The 'theme' of the game is something that not even the people who worked on the game have a clue about. In the first episode it was purely about Clem and her ability to manage on her own and deal with her environment using the knowledge that Lee/Christa taught her as well as showing her that regardless of who you are, little girl or not, it's going to be tough. The next episode it drops that and goes for a 'trust' theme. One of the devs even said that theme of the season was trust (this was before IHW) which makes sense as Carver hints that the Cabin group are holding back secrets in the cabin so you think okay It's Kenny vs Luke but Luke might not be the safest option based on what Carver is hinting at.
Then the next episode begins and we learn absolutely nothing about them or the specifics of the 'George' fiasco (was that what Carver was talking about? Who even knows at this point...)and Carver does the whole 'you and me are more alike than you think' garbage trope and so you think maybe it's about how you handle yourself as a leader which makes 0 sense for an eleven year old girl. I thought we would be taking over Howes as our own and Clementine would step up eventually into that role or something but no...
It just goes everywhere. Most recently in the S4 Final season reveal video they said that S2 was about "weighing the options in how do you define your own family?" Like...what? We got 3, arguably not very good, options. 2 of which don't matter as of ANF. So the entire season was basically pointless and just serves to tie AJ to Clem. It just blows my mind how you can fuck a story up so badly and not have a single coherent running theme/plotline.
Honestly, Season 2 is so much of a cluster-fuck that it's hard to pinpoint who they intended to be the villain, sure there's Carver but he w… moreas only a thread for literally 2 episodes and I could see they were trying to make Kenny out as the 'bad guy' but, especially in episode 5, there was so much favoritism towards him, it was blatant that whoever wrote that episode liked Kenny far more than every other character, giving him the more emotional and lengthy scenes, references towards Lee and the father figure role right from the moment we see him again (despite having no set relationship with Clementine in the previous season) and this is even more apparent in the ANF flashbacks.
To be honest, I think pitting Kenny with someone in episode 5 was the wrong way to go, because the plot of Season 2 transitioned from a focus on the Cabin Group and the Howe's community to a focus on Kenny... again.
If we're talking pragmatism, keeping Sarah alive wouldn't probably be the most pragmatic choice anyway.
Jane never wanted Sarah "dead to begin with". If Jane during that scene had the option to simply click a button to have Sarah live, she definitely would have. Thing is, Sarah was directly endangering Clem and Luke's lives as well as her own life. "Considering her past experiences" no matter what anyone did could help Sarah in that moment. Jaime didn't budge for months, what indication did she have that Sarah would have? In her mind, the scenario would repeat itself. It's just logical thinking, 1+1, if she couldn't convince her sister through months and months of insistence, how could they convince Sarah in a few minutes? This is what Jane knew at the time, so she tried to make best of a situation based on what she knew, yet she is called a monster for it. She "argued with Clementine to just leave her" exactly because of Clem's "obvious connection", just so Clementine could have a rational voice in her head telling her to save herself, rather than being left alone her emotions which would've likely gotten her killed, because in Jane's mind, based on what she knew, there was no way they could make Sarah get up.
There was no vile intention against Sarah, it was simply trying to make the best out of the situation, getting as many people out alive. It's just that Jane's past experiences simply strongly indicated that Sarah couldn't be one of those people.
Sure, you are able to save Sarah in that scenario, but when you clicked that option, before you knew what consequences would it bring, before you knew if you would be successful or not, you were essentially putting Clem's, Sarah's and Jane's lives on a gamble. And when you take a practical stance, you don't just simply gamble, not with people's lives at least, you take the surest path, and the surest path was leaving, and that's the stance Jane had during this scene.
I find the trailer park scene to be one of the best, more philosophically challenging scene I've ever witnessed. Too bad it's popularity is dragged down by people caring more about simple stuff like "omg Sarah died = bad" rather than its perfect depiction of a philosophical struggle.
The biggest reason Jane gets a lot of hate when it comes to this matter is that she wanted Sarah dead to begin with and is more or less the … morecatalyst of both of her deaths. Survival or whatever is one thing, but for someone who's supposed a pragmatic expert survivalist, Jane was actually incredibly petty when it came to Sarah by:
* not doing anything to help her herself despite not only having dealt with this before but small implications that she has some form of PTSD herself,
* stupidly arguing with Clementine to just leave her despite Clementine's obvious connection and therefore wasting time that could've gone into getting them both out of there,
* insisting on badmouthing her for the sake of claiming she's right even if Sarah's 10 feet behind her,
* having to be guilt-tripped(not the word I want to use, but it'll have to do for now) into helping her out of something she clearly can't escape on her own(which hypocritical considerin… [view original content]
I mean, it makes me wonder what the whole point of her character was if they only intended to kill her off?
To create a perfect depiction of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ultimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
Sure, the scene physics are a tad bit off, but it's still excellent writing should that small little nitpick be disregarded.
Of course, I guess something cringy like Sarah magically surpassing her mental incapacitations and becoming some cringy badass teen female survivor is the "good writing" and the supposed "potential" people wished for.
Like legit ask yourself if that would be a truly interesting scenario.
Not to mention that debris appeared after she fell... it literally magically made it's way over her legs just so she could be stuck and die.… more.. they couldn't give her a logical death at least? Like fuck's sake, how about dying in the shootout so that Clementine has more an incentive to agree with Kenny's harsh treatment over Arvo, or if she got taught how to use a gun, how about having Sarah survive the gunfight and surviving the whole season? I mean, it makes me wonder what the whole point of her character was if they only intended to kill her off?
She was portrayed as Clementine's potential Bestie, she showed a willingness to learn how to adapt to the apocalypse despite everyone coddling her and she even showed more galls than most of the characters at certain points (determinant most of the time, but I still count them). Then she just dies, you can save her but she dies again, you can try to get Jane to save her or leave her to try and s… [view original content]
I actually don't mind the idea of each episode having it's own set of things while there are others that recur throughout the Season--that's what happened in Season 1, after all. I just wish they properly fleshed them out and tied them together in a cohesive manner.
the specifics of the 'George' fiasco (was that what Carver was talking about? Who even knows at this point...)
Actually, there's enough context clues, combined with a determinate line from Bonnie, that explains this: Alvin, George, and Carver were all friends once and it may have been this friendship that lead to Rebecca becoming Carver's PA Announcer. Some time into the Apocalypse, when Carver was starting to crack down on everything, he had become attracted to Rebecca(for some reason), who had been married to Alvin and had been trying numerous times to have a baby with him. Carver used their close personal space and the stress from their attempts to coerce Rebecca into having an affair, which coincided with her finally getting pregnant.
Carver had already come into conflict with Luke do to his leadership decisions; when Rebecca started showing, things got worse and he at some point revealed what they had done, with George presumably taking his side on the matter. So when Luke, Alvin, and Carlos organized an escape with the help of Reggie, George got in their way while they were running through the market(?), which lead to Alvin attacking/shooting him for slowing them down. Despite only wanting to get him out of their way in the heat of the moment, Alvin and Rebecca accurately predicted that George ended up dying from his injuries and thus Carver had another personal reason to track down the Cabin Group and bring them back.
The 'theme' of the game is something that not even the people who worked on the game have a clue about. In the first episode it was purely a… morebout Clem and her ability to manage on her own and deal with her environment using the knowledge that Lee/Christa taught her as well as showing her that regardless of who you are, little girl or not, it's going to be tough. The next episode it drops that and goes for a 'trust' theme. One of the devs even said that theme of the season was trust (this was before IHW) which makes sense as Carver hints that the Cabin group are holding back secrets in the cabin so you think okay It's Kenny vs Luke but Luke might not be the safest option based on what Carver is hinting at.
Then the next episode begins and we learn absolutely nothing about them or the specifics of the 'George' fiasco (was that what Carver was talking about? Who even knows at this point...)and Carver does the whole 'you and me are more alike t… [view original content]
I used to at least acknowledge that the basic idea of that scene was fine, given that it served to establish Jane as a foil to those three(for better or worse) and make Clementine's choices as a pre-established character carry actually weight again. Unfortunately, all the stuff that came afterward made that moment even worse and I now realize that it was partially not only part of a serious bias-steamroller but also a meager attempt to replicate the controversy of Larry and Ben's determinate deaths. The fact that Jane herself is essentially the developers' Sueish, edgy Self-Insert OC, another Scrappy-Doo(in terms of why he was created--look it up), and another Darwinist mouthpiece never did much to help either.
If we're talking pragmatism, keeping Sarah alive wouldn't probably be the most pragmatic choice anyway.
Jane never wanted Sarah "dead to … morebegin with". If Jane during that scene had the option to simply click a button to have Sarah live, she definitely would have. Thing is, Sarah was directly endangering Clem and Luke's lives as well as her own life. "Considering her past experiences" no matter what anyone did could help Sarah in that moment. Jaime didn't budge for months, what indication did she have that Sarah would have? In her mind, the scenario would repeat itself. It's just logical thinking, 1+1, if she couldn't convince her sister through months and months of insistence, how could they convince Sarah in a few minutes? This is what Jane knew at the time, so she tried to make best of a situation based on what she knew, yet she is called a monster for it. She "argued with Clementine to just leave her" exactly because of Clem's "obvious c… [view original content]
That "small nitpick" is an obvious contrivance born of biased spite and selective laziness courtesy of a number of the developers, though. That's pretty much out there on the outset, Ms. Logic.
And while I definitely agree that I don't really approve the mindset of her(or any other youth character, for that matter) becoming "just likeClementine," the point is that she was naturally open to the possibility of learning how to survive and seeing if she can manage to pull it off herself. Something she's blatantly denied several times, despite the story seemingly being setting up a few opportunities to test that out.
Clementine had several months of people protecting and encouraging her to get her act together; Sarah barely had half a quarter of that before we're told to just forget about her and the choice is forcefully made for us if we decline.
I mean, it makes me wonder what the whole point of her character was if they only intended to kill her off?
To create a perfect depi… morection of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ultimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
Sure, the scene physics are a tad bit off, but it's still excellent writing should that small little nitpick be disregarded.
Of course, I guess something cringy like Sarah magically surpassing her mental incapacitations and becoming some cringy badass teen female survivor is the "good writing" and the supposed "potential" people wished for.
Like legit ask yourself if that would be a truly interesting scenario.
You know, I never really noticed this. It was hard to tell what room she and Clementine were in. I realized it was Pete's after Carver went up to check. I wonder why she was in there instead of her own room?
You know, I never really noticed this. It was hard to tell what room she and Clementine were in. I realized it was Pete's after Carver went up to check. I wonder why she was in there instead of her own room?
To create a perfect depiction of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ultimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
This story has already been told with Ben and Crawford and it was done far better, as were the circumstances of what Ben did afterwards.
I mean, it makes me wonder what the whole point of her character was if they only intended to kill her off?
To create a perfect depi… morection of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ultimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
Sure, the scene physics are a tad bit off, but it's still excellent writing should that small little nitpick be disregarded.
Of course, I guess something cringy like Sarah magically surpassing her mental incapacitations and becoming some cringy badass teen female survivor is the "good writing" and the supposed "potential" people wished for.
Like legit ask yourself if that would be a truly interesting scenario.
In a post Alyssa made in response to VengefulKenny's question asking what happened to Mama after David took her to the hospital at the Gene… moreral Questions Thread, she implies that Mama was torn apart by zombies at the hospital in front of David. Though she refers to the scenario as "her take" so whether or not it can be considered as canon is a bit iffy. Here's the post:
I'm pretty sure that David did get Mama to the hospital; he mentions in Above the Law that he got caught up with a military effort, and I suspect that happened at one of the hospital quarantine areas, probably after things went seriously south. My take is that having to watch something like his mother being ripped apart/eaten alive in front of him; being made a victim by the same system that was supposed to be helping; would have spurred him into trying to find a better solution himself. His grief and rage blinded him to being able to think about his own family (we know … [view original content]
Ben and Sarah are easy to be deemed as similar characters with similar purposes. But they are definitely not. No matter what anyone says, Ben's hatchet fuckup was not something that gives us any indication of a systemic uselessness within his persona. It was a simple mistake caused by what was a temporary distraction from his part, not caused by over the top sheltering and mental weakness hardwired into his head. Sarah, on the other hand, is an undeniably disabled kid with problems that probably could never be solved on that apocalyptic setting. Sarah deliberately refused to save herself, and others, from immediate danger twice. Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes. Sarah's choice is about how far you are willing to gamble with people's lives, including your own, and the group's overall safety to keep this girl alive. Because Sarah would undeniably be a burden further down the line, even if she eventually surpassed her issues, I don't see how this girl not being a liability for at least a few good months until she got over her father's death is deniable. Whilst Ben being a burden is a way more debatable issue. Ben's mistakes were caused by something as simple as distraction - something that comes and goes for everyone, temporary - while Sarah's mistakes were caused by literally PTSD and sheltering completely hardwired into her head and persona, things that would probably stick with her to the end of her life. Probably.
And the consequences of keeping both of them alive are exactly what proves that they are different. If you keep Ben alive, he proves he is more than capable and isn't a systematic fuck up by determinantly saving Lee from falling and helping with the walkers at the house. He shows a clear willingness to not fuck up again. Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't function at all during her determinant lifespan. I can't say her death was caused by her disabilities - it was as much as a "wrong place, wrong time" death as Ben's was - and that effectively left the question on whether or not keeping her alive was after all the right of the wrong choice. We don't know, we needed more time to figure out, but it's good that they didn't make anyone's choice the "right" one - that shouldn't be done when questioning philosophies. That debate is meant for off game conversation within the community. If that game gave us an answer, as it did with Ben, it suddenly becomes less interesting, less controversial, as one of the sides is just proven right.
I'd also like to comment on "it was done far better". Let's see how this Ben issue was executed in S1: the walkers are seen banging on a glass door for about 3 scenes straight, magically disappear so Ben grabs the hatchet, and then the huge horde magically reappears just at the moment Molly and Lee are walking down the hall.
Of course, everyone will overlook these obviously convenient appearing and disappearing walkers. It's the mighty season one after all! Who would dare nitpick or question its perfection? But of course, if it's the piece of trash season 2 making some magical planks appear, everyone freak out!
To create a perfect depiction of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ul… moretimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
This story has already been told with Ben and Crawford and it was done far better, as were the circumstances of what Ben did afterwards.
That "small nitpick" is an obvious contrivance born of biased spite and selective laziness courtesy of a number of the developers, though. That's pretty much out there on the outset, Ms. Logic.
Mr.*
No, it's really not. It's but a directing flaw. No one deliberately made this scene not make complete sense just because they hated Sarah. No director (because it's a direction issue we're talking about, not writing) would sabotage their own product because of some supposed hatred for a fictional character. It's a ridiculous prospect, to say the least.
the point is that she was naturally open to the possibility of learning how to survive and seeing if she can manage to pull it off herself. Something she's blatantly denied several times, despite the story seemingly being setting up a few opportunities to test that out.
I guess that is true. I don't see how a Sarah emancipation plot would ever work out or fit though, considering where the rest of the season heads and also how such emancipation would take time, a lot of it, a few years probably.
Clementine had several months of people protecting and encouraging her to get her act together; Sarah barely had half a quarter of that before we're told to just forget about her and the choice is forcefully made for us if we decline.
Clementine never showed to have clear dysfunctionality issues. I don't recall one time the girl stopped fighting for her life, even after seeing her undead parents. The girl had clear potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group. Not to mention that she was also younger.
Sarah's potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group is way more questionable, though.
That "small nitpick" is an obvious contrivance born of biased spite and selective laziness courtesy of a number of the developers, though. T… morehat's pretty much out there on the outset, Ms. Logic.
And while I definitely agree that I don't really approve the mindset of her(or any other youth character, for that matter) becoming "just like Clementine," the point is that she was naturally open to the possibility of learning how to survive and seeing if she can manage to pull it off herself. Something she's blatantly denied several times, despite the story seemingly being setting up a few opportunities to test that out.
Clementine had several months of people protecting and encouraging her to get her act together; Sarah barely had half a quarter of that before we're told to just forget about her and the choice is forcefully made for us if we decline.
To create a perfect depiction of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ul… moretimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
This story has already been told with Ben and Crawford and it was done far better, as were the circumstances of what Ben did afterwards.
Of course, everyone will overlook these obviously convenient appearing and disappearing walkers. It's the mighty season one after all! Who would dare nitpick or question its perfection? But of course, if it's the piece of trash season 2 making some magical planks appear, everyone freak out!
I've been abstaining from joining in arguments against Sarah, mostly because I actually am interested in hearing from those who are in support of Sarah's fate. Yet I feel like I should explain why I would bring up such a ridiculously minuscule detail
I want to make it clear that I actually did really enjoyed Season 2, in fact I would put it at the same pedestal as Season 1, but just because i like those two games doesn't mean I think either of them are perfect. Yes the magically teleporting walkers were definitely an issue in Season 1, in fact I would say Season 2 was much better in that regard.
The problem is that while it could be argued that the magically appearing zombies, although lazy, do have in purpose in driving the plot and helping set up difficult choices, the douchebag plank had no such purpose. The scene would have been exactly the same had Telltale not taken the time to animate a plank falling on Jane's head. Again, maybe Telltale needed Jane to be knocked away from the rubble so the zombies could devour Sarah, I don't know . I'm not against the idea that Telltale put that falling plank in the scene without any spite towards Sarah, but considering their reported disliking of her and the callous treatment towards her character throughout Amid The Ruins, I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh but I highly disagree.
Ben and Sarah are easy to be deemed as similar characters with similar purposes. But they are definitely not. N… moreo matter what anyone says, Ben's hatchet fuckup was not something that gives us any indication of a systemic uselessness within his persona. It was a simple mistake caused by what was a temporary distraction from his part, not caused by over the top sheltering and mental weakness hardwired into his head. Sarah, on the other hand, is an undeniably disabled kid with problems that probably could never be solved on that apocalyptic setting. Sarah deliberately refused to save herself, and others, from immediate danger twice. Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes. Sarah's choice is about how far you are willing to gamble with people's lives, including your own, and the group's overall safety to keep this girl alive. Because Sarah wou… [view original content]
I was actually talking about the planks on top of Sarah, the debris, rather than the plank that fell on Jane's face.
I never thought much about it, but it is indeed weird and the scene could've definitely played out the same without it. Maybe it was to emphasize the idea that people were getting hurt trying to protect Sarah, and that Jane could've gotten killed by going down there? Eh, I doubt it's that. Very odd, indeed.
I'm still not quite convinced they just added a random plank just to "further" show their alleged distaste for Sarah's character though.
Of course, everyone will overlook these obviously convenient appearing and disappearing walkers. It's the mighty season one after all! Who w… moreould dare nitpick or question its perfection? But of course, if it's the piece of trash season 2 making some magical planks appear, everyone freak out!
I've been abstaining from joining in arguments against Sarah, mostly because I actually am interested in hearing from those who are in support of Sarah's fate. Yet I feel like I should explain why I would bring up such a ridiculously minuscule detail
I want to make it clear that I actually did really enjoyed Season 2, in fact I would put it at the same pedestal as Season 1, but just because i like those two games doesn't mean I think either of them are perfect. Yes the magically teleporting walkers were definitely an issue in Season 1, in fact I would say Season 2 was much better in that regard.
The problem is that while it could be argued th… [view original content]
Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes.
No it wasn't and you've completely misunderstood the entire situation and point of Crawford if you really think that's all it was. Crawford was about what people are willing to give up if it meant survival of the fittest. It's not about his mistakes as they were now but the future. He was a liability by all means and the choice was to show 'Are you willing to save him knowing he could possibly cause further harm down the line and sacrifice your humanity or can he redeem himself and prove to be a benefit rather than a hinderence? Are you willing to bet the lives of the group on this?' Sarah never put anyone at risk by her own means. She attracted it because nobody wanted to leave her but she didn't tie anyone down by her choices, that was completely on them unlike with Ben and how his decisions impacted the group as a whole.
If you remove the zombies from Ben's situation, what changes? Nothing. The choice and circumstance is still purely about the benefit of him and the group. But compare that to Sarah's and it's not nearly as well executed. The choice is more 'are you willing to leave her behind and accept that she's a lost cause?' which isn't the same thing.
Ben's mistakes were caused by something as simple as distraction
Ben did a lot more than 'make mistakes'. Falling over or saying something in anger is a mistake. Bumping into someone is a mistake. Making a deal with bandits behind your entire group's back with their medicine is not a mistake. Leaving Clementine to fend for herself surrounded by zombies is not a mistake.
Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't function at all during her determinant lifespan.
I could say the same about Nick with how little impact he had in the scheme of things and he was an able bodied person who was perhaps short tempered but his death had little to do with that and instead he is quite literally tossed aside. Keep in mind that Season 2 was a step back when it came to determinant options.
We don't know, we needed more time to figure out, but it's good that they didn't make anyone's choice the "right" one - that shouldn't be done when questioning philosophies. That debate is meant for off game conversation within the community. If that game gave us an answer, as it did with Ben, it suddenly becomes less interesting, less controversial, as one of the sides is just proven right.
I agree with your sentiment here but I also don't think saving Ben is the 'correct' answer either. It's a different argument than this one though.
Let's see how this Ben issue was executed in S1: the walkers are seen banging on a glass door for about 3 scenes straight, magically disappear so Ben grabs the hatchet, and then the huge horde magically reappears just at the moment Molly and Lee are walking down the hall.
No, I agree I think this episode was the absolute weakest episode of the season for moments like that. That's what happens when you're initials are GW and you try to write a good story - It's never gonna happen. I'd rate 400 days above Around Every Corner. But I've explained above why the choice is better presented. S1E4 might be a weak, maybe even a bad, episode but it looks Shakespeare compared to Amid The Ruins, that's for fucking sure.
Oh but I highly disagree.
Ben and Sarah are easy to be deemed as similar characters with similar purposes. But they are definitely not. N… moreo matter what anyone says, Ben's hatchet fuckup was not something that gives us any indication of a systemic uselessness within his persona. It was a simple mistake caused by what was a temporary distraction from his part, not caused by over the top sheltering and mental weakness hardwired into his head. Sarah, on the other hand, is an undeniably disabled kid with problems that probably could never be solved on that apocalyptic setting. Sarah deliberately refused to save herself, and others, from immediate danger twice. Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes. Sarah's choice is about how far you are willing to gamble with people's lives, including your own, and the group's overall safety to keep this girl alive. Because Sarah wou… [view original content]
You know, a lot of people criticise this scene for being illogical, "Why didn't Luke or Clementine do anything? Why didn't Mike and Bonnie keep shooting the walkers?" they cry.
Well, if you paid attention it's blatantly obvious that several loose planks of wood simultaneously shot upwards and struck Luke, Clementine, Bonnie, Mike and all of their weapons (flying lumber is commonly known to cause firearms to jam).
Here's a small detail concerning Sarah's death that kinda pissed me off when I replayed Season 2. It's not particularly interesting or hard … moreto spot but oh well.
So at the scene where the deck collapses and Sarah is trapped under rubble, you are given the option to order Jane to go down and help Sarah. Of course we all know how poorly that turns out. The thing that peeved me off however, is that as Jane is trying to pull Sarah out of the rubble, a piece of a plank falls on Jane for quite literally no reason.
Now I wouldn't blame you for thinking this is nothing (and it very well could be, they might've had the plank hit Jane to give her more motivation to abandon Sarah idk) but personally when I saw that scene while replaying I took it as a subtle "fuck you" to Sarah and any player who had the heart to try to give Sarah a second chance at adapting to the harsh new world.
So I just wanted to say, fuck you too Telltale. If I ever se… [view original content]
I will have to concede you this point. Ben's choice is indeed as much about the future and the safety of the group long term as Sarah's was for me, and I guess I didn't get the scene right until now.
Though I still firmly believe Sarah's choice wasn't only about whether or not we think Sarah's a lost cause, but also has to do with the safety of the overall group long term. Jane's line in the preview "She's gonna get people killed" seems to at least indicate that the choice was at least meant, in some part, to include Sarah's potential of getting people killed. There's also Jane's story in No Going Back about the DC group and how many people were lost just to save a single person who was already in too deep shit, though it's clearly meant to reflect on Kenny's character, it can also apply to the whole Sarah situation.
For some reason, the Sarah situation seemed to manage to get the message and the moral struggle across better for me. I guess I can't really... feel it in Ben's situation because I just can't perceive him as a total liability. He proved to be unreliable and untrustworthy both when he left Clementine and when he omitted the bandit deal. But those are such human problems that we're all so used to deal with. It's fixable and it definitely helps that he regrets both occasions and is therefore willing to be better.
Sarah's issues though seem just so... impossible to deal with. The girl is not capable in any way to survive due to her father's sheltering, and she definitely could learn, we can teach her how to use a gun after all, but the issue is that the girl literally ceases to function and think under stressful situations. I wouldn't know how Clementine would ever be able to fix that. Like, for example, had she been kept alive until the shootout, would she have been able to keep her head down? or would she just freeze and "cease to function" under such stressful situation? She could just get shot and die, or she could literally be used as a hostage, which would've definitely given the group problems. Probably more people putting themselves in harm's way to aid her.
Ben, on the other hand, would just crouch. He is mentally capable, he has a survival instinct and that's just not present in Sarah. The unreliability and unfixability of the "liability" just felt more accentuated in Sarah's scenario I guess.
Sarah never put anyone at risk by her own means. She attracted it because nobody wanted to leave her but she didn't tie anyone down by her choices, that was completely on them unlike with Ben and how his decisions impacted the group as a whole.
For as much as Sarah can't be held responsible for people wanting to help her, I am looking at the situations through a practical/pragmatic perspective, so responsibility matters little. People feel the need to aid Sarah and that puts them in danger, that's the truth I was looking at here. Her decision to not get up also impacted the group as a whole. She can't be faulted for Luke and Clem wanting to help her, but she definitely caused this reaction.
Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes.
No it wasn't a… morend you've completely misunderstood the entire situation and point of Crawford if you really think that's all it was. Crawford was about what people are willing to give up if it meant survival of the fittest. It's not about his mistakes as they were now but the future. He was a liability by all means and the choice was to show 'Are you willing to save him knowing he could possibly cause further harm down the line and sacrifice your humanity or can he redeem himself and prove to be a benefit rather than a hinderence? Are you willing to bet the lives of the group on this?' Sarah never put anyone at risk by her own means. She attracted it because nobody wanted to leave her but she didn't tie anyone down by her choices, that was completely on them unlike with Ben and how his decisions impacted the group as a … [view original content]
I'm just letting ya'll hash it out for the time being, but I wanted to comment on this:
Jane's line in the preview "She's gonna get people killed" seems to at least indicate
Admittedly--and I was planning on going in-depth about this when I joined the community, but never got around to doing anything with it--, I went into Amid the Ruins believing it was gonna involve Sarah becoming something of a Type II Anti-Villain determinately for a bit, with Jane acting as a jerkass skeptic(which was indeed not to far off from her original characterization, hilariously enough).
that the choice was at least meant, in some part, to include Sarah's potential of getting people killed. There's also Jane's story in No Going Back about the DC group and how many people were lost just to save a single person who was already in too deep shit, though it's clearly meant to reflect on Kenny's character, it can also apply to the whole Sarah situation.
Another example of why slaughtering her in the same episode no matter what and bringing back Jane with little to no reference to their arc/conflict was a bad idea.
Sarah's issues though seem just so... impossible to deal with. The girl is not capable in any way to survive due to her father's sheltering, and she definitely could learn, we can teach her how to use a gun after all, but the issue is that the girl literally ceases to function and think under stressful situations. I wouldn't know how Clementine would ever be able to fix that. Like, for example, had she been kept alive until the shootout, would she have been able to keep her head down? or would she just freeze and "cease to function" under such stressful situation? She could just get shot and die, or she could literally be used as a hostage, which would've definitely given the group problems. Probably more people putting themselves in harm's way to aid her.
Ben, on the other hand, would just crouch. He is mentally capable, he has a survival instinct and that's just not present in Sarah. The unreliability and unfixability of the "liability" just felt more accentuated in Sarah's scenario I guess.
Except she super peels out when there's intense danger and distances herself from it as far as possible each time. The only exceptions were a few instances with Carver(who she's shown to be able to at least deal with, likely due to experience) and in the trailer(where she had just ran for hours before finally isolating herself and was too shaken up at the moment to immediately move or be touched, thought this was intentional on the developer's part).
I will have to concede you this point. Ben's choice is indeed as much about the future and the safety of the group long term as Sarah's was … morefor me, and I guess I didn't get the scene right until now.
Though I still firmly believe Sarah's choice wasn't only about whether or not we think Sarah's a lost cause, but also has to do with the safety of the overall group long term. Jane's line in the preview "She's gonna get people killed" seems to at least indicate that the choice was at least meant, in some part, to include Sarah's potential of getting people killed. There's also Jane's story in No Going Back about the DC group and how many people were lost just to save a single person who was already in too deep shit, though it's clearly meant to reflect on Kenny's character, it can also apply to the whole Sarah situation.
For some reason, the Sarah situation seemed to manage to get the message and the moral struggle across better for me. I g… [view original content]
So I'm replaying the entire TWD series and I just finished S1E2. I forgot to give Clem her hat back before going to get the multitool. The next time you come back to the barn there's actually some extra dialougue:
Clem: There's a baby in there?
Katjaa: Try not to spook her.
The game then automatically makes Lee give Clem her hat back and the scene goes on like normal.
No, it's really not. It's but a directing flaw. No one deliberately made this scene not make complete sense just because they hated Sarah. No director (because it's a direction issue we're talking about, not writing) would sabotage their own product because of some supposed hatred for a fictional character. It's a ridiculous prospect, to say the least.
Season 2.5 and ANF both have more examples that say otherwise.
Simply put, it's very easy to see that they made choices with connotations and effects that they either didn't foresee or just underestimated.
I guess that is true. I don't see how a Sarah emancipation plot would ever work out or fit though, considering where the rest of the season heads and also how such emancipation would take time, a lot of it, a few years probably.
The phrase "Sarah emanicipation" kinda took the piss out of this post for a second.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that's part of the issue: it's an interesting and uneasy plot that was organically set up, but it's in the middle of a story that's way more focused on pushing a fight between two (or three?) "strong" white people in a story that was supposed to be about how such a harsh environment affects and changes people; it fits decently with the story that was supposed to be being told around the Cabin Group and Carver, which was also increasingly short-sold as the Season progressed.
So instead of trying to implement it as a side thing as they were consistently doing or at least putting a pin in it until they have a space to fully go into it(which I realized ever moreso recently that they could've easily done), they just sloppy write her off and render her troubled existence a near complete waste of time and investment.
Clementine never showed to have clear dysfunctionality issues. I don't recall one time the girl stopped fighting for her life, even after seeing her undead parents. The girl had clear potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group. Not to mention that she was also younger.
Keep in mind that she didn't start "fighting" until after Chuck was introduced. And seeing her parents coincided with having made a fatal mistake for the group on her hands with the soon-to-turn Lee at her side.
Sarah's potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group is way more questionable, though.
And rather than actually explore and develop that point any further, they just got rid of her in a way that pretty blatantly avoided doing so for the most part.
That "small nitpick" is an obvious contrivance born of biased spite and selective laziness courtesy of a number of the developers, though. T… morehat's pretty much out there on the outset, Ms. Logic.
Mr.*
No, it's really not. It's but a directing flaw. No one deliberately made this scene not make complete sense just because they hated Sarah. No director (because it's a direction issue we're talking about, not writing) would sabotage their own product because of some supposed hatred for a fictional character. It's a ridiculous prospect, to say the least.
the point is that she was naturally open to the possibility of learning how to survive and seeing if she can manage to pull it off herself. Something she's blatantly denied several times, despite the story seemingly being setting up a few opportunities to test that out.
I guess that is true. I don't see how a Sarah emancipation plot would ever work out or fit though, conside… [view original content]
When you bring Max back to expose Joan, he makes eye contact with all of the leaders as he talks. He looks over at Clint, then looks back at Lingard, and finally at Joan.
When you bring Max back to expose Joan, he makes eye contact with all of the leaders as he talks. He looks over at Clint, then looks back at Lingard, and finally at Joan.
The lighting of this scene varies depending on whether you met with Ava at David's house or left Gabe at the hospital and tried to escape Richmond with Kate.
When you bring Max back to expose Joan, he makes eye contact with all of the leaders as he talks. He looks over at Clint, then looks back at Lingard, and finally at Joan.
Comments
Because of Jane or because of legs not working?
EXPOSED
Yeah but found it interesting and thought that majority didnt know that so I decided to share
The 'theme' of the game is something that not even the people who worked on the game have a clue about. In the first episode it was purely about Clem and her ability to manage on her own and deal with her environment using the knowledge that Lee/Christa taught her as well as showing her that regardless of who you are, little girl or not, it's going to be tough. The next episode it drops that and goes for a 'trust' theme. One of the devs even said that theme of the season was trust (this was before IHW) which makes sense as Carver hints that the Cabin group are holding back secrets in the cabin so you think okay It's Kenny vs Luke but Luke might not be the safest option based on what Carver is hinting at.
Then the next episode begins and we learn absolutely nothing about them or the specifics of the 'George' fiasco (was that what Carver was talking about? Who even knows at this point...)and Carver does the whole 'you and me are more alike than you think' garbage trope and so you think maybe it's about how you handle yourself as a leader which makes 0 sense for an eleven year old girl. I thought we would be taking over Howes as our own and Clementine would step up eventually into that role or something but no...
It just goes everywhere. Most recently in the S4 Final season reveal video they said that S2 was about "weighing the options in how do you define your own family?" Like...what? We got 3, arguably not very good, options. 2 of which don't matter as of ANF. So the entire season was basically pointless and just serves to tie AJ to Clem. It just blows my mind how you can fuck a story up so badly and not have a single coherent running theme/plotline.
If we're talking pragmatism, keeping Sarah alive wouldn't probably be the most pragmatic choice anyway.
Jane never wanted Sarah "dead to begin with". If Jane during that scene had the option to simply click a button to have Sarah live, she definitely would have. Thing is, Sarah was directly endangering Clem and Luke's lives as well as her own life. "Considering her past experiences" no matter what anyone did could help Sarah in that moment. Jaime didn't budge for months, what indication did she have that Sarah would have? In her mind, the scenario would repeat itself. It's just logical thinking, 1+1, if she couldn't convince her sister through months and months of insistence, how could they convince Sarah in a few minutes? This is what Jane knew at the time, so she tried to make best of a situation based on what she knew, yet she is called a monster for it. She "argued with Clementine to just leave her" exactly because of Clem's "obvious connection", just so Clementine could have a rational voice in her head telling her to save herself, rather than being left alone her emotions which would've likely gotten her killed, because in Jane's mind, based on what she knew, there was no way they could make Sarah get up.
There was no vile intention against Sarah, it was simply trying to make the best out of the situation, getting as many people out alive. It's just that Jane's past experiences simply strongly indicated that Sarah couldn't be one of those people.
Sure, you are able to save Sarah in that scenario, but when you clicked that option, before you knew what consequences would it bring, before you knew if you would be successful or not, you were essentially putting Clem's, Sarah's and Jane's lives on a gamble. And when you take a practical stance, you don't just simply gamble, not with people's lives at least, you take the surest path, and the surest path was leaving, and that's the stance Jane had during this scene.
I find the trailer park scene to be one of the best, more philosophically challenging scene I've ever witnessed. Too bad it's popularity is dragged down by people caring more about simple stuff like "omg Sarah died = bad" rather than its perfect depiction of a philosophical struggle.
To create a perfect depiction of the philosophical struggle between being practical and rational or being emotional and "moral". Yes, she ultimately always dies in the end, effectively leaving the question "are the "practicals" right and Sarah really couldn't have survived in that world, or was what happened in the deck mere chance and simply discarding her potential wasn't the right stance?"
Sure, the scene physics are a tad bit off, but it's still excellent writing should that small little nitpick be disregarded.
Of course, I guess something cringy like Sarah magically surpassing her mental incapacitations and becoming some cringy badass teen female survivor is the "good writing" and the supposed "potential" people wished for.
Like legit ask yourself if that would be a truly interesting scenario.
I actually don't mind the idea of each episode having it's own set of things while there are others that recur throughout the Season--that's what happened in Season 1, after all. I just wish they properly fleshed them out and tied them together in a cohesive manner.
Actually, there's enough context clues, combined with a determinate line from Bonnie, that explains this: Alvin, George, and Carver were all friends once and it may have been this friendship that lead to Rebecca becoming Carver's PA Announcer. Some time into the Apocalypse, when Carver was starting to crack down on everything, he had become attracted to Rebecca(for some reason), who had been married to Alvin and had been trying numerous times to have a baby with him. Carver used their close personal space and the stress from their attempts to coerce Rebecca into having an affair, which coincided with her finally getting pregnant.
Carver had already come into conflict with Luke do to his leadership decisions; when Rebecca started showing, things got worse and he at some point revealed what they had done, with George presumably taking his side on the matter. So when Luke, Alvin, and Carlos organized an escape with the help of Reggie, George got in their way while they were running through the market(?), which lead to Alvin attacking/shooting him for slowing them down. Despite only wanting to get him out of their way in the heat of the moment, Alvin and Rebecca accurately predicted that George ended up dying from his injuries and thus Carver had another personal reason to track down the Cabin Group and bring them back.
I used to at least acknowledge that the basic idea of that scene was fine, given that it served to establish Jane as a foil to those three(for better or worse) and make Clementine's choices as a pre-established character carry actually weight again. Unfortunately, all the stuff that came afterward made that moment even worse and I now realize that it was partially not only part of a serious bias-steamroller but also a meager attempt to replicate the controversy of Larry and Ben's determinate deaths. The fact that Jane herself is essentially the developers' Sueish, edgy Self-Insert OC, another Scrappy-Doo(in terms of why he was created--look it up), and another Darwinist mouthpiece never did much to help either.
That "small nitpick" is an obvious contrivance born of biased spite and selective laziness courtesy of a number of the developers, though. That's pretty much out there on the outset, Ms. Logic.
And while I definitely agree that I don't really approve the mindset of her(or any other youth character, for that matter) becoming "just like Clementine," the point is that she was naturally open to the possibility of learning how to survive and seeing if she can manage to pull it off herself. Something she's blatantly denied several times, despite the story seemingly being setting up a few opportunities to test that out.
Clementine had several months of people protecting and encouraging her to get her act together; Sarah barely had half a quarter of that before we're told to just forget about her and the choice is forcefully made for us if we decline.
It's so much more than that.
But yes.
You know, I never really noticed this. It was hard to tell what room she and Clementine were in. I realized it was Pete's after Carver went up to check. I wonder why she was in there instead of her own room?
Which one Tho?
Probably so Carlos wouldn't find it. Well that and maybe she was planning on convincing Pete to teach her behind Carlos's back.
Both, I guess. What exactly are you asking?
This story has already been told with Ben and Crawford and it was done far better, as were the circumstances of what Ben did afterwards.
Well he never said she died and turned, he said "Poor mama" and I always assumed he saw her turn instead of being ripped apart
Oh but I highly disagree.
Ben and Sarah are easy to be deemed as similar characters with similar purposes. But they are definitely not. No matter what anyone says, Ben's hatchet fuckup was not something that gives us any indication of a systemic uselessness within his persona. It was a simple mistake caused by what was a temporary distraction from his part, not caused by over the top sheltering and mental weakness hardwired into his head. Sarah, on the other hand, is an undeniably disabled kid with problems that probably could never be solved on that apocalyptic setting. Sarah deliberately refused to save herself, and others, from immediate danger twice. Ben's choice was about how far you'd side with Kenny and about whether or not you're willing to forgive his mistakes. Sarah's choice is about how far you are willing to gamble with people's lives, including your own, and the group's overall safety to keep this girl alive. Because Sarah would undeniably be a burden further down the line, even if she eventually surpassed her issues, I don't see how this girl not being a liability for at least a few good months until she got over her father's death is deniable. Whilst Ben being a burden is a way more debatable issue. Ben's mistakes were caused by something as simple as distraction - something that comes and goes for everyone, temporary - while Sarah's mistakes were caused by literally PTSD and sheltering completely hardwired into her head and persona, things that would probably stick with her to the end of her life. Probably.
And the consequences of keeping both of them alive are exactly what proves that they are different. If you keep Ben alive, he proves he is more than capable and isn't a systematic fuck up by determinantly saving Lee from falling and helping with the walkers at the house. He shows a clear willingness to not fuck up again. Sarah, on the other hand, doesn't function at all during her determinant lifespan. I can't say her death was caused by her disabilities - it was as much as a "wrong place, wrong time" death as Ben's was - and that effectively left the question on whether or not keeping her alive was after all the right of the wrong choice. We don't know, we needed more time to figure out, but it's good that they didn't make anyone's choice the "right" one - that shouldn't be done when questioning philosophies. That debate is meant for off game conversation within the community. If that game gave us an answer, as it did with Ben, it suddenly becomes less interesting, less controversial, as one of the sides is just proven right.
I'd also like to comment on "it was done far better". Let's see how this Ben issue was executed in S1: the walkers are seen banging on a glass door for about 3 scenes straight, magically disappear so Ben grabs the hatchet, and then the huge horde magically reappears just at the moment Molly and Lee are walking down the hall.
Of course, everyone will overlook these obviously convenient appearing and disappearing walkers. It's the mighty season one after all! Who would dare nitpick or question its perfection? But of course, if it's the piece of trash season 2 making some magical planks appear, everyone freak out!
Mr.*
No, it's really not. It's but a directing flaw. No one deliberately made this scene not make complete sense just because they hated Sarah. No director (because it's a direction issue we're talking about, not writing) would sabotage their own product because of some supposed hatred for a fictional character. It's a ridiculous prospect, to say the least.
I guess that is true. I don't see how a Sarah emancipation plot would ever work out or fit though, considering where the rest of the season heads and also how such emancipation would take time, a lot of it, a few years probably.
Clementine never showed to have clear dysfunctionality issues. I don't recall one time the girl stopped fighting for her life, even after seeing her undead parents. The girl had clear potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group. Not to mention that she was also younger.
Sarah's potential to become self-sufficient and not a burden to the group is way more questionable, though.
Friggin A Agreed.
I know, imagine if she lived in the world pianos randomly fall from the sky!
I've been abstaining from joining in arguments against Sarah, mostly because I actually am interested in hearing from those who are in support of Sarah's fate. Yet I feel like I should explain why I would bring up such a ridiculously minuscule detail
I want to make it clear that I actually did really enjoyed Season 2, in fact I would put it at the same pedestal as Season 1, but just because i like those two games doesn't mean I think either of them are perfect. Yes the magically teleporting walkers were definitely an issue in Season 1, in fact I would say Season 2 was much better in that regard.
The problem is that while it could be argued that the magically appearing zombies, although lazy, do have in purpose in driving the plot and helping set up difficult choices, the douchebag plank had no such purpose. The scene would have been exactly the same had Telltale not taken the time to animate a plank falling on Jane's head. Again, maybe Telltale needed Jane to be knocked away from the rubble so the zombies could devour Sarah, I don't know . I'm not against the idea that Telltale put that falling plank in the scene without any spite towards Sarah, but considering their reported disliking of her and the callous treatment towards her character throughout Amid The Ruins, I wouldn't be surprised.
I was actually talking about the planks on top of Sarah, the debris, rather than the plank that fell on Jane's face.
I never thought much about it, but it is indeed weird and the scene could've definitely played out the same without it. Maybe it was to emphasize the idea that people were getting hurt trying to protect Sarah, and that Jane could've gotten killed by going down there? Eh, I doubt it's that. Very odd, indeed.
I'm still not quite convinced they just added a random plank just to "further" show their alleged distaste for Sarah's character though.
No it wasn't and you've completely misunderstood the entire situation and point of Crawford if you really think that's all it was. Crawford was about what people are willing to give up if it meant survival of the fittest. It's not about his mistakes as they were now but the future. He was a liability by all means and the choice was to show 'Are you willing to save him knowing he could possibly cause further harm down the line and sacrifice your humanity or can he redeem himself and prove to be a benefit rather than a hinderence? Are you willing to bet the lives of the group on this?' Sarah never put anyone at risk by her own means. She attracted it because nobody wanted to leave her but she didn't tie anyone down by her choices, that was completely on them unlike with Ben and how his decisions impacted the group as a whole.
If you remove the zombies from Ben's situation, what changes? Nothing. The choice and circumstance is still purely about the benefit of him and the group. But compare that to Sarah's and it's not nearly as well executed. The choice is more 'are you willing to leave her behind and accept that she's a lost cause?' which isn't the same thing.
Ben did a lot more than 'make mistakes'. Falling over or saying something in anger is a mistake. Bumping into someone is a mistake. Making a deal with bandits behind your entire group's back with their medicine is not a mistake. Leaving Clementine to fend for herself surrounded by zombies is not a mistake.
I could say the same about Nick with how little impact he had in the scheme of things and he was an able bodied person who was perhaps short tempered but his death had little to do with that and instead he is quite literally tossed aside. Keep in mind that Season 2 was a step back when it came to determinant options.
I agree with your sentiment here but I also don't think saving Ben is the 'correct' answer either. It's a different argument than this one though.
No, I agree I think this episode was the absolute weakest episode of the season for moments like that. That's what happens when you're initials are GW and you try to write a good story - It's never gonna happen. I'd rate 400 days above Around Every Corner. But I've explained above why the choice is better presented. S1E4 might be a weak, maybe even a bad, episode but it looks Shakespeare compared to Amid The Ruins, that's for fucking sure.
You know, a lot of people criticise this scene for being illogical, "Why didn't Luke or Clementine do anything? Why didn't Mike and Bonnie keep shooting the walkers?" they cry.
Well, if you paid attention it's blatantly obvious that several loose planks of wood simultaneously shot upwards and struck Luke, Clementine, Bonnie, Mike and all of their weapons (flying lumber is commonly known to cause firearms to jam).
I will have to concede you this point. Ben's choice is indeed as much about the future and the safety of the group long term as Sarah's was for me, and I guess I didn't get the scene right until now.
Though I still firmly believe Sarah's choice wasn't only about whether or not we think Sarah's a lost cause, but also has to do with the safety of the overall group long term. Jane's line in the preview "She's gonna get people killed" seems to at least indicate that the choice was at least meant, in some part, to include Sarah's potential of getting people killed. There's also Jane's story in No Going Back about the DC group and how many people were lost just to save a single person who was already in too deep shit, though it's clearly meant to reflect on Kenny's character, it can also apply to the whole Sarah situation.
For some reason, the Sarah situation seemed to manage to get the message and the moral struggle across better for me. I guess I can't really... feel it in Ben's situation because I just can't perceive him as a total liability. He proved to be unreliable and untrustworthy both when he left Clementine and when he omitted the bandit deal. But those are such human problems that we're all so used to deal with. It's fixable and it definitely helps that he regrets both occasions and is therefore willing to be better.
Sarah's issues though seem just so... impossible to deal with. The girl is not capable in any way to survive due to her father's sheltering, and she definitely could learn, we can teach her how to use a gun after all, but the issue is that the girl literally ceases to function and think under stressful situations. I wouldn't know how Clementine would ever be able to fix that. Like, for example, had she been kept alive until the shootout, would she have been able to keep her head down? or would she just freeze and "cease to function" under such stressful situation? She could just get shot and die, or she could literally be used as a hostage, which would've definitely given the group problems. Probably more people putting themselves in harm's way to aid her.
Ben, on the other hand, would just crouch. He is mentally capable, he has a survival instinct and that's just not present in Sarah. The unreliability and unfixability of the "liability" just felt more accentuated in Sarah's scenario I guess.
For as much as Sarah can't be held responsible for people wanting to help her, I am looking at the situations through a practical/pragmatic perspective, so responsibility matters little. People feel the need to aid Sarah and that puts them in danger, that's the truth I was looking at here. Her decision to not get up also impacted the group as a whole. She can't be faulted for Luke and Clem wanting to help her, but she definitely caused this reaction.
I'm just letting ya'll hash it out for the time being, but I wanted to comment on this:
Admittedly--and I was planning on going in-depth about this when I joined the community, but never got around to doing anything with it--, I went into Amid the Ruins believing it was gonna involve Sarah becoming something of a Type II Anti-Villain determinately for a bit, with Jane acting as a jerkass skeptic(which was indeed not to far off from her original characterization, hilariously enough).
Another example of why slaughtering her in the same episode no matter what and bringing back Jane with little to no reference to their arc/conflict was a bad idea.
Except she super peels out when there's intense danger and distances herself from it as far as possible each time. The only exceptions were a few instances with Carver(who she's shown to be able to at least deal with, likely due to experience) and in the trailer(where she had just ran for hours before finally isolating herself and was too shaken up at the moment to immediately move or be touched, thought this was intentional on the developer's part).
So I'm replaying the entire TWD series and I just finished S1E2. I forgot to give Clem her hat back before going to get the multitool. The next time you come back to the barn there's actually some extra dialougue:
Clem: There's a baby in there?
Katjaa: Try not to spook her.
The game then automatically makes Lee give Clem her hat back and the scene goes on like normal.
Well you just answered my question.
What, about them dying?
I think it may be during the bridge sequence in Part 2, but it's been a little while.
Welcome back, man! Wherever you've been.
The friend she refers to in that situation is Kenny
lol
I know, but I recall reading that the Luke lines take precedence if she was primarily inspired by him.
Idk, just seems like you and others disappear for a good while.
Season 2.5 and ANF both have more examples that say otherwise.
Simply put, it's very easy to see that they made choices with connotations and effects that they either didn't foresee or just underestimated.
The phrase "Sarah emanicipation" kinda took the piss out of this post for a second.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that's part of the issue: it's an interesting and uneasy plot that was organically set up, but it's in the middle of a story that's way more focused on pushing a fight between two (or three?) "strong" white people in a story that was supposed to be about how such a harsh environment affects and changes people; it fits decently with the story that was supposed to be being told around the Cabin Group and Carver, which was also increasingly short-sold as the Season progressed.
So instead of trying to implement it as a side thing as they were consistently doing or at least putting a pin in it until they have a space to fully go into it(which I realized ever moreso recently that they could've easily done), they just sloppy write her off and render her troubled existence a near complete waste of time and investment.
Keep in mind that she didn't start "fighting" until after Chuck was introduced. And seeing her parents coincided with having made a fatal mistake for the group on her hands with the soon-to-turn Lee at her side.
And rather than actually explore and develop that point any further, they just got rid of her in a way that pretty blatantly avoided doing so for the most part.
Oh that might be the case then. I'd like to know as well
When you bring Max back to expose Joan, he makes eye contact with all of the leaders as he talks. He looks over at Clint, then looks back at Lingard, and finally at Joan.
Huh. Interesting.
Especially since Joan more or less steals that for own speech.
This one's semi-related.
The lighting of this scene varies depending on whether you met with Ava at David's house or left Gabe at the hospital and tried to escape Richmond with Kate.