The hatred for AJ does seem to get way out of hand, and a lot of it is because of the reasons stated on this thread. He can be considered a liability, people want only badass characters, or maybe they just view him as a plot device. For me though, I will do my best to keep that little guy safe at all costs. Clementine is now in a similar situation that Lee was in when the game started, having to take care of a young child who is incapable of taking care of itself, the different being AJ won't be able to handle himself for several years, Clem was 8-9 when the apocalypse started.
No, you don't have to care about him.
But if you're totally fine with leaving a baby to die in the middle of nowhere where he eventually dies a horrible death, don't you think that's a little messed up?
Newborns have no personalities so of course he isn't as popular as Lee or Kenny. Not everything/everybody has to have some divine purpose. Not even in video games.
You're right newborns have no personalities. Then why the hell is he even in the game? The claim that he has no purpose but to instigate the fight between Kenny and Jane is true, I mean what other purpose does he have? I don't hate AJ, but I also acknowledge that he's there for literally no reason.
So his purpose could literally be extended to a rock with drawn on eyes and a mouth and it wouldn't matter.
Newborns have no persona… morelities so of course he isn't as popular as Lee or Kenny. Not everything/everybody has to have some divine purpose. Not even in video games.
he's there so that Jane has her tacked on purpose to return and fight.
If some random baby was left alone in the last episode and we had to take care of them "accidentally" in the last episode then you'd be right. But he's been there since episode 1, I mean um..in Rebecca. If AJ hadn't existed then Jane would maybe fake something about Clementine being hurt to test Kenny.
That'd be like saying Jane is a useless character because she existed only to provoke Kenny in the last episode.
Newborns have no personalities so of course he isn't as popular as Lee or Kenny
Yes, neither did the baby from the video I showed. But, you know what was a nice little touch? The baby was crying through otherwise a very silent and stilted unit of soldiers admiring what was up until that point, an impossibility for the last 18 years.
Babies don't have to have personality to get cold-hearted people like me to hang their mouths open in awe or gleefully laugh at the first appearance of it in hope of the future in a world that's completely false.
Not everything/everybody has to have some divine purpose. Not even in video games.
I never said they had to. But symbolism is important for something like TWD, where up until that point, many innocence were killed and lives were ruined by the events from the past four episodes.
If some random baby was left alone in the last episode and we had to take care of them "accidentally" in the last episode then you'd be right. But he's been there since episode 1, I mean um..in Rebecca. If AJ hadn't existed then Jane would maybe fake something about Clementine being hurt to test Kenny
But that's the thing. AJ was never the focal point of barely any of the conversations or immediate obstacles our characters faced. It was pushed to the way-side in favor of Kenny and Luke's, Kenny and Carvers, or Kenny and Jane's feuds. Basically Kenny.
Then he just appears in a scene I'm assuming TT thought would yield some kind of consoling emotion after arguably one of the biggest fuck-you death scenes in either season. And then loss is pushed to the wayside to a "touching" scene, except a slaughtered child lay less than fifteen feet away and I'm supposed to take what away from it? The pacing in that scene couldn't have been butchered any worse if it were Sarah.
That'd be like saying Jane is a useless character because she existed only to provoke Kenny in the last episode
Well, she was. As were like 90% of all characters in season 2. But that's an entirely different argument.
So his purpose could literally be extended to a rock with drawn on eyes and a mouth and it wouldn't matter.
Newborns have no persona… morelities so of course he isn't as popular as Lee or Kenny. Not everything/everybody has to have some divine purpose. Not even in video games.
he's there so that Jane has her tacked on purpose to return and fight.
If some random baby was left alone in the last episode and we had to take care of them "accidentally" in the last episode then you'd be right. But he's been there since episode 1, I mean um..in Rebecca. If AJ hadn't existed then Jane would maybe fake something about Clementine being hurt to test Kenny.
That'd be like saying Jane is a useless character because she existed only to provoke Kenny in the last episode.
In all seriousness though, I personally don't care that much if AJ does or doesn't die. If they simply got rid of him, I'd be happy, but at the same time I do believe it'd be better if TT grew some balls and killed him. Having him die a brutal and awful death simply, in my opinion, reinforces the common theme throughout the whole series- the world is cruel. It's a world, where people are willing to eat other humans in order to survive, where children are forced to give up their innocence and become killers, and I believe it's a world where a baby's life is no longer something that would be cherished, it's something that becomes a liability and effects your survival. Now whether Clementine has that mind-set is obviously up for interpretation, but I do think it should become a choice, allowing Clementine to have some development and the option to become a cold and perhaps, heartless survivor is quite interesting to me.
And I'm not really a fan of babies anyway. Having to look after my sister's baby daughter a few months back made me realise I personally dislike them and I'd hate to hear a child whinging constantly in a game series I happen to enjoy.
I don't see how being a "liability" would make one hate a baby. I've got 3 kids. They're all technically a "liability." But I love them and provide and care for them. Clementine isn't a monster. She loved and cared for AJ. Frankly, it takes a sociopath to hate a baby, and I worry about some of the commenters here sometimes.
I don't see how being a "liability" would make one hate a baby. I've got 3 kids. They're all technically a "liability." But I love them and … moreprovide and care for them. Clementine isn't a monster. She loved and cared for AJ. Frankly, it takes a sociopath to hate a baby, and I worry about some of the commenters here sometimes.
I get that AJ is a fictional character, but so is Clementine, yet everyone loves her. She also didn't really have a purpose when she met Lee, and don't give me anything about Lee wanting to be a parent. He saved Clem because it was the right thing to do. Clem would have very likely died if Lee just left her. Him leaving Clem would have led to everyone hating his guts, but Clem leaving AJ is ok because he has no purpose?
And if you're seriously going to go the way of 'AJ was made for the Kenny/Jane fight', then Chuck was made to be a 'voice of reason', Kenny was made to be a 'antagonist or friend', every character ever was made with a purpose in mind. AJ lived for one episode and can hardly be blamed for anything that happened, or for being born. I swear, people throw the term plot device around as if it was the new 'overrated'. If I said Jane was only a plot device to trigger Kenny, then everyone would lose their shit. I wish people would stop being such hypocrites about this.
So, somehow not giving a crap about a fictional baby, who as others have pointed is just a plot device to create the Kenny/Jane fight, means I'm a sadist...? Perfect logic there, lad.
In all seriousness though, I personally don't care that much if AJ does or doesn't die. If they simply got rid of him, I'd be happy, but at … morethe same time I do believe it'd be better if TT grew some balls and killed him. Having him die a brutal and awful death simply, in my opinion, reinforces the common theme throughout the whole series- the world is cruel. It's a world, where people are willing to eat other humans in order to survive, where children are forced to give up their innocence and become killers, and I believe it's a world where a baby's life is no longer something that would be cherished, it's something that becomes a liability and effects your survival. Now whether Clementine has that mind-set is obviously up for interpretation, but I do think it should become a choice, allowing Clementine to have some development and the option to become a cold and perhaps, heartless survivor is quite interesting to me.
And I'm not really a f… [view original content]
And I get that having a baby around that needs food and is loud isn't ideal in the ZA, but Clem seemed to do fine in the alone ending, and he's also still with them when they reach Howe's or Wellington, meaning it couldn't have been that bad.
And therein lies one big reason I wouldn't mind seeing AJ gone. Not eaten by walkers, just out of the story. His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around. Maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed if the entire defense for the treatment of Christa, Nick, and Sarah as characters wasn't basically, "lol brutal realism." To unceremoniously kill off or just write out the characters that were worth half a damn because of "realism", and create the entire moral argument that Nick and Sarah were liabilities to our survival, and even have Clementine go along with those sentiments to an extent... and then have the magic newborn baby survive off-screen in the brutal winter with no attention paid to the careful care a newborn requires in literally its first fucking days out of the womb, not to mention having the entire question of how much of a liability a baby truly would be in this kind of world only briefly touched upon and immediately shut down... really, really pisses me off.
I'm not saying I wanted him to die in the name of realism. That wouldn't solve anything. I'm talking about actually keeping the narrative consistent and portraying keeping him alive as the thankless, harsh, and painful existence it would really be, with the occasional light moment to remind us of what we're fighting for. But nope, he's a perfectly behaved baby who barely needs actual care and only cries when you need him to, so that the callousness that was visited upon other characters will not be visited upon him. Bite me.
So yeah, I don't hate AJ. There's nothing to hate about him. He's not a character, he's a cute little prop. What I hate is the idea of AJ, and how it stands out so much against the predominant mentality of Season 2, that being a cold, cruel fuckknuckle is justified until suddenly it isn't because a magic baby gets involved. Yeah, I get that they're trying to go for a "light in all this darkness" thing, where the safety of a baby, a pure new life in this world, is our reward for all the shit we went through up until this point. Guess what? Wasn't enough.
That said, I'm nothing if not fair. If AJ is still alive and/or involved in the story, I'll give him a fair shake in Season 3. The fact that Season 2 was bovine fecal matter is largely the reason my view of AJ's story up until now is so tainted. If there is something interesting to be done with him somehow (I've no idea how) in Season 3, I'll be glad to see it. My expectations aren't exactly high, but only because babies very rarely lead to much of anything interesting in a story. Maybe they can pull it off.
And I get that having a baby around that needs food and is loud isn't ideal in the ZA, but Clem seemed to do fine in the alone ending, and h… moree's also still with them when they reach Howe's or Wellington, meaning it couldn't have been that bad.
And therein lies one big reason I wouldn't mind seeing AJ gone. Not eaten by walkers, just out of the story. His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around. Maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed if the entire defense for the treatment of Christa, Nick, and Sarah as characters wasn't basically, "lol brutal realism." To unceremoniously kill off or just write out the characters that were worth half a damn because of "realism", and create the entire moral argument that Nick and Sarah were liabilities to our survival, and even have Clementine go along with those sentiments to an extent... and then have th… [view original content]
I think most of theach hostility is due to Aj being seen as a liability and the fact that Clementine's isn't really given the choice of whether to take care of him or not.
His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around.
So a new world with zombies and people trying to build lives and survive is suddenly dumb with a baby? Wouldn't babies naturally be part of that story at some point?
But nope, he's a perfectly behaved baby who barely needs actual care and only cries when you need him to, so that the callousness that was visited upon other characters will not be visited upon him. Bite me.
And I get that having a baby around that needs food and is loud isn't ideal in the ZA, but Clem seemed to do fine in the alone ending, and h… moree's also still with them when they reach Howe's or Wellington, meaning it couldn't have been that bad.
And therein lies one big reason I wouldn't mind seeing AJ gone. Not eaten by walkers, just out of the story. His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around. Maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed if the entire defense for the treatment of Christa, Nick, and Sarah as characters wasn't basically, "lol brutal realism." To unceremoniously kill off or just write out the characters that were worth half a damn because of "realism", and create the entire moral argument that Nick and Sarah were liabilities to our survival, and even have Clementine go along with those sentiments to an extent... and then have th… [view original content]
You do have a point regarding about how the writers were pushing the idea of weeding out the 'liabilities' to the player in the second half of Season 2, only for them to suddenly go the complete opposite direction when a newborn baby is involved, and completely disregards any sense of realism and ideas of the baby's survival rate in their current environment and care.
Before they were basically saying "only the strong survive, and the weak should die for the benefit of the strong", but then a baby comes along and suddenly they're saying "life is precious, and babies gives everyone a new hope to fight and live", going as far as to portray a newborn baby as an obedient pet that causes no trouble to anyone. This is not how babies behave, and I have experience with looking after a few months old babies.
Not only does AJ's survival clashes against the theme that the writers were supposedly going for, it makes them appear hypocritical in their treatment of characters who are seen as 'liabilities' as well, which makes me wonder why Nick and Sarah apparently didn't deserve to live when the writers would want us to give a newborn baby a chance to live.
That being said, I don't wish for AJ to die nor do I hate him.
And I get that having a baby around that needs food and is loud isn't ideal in the ZA, but Clem seemed to do fine in the alone ending, and h… moree's also still with them when they reach Howe's or Wellington, meaning it couldn't have been that bad.
And therein lies one big reason I wouldn't mind seeing AJ gone. Not eaten by walkers, just out of the story. His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around. Maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed if the entire defense for the treatment of Christa, Nick, and Sarah as characters wasn't basically, "lol brutal realism." To unceremoniously kill off or just write out the characters that were worth half a damn because of "realism", and create the entire moral argument that Nick and Sarah were liabilities to our survival, and even have Clementine go along with those sentiments to an extent... and then have th… [view original content]
I don't see how being a "liability" would make one hate a baby. I've got 3 kids. They're all technically a "liability." But I love them and … moreprovide and care for them. Clementine isn't a monster. She loved and cared for AJ. Frankly, it takes a sociopath to hate a baby, and I worry about some of the commenters here sometimes.
If we can see Sarah and Nick as liabilities, then why would we treat a baby any differently?
And can we also remember that AJ might have been born through Carvers side? Like this could be a mini Ramsay Snow right here, and we want to keep it alive for what reason? Because it's a baby and it deserves a chance?
It'd be more humane to kill the baby... Like how comic book Judith got handled but by my bullet instead. That would've made a crazy ending. If we had to mirror the Lee ending for a baby instead of a bitten adult. And I would've shot AJ just the same.
Are you serious, only a few months ago all this sub forum was was people getting butthurt over someone else not liking their favourite out of two characters.
Leaving a baby to die is messed up, period. Now, I can see that people don't care about him or think he's a big liability, and I get that this is still the ZA, but you don't just leave them to be eaten by some walkers. AJ is also not my favourite character just because I'm unwilling to basically kill a baby.
I get that AJ is a fictional character, but so is Clementine, yet everyone loves her. She also didn't really have a purpose when she met Lee, and don't give me anything about Lee wanting to be a parent. He saved Clem because it was the right thing to do. Clem would have very likely died if Lee just left her. Him leaving Clem would have led to everyone hating his guts, but Clem leaving AJ is ok because he has no purpose?
I suggest you read my comment again, as I never said anything about loving Clementine, AJ's lack of purpose, or Clem leaving AJ. All I said was that I'd prefer if TT killed AJ to illustrate a common theme seen throughout the game. So please, don't make assumptions.
And if you're seriously going to go the way of 'AJ was made for the Kenny/Jane fight', then Chuck was made to be a 'voice of reason', Kenny was made to be a 'antagonist or friend', every character ever was made with a purpose in mind. AJ lived for one episode and can hardly be blamed for anything that happened, or for being born. I swear, people throw the term plot device around as if it was the new 'overrated'. If I said Jane was only a plot device to trigger Kenny, then everyone would lose their shit. I wish people would stop being such hypocrites about this.
But, he was only made just to further the whole Kenny vs Jane fight. The difference between AJ and Chuck, in my opinion, is that Chuck worked as a character. He was needed in the long run to further develop both Lee and Clementine for the good, but AJ doesn't develop anyone or anything. He doesn't have an effect at all, he doesn't change the story for the better, nor it's characters. He's just there so that Kenny and Jane can loose their shit and try to kill each other, so that we're forced to pick one or the other. Also I never blamed AJ for anything that happens in the game, so again I'd recommend you'd stop with your false assumptions.
I get that AJ is a fictional character, but so is Clementine, yet everyone loves her. She also didn't really have a purpose when she met Lee… more, and don't give me anything about Lee wanting to be a parent. He saved Clem because it was the right thing to do. Clem would have very likely died if Lee just left her. Him leaving Clem would have led to everyone hating his guts, but Clem leaving AJ is ok because he has no purpose?
And if you're seriously going to go the way of 'AJ was made for the Kenny/Jane fight', then Chuck was made to be a 'voice of reason', Kenny was made to be a 'antagonist or friend', every character ever was made with a purpose in mind. AJ lived for one episode and can hardly be blamed for anything that happened, or for being born. I swear, people throw the term plot device around as if it was the new 'overrated'. If I said Jane was only a plot device to trigger Kenny, then everyone would lose their shit. I wish people would stop being such hypocrites about this.
I regret making this thread, it really seems to bring out the worst in some people. Cold reasoning as to why you should put a bullet in a baby does make one look pretty sociopathic.
If we can see Sarah and Nick as liabilities, then why would we treat a baby any differently?
And can we also remember that AJ might have … morebeen born through Carvers side? Like this could be a mini Ramsay Snow right here, and we want to keep it alive for what reason? Because it's a baby and it deserves a chance?
It'd be more humane to kill the baby... Like how comic book Judith got handled but by my bullet instead. That would've made a crazy ending. If we had to mirror the Lee ending for a baby instead of a bitten adult. And I would've shot AJ just the same.
When you strongly advocate wanting a baby to die, fictional or not, that shows a severe disconect. Its just not a healthy opinion and it speaks to something within yourself, if you don't see that as a problem, that's on you.
I suggest you read my comment again, as I never said anything about loving Clementine, AJ's lack of purpose, or Clem leaving AJ. All I said was that I'd prefer if TT killed AJ to illustrate a common theme seen throughout the game. So please, don't make assumptions.
Fair enough, but if we're to apply this to some other forum members it would probably work, because the overwhelming part of this fandom seems to love Clementine, so in theory a large part of people disliking AJ loves Clem as well. And don't mistake Season 2's sensational writing for a common theme, all things considered very few people died in Season 1.
But, he was only made just to further the whole Kenny vs Jane fight.
He really wasn't. I won't argue that it's likely that the writers always had that idea in the back of their heads, but he also serves other purposes. AJ's a ray of hope for all the people present. You could argue he's also a symbol of society slowly (very slowly) going back to a state that one would consider normal. After all, rebuilding society is a big theme in the series and new people like AJ are who are going to be the first in a new generation of survivors.
The difference between AJ and Chuck, in my opinion, is that Chuck worked as a character.
Chuck is an adult human being, of course he is more of a character than AJ.
He was needed in the long run to further develop both Lee and Clementine for the good, but AJ doesn't develop anyone or anything. He doesn't have an effect at all, he doesn't change the story for the better, nor it's characters. He's just there so that Kenny and Jane can loose their shit and try to kill each other, so that we're forced to pick one or the other. Also I never blamed AJ for anything that happens in the game, so again I'd recommend you'd stop with your false assumptions.
I cannot capitalise this enough, but AJ is a newborn baby. He can hardly go around spouting life wisdoms like Chuck, and he can't be useful in other ways like fighting walkers and finding supplies...yet. Ignoring the fact that he's a baby for a second, he has been in two episodes, only prominently in one. Even most adult characters don't really change the story or characters in that time, some don't at all. Give AJ time to actually grow up to be someone. Arguably he also changes Kenny, if for what better or worse is debatable. And fair enough about you not blaming AJ. Again, I gathered that this is what most people who are against AJ do.
I get that AJ is a fictional character, but so is Clementine, yet everyone loves her. She also didn't really have a purpose when she met Lee… more, and don't give me anything about Lee wanting to be a parent. He saved Clem because it was the right thing to do. Clem would have very likely died if Lee just left her. Him leaving Clem would have led to everyone hating his guts, but Clem leaving AJ is ok because he has no purpose?
I suggest you read my comment again, as I never said anything about loving Clementine, AJ's lack of purpose, or Clem leaving AJ. All I said was that I'd prefer if TT killed AJ to illustrate a common theme seen throughout the game. So please, don't make assumptions.
And if you're seriously going to go the way of 'AJ was made for the Kenny/Jane fight', then Chuck was made to be a 'voice of reason', Kenny was made to be a 'antagonist or friend', every character ever was made with a purpose in mind. AJ lived for one … [view original content]
I can understand leaving the baby if you're in a critical situation like being chased by bandits or in the middle of an herd and he starts crying, but if you're not why would you leave him? That's murder!
If I feel right not caring about full fledged ppl like Nick and Sarah... And if I felt OK letting them die or causing their death... Then why should it be any different for a baby?
Call it what you want, I'm just being consistent. Won't let diapers or googley eyes change my person.
When you strongly advocate wanting a baby to die, fictional or not, that shows a severe disconect. Its just not a healthy opinion and it speaks to something within yourself, if you don't see that as a problem, that's on you.
If I feel right not caring about full fledged ppl like Nick and Sarah... And if I felt OK letting them die or causing their death... Then wh… morey should it be any different for a baby?
Call it what you want, I'm just being consistent. Won't let diapers or googley eyes change my person.
Looks like that's on me because I see no problem. I only see people offering their opinions on a debatable topic, which for me, is perfectly normal and certainty not out of ordinary. If you a disagree with someone, that's fine, but to say that a lot of people have a 'severe disconnect' because you can't figure out that not everyone has the same view on AJ as you, is a bit condescending.
When you strongly advocate wanting a baby to die, fictional or not, that shows a severe disconect. Its just not a healthy opinion and it speaks to something within yourself, if you don't see that as a problem, that's on you.
And if I'm a selfish person, I will continue to be selfish. I won't stop because of the age of the person that needs saving.
Also that's … morewhy I said I'd end it early. Its stupid to think anyone that isn't you will take care for your baby for you. And it's also selfish.
Comments
The hatred for AJ does seem to get way out of hand, and a lot of it is because of the reasons stated on this thread. He can be considered a liability, people want only badass characters, or maybe they just view him as a plot device. For me though, I will do my best to keep that little guy safe at all costs. Clementine is now in a similar situation that Lee was in when the game started, having to take care of a young child who is incapable of taking care of itself, the different being AJ won't be able to handle himself for several years, Clem was 8-9 when the apocalypse started.
No, I don't think it's messed up at at all.
Damn.
You're right newborns have no personalities. Then why the hell is he even in the game? The claim that he has no purpose but to instigate the fight between Kenny and Jane is true, I mean what other purpose does he have? I don't hate AJ, but I also acknowledge that he's there for literally no reason.
Yes, neither did the baby from the video I showed. But, you know what was a nice little touch? The baby was crying through otherwise a very silent and stilted unit of soldiers admiring what was up until that point, an impossibility for the last 18 years.
Babies don't have to have personality to get cold-hearted people like me to hang their mouths open in awe or gleefully laugh at the first appearance of it in hope of the future in a world that's completely false.
I never said they had to. But symbolism is important for something like TWD, where up until that point, many innocence were killed and lives were ruined by the events from the past four episodes.
But that's the thing. AJ was never the focal point of barely any of the conversations or immediate obstacles our characters faced. It was pushed to the way-side in favor of Kenny and Luke's, Kenny and Carvers, or Kenny and Jane's feuds. Basically Kenny.
Then he just appears in a scene I'm assuming TT thought would yield some kind of consoling emotion after arguably one of the biggest fuck-you death scenes in either season. And then loss is pushed to the wayside to a "touching" scene, except a slaughtered child lay less than fifteen feet away and I'm supposed to take what away from it? The pacing in that scene couldn't have been butchered any worse if it were Sarah.
Well, she was. As were like 90% of all characters in season 2. But that's an entirely different argument.
In all seriousness though, I personally don't care that much if AJ does or doesn't die. If they simply got rid of him, I'd be happy, but at the same time I do believe it'd be better if TT grew some balls and killed him. Having him die a brutal and awful death simply, in my opinion, reinforces the common theme throughout the whole series- the world is cruel. It's a world, where people are willing to eat other humans in order to survive, where children are forced to give up their innocence and become killers, and I believe it's a world where a baby's life is no longer something that would be cherished, it's something that becomes a liability and effects your survival. Now whether Clementine has that mind-set is obviously up for interpretation, but I do think it should become a choice, allowing Clementine to have some development and the option to become a cold and perhaps, heartless survivor is quite interesting to me.
And I'm not really a fan of babies anyway. Having to look after my sister's baby daughter a few months back made me realise I personally dislike them and I'd hate to hear a child whinging constantly in a game series I happen to enjoy.
I don't see how being a "liability" would make one hate a baby. I've got 3 kids. They're all technically a "liability." But I love them and provide and care for them. Clementine isn't a monster. She loved and cared for AJ. Frankly, it takes a sociopath to hate a baby, and I worry about some of the commenters here sometimes.
^All of this
I get that AJ is a fictional character, but so is Clementine, yet everyone loves her. She also didn't really have a purpose when she met Lee, and don't give me anything about Lee wanting to be a parent. He saved Clem because it was the right thing to do. Clem would have very likely died if Lee just left her. Him leaving Clem would have led to everyone hating his guts, but Clem leaving AJ is ok because he has no purpose?
And if you're seriously going to go the way of 'AJ was made for the Kenny/Jane fight', then Chuck was made to be a 'voice of reason', Kenny was made to be a 'antagonist or friend', every character ever was made with a purpose in mind. AJ lived for one episode and can hardly be blamed for anything that happened, or for being born. I swear, people throw the term plot device around as if it was the new 'overrated'. If I said Jane was only a plot device to trigger Kenny, then everyone would lose their shit. I wish people would stop being such hypocrites about this.
Fair enough.
And therein lies one big reason I wouldn't mind seeing AJ gone. Not eaten by walkers, just out of the story. His survival relies on really stupid writing that makes a mockery of the entire struggle for survival the game and franchise is supposedly based around. Maybe I wouldn't be so annoyed if the entire defense for the treatment of Christa, Nick, and Sarah as characters wasn't basically, "lol brutal realism." To unceremoniously kill off or just write out the characters that were worth half a damn because of "realism", and create the entire moral argument that Nick and Sarah were liabilities to our survival, and even have Clementine go along with those sentiments to an extent... and then have the magic newborn baby survive off-screen in the brutal winter with no attention paid to the careful care a newborn requires in literally its first fucking days out of the womb, not to mention having the entire question of how much of a liability a baby truly would be in this kind of world only briefly touched upon and immediately shut down... really, really pisses me off.
I'm not saying I wanted him to die in the name of realism. That wouldn't solve anything. I'm talking about actually keeping the narrative consistent and portraying keeping him alive as the thankless, harsh, and painful existence it would really be, with the occasional light moment to remind us of what we're fighting for. But nope, he's a perfectly behaved baby who barely needs actual care and only cries when you need him to, so that the callousness that was visited upon other characters will not be visited upon him. Bite me.
So yeah, I don't hate AJ. There's nothing to hate about him. He's not a character, he's a cute little prop. What I hate is the idea of AJ, and how it stands out so much against the predominant mentality of Season 2, that being a cold, cruel fuckknuckle is justified until suddenly it isn't because a magic baby gets involved. Yeah, I get that they're trying to go for a "light in all this darkness" thing, where the safety of a baby, a pure new life in this world, is our reward for all the shit we went through up until this point. Guess what? Wasn't enough.
That said, I'm nothing if not fair. If AJ is still alive and/or involved in the story, I'll give him a fair shake in Season 3. The fact that Season 2 was bovine fecal matter is largely the reason my view of AJ's story up until now is so tainted. If there is something interesting to be done with him somehow (I've no idea how) in Season 3, I'll be glad to see it. My expectations aren't exactly high, but only because babies very rarely lead to much of anything interesting in a story. Maybe they can pull it off.
Dude, that was... thank you.
I think most of theach hostility is due to Aj being seen as a liability and the fact that Clementine's isn't really given the choice of whether to take care of him or not.
So a new world with zombies and people trying to build lives and survive is suddenly dumb with a baby? Wouldn't babies naturally be part of that story at some point?
WTF does this even mean?
He's a newborn. Again, how is this the case?
Why are you even here?
You do have a point regarding about how the writers were pushing the idea of weeding out the 'liabilities' to the player in the second half of Season 2, only for them to suddenly go the complete opposite direction when a newborn baby is involved, and completely disregards any sense of realism and ideas of the baby's survival rate in their current environment and care.
Before they were basically saying "only the strong survive, and the weak should die for the benefit of the strong", but then a baby comes along and suddenly they're saying "life is precious, and babies gives everyone a new hope to fight and live", going as far as to portray a newborn baby as an obedient pet that causes no trouble to anyone. This is not how babies behave, and I have experience with looking after a few months old babies.
Not only does AJ's survival clashes against the theme that the writers were supposedly going for, it makes them appear hypocritical in their treatment of characters who are seen as 'liabilities' as well, which makes me wonder why Nick and Sarah apparently didn't deserve to live when the writers would want us to give a newborn baby a chance to live.
That being said, I don't wish for AJ to die nor do I hate him.
Yeah but you're not in a zombie apocalypse. If you were you're feeling for those babies would change instantaneously.
Or at least your connection
If we can see Sarah and Nick as liabilities, then why would we treat a baby any differently?
And can we also remember that AJ might have been born through Carvers side? Like this could be a mini Ramsay Snow right here, and we want to keep it alive for what reason? Because it's a baby and it deserves a chance?
It'd be more humane to kill the baby... Like how comic book Judith got handled but by my bullet instead. That would've made a crazy ending. If we had to mirror the Lee ending for a baby instead of a bitten adult. And I would've shot AJ just the same.
Are you serious, only a few months ago all this sub forum was was people getting butthurt over someone else not liking their favourite out of two characters.
Leaving a baby to die is messed up, period. Now, I can see that people don't care about him or think he's a big liability, and I get that this is still the ZA, but you don't just leave them to be eaten by some walkers. AJ is also not my favourite character just because I'm unwilling to basically kill a baby.
I suggest you read my comment again, as I never said anything about loving Clementine, AJ's lack of purpose, or Clem leaving AJ. All I said was that I'd prefer if TT killed AJ to illustrate a common theme seen throughout the game. So please, don't make assumptions.
But, he was only made just to further the whole Kenny vs Jane fight. The difference between AJ and Chuck, in my opinion, is that Chuck worked as a character. He was needed in the long run to further develop both Lee and Clementine for the good, but AJ doesn't develop anyone or anything. He doesn't have an effect at all, he doesn't change the story for the better, nor it's characters. He's just there so that Kenny and Jane can loose their shit and try to kill each other, so that we're forced to pick one or the other. Also I never blamed AJ for anything that happens in the game, so again I'd recommend you'd stop with your false assumptions.
This is one frightening thread. Seek help people
I regret making this thread, it really seems to bring out the worst in some people. Cold reasoning as to why you should put a bullet in a baby does make one look pretty sociopathic.
Oh, so I should get medical help because I'm clearly out of my mind for sharing my opinion? Fair enough.
That's incredibly fucked up
The Nihilistic ideas being displayed are truly disturbing.
When you strongly advocate wanting a baby to die, fictional or not, that shows a severe disconect. Its just not a healthy opinion and it speaks to something within yourself, if you don't see that as a problem, that's on you.
Fair enough, but if we're to apply this to some other forum members it would probably work, because the overwhelming part of this fandom seems to love Clementine, so in theory a large part of people disliking AJ loves Clem as well. And don't mistake Season 2's sensational writing for a common theme, all things considered very few people died in Season 1.
He really wasn't. I won't argue that it's likely that the writers always had that idea in the back of their heads, but he also serves other purposes. AJ's a ray of hope for all the people present. You could argue he's also a symbol of society slowly (very slowly) going back to a state that one would consider normal. After all, rebuilding society is a big theme in the series and new people like AJ are who are going to be the first in a new generation of survivors.
Chuck is an adult human being, of course he is more of a character than AJ.
I cannot capitalise this enough, but AJ is a newborn baby. He can hardly go around spouting life wisdoms like Chuck, and he can't be useful in other ways like fighting walkers and finding supplies...yet. Ignoring the fact that he's a baby for a second, he has been in two episodes, only prominently in one. Even most adult characters don't really change the story or characters in that time, some don't at all. Give AJ time to actually grow up to be someone. Arguably he also changes Kenny, if for what better or worse is debatable. And fair enough about you not blaming AJ. Again, I gathered that this is what most people who are against AJ do.
I can understand leaving the baby if you're in a critical situation like being chased by bandits or in the middle of an herd and he starts crying, but if you're not why would you leave him? That's murder!
If I feel right not caring about full fledged ppl like Nick and Sarah... And if I felt OK letting them die or causing their death... Then why should it be any different for a baby?
Call it what you want, I'm just being consistent. Won't let diapers or googley eyes change my person.
It shows that we know when and where reality disconnects.
AJ can be a baby to you guys all you want.. But he's always just been an idea.
The ones trying to humanize the fictional character are closer to crazy then anyone else is.
[removed]
Leaving someone who can't protect themselves to be ripped apart is incredibly selfish. Not feeling like helping them isn't a good excuse at all
Looks like that's on me because I see no problem. I only see people offering their opinions on a debatable topic, which for me, is perfectly normal and certainty not out of ordinary. If you a disagree with someone, that's fine, but to say that a lot of people have a 'severe disconnect' because you can't figure out that not everyone has the same view on AJ as you, is a bit condescending.
It's screwed up.
lol nice edit.
Still name calling.
And if I'm a selfish person, I will continue to be selfish. I won't stop because of the age of the person that needs saving.
Also that's why I said I'd end it early. Its stupid to think anyone that isn't you will take care for your baby for you. And it's also selfish.
Says the guy who would abandon a baby in tough times.
So you'd just feed it to the zombies to save yourself? Again that's selfish and cowardly
Doesn't make my point any less valid. We can disagree, that's cool. But I made my point.
Even if you don't like it... Live with it.
He's admitted he's morally deficient. I think we can leave it at that and consider it a win.
It's the loud, morally deficient vocal minority here that wants to leave a baby to die.
Are we going in circles here?
Yes I would kill the baby. AJ would die by my hands. I would shoot him in the head.
Jesus it's not hard to understand. Already said I'm selfish. And cowards survive the longest in the ZA.
Ask Morgan