After binge-watching episodes of AMC's post-apocalyptic zombie drama The Walking Dead,
a man who cops said was heavily intoxicated allegedly stabbed and
bludgeoned his friend to death because he thought his friend was a
zombie, according to police.
Grants, New Mexico, police department spokesman Moses Marquez
tells PEOPLE that victim Christopher Paquin, who the suspect claims was
also intoxicated, was stabbed and even beaten with an electric guitar
and a microwave oven.
"It was the worst crime scene I have seen in my 13 years of law enforcement," Marquez tells PEOPLE.
Marquez says cops were called to Paquin's apartment building
around 1 p.m. on Oct. 22. When officers arrived, they found two
maintenance workers pinning 23-year-old Damon Perry to the ground,
Marquez says.
• Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? to get breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases in the True Crime Newsletter.
Perry,
a resident of nearby Prewitt, New Mexico, allegedly told police that he
and Paquin had been drinking "large amounts of alcohol" while watching The Walking Dead on Netflix.
Perry allegedly told cops that Paquin began "to change into a
zombie," and that Paquin "was attempting to bite him, so he reacted by
brutally beating him," Marquez says.
Paquin was unresponsive when police arrived and EMTs declared him dead soon after arriving.
Marquez says that after Perry killed Paquin, he ran around the
apartment complex waving a knife around and chasing other residents.
Perry has been charged with murder and aggravated assault, and
is being held in the Cibola County Detention Center on $800,000 bond.
Information about his attorney was not available Tuesday.
Abcya
ABCya Games!
ABCya 20 Games!
Archive for October 2015
So much for Netflix & chill: Man kills pal for turning into zombie during ‘Walking Dead’ marathon
When people say that the ‘boob tube’ is turning viewers into
zombies, they usually don’t mean literally. But when one New Mexico man
combined a Walking Dead marathon and a drinking binge, he fatally beat
his friend for having become one of the undead.
It started off innocently enough: Damon Perry, 23, and his friend Christopher Paquin were binge-watching The Walking Dead on Netflix and drinking “large amounts of alcohol” in a Grants, New Mexico apartment.Then, like Rick Grimes awakening from his coma and discovering the post-apocalyptic walkers, Perry went “full Shane”: He saw a “dead one” before him, as Paquin “began to change into a zombie” and tried to bite Perry, police said in a release.
To protect himself from the “biter,” Perry turned on Paquin with whatever he could find. The tools Perry used for the brutal beating appear reminiscent of the Dire Straits’ song Money for Nothing: a guitar, microwave oven, kitchen knives and his own hands.
“There are some things in this case that I don’t think we’ll ever know, like when the microwave was used, when the guitar was used, and when the knives came into play,” Grants Police Department spokesman Sergeant Moses Marquez told KOAT.
“It also appears that Perry stomped on Paquin’s head,” Marquez said to the Cibola Beacon, adding that he’d been told of a Walking Dead scene in which someone was killed with an electric guitar and that survivors often stomp on the zombies’ heads. He noted that he is not a fan of the popular AMC TV show, which is based on a comic book series.
That’s when neighbors called the cops, and they made the gruesome discovery of a dead ‒ and certainly not undead ‒ Paquin.
"It was definitely the most brutal scene I’ve ever seen,” Marquez said.
Perry confessed to the killing at the scene and blamed it on the alcohol ‒ and the post-apocalyptic TV show.
"I do believe his story behind this is true,” Marquez told KOB. "He genuinely felt that his friend was changing into a zombie due to his inebriated state. Our department is dealing with something that I have never seen or heard of in my entire 13 years here."
“He seems remorseful,” Marquez told the Daily Beast. “He’s had the time to sober up and realize what has happened, and he has expressed remorse.”
Perry’s bond was set at $800,000.
Q&A: Scott Gimple to 'Walking Dead' fans: All your questions will be answered
Scott M. Gimple is a busy man. Yet as production wraps up on the
latest season of "The Walking Dead," the series' show runner (its third
in six seasons) took time to answer questions about Sunday's episode,
during which a main character may, or may not, have been killed.
Near the conclusion of "Thank You," the third episode of "The Walking Dead's" sixth season, Glenn Rhee, portrayed for the run of the show by Steven Yeun, appeared to be torn apart by zombies. But fans of the show remain unconvinced that Glenn is gone for good, likely fueled by a statement from Gimple himself that was read on "Talking Dead," the "Walking Dead" after-show, which stated that fans of the show would see "some version of Glenn again," be it in flashback or otherwise.
Gimple spoke by phone to expound on the reverberations of Sunday's episode.
Q: Is Glenn dead?
A: That's a very direct question. I had to take the unusual step of releasing a statement on it. Ordinarily in storytelling, that's not usually a part of it. I think it answered that question super ambiguously.
Q: Making the statement to "Talking Dead" was a bit unusual. What spurred you to make that decision?
A: I think it's just the after-show aspect of it. It's cool that our show invites discussion about all sorts of things. So much of "The Walking Dead" is about "What would I do?" and that's how "Talking Dead" came to be. There was a lot of discussion about the show and we thought, "We should have a place for people to discuss (the show)."
Knowing that there would be all this discussion and thought and theorizing, it seemed like throwing something in the mix there was a wise idea. It seemed that silence, for some reason, might be looked upon as saying something unto itself.
Q: Were you aware of the fervor around the Season 5 finale of "Game of Thrones" when you made this plan for dealing with the aftermath of the episode?
A: It's funny, the season is very, very busy, so I don't get to catch up on "Game of Thrones" until after I'm done with production, so it's just beyond spoiled for me, just obliterated. So I was trying to close my eyes to the fact that there was something with the whole Jon Snow thing because I really wanted not to be spoiled, but I caught glimpse of the headlines. Beyond that, if there was any fervor, I didn't know about it.
Q: Have you been tracking how the Internet has taken Glenn's situation?
A: This whole thing is right at the time where we're closing down our whole season, which is one of the busiest times of the year, so I've been catching glimpses of it between all of the work.
Q: What's the process like with your actors when you have a big and jarring story that you're cracking for them?
A: I talk to the actors throughout the year whenever big stuff is happening with the character, from death to them perpetrating death, we talk about it. They absolutely have an idea of what's coming up. Typically we're a couple episodes ahead, sometimes it's a little tighter than that, sometimes there's a great deal of lead time with regard to the discussion. It's a huge cast, but I still try to communicate with the actors very often, especially when it's about dramatic stuff.
Q: Glenn was one of the most morally upright characters on the show, almost an audience-insertion character, and in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, you often need a "white hat." Are you concerned about the balance of that sensibility moving forward, whether or not Glenn is alive?
A: I think all of these characters have their own struggles with what exactly is moral and immoral in a world that has fundamentally changed what being a civilization means, what being a person means. Glenn didn't kill Nicholas, that's not who he is. At the same time, he didn't want Nicholas out there. Unfortunately, he got cornered into that situation. He had told Nicholas in the season premiere, "You should not be here," then things got started and there was no choice. But Glenn wasn't like, "I didn't kill you and you're wonderful." He believed that Nicholas had a long way to go and he was actually worried about being around him.
Q: On shows where the characters are perpetually in mortal danger, you'll often hear show runners say that anyone can be killed. No one's off-limits. Is that an accurate statement? Do you feel like there are characters that are off-limits in the story you're trying to tell or do you feel as if the story is strong enough to survive losing someone like Daryl or Michonne or Rick?
A: I will say that I want all these characters to be able to stand on their own. We just had an episode last week that didn't feature Rick or Michonne or Daryl or Glenn, and people seemed to dig it. In the second half of Season 4, I was very proud to have a structure that focused just on a few characters and we didn't see all the characters all the time. I want all these characters to be strong enough to tell a story about them, on their own. I think that has much more to do with storytelling and making our ensemble as strong as it can be. But that ensemble being as strong as it can be does make it that we can tell stories without the bigger, more main characters.
Q: How beholden are you at this point to the stories that the graphic novels told?
A: The comics are the DNA of the show, and there's so much of the comic that we want to tell as close to how it unpacked in the comic as possible. But since we have all these characters, stories can transfer from character to character, like something that happened to one of the comic characters might not happen to their TV counterpart or may happen to a different TV character.
Really, one of the main things I try to do with the show is get to those big parts, those big scenes, those big emotional moments in the comic that I loved so much and show them on TV in ways that are very true to the comic and yet could be surprising to the reader of the book or could be integrated into the overall story in a very true but very different way.
Q: Do you see a unique opportunity in being able to tell a story that is able to surprise and entertain both rabid fans of the comics as well as people who love just the show? Is that a challenge you embrace?
A: I do. I love it. It's very hard because you want to stay with what the book is and there's sometimes you can't and there's sometimes you take risks to use those stories in different ways to pump up other things, potentially to feel all that stuff you felt in the book that much more.
But I love it. We have a bible. We have a thing that's the basis for everything, and the moments that I'm desperate to see on-screen and yet sometimes we have to get there through creative means. It's a really cool thing.
On top of that, there's so much that Robert (Kirkman, creator of "The Walking Dead" comic book) brings to the show that has nothing to do with the books, stories that are different from those in the books. It's a really good thing. I feel very lucky to be able to tell that story on television and to make it work in this very different medium.
Q: Looking at how all of this has played out and looking ahead to the rest of the season, is this unfolding the way you'd hoped, as far as fan reaction and the story you're telling? Do you feel good about where you're at and where you're headed?
A: It's weird. It's like they show a reel of the movie, then the lights come up, then they're like, "Hey, what did everybody think? OK, we're going to the next reel of the movie," and the lights go down and you show the next reel. It is this big movie, it's this whole piece.
When I watch shows that I love, I love that during the day that it's on, I'm like, "Wait, what am I looking forward to tonight? Oh, crap, that show is on that I dig." I love being part of that for people's lives. That's the trade-off. We give people something to look forward to every week, and in the meantime I have to worry about people freaking out about the twists and turns of stories.
I would just encourage people to watch the entire thing because all of their questions will be answered. It's absolutely cool that they're reacting any way at this point, but there are a whole lot more chapters, a whole lot more reels in the movie to watch to get the whole picture.
Near the conclusion of "Thank You," the third episode of "The Walking Dead's" sixth season, Glenn Rhee, portrayed for the run of the show by Steven Yeun, appeared to be torn apart by zombies. But fans of the show remain unconvinced that Glenn is gone for good, likely fueled by a statement from Gimple himself that was read on "Talking Dead," the "Walking Dead" after-show, which stated that fans of the show would see "some version of Glenn again," be it in flashback or otherwise.
Gimple spoke by phone to expound on the reverberations of Sunday's episode.
Q: Is Glenn dead?
A: That's a very direct question. I had to take the unusual step of releasing a statement on it. Ordinarily in storytelling, that's not usually a part of it. I think it answered that question super ambiguously.
Q: Making the statement to "Talking Dead" was a bit unusual. What spurred you to make that decision?
A: I think it's just the after-show aspect of it. It's cool that our show invites discussion about all sorts of things. So much of "The Walking Dead" is about "What would I do?" and that's how "Talking Dead" came to be. There was a lot of discussion about the show and we thought, "We should have a place for people to discuss (the show)."
Knowing that there would be all this discussion and thought and theorizing, it seemed like throwing something in the mix there was a wise idea. It seemed that silence, for some reason, might be looked upon as saying something unto itself.
Q: Were you aware of the fervor around the Season 5 finale of "Game of Thrones" when you made this plan for dealing with the aftermath of the episode?
A: It's funny, the season is very, very busy, so I don't get to catch up on "Game of Thrones" until after I'm done with production, so it's just beyond spoiled for me, just obliterated. So I was trying to close my eyes to the fact that there was something with the whole Jon Snow thing because I really wanted not to be spoiled, but I caught glimpse of the headlines. Beyond that, if there was any fervor, I didn't know about it.
Q: Have you been tracking how the Internet has taken Glenn's situation?
A: This whole thing is right at the time where we're closing down our whole season, which is one of the busiest times of the year, so I've been catching glimpses of it between all of the work.
Q: What's the process like with your actors when you have a big and jarring story that you're cracking for them?
A: I talk to the actors throughout the year whenever big stuff is happening with the character, from death to them perpetrating death, we talk about it. They absolutely have an idea of what's coming up. Typically we're a couple episodes ahead, sometimes it's a little tighter than that, sometimes there's a great deal of lead time with regard to the discussion. It's a huge cast, but I still try to communicate with the actors very often, especially when it's about dramatic stuff.
Q: Glenn was one of the most morally upright characters on the show, almost an audience-insertion character, and in the midst of a zombie apocalypse, you often need a "white hat." Are you concerned about the balance of that sensibility moving forward, whether or not Glenn is alive?
A: I think all of these characters have their own struggles with what exactly is moral and immoral in a world that has fundamentally changed what being a civilization means, what being a person means. Glenn didn't kill Nicholas, that's not who he is. At the same time, he didn't want Nicholas out there. Unfortunately, he got cornered into that situation. He had told Nicholas in the season premiere, "You should not be here," then things got started and there was no choice. But Glenn wasn't like, "I didn't kill you and you're wonderful." He believed that Nicholas had a long way to go and he was actually worried about being around him.
Q: On shows where the characters are perpetually in mortal danger, you'll often hear show runners say that anyone can be killed. No one's off-limits. Is that an accurate statement? Do you feel like there are characters that are off-limits in the story you're trying to tell or do you feel as if the story is strong enough to survive losing someone like Daryl or Michonne or Rick?
A: I will say that I want all these characters to be able to stand on their own. We just had an episode last week that didn't feature Rick or Michonne or Daryl or Glenn, and people seemed to dig it. In the second half of Season 4, I was very proud to have a structure that focused just on a few characters and we didn't see all the characters all the time. I want all these characters to be strong enough to tell a story about them, on their own. I think that has much more to do with storytelling and making our ensemble as strong as it can be. But that ensemble being as strong as it can be does make it that we can tell stories without the bigger, more main characters.
Q: How beholden are you at this point to the stories that the graphic novels told?
A: The comics are the DNA of the show, and there's so much of the comic that we want to tell as close to how it unpacked in the comic as possible. But since we have all these characters, stories can transfer from character to character, like something that happened to one of the comic characters might not happen to their TV counterpart or may happen to a different TV character.
Really, one of the main things I try to do with the show is get to those big parts, those big scenes, those big emotional moments in the comic that I loved so much and show them on TV in ways that are very true to the comic and yet could be surprising to the reader of the book or could be integrated into the overall story in a very true but very different way.
Q: Do you see a unique opportunity in being able to tell a story that is able to surprise and entertain both rabid fans of the comics as well as people who love just the show? Is that a challenge you embrace?
A: I do. I love it. It's very hard because you want to stay with what the book is and there's sometimes you can't and there's sometimes you take risks to use those stories in different ways to pump up other things, potentially to feel all that stuff you felt in the book that much more.
But I love it. We have a bible. We have a thing that's the basis for everything, and the moments that I'm desperate to see on-screen and yet sometimes we have to get there through creative means. It's a really cool thing.
On top of that, there's so much that Robert (Kirkman, creator of "The Walking Dead" comic book) brings to the show that has nothing to do with the books, stories that are different from those in the books. It's a really good thing. I feel very lucky to be able to tell that story on television and to make it work in this very different medium.
Q: Looking at how all of this has played out and looking ahead to the rest of the season, is this unfolding the way you'd hoped, as far as fan reaction and the story you're telling? Do you feel good about where you're at and where you're headed?
A: It's weird. It's like they show a reel of the movie, then the lights come up, then they're like, "Hey, what did everybody think? OK, we're going to the next reel of the movie," and the lights go down and you show the next reel. It is this big movie, it's this whole piece.
When I watch shows that I love, I love that during the day that it's on, I'm like, "Wait, what am I looking forward to tonight? Oh, crap, that show is on that I dig." I love being part of that for people's lives. That's the trade-off. We give people something to look forward to every week, and in the meantime I have to worry about people freaking out about the twists and turns of stories.
I would just encourage people to watch the entire thing because all of their questions will be answered. It's absolutely cool that they're reacting any way at this point, but there are a whole lot more chapters, a whole lot more reels in the movie to watch to get the whole picture.
'The Walking Dead' Season 6 Glenn Plotline Has Fans Talking; Cliffhanger Leads To Higher Ratings
It’s worth mentioning at the top that, because no one knows exactly how the events will play out, it’s unfair at this point to accuse either the show or anyone affiliated with it of artlessly seeking ratings. However, that doesn’t mean that nail-biter didn’t add up to significantly more eyes on the screen than usual. According to Variety, which cites Nielsen’s “live plus same-day” estimates, the zombie drama received an average rating of 6.8 among the highly coveted adults ages 18-49, as well as 13.1 million viewers in total during Sunday night's installment. This means that the episode’s potential character death boosted the series’ ratings by about 8 percent.
With audiences getting annoyed at the show playing with their feelings, and showrunner Scott Gimple teasing that it may take longer than a week before people figure out what exactly happened, the bottom line is that the Glenn (Steven Yeun) plotline has proved incredibly fruitful for both AMC and the hit horror series.
For those that are unfamiliar with what happened, [SPOILER ALERT] episode 3 of “The Walking Dead” Season 6 featured a scene in which Glenn appeared to meet a grisly end at the hands of a horde of walkers. But the way the scene was shot left some room for ambiguity, and many believe that the gutting of the character was not quite what it appeared to be. In fact, he wasn’t even mentioned in the usually thorough “In Memoriam” portion of the series’ after-show “Talking Dead,” which ComicBook notes saw a great increase in viewership as well, marking a nearly 50 percent jump in the key demographic.
The Walking Dead might pull some serious bullshit, keep [REDACTED] alive
It must be very difficult to keep character deaths fresh on a show where death is a regular and continuous aspect of the story. “What if, this time, someone dies because they get ripped apart by zombies?” is a sentence that probably gets you fined on the set of The Walking Dead, AMC’s juggernaut hit about the survivors of an apocalyptic zombie outbreak. Over the years, we’ve lost just about every original member of the show’s first few episodes, and our only surviving cast from the show’s starting lineup are Andrew Lincoln’s Rick, Norman Reedus’ Daryl, Melissa McBride’s Carol, and Steven Yeun’s Glenn. (Poor Carl, we’re marginalizing him even now.) But on the third episode of season six, we had a shocking and brutal death that really upset people: The loss of Glenn after Nicholas kills himself and they both fall from atop a dumpster into the waiting embrace of a hungry zombie horde. It was unexpected and awful, but also pretty unequivocally the end.
Only, maybe it’s not. And here’s where things get stupid.
Anyone watching the show noticed that Nicholas fell on top of Glenn, and that the zombies seemed to be digging into the former’s body first, which makes sense. However, we also get shots of Glenn screaming in horror, which is the kind of thing one might be expected to do, were one being ripped apart by zombies. Very sad. Except that Talking Dead, the post-game discussion show that airs immediately following The Walking Dead, basically bent over backwards (like only a zombie could) to say that Glenn wasn’t dead. He wasn’t included on the “In Memoriam” segment, a dead giveaway that AMC at the very least wants you think Glenn might still be alive. Also, The Hollywood Reporter reports a source claiming Yeun recently renewed a deal to remain on the show, an unlikely move for someone being brutally killed off. And yes, there’s been numerous sightings of Yeun on set post-ostensible-death.
There’s also been lots of analysis of the scene, and it’s true that we never actually get confirmation the guts being ripped out are Glenn’s, meaning there’s the outside chance that the zombies could have ripped apart Nicholas, thereby covering Glenn in someone else’s viscera, and buying him time to, we don‘t know, slide under the dumpster or some other unlikely bullshit. In fact, most scenarios that have Glenn emerging unscathed, or even still alive, are grade-A bullshit of the highest order.
Because if Glenn’s still alive, that means The Walking Dead is cheating. This isn’t American Horror Story. There’s no Ryan Murphy behind the scenes, saying, “Hey guys, let’s negate any and all narrative stakes, shall we?” On The Walking Dead, death is final, and cold, and ugly. So if the show is dicking around its viewers by having what looks like a horrific demise for one of its most beloved characters, only to pull some deus ex machina nonsense via an escape that beggars belief (read: a horde of zombies being so satiated by one guy’s innards, they decide to ignore the screaming human being lying right in front of them), it’s a shitty narrative trick. If you need to rely on your post-show recap program to tell people someone isn’t dead, you’re not doing a very good job making your show.
So in the best of all worlds, Glenn is dead, despite the fact that it makes us sad, because it’s way sadder if The Walking Dead pulls a weak-ass copout on its commitment to making death matter. (We discuss this in greater detail on the most recent episode of DVR Club Plus, which you should check out if you haven’t already.) But let’s review the other options, in descending order of terribleness, because make no mistake, these are all terrible options.
- It was all a dream. A stupid, stupid dream, telegraphed in no way, shape, or form.
- Some sort of totally unjustified time jump, where this Nicholas/Glenn death actually happens much later, like when Lily and Marshall try to meet at the airport on How I Met Your Mother, only to have a snowstorm disrupt their schedules. Again, there has been no suggestion of that in the narrative.
- The zombies devour Nicholas, but spare Glenn out of the goodness of their zombie hearts. (Those arguing that Glenn is hidden by Nicholas’ body are forgetting that disguising yourself in blood and guts only works if you’re using the insides of the already-dead. Claiming it would work in this scenario is like saying you throw out Twix wrappers with half the candy bar remaining, because you didn’t notice it, you were so busy eating the first one.)
- Somehow, Glenn manages to use the time the zombies spend eating Nicholas to pull himself under the dumpster, where he can’t be reached. This ignores the long stretch of time we linger on Glenn’s screaming face, and basically treats the zombies completely differently than we normally do.
- Glenn pulls himself under the dumpster, but not before being bitten and clawed repeatedly. At least in this scenario he’s still dying, and it might buy him a few hours, thereby justifying his continued presence in future episodes.
‘The Walking Dead’ Ratings Rise With Controversial Episode
Courtesy of AMC
Sunday’s episode of AMC’s “The Walking Dead,”
which sparked an online frenzy when a popular character appeared
destined for a bloody death, saw a ratings uptick. And perhaps not
surprisingly, post-show “Talking Dead” soared to season highs.
According to Nielsen’s “live plus same-day” estimates, the zombie drama averaged a 6.8 rating in adults 18-49 and 13.1 million viewers overall — up 8% in both categories vs. the previous week. It was down slightly vs. the show’s third episode last fall (7.0 in 18-49, 13.8 million total viewers).
In “live plus-3” ratings, the second episode of this season’s “Walking Dead” rose to an 8.7 rating in 18-49 and 17.1 million total viewers, leaving it down from its premiere in this category by 14% and 12% respectively. It stood as television’s No. 1 primetime program of the week in the demo, ahead of even NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.”
Sunday’s “Talking Dead” shot up week-to-week by 49% in 18-49 rating (to. 3.1) and by 44% in total viewers (to 6.2 million). This was the No. 5-rated episode of the show to date, and the highest for any episode that wasn’t a premiere or a finale.
Next week is shaping up to be one of the biggest nights in memory for live viewing. The 90-minute episode of “Walking Dead” is going up against perhaps the best matchup of the season on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” (Green Bay and Denver are both undefeated) and a potential Game 5 of the World Series on Fox.
Variety spoke with “The Walking Dead” exec producer David Alpert about last Sunday’s episode, and whether the apparent death is a fake-out unlike anything the show has attempted before.
According to Nielsen’s “live plus same-day” estimates, the zombie drama averaged a 6.8 rating in adults 18-49 and 13.1 million viewers overall — up 8% in both categories vs. the previous week. It was down slightly vs. the show’s third episode last fall (7.0 in 18-49, 13.8 million total viewers).
In “live plus-3” ratings, the second episode of this season’s “Walking Dead” rose to an 8.7 rating in 18-49 and 17.1 million total viewers, leaving it down from its premiere in this category by 14% and 12% respectively. It stood as television’s No. 1 primetime program of the week in the demo, ahead of even NBC’s “Sunday Night Football.”
Sunday’s “Talking Dead” shot up week-to-week by 49% in 18-49 rating (to. 3.1) and by 44% in total viewers (to 6.2 million). This was the No. 5-rated episode of the show to date, and the highest for any episode that wasn’t a premiere or a finale.
Next week is shaping up to be one of the biggest nights in memory for live viewing. The 90-minute episode of “Walking Dead” is going up against perhaps the best matchup of the season on NBC’s “Sunday Night Football” (Green Bay and Denver are both undefeated) and a potential Game 5 of the World Series on Fox.
Variety spoke with “The Walking Dead” exec producer David Alpert about last Sunday’s episode, and whether the apparent death is a fake-out unlike anything the show has attempted before.
Man Binges on Walking Dead, Allegedly Attacks Friend Who He Thought Was a Zombie: Police
Damon Perry
Courtesy of the Grants Police Department
@chrisharrisment
10/27/2015 AT 12:55 PM EDT
Comment One Tiny Detail May Prove That 'Walking Dead' Character Is Alive
There's more to that character's shocking "death" than you think.
Thank you, "Walking Dead," for ripping out our throats hearts once again.
For those who somehow missed the recent "Walking Dead" episode and the social media hurricane that followed, Sunday's episode, "Thank You," found Nicholas and Glenn stuck on a dumpster between about the 100th chainlink fence they've encountered and a herd of walkers. Then Nicholas mutters, "Thank you," before shooting himself and taking Glenn into the zombie herd with him. There, everyone's favorite pizza boy appears to get his intestines ripped out. (Sorry, everyone, your next pizza might be a little delayed.)
But there's one major detail about the scene that keeps getting overlooked, and it may prove Glenn is actually still alive. Huffington Post reader Stephi B. pointed it out to us, it's going around "Walking Dead" forums and the actor who plays Nicholas, Michael Traynor, even gave the idea some additional support.
The detail: Nicholas was out of bullets, so he couldn't have shot himself.
For those who somehow missed the recent "Walking Dead" episode and the social media hurricane that followed, Sunday's episode, "Thank You," found Nicholas and Glenn stuck on a dumpster between about the 100th chainlink fence they've encountered and a herd of walkers. Then Nicholas mutters, "Thank you," before shooting himself and taking Glenn into the zombie herd with him. There, everyone's favorite pizza boy appears to get his intestines ripped out. (Sorry, everyone, your next pizza might be a little delayed.)
But there's one major detail about the scene that keeps getting overlooked, and it may prove Glenn is actually still alive. Huffington Post reader Stephi B. pointed it out to us, it's going around "Walking Dead" forums and the actor who plays Nicholas, Michael Traynor, even gave the idea some additional support.
The detail: Nicholas was out of bullets, so he couldn't have shot himself.
Image: Tumblr
With Nicholas constantly zoning in and out throughout the episode,
"Walking Dead" fans theorized Glenn's whole death scene was actually a
hallucination, and now that theory is getting some convincing support. "Walking Dead" forums commenter JDAKA0131 explains Nicholas actually appeared to run out of bullets before the dumpster moment.OK, whoa.
Conveniently, most clips of the scene online start after Nicholas and Glenn are already climbing on the dumpster.
But if you watch the full episode on AMC 's website, you
can see the moment in question, which happens a few seconds
earlier. Glenn puts his gun down and switches to a knife. As that's
happening, you hear two clicks. As the commenter points out, these
appear to have come from Nicholas' empty gun, since Glenn's gun is
pointed down as he's putting it away.
Image: HuffPost/AMC
It's pretty hard to blow your brains out without bullets, so, Nicholas, you got some 'splaining to do!
We asked "Walking Dead" actor Michael Traynor about it, and he says a hallucination is totally possible.
We asked "Walking Dead" actor Michael Traynor about it, and he says a hallucination is totally possible.
"That would be interesting. I mean, you know, with Tyreese’s episode when he dies, there was this sort of strange
fever dream, so it could all be a snapback. I think they’re endlessly
creative on the show, and they incorporate really complex devices to
help tell an interesting story, so that’s a possibility," says Traynor.
Also adding support, Traynor couldn't rule out the
possibility of seeing more Nicholas on the show, and we already know
showrunner Scott Gimple confirmed we would see Glenn back in some way.
Was it all just a hallucination? Could the clicks just be
an error in the episode? Did Nicholas somehow reload his gun? For the
love of Pete, does anyone know why there are so many fences in this
town?
Hang in there, Glenn. Do it for the pizza.
