomaniac doesn't see themselves as this great savior like he did, and his lack of caring about right and wrong is what led him to do such things as killing Reggie, threatening to kill the entire group including Rebecca (presumably the primary reason he went out looking for the group), smashing Kenny's face in, and so on.
Also, those actions you mentioned are absolutely not "justified", especially not raping Rebecca and it's pretty gross that you think it was because he secured an heir and put Rebecca in a "leadership position" (did he, even? She gave the announcements, yeah, but that doesn't mean she was a leader in the community). Of course, all this depends on whether he actually did rape Rebecca, which was never made abundantly clear, but it's the principle of the matter. As for killing those people, having a reason for your actions doesn't mean it's justified, especially if it includes the murder of human beings. Yes, Carver was being coldly methodical rather than straight up malicious in that moment, but it still included killing a complete innocent. Also, the idea that it was revenge starts to crumble as an excuse when you remember that we were shown that Carver would gladly kill his own if he felt they outlived their usefulness.
And yes, I do think Kenny was in the wrong for shooting Johnny too, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that he inadvertently caused Carver to kill Walter by not thinking ahead.
Carver would shepherd them to survival with his community.
Unless of course, you were "weak", and then he'd kill you himself like he did Reggie. I noticed you left that one out of Carver's list of kills, and while some people certainly try to defend it with the same bullshit logic Carver did, it was completely unjustifiable and showed the lie of Carver's little sanctuary. He may not have killed for fun, but he did kill and beat people because his rule was the rule of god as far as he was concerned, and there is nothing "right" about that.
A leader is not the entire constituency within a group, there must be cooperation. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he surely wasn't this … more"psychotic egomaniac" you portray him as. Alone and fumbling in the darkness of the apocalypse outside of the compound, they all would of died. Carver would shepherd them to survival with his community. Note that Carver didn't kill people for fun, nor did he ever do what wasn't needed as far as we can tell. He has reasons for all of his actions.
Raping Rebecca? He put her in a leadership position and had an heir to pass things on to.
Killing Walt? Kenny killed Carver's man.
Killing Alvin (at the lodge)? - Kenny wouldn't surrender and kept shooting him.
Holding Clem Hostage? - Kenny wouldn't surrender.
Just a few things that we saw are completely justified. Also, Carver isn't a psychopath, he's a sociopath. Psychopaths can't determine right from wrong, sociopaths just don't care.
The only Issue I have is wanting something explained like the back story of the group.. What happened at Carvers camp that made the group ne… moreed to escape.. My point is, we don't need it explained. It's perfectly reasonable that we (Clem) would never know the past's of every other character we meet. Sure some may open up a bit to us and tell a little of their past but for the most part I think most people wouldn't give out too much personal information as one, it wouldn't matter and two, the more information you give out, the more they can use against you. Think about Rebecca and the whole "whose baby is it" scene. Clem now know's a secret and could have used it against her somehow. In this ZA world, it's better to keep your mouth shut or not be too quick to trust otherwise you could have it come back to bite you!
When I started playing E3, I kinda got in the mindset that we may be here for the rest of the season. Maybe escape in E5. But I have to say … moreI'm glad it ended the way it did because I didnt care for the whole senerio. It's like the TV show being stuck in the prison for most of the season and I wasnt a big fan of that. For me, I'm glad Carver died when he did and the game can continue with something new,
He didn't have to. He needed to. He could see clearly without much moral thought, something that's considered a negative in our culture.
He killed Reggie because he was incompetent, idiotic, and weak, not to mention his group threats empty. Everyone says shit they won't actually do to stir feelings.
If you listen to Rebecca, she "wanted a child... so bad." I doubt it was rape, but consensual sex.
I understand the issue here - you're in the realm of morals and "good." The apocalypse crumbles all the culture surrounding these "good" decisions, leaving it your choice to abide by them or not. Carver simply chose not to, living in the actuality that the strong survive and the weak perish. The zombie epidemic puts the world back into this tribal-like nature. Hate to break it to you, but the "innocence" and "purity" in humans is worth nothing when you're simply a shivering corpse being devoured by walkers or killed by bandits. Again, the strong survive and the weak perish - Carver was simply trying to guide the weak into survival while they blindly fumbled in the dark. His methods are absolutely questionable, but none the less with legitimate reason.
Sure, cooperation is key, but if you have to enforce cooperation through violence, you've already failed as a leader. And he was entirely th… moree "psychotic egomaniac" I said he was, or sociopathic egomaniac if that suits him better, because someone who isn't an egomaniac doesn't see themselves as this great savior like he did, and his lack of caring about right and wrong is what led him to do such things as killing Reggie, threatening to kill the entire group including Rebecca (presumably the primary reason he went out looking for the group), smashing Kenny's face in, and so on.
Also, those actions you mentioned are absolutely not "justified", especially not raping Rebecca and it's pretty gross that you think it was because he secured an heir and put Rebecca in a "leadership position" (did he, even? She gave the announcements, yeah, but that doesn't mean she was a leader in the community). Of course, all this depends on whether he actually di… [view original content]
I agree with you that he wasn't over-the-top. I think he was just a villain and many villains seem OTT to normal people because we'd never act like that. I'm bummed that Carver is gone. I wish that they'd kept him around longer. Not to mention, Michael Madsen was a pretty good actor for them to get to play the part. My reasons for wanting him around still are mainly that TWD franchise is kind of defined by having humans being the main threat, not walkers. Who will fill Carver's shoes in the next couple episodes? We'll have to just wait and see, but it could end up being great, so I'm not going to speculate too negatively on what's to come. I just think that Carver had a lot of unrealized potential as a villain. He had enough personality and was interesting enough to where he could have at least lasted till the end of Season 2. I agree with snakecharmer that it was nice to see him get his comeuppance though. I just wish that they could've let us see more of his bad side. Again, we'll have to wait for Eps. 4&5. They could end up great regardless of Carver's sudden departure. It'll be interesting to reevaluate this topic after the finale.
Respect your opinion, but I couldn't disagree more.
If Carver was over the top, then what do you think of the villains in the other mediu… morems, such as The Governor and Negan?
Can you elaborate on why you felt Carver was too over the top? Because you're stating your opinion as fact when it isn't.
Personally, I liked Carver because he had those great quotes, and he definitely did his job. He was menacing, strong, and he was extremely manipulative. When he made Carlos slap his own daughter, that was a great moment as it showed Carver was a true dictator. He's not exactly insane, but he's a survival of the fittest kind of guy, and what he says goes.
I think he was properly exposed to us as a terrible maniacal person who needed to be stopped, so in that right I think he was offed at a good time. Season 1 had no true antagonist lasting more than 2 episodes if I recall, so 3 was long. I am curious who will take his place, or if the remaining episodes will be person vs environment.
I kind of agree, the violence of his death notwithstanding, it seemed a bit anticlimactic. I really wanted to see more of the character as he was portrayed to be a very strong villain.
I think so, but I hated Carver. I'm glad he's not around any longer because the focus would've been on just getting away from him. If you th… moreink about it, we haven't seen the next episode. We don't know how good it will be till we see it and it may turn out its better becuase hes dead
I think he was properly exposed to us as a terrible maniacal person who needed to be stopped, so in that right I think he was offed at a goo… mored time. Season 1 had no true antagonist lasting more than 2 episodes if I recall, so 3 was long. I am curious who will take his place, or if the remaining episodes will be person vs environment.
I think Carver was really intriguing from the start, and I was really excited we were finally seeing more of him in episode 3. I definitely didn't want to be in that camp for two more episodes, but I would have liked a bigger role for him.
Then again, The Walking Dead for me has been a lot about permanent change. Every time you think you know your enemy and have thought about some of the risks or problems, other stuff pops up. In that sense it was inevitable he'd die early in the season.
Comments
I think if Carver's character had remained closer to his setup in eps 1 & 2, as a sly tempter with a temper, then he could have lasted longer. But as the brutal, rather one dimensional thug with delusions of grandeur, I think his death was earned. I preferred how he was setup in 1&2, but it makes sense that his persona in the cabin was just a facade.
Carver was entirely "wrong". Sure, from his perspective, what you say makes sense, but that's because it's the perspective of a psychotic egomaniac who thought he was some shepherd that everyone had to follow, against their will if necessary. A good leader doesn't suffer from such delusions or use violence to ensure cooperation. There could have been a moral greyness to Carver at first, but then we learned that the group left because he was a violent, dangerous psycho. No longer any ambiguity there.
He did die a bit quick but I wouldn't want him the antagonist for the next 2 episodes that'll be boring.
Man... i didn't think about that. Yeah that would of made his character a lot more interesting.
I was depressed for days, poor carver.
I think so, but I hated Carver. I'm glad he's not around any longer because the focus would've been on just getting away from him. If you think about it, we haven't seen the next episode. We don't know how good it will be till we see it and it may turn out its better becuase hes dead
I think Carver was killed a little too early but we had already seen his type of character before so telltale probably wants to give us something new.
William?
A leader is not the entire constituency within a group, there must be cooperation. I'm not saying he was a saint, but he surely wasn't this "psychotic egomaniac" you portray him as. Alone and fumbling in the darkness of the apocalypse outside of the compound, they all would of died. Carver would shepherd them to survival with his community. Note that Carver didn't kill people for fun, nor did he ever do what wasn't needed as far as we can tell. He has reasons for all of his actions.
Raping Rebecca? He put her in a leadership position and had an heir to pass things on to.
Killing Walt? Kenny killed Carver's man.
Killing Alvin (at the lodge)? - Kenny wouldn't surrender and kept shooting him.
Holding Clem Hostage? - Kenny wouldn't surrender.
Just a few things that we saw are completely justified. Also, Carver isn't a psychopath, he's a sociopath. Psychopaths can't determine right from wrong, sociopaths just don't care.
Well it could be but people refer to him mostly as 'Carver'
Sure, cooperation is key, but if you have to enforce cooperation through violence, you've already failed as a leader. And he was entirely the "psychotic egomaniac" I said he was, or sociopathic egomaniac if that suits him better, because someone who isn't an egomaniac doesn't see themselves as this great savior like he did, and his lack of caring about right and wrong is what led him to do such things as killing Reggie, threatening to kill the entire group including Rebecca (presumably the primary reason he went out looking for the group), smashing Kenny's face in, and so on.
Also, those actions you mentioned are absolutely not "justified", especially not raping Rebecca and it's pretty gross that you think it was because he secured an heir and put Rebecca in a "leadership position" (did he, even? She gave the announcements, yeah, but that doesn't mean she was a leader in the community). Of course, all this depends on whether he actually did rape Rebecca, which was never made abundantly clear, but it's the principle of the matter. As for killing those people, having a reason for your actions doesn't mean it's justified, especially if it includes the murder of human beings. Yes, Carver was being coldly methodical rather than straight up malicious in that moment, but it still included killing a complete innocent. Also, the idea that it was revenge starts to crumble as an excuse when you remember that we were shown that Carver would gladly kill his own if he felt they outlived their usefulness.
And yes, I do think Kenny was in the wrong for shooting Johnny too, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that he inadvertently caused Carver to kill Walter by not thinking ahead.
Unless of course, you were "weak", and then he'd kill you himself like he did Reggie. I noticed you left that one out of Carver's list of kills, and while some people certainly try to defend it with the same bullshit logic Carver did, it was completely unjustifiable and showed the lie of Carver's little sanctuary. He may not have killed for fun, but he did kill and beat people because his rule was the rule of god as far as he was concerned, and there is nothing "right" about that.
I want to know what happened to clem and crista in the 16 months skip
The prison isn't some enemy camp though. It was their home. They could leave it if they wanted
Walter wasn't any kind of combatant. Carver could've used much more tact to get the Ski Lodge group to help him or let him do his things
He didn't have to. He needed to. He could see clearly without much moral thought, something that's considered a negative in our culture.
He killed Reggie because he was incompetent, idiotic, and weak, not to mention his group threats empty. Everyone says shit they won't actually do to stir feelings.
If you listen to Rebecca, she "wanted a child... so bad." I doubt it was rape, but consensual sex.
I understand the issue here - you're in the realm of morals and "good." The apocalypse crumbles all the culture surrounding these "good" decisions, leaving it your choice to abide by them or not. Carver simply chose not to, living in the actuality that the strong survive and the weak perish. The zombie epidemic puts the world back into this tribal-like nature. Hate to break it to you, but the "innocence" and "purity" in humans is worth nothing when you're simply a shivering corpse being devoured by walkers or killed by bandits. Again, the strong survive and the weak perish - Carver was simply trying to guide the weak into survival while they blindly fumbled in the dark. His methods are absolutely questionable, but none the less with legitimate reason.
Thanks for all The Answers Guys,I'm Blushing:)
I know What You Mean Mate.
His death was important for other character's development.
Same here.
may be there was some more new villain ....☺☺
I agree with you that he wasn't over-the-top. I think he was just a villain and many villains seem OTT to normal people because we'd never act like that. I'm bummed that Carver is gone. I wish that they'd kept him around longer. Not to mention, Michael Madsen was a pretty good actor for them to get to play the part. My reasons for wanting him around still are mainly that TWD franchise is kind of defined by having humans being the main threat, not walkers. Who will fill Carver's shoes in the next couple episodes? We'll have to just wait and see, but it could end up being great, so I'm not going to speculate too negatively on what's to come. I just think that Carver had a lot of unrealized potential as a villain. He had enough personality and was interesting enough to where he could have at least lasted till the end of Season 2. I agree with snakecharmer that it was nice to see him get his comeuppance though. I just wish that they could've let us see more of his bad side. Again, we'll have to wait for Eps. 4&5. They could end up great regardless of Carver's sudden departure. It'll be interesting to reevaluate this topic after the finale.
I think he was properly exposed to us as a terrible maniacal person who needed to be stopped, so in that right I think he was offed at a good time. Season 1 had no true antagonist lasting more than 2 episodes if I recall, so 3 was long. I am curious who will take his place, or if the remaining episodes will be person vs environment.
Maybe 123 is Used Too Much on the end of a user name
I kind of agree, the violence of his death notwithstanding, it seemed a bit anticlimactic. I really wanted to see more of the character as he was portrayed to be a very strong villain.
Point Made...
Yeah.
Holy Saltlicks It's You.How are you.
Been better. But I'm living so there's that.
How about yourself?
123 gang.
Good thanks
I wrote carver And someone else flagged it as a spoiler and edited it mate
I thought it was Supposed to Automatically
Give The star Things
I think Carver was really intriguing from the start, and I was really excited we were finally seeing more of him in episode 3. I definitely didn't want to be in that camp for two more episodes, but I would have liked a bigger role for him.
Then again, The Walking Dead for me has been a lot about permanent change. Every time you think you know your enemy and have thought about some of the risks or problems, other stuff pops up. In that sense it was inevitable he'd die early in the season.
I see..
No because that episode stood on its own, I liked it being nicely contained.