Episode 441: Oh Yeah, Sarah

Zombie Cliche Lookout: Imminent Peril

There’s a pretty well-established rule in horror movies that says, essentially, “only idiots with a death wish split up.” It turns out that this is a well-established rule for good reason, because splitting up is almost always a bad idea (except on Scooby Doo when no one was ever horrifically murdered, more’s the pity). If you break your group, odds are one or more of you is going to get murdered. That’s just the ways things go.

Of course, people often forget about this. There are times when splitting up makes sense, at least on some levels. There’s a lot to do and you can get it done a lot more quickly if everyone takes a different job. And sometimes the story lulls them into a sense of false security. They split up, and no zombies show up to eat people, at least not right away. Things go pretty well for a while. So well, in fact, that people let down their guards. And suddenly, zombies.

About this Episode:

I haven’t done a single-panel episode in a while, so why not now? I don’t like to do them too often because I worry that it’ll look like a cop out (and maybe it would be).

Other News:

I’ve been trying to review more stuff lately, rather than mostly books. I just received an invite from Telltale Games to review The Wolf Among Us. Since it’s not zombie related, I wondered if you guys would be interested in me reviewing, or perhaps irritated if I did. I know we’ve got some werewolf fans here, so let me know in the comments.

Discussion Question: Does the Love Story Work?

In the last episode, I asked you what your biggest pet peeve was in zombie stories. One person said that tacked on love stories was a huge annoyance, and I have to completely agree. But that made me think, is this arc with Sam and Sarah a tacked on love story? Because make no mistake, this is my attempt at a love story. Make of that what you will.

41 Comments

BrickVoid

Typo alert, Zombie Cliche lookout, in the bracketed section: every–>ever
mores–>more’s 😀

Reply
BrickVoid

Dave, that “every” one IS a typo, unless you can cite a source that shows this is a literal transcript of a line from that show? 😀

BrickVoid

I think i kind of get where you were going with the “mores” typo but I flagged it, because taking the bracketed portion in context, “mores” just doesn’t fit at all to me. Call me stupid or whatever, but I call them as I see them, up to you if you want to fix it or not! 😀

BrickVoid

forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1964786

Finally, there is an article on the subject of how “more’s the pity” usually is used. I think it is still a typo. I think I have a valid point here. 😉

BrickVoid

Dangit, I thought I was done, but dictionary.reference.com has this to say on mores:

mo·res
[mawr-eyz, -eez, mohr-] Show IPA
plural noun Sociology .
folkways of central importance accepted without question and embodying the fundamental moral views of a group.

I do *not* think you pity someone else’s mores. Also, if used as “mores’s” that would mean “more is” the pity.

So, to summate:

mores – see dictionary reference above.

more’s – more is the pity. What I think you intended to write.

Take it from there, I’ll gratefully accept whatever explanation you can come up with but I really do still think you have a typo there in that bracketed section.

Dave

Yep, “more’s” is what I was going for. I had no idea it had an apostrophe. Good spot.

BrickVoid

The trick to spotting your errors is to not stare at the screen for seven hours straight while typing the article up, you need to take breaks occasionally, and let your eyes rest! Also, it might pay to have a dictionary handy! 😀

KillzoneMC

Oh man, Sam ain’t gonna like his wife all being eaten alive and slit open on the floor with blood spewing out and flesh… you get the picture, right?
Here’s a story… An unarmed legoman+zombie=
Legoman says: SHIT! SHIT!SHIT! NO! NOOO! NOOOOO!!!
Zombie says:Yo man. Listen, i don’t know what you expect me to say, brains or something.(Groooaaaannn)

The result? Dead legoman.Possibly zombified.
I know, I’m random.

Reply
BrickVoid

Well, I guess Sam can kiss that laptop goodbye! I’m not sure I’d want a computer that looked like some zombie tried to take a bite out of it! 😀

Reply
Mad..

Bye Sarah.

Welcome to the hard reality of the zombie apocalypse Sam.

Poor Sarah and Sam :(

Have really enjoyed this little back story telling, story has been fantastic, photography and sets have been great. Dave, you’re awesome!

Reply
Superblok2 (AKA Shifted_Beef)

I GUESS I could call this a love story, and you have certainly put enough backstory and effort into this to make it a love story, but with Legos I always have trouble seeing the figures relationships. Perhaps it is simply because of the simplicity of the plastic figurines. I don’t know, but I still believe Dave is a Jenius (lol) on this matter and I do feel a deep bond between Sarah and Sam. Also, on a side note, i felt that bond…SNAP in this episode. I have a feeling that Sam will run back and have to confront his zombie wife.

Reply
Superblok2 (AKA Shifted_Beef)

Also Dave: to answer your question from yesterday: The tommy as far as I know is still automatic. I got it in a storage locker that I bought at a storage auction. LOL and all I wanted was some new cheap furniture from it…

Reply
Damage

Superblok2
I HIGHLY doubt that your Thomson is fully automatic, but it is possible. They used to be commonly available in full-auto back in the US prior to 1934 when the first of 3 major pieces of legislation were passed that made fully automatic weapons very highly regulated and effectively out of reach of the typical citizen. If it is fully automatic however, then its worth a LOT of cash.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/08/sheriff-swaps-bonnie-and-clyde-era-tommy-guns-for-new-arms/

Reply
Dave

Interesting read, Damage. I suppose it’s always possible to have something like that just turn up. Were they as prevalent in Canada as in the US?

Eternal Enigma

You should definitely review Wolf Among Us. I have the season pass and loved the first episode, even though I haven’t played The Walking Dead. The delivery is mostly the same (same basic setup in terms of gameplay, but the setting and characters are unique and very compelling. It’s not heavy about the werewolf thing, it’s built on a gritty, realistic take on common fairy tales. Really interesting stuff.

Reply
Dave

Sold!

I love the style, so it’d been cool to see it on a unique IP. I like The Walking Dead well enough, but something original would be super cool.

Reply
Eternal Enigma

It’s based off a comic series, actually, but I haven’t read it and it hasn’t detracted from the experience at all.

The art style is indeed really just spectacular.

Reply
Dave

Oh, good to know. Since I’m ignorant about the comic, it’ll still feel pretty fresh to me.

Damage

Definitely not a “tacked-on” lovestory. Its an essential part of Sams backstory and defines his character to a large degree. WIth extremely rare exception every survivor is going to have lost loved ones in the initial phase of the ZA. Ignoring that aspect of your characters would make the stroy 2 dimensional. There is a great scene in DotD 2004 where they are all discussing the jobs they did before the ZA and on of the characters states that the job he was best at was being a dad. They looks down and takes a gulp of wine. That was a powerfull scene.

Reply
Dave

That was definitely a powerful scene, and somewhat out of place with the rest of the movie, which was almost entirely action/horror. Great example.

Reply
Greg

Good job on the single panel, I think it’s completely appropriate and certainly not a cop out.
Sooo..”gurgle”? lol, I wonder what’s that supposed to represent.
This makes me think about an interesting fact about onomatopoeia (I can’t remember if I brought this up already or not… if I did, I apologize and you can blame my failing memory).
Anyway, onomatopoeia – did you know that the same sound is written differently in every language?
A simple example, a dog’s bark will be “woof” in English but “ouah” in French. More interesting a rooster will sing “Cocorico” in French, “Quiquiriquí” in Spanish … and strangely “Cock-a-doodle-do” in English.
Back to the zombies… yesterday’s book review was featuring an English speaking zombie “urrrghhh”… if the book was to be translated in French it would not make much of a difference, perhaps “euhhrrrr”.
This brings me to a very important question – do zombie have a language of their own? And if so would could it be that it’s a universal one – a bit like a zombie version of the Esperanto?

Reply
Damage

I remember reading somewhere that you could tell what language a babys parents spoke before the baby itself could even say an actual word just by listening to the vocalizations it made.

Reply
Dave

There’s a great essay out there about multicultural onomatopoeia. I have it in a book somewhere. It’s hilarious; the writer says the first thing he likes to do when visiting new countries is find out what their roosters say.

Reply
Foolish Lego

Ah… that looks so sad… we all know it’s (probably) coming… but still :(

I like this ‘love-story’ because They are already together, what I don’t like are these love-stories that are pulled into the story by the hairs. Mostly the stories are just as powerful without the love-story added to it.

Reply
BrickVoid

Now that Dave knows what mores means, I think that would be an excellent discussion question: What mores of society we currently hold onto would fall by the wayside in a zombie apocalypse, and what mores might possibly survive in the emerging society? Dave can reword that if he wants, but that’d be a pretty good discussion question for Monday’s episode of BotD! 😀

Reply
Jaclyn

I think you need a love story as a part of someone’s background story, but it’s annoying if it’s haphazardly slapped together for the sake of gratuitous makeout sessions.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>