The Walking Dead Season 2 - July 2011?

[taviow]

Could The Walking Dead return for it's second season earlier than predicted? Bryan Cranston believes so.

Let the discussion/bashing begin!

 

[Lucid]

Earlier would certainly be in their best interest as they managed to attract a fairly large following with the first season and leaving them hanging after only 6 eps is a pretty big and unnecessary risk.

 

[taviow]

6 eps actually.

To be honest this means they'd have to start shooting considerably earlier. Airing it alongside Breaking Bad and (I suppose) Mad Men, I guess would make sense, but there's a lot of complications involved I assume. Which is why I'm not so sure it'll happen.

 

[Lucid]

Hopefully it doesn't affect their ability to improve on the show.

 

[Krynn72]

Seems like a bad idea to make it so much quicker. The writing staff is almost entirely new so you'd think they'd want more time, not less. Not a good sign, if they do it, but it doesn't remove the opportunity to improve.

 

[Stigmata]

Seems like a bad idea to make it so much quicker. The writing staff is almost entirely new so you'd think they'd want more time, not less. Not a good sign, if they do it, but it doesn't remove the opportunity to improve.

This. I'm worried about the quality of the show. On the other hand, maybe the first season was so bad that Darabont had his pick of thousands of zombie enthusiasts who offered to write scripts that weren't better left in mid-80's sidescrolling shooters :V

 

[sixteenth]

Now they have time to launch the return of Rubicon in the Fall!

I wish. ;(

 

[Lucid]

Now they have time to launch the return of Rubicon in the Fall!

I wish. ;(

God damn it.

 

[Kyzr]

I thought they were launching it oct 30 2011.

 

[taviow]

Yes, everyone did. That's the point of this thread.

 

[Ennui]

I don't really trust Bryan Cranston to know anything about it, so I'm not getting my hopes up, but it would be great if TWD and Breaking Bad aired back to back this spring.

 

[CptStern]

have you guys learned nothing from the launch of HL2? prior to launch (vets will remember this) we obsessed over every single detail no matter how minute. well when it was finally released it was somewhat disappointing because of the unrealistic expectations planted into my head. I find that I enjoy media much more if I walk in with an open mind. to me, who hasnt read the comic book and only had some passing interest in TWD before the pilot was aired it was enjoyable because I had zero expectations except that there would be zombies gettign their heads blown off. and I wasnt disappointed. is there room for improvement? ya sure but it's not seinfeld, it's not mash it's not all in the family hell it's not even Law and Order ..so why do you guys expect it to be the best thing on tv? it's about zombies. even the best zombie films would never make the top 100 films of all time. it's about zombies

 

[Sheepo]

Have we not already covered that issue a dozen times? Standards are good.

 

[Ennui]

Where are all of these artistic, high-standards zombie film masterpieces that I apparently haven't seen or heard of?

28 Days Later is the only one that approaches any level of artistic achievement and to be honest it's still a pretty straightforward zombie movie and nothing to write home about thematically. I know you aren't talking about the old Romero films, which are good because 1) they were the first mainstream zombie films, 2) they have gratuitous zombie violence, and 3) there is a small layer of THEMES in the form of paper-thin social commentary.

The Walking Dead is by no means significantly worse in any aspect than any of these, and in many respects or areas it is better. I really want to know what you guys derive your "standards" from, if it's anything other than 28 Days Later (and don't say 28 Weeks, I don't care how EMOTIONALLY VIABLE the opening scene is, that movie totally lacks anything remarkable about it).

 

[Sheepo]

"It's just zombies" is the apologist attitude that keeps zombie media in its trope-ic ghetto. (no offense to anyone here)

I never claimed there were any stellar zombie movies. The best piece of zombie culture I'm aware of is the TWD books, which are far better than the show's been. I'm not asking it to be an artistic and groundbreaking piece of television, but a good story, writing, and characters, y'know, the basic elements of storytelling, I don't believe are beyond the scope of a show with this premise. That's essentially the best this show is right now: a show featuring zombies. It's not a coincidence that the best stuff that comes out of zombie movies and fiction has nothing to do with the actual zombies.

 

[knut]

i pretty much agree with sheepo here. the walking dead comic isn't about zombies, they are just the backdrop. the comic proves that something based around ''just zombies'' (snort) can be well written, interesting and intelligent. i know the big differences between paper and silver screen, i've seen it done badly countless times before with films, but i think what a lot of people who dislike the show are trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether or not it translates over - this show hasn't even tried to do that; instead it's replaced everything good with lots and lots of bad things, such as acting, illogical decisions, stereotypical characters and cliche events and overall ran in a completely wrong direction with source material that proved that ''just zombies'' can make for excellent viewing.

it wouldn't surprise me if people would still hate this show even if it wasn't zombie related. remove them from the equation, lower the standard that you guys are putting up about it being a show just about zombies and you are still left with all of the above bad things. and that shouldn't be with such a well respected channel like AMC with their track record of such amazing titles as mad men and breaking bad, and that almost certainly shouldn't be with frank darabont at the helm with his own track record. forgot the zombies, it's bad even without them.

going to the argument put forward by ennui just above shows that amongst lots of rubbish there are great films such as dawn of the dead and 28 days later, what else needs to be said? yeah, there are countless amounts of films that are just zombies... what of it? let's not ignore the gems there just because they are in the minority. the latter film isn't even about zombies, and the former benefits from far greater elements then simply the dudes coated in blue paint wandering around a shopping mall - it's a bleak, harrowing, atmospheric film about the end of mankind. so was the walking dead in comic form.

for the record some of the zombie films i consider ''best'' would make it into my top 100 films, and surely that's all that matters? we shouldn't let ''official'' lists dictate what is good and what isn't, and certainly not standards. i'm a huge zombie film nut, so i'll decide my own standards personally and with some of the films and comics i've seen, they're pretty high. the walking dead AMC does not reach that. it ****ing sucks.

 

[Sheepo]

I actually adore Night of the Living Dead, but I'm hesitant to cite it as an amazing movie because I saw it so young, it could well be mostly rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. 28 Days Later is fantastic, but I'd probably not put it in a top 100 list. I think that says more about the number of movies that have been created than it does about 28 Days Later though.

 

[CptStern]

i pretty much agree with sheepo here. the walking dead comic isn't about zombies, they are just the backdrop. the comic proves that something based around ''just zombies'' (snort) can be well written, interesting and intelligent. i know the big differences between paper and silver screen

ok you know the difference. however have you taken into account what sells ad time? tv is all about ad time. therefore things like the Bachelor gets more viewers than masterpiece theatre. studios take this into consideration which is why TWD is mostly about zombies.

i've seen it done badly countless times before with films, but i think what a lot of people who dislike the show are trying to say is that it doesn't matter whether or not it translates over - this show hasn't even tried to do that; instead it's replaced everything good with lots and lots of bad things, such as acting

acting? were you expecting marlon brando level of theatrics? they chose an unknown cast most likely so that it wouldnt be star driven. Justin Timberlake's The Walking Dead, Perez Hilton and the Fabulous Zombies (honstly that would probably have more potential for outside the box storytelling that TWD)

illogical decisions, stereotypical characters and cliche events and overall ran in a completely wrong direction with source material that proved that ''just zombies'' can make for excellent viewing.

that doesnt make sense because a comic book is nto a tv show. look tv is formula driven they have exactly 50 mins to convey what they're trying to convey while hitting all the tv conventions that have been proven to retain viewers. almost always a misleading lead up to a plot point right to the commercial break and then after the break it's revealed that the plot twist isnt what it really seems. this is standard fare because the studios dont want you to touch the remote. this is not possible in the comic book series because no one is holding a remote.

it wouldn't surprise me if people would still hate this show even if it wasn't zombie related.

we wouldnt be having this conversation because none of us would watch it

remove them from the equation, lower the standard that you guys are putting up about it being a show just about zombies and you are still left with all of the above bad things. and that shouldn't be with such a well respected channel like AMC with their track record of such amazing titles as mad men and breaking bad, and that almost certainly shouldn't be with frank darabont at the helm with his own track record. forgot the zombies, it's bad even without them.

I dont know how you can mention TWD, Mad Men and BB in the same sentence. TWD isnt even remotely related to those other two in any way shape or form. their premise isnt a single note like it is in TWD. there is absolutely nowhere else to go in TWD besides character development. all else would be a temporary plot twist and would interfere with the premise of the show. which is why they didnt stay with the chivatos and why the disease control place was destined to be blown up. it really is Gilligans island with zombies

going to the argument put forward by ennui just above shows that amongst lots of rubbish there are great films such as dawn of the dead and 28 days later, what else needs to be said?

come on they're ok but they're by no stretch of the imagination great films. hell dawn of the dead had really bad acting from B list actors who who rarely worked in the industry afterwards

yeah, there are countless amounts of films that are just zombies... what of it? let's not ignore the gems there just because they are in the minority. the latter film isn't even about zombies, and the former benefits from far greater elements then simply the dudes coated in blue paint wandering around a shopping mall - it's a bleak, harrowing, atmospheric film about the end of mankind.

that lasted 90 minutes. how do you sustain that after multiple episodes? how do you sustain that for multiple seasons?

so was the walking dead in comic form.

two completely different mediums

for the record some of the zombie films i consider ''best'' would make it into my top 100 films, and surely that's all that matters?

your opinion =/= everyone elses opinion. I'm sure I can find a bunch of people who say Avatar is the best sci-fi film ever made . ..but they wouldnt be right

we shouldn't let ''official'' lists dictate what is good and what isn't,

ya ok so dawn of the day can be accurately compared to say Casablanca or citizen kane? would you rather take flying advice from a pilot or someone who really likes planes?

and certainly not standards. i'm a huge zombie film nut, so i'll decide my own standards personally and with some of the films and comics i've seen, they're pretty high. the walking dead AMC does not reach that. it ****ing sucks.

then why do you watch it? why are you spending time talking about it? I think Glee sucks; I dont watch it and I certainly dont participate in discussions about it.

 

[knut]

acting? were you expecting marlon brando level of theatrics? they chose an unknown cast most likely so that it wouldnt be star driven. Justin Timberlake's The Walking Dead, Perez Hilton and the Fabulous Zombies (honstly that would probably have more potential for outside the box storytelling that TWD)

... why not? the wire is made up of an unknown cast, even more unknown than the walking dead which has a few notable names in it from the last few years. it doesn't need to be star driven to have... good acting... i don't know what you're getting at here or why you can accept it has bad acting and that's all fine and dandy. it's unacceptable, though obviously personal opinion. some folk probably like it, my opinion is i don't.

that doesnt make sense because a comic book is nto a tv show. look tv is formula driven they have exactly 50 mins to convey what they're trying to convey while hitting all the tv conventions that have been proven to retain viewers. almost always a misleading lead up to a plot point right to the commercial break and then after the break it's revealed that the plot twist isnt what it really seems. this is standard fare because the studios dont want you to touch the remote. this is not possible in the comic book series because no one is holding a remote.

you need to read the comic before you can properly judge if it would work or not. that isn't a rebuttal to your argument, but i think it'd be best and fair for you to read it first and then decide whether or not it could work.

we wouldnt be having this conversation because none of us would watch it

what i was getting at was that if the tv show was true to form regarding the comic, there wouldn't be so much emphasize on the zombies. the characters and story is compelling to me from the comics, they are not in the tv show. something somewhere has gone wrong and it isn't anything to do with zombies.

I dont know how you can mention TWD, Mad Men and BB in the same sentence. TWD isnt even remotely related to those other two in any way shape or form. their premise isnt a single note like it is in TWD. there is absolutely nowhere else to go in TWD besides character development. all else would be a temporary plot twist and would interfere with the premise of the show. which is why they didnt stay with the chivatos and why the disease control place was destined to be blown up. it really is Gilligans island with zombies

yes, i know, but i wasn't comparing the walking dead tv show with them: i was comparing elements of the comic - good characters, interesting stories, imaginative, etc - with those shows that are also the same. i'm not talking about the substance. i only took those comparisons because they were on the same network.

come on they're ok but they're by no stretch of the imagination great films. hell dawn of the dead had really bad acting from B list actors who who rarely worked in the industry afterwards

i disagree, i like the films a lot. there is no argument here, just our two opinions. no facts.

that lasted 90 minutes. how do you sustain that after multiple episodes? how do you sustain that for multiple seasons?

i don't know, but i just read issue 80 of the walking dead the other day and it was damned good. they seem to be doing just fine. the source material is all there.

your opinion =/= everyone elses opinion. I'm sure I can find a bunch of people who say Avatar is the best sci-fi film ever made . ..but they wouldnt be right

what? no, i'm trying my hardest every time i post to make sure that i draw a line between my opinion and everyone elses opinion. it's called MY top 100 films for a reason... how do you figure i was trying to implement it was THE top 100 films as decided by me? and i hate that attitude, of whether someone has the ability to determine whether that is right or wrong. you can't say that and neither can i. if they want it to be the best sci fi they have seen and thus something they can call the best out of the lot they have seen, let them. what does it matter? who cares?

ya ok so dawn of the day can be accurately compared to say Casablanca or citizen kane? would you rather take flying advice from a pilot or someone who really likes planes?

and i mean what the **** is this, really? this is actually the stereotypical response i loathe most when it comes to people sizing up films, you took the cliche right out of my mouth by bringing up casablanca and citizen kane in one sentance. i couldn't care what their history or credibility is, or whether or not they reach the top of charts and have done for years upon years - i'll decide how much i want to enjoy it and where it should sit in any form of 'top' lists of favourites and i'll let critics and reviewers hold it in theres. i don't want to be swayed by any of that sort of bullshit.

would i rather take flying advice from a pilot or someone who likes planes re: a pretty serious, life depending matter such as FLYING A PLANE? yeah, a pilot, you've sussed me! oh wait, turns out watching films is a solitary lone personal enjoyment from the comfort of my home and i'll pick and chose preferences as i like without having to worry as to whether i might crash my couch into the side of a mountain.

then why do you watch it? why are you spending time talking about it? I think Glee sucks; I dont watch it and I certainly dont participate in discussions about it.

because i like the comics and how can i fairly assess how well of a tv show it is without watching it? it's like 50 minutes a week and it's television, why wouldn't i watch it? the question is, how can you talk about the show in this manner without reading the comic books? you seem fairly grounded in fact when you say it's supposed to just be a zombie show with low-level actors who are expected to be bad just made to garner ad revenue when... that shouldn't be what it is. there are countless great shows out there that have all the same characteristics of the walking dead because of the fantastic characters and amazing writing. they don't have zombies, no, but the comic isn't about zombies.

read the comics man. please. you're just missing out for the most part; i don't care about petty arguments, i just want people to appreciate the writing and not for how it's been portrayed by this show.

 

[Sheepo]

ok you know the difference. however have you taken into account what sells ad time? tv is all about ad time. therefore things like the Bachelor gets more viewers than masterpiece theatre. studios take this into consideration which is why TWD is mostly about zombies.

The problem really isn't the show being "all about zombies". I don't know if there was single zombie in the finale. And that episode was pretty bad. Inserting good dialogue, plot, and characters will not take away from any of the novelty or original appeal of the show.

acting? were you expecting marlon brando level of theatrics? they chose an unknown cast most likely so that it wouldnt be star driven. Justin Timberlake's The Walking Dead, Perez Hilton and the Fabulous Zombies (honstly that would probably have more potential for outside the box storytelling that TWD)

We're not asking for known actors, we're asking for good actors. And I actually don't think the cast is that bad, I just think they're being brought down by a pretty bad script.

that doesnt make sense because a comic book is nto a tv show. look tv is formula driven they have exactly 50 mins to convey what they're trying to convey while hitting all the tv conventions that have been proven to retain viewers. almost always a misleading lead up to a plot point right to the commercial break and then after the break it's revealed that the plot twist isnt what it really seems. this is standard fare because the studios dont want you to touch the remote. this is not possible in the comic book series because no one is holding a remote.

It is not impossible to produce quality shows on television, and the show's on a channel that makes great and groundbreaking shows almost exclusively.

we wouldnt be having this conversation because none of us would watch it

You miss his point. The story's about the characters, the premise just gives the characters a world for the characters to act within.

I dont know how you can mention TWD, Mad Men and BB in the same sentence. TWD isnt even remotely related to those other two in any way shape or form. their premise isnt a single note like it is in TWD. there is absolutely nowhere else to go in TWD besides character development. all else would be a temporary plot twist and would interfere with the premise of the show. which is why they didnt stay with the chivatos and why the disease control place was destined to be blown up. it really is Gilligans island with zombies

I'm not sure what this one means.

come on they're ok but they're by no stretch of the imagination great films. hell dawn of the dead had really bad acting from B list actors who who rarely worked in the industry afterwards

Even considering objectivist douchebagery 28 Days qualifies as a great movie, not that that even matters.

that lasted 90 minutes. how do you sustain that after multiple episodes? how do you sustain that for multiple seasons?

Hmmm, well, I feel bad when you make it this easy but: compelling and original characters and a good story.

two completely different mediums

And obviously it's impossible that a premise could work in two different mediums.

ya ok so dawn of the day can be accurately compared to say Casablanca or citizen kane? would you rather take flying advice from a pilot or someone who really likes planes?

That analogy doesn't make sense. Film critics just really like airplanes and fly in them a lot more than everyone else.

then why do you watch it? why are you spending time talking about it? I think Glee sucks; I dont watch it and I certainly dont participate in discussions about it.

The show has enormous potential, contrary to what you may think.

Also, when was the last time you actually watched Casablanca? I'd argue that the characters in some zombie movies, and even some parts of TWD, are more believable and real than Casacblanca's characters.

MULTIQUOTE TAG TEAM

 

[Ennui]

Hey guys let me explain my...

QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTEQUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTEQUOTEQUOTEQUOTE

oh jesus christ get me out of here

 

[CptStern]

The problem really isn't the show being "all about zombies". I don't know if there was single zombie in the finale.

it's the premise; zombie apocalypse

And that episode was pretty bad. Inserting good dialogue, plot, and characters will not take away from any of the novelty or original appeal of the show.

the original appeal was zombies. I dont see how so many of you can say the pilot was so much better than the regular episodes. sure it was more action packed but it was the opening to the series; it's expected

We're not asking for known actors, we're asking for good actors.

ya how often does that happen? jerry seinfeld was surrounded by seasoned actors, the original cast of law and order had decades of work under their belt

And I actually don't think the cast is that bad, I just think they're being brought down by a pretty bad script.

it's a one note emotional range: horror and fear; really not a lot of complexity there

It is not impossible to produce quality shows on television, and the show's on a channel that makes great and groundbreaking shows almost exclusively.

2/3 aint a runaway sucess and even then the 2 stand out shows work so well because of the cast and storytelling. there just isnt as much to work with in a zombie apocalpyse

You miss his point. The story's about the characters, the premise just gives the characters a world for the characters to act within.

yet everyone is complaining about drama in their show about zombies; it's the most often made complaint

I'm not sure what this one means.Even considering objectivist douchebagery 28 Days qualifies as a great movie, not that that even matters.

in comparison to what? night of the living dead? One flew over the cuckoos nest? cool hand luke? it doesnt compare. you may like 28 days later more but that doesnt make it a great film

Hmmm, well, I feel bad when you make it this easy but: compelling and original characters and a good story.And obviously it's impossible that a premise could work in two different mediums.

name a movie that was as good as it's comicbook counterpart. 2 different mediums with different criteria

Film critics just really like airplanes and fly in them a lot more than everyone else.

ya so the prerequisite for beign a film critic is a love for movies. they dont have to understand the history of film, genres, stylistic and cultural trends

"Fellini? is that some sort of pasta?"

The show has enormous potential, contrary to what you may think.

they could do episodes where they're running from zombies or they could do episodes where the zombies are running after them

Also, when was the last time you actually watched Casablanca? I'd argue that the characters in some zombie movies, and even some parts of TWD, are more believable and real than Casacblanca's characters.

obviously you've never seen casablanca. there isnt a single character in TWD anywhere near as memorable as rick or ilsa. hell even the bit characters have greater roles that anything seen in TWD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oROASA1v92U

that scene has far more impact than anything in TWD. to even compare the two is silly

sydney greenstreet, peter lorre, claude rains all giants of cinema ..and that's just the supporting roles

 

[knut]

stern, read the comic. your arguments regarding why the walking dead can only merit so much aren't really fair when you haven't read the source material and decided upon what kind of potential it could actually have in your own mind. right now you're explaining why the walking dead isn't that great because of what the tv bods and writers have made of it, and barely anything that they have done is based upon the comic, save for locations and characters. a couple of events, yeah sure, but done differently. very differently.

what you're saying holds some fair ground for why it, as just a zombie show, has low level actors or easily watchable scenarious and plot devices for people to digest, but it, as a zombie comic, from the original writing, could be so, so much more and i don't think you understand that because you haven't read it.

 

[Sheepo]

I can't muster the strength to multiquote respond to someone who doesn't even grasp (or atleast doesn't respond) to what I'm saying in the first multiquote message. At the end of the day take this: The zombie apocalypse permits the exact same actions, emotions, situations as any other premise, with the addition of all scenarios that zombies can create.

 

[CptStern]

... why not? the wire is made up of an unknown cast, even more unknown than the walking dead which has a few notable names in it from the last few years. it doesn't need to be star driven to have... good acting... i don't know what you're getting at here or why you can accept it has bad acting and that's all fine and dandy. it's unacceptable, though obviously personal opinion. some folk probably like it, my opinion is i don't.

the wire is multi layered and can embody stylistically diseperate plotlines without breaking the immersion. TWD isnt afforded this luxury because of the premise: simple survival

you need to read the comic before you can properly judge if it would work or not. that isn't a rebuttal to your argument, but i think it'd be best and fair for you to read it first and then decide whether or not it could work.

I'd like to but havent picked up a comic book in years. but I dont have to read it to say it might not translate that well on film. sin city while it's the very height of storytelling in a comic book movie doesnt hold a candle to the original frank miller series. the same thing is true of the watchmen. the problem is in the translation to film. when they boil down the elements that make for a good comic book it can work as well as the original. example: a spaghetti western can be just as powerful as a john ford western despite being stylistically polar opposites

what i was getting at was that if the tv show was true to form regarding the comic, there wouldn't be so much emphasize on the zombies.

ya but then it wouldnt attract as wide an audience; it's all about ad revenue; niche programming doesnt sell a lot of ad time

the characters and story is compelling to me from the comics, they are not in the tv show. something somewhere has gone wrong and it isn't anything to do with zombies.

probably because each episode has to re-introduce characters and settings; it's a shitty staple if tv programs because of new viewers

yes, i know, but i wasn't comparing the walking dead tv show with them: i was comparing elements of the comic - good characters, interesting stories, imaginative, etc - with those shows that are also the same. i'm not talking about the substance. i only took those comparisons because they were on the same network.

the problem is that it's sold as an action series not as a drama. people who watch drama shows wouldnt watch TWD

i disagree, i like the films a lot. there is no argument here, just our two opinions. no facts.

it's a fact that those films are not or never will be an example of the best in cinema. but you misunderstand me; I like those films. but I like them for what they are, not for what they could be

i don't know, but i just read issue 80 of the walking dead the other day and it was damned good. they seem to be doing just fine. the source material is all there.

can I jump right in without knowing a single iota of the premise? this is why TWD recaps everything; so new viewers dont get left out. it's a handicap that most studios rely on to keep their viewers interesting

what? no, i'm trying my hardest every time i post to make sure that i draw a line between my opinion and everyone elses opinion. it's called MY top 100 films for a reason... how do you figure i was trying to implement it was THE top 100 films as decided by me? and i hate that attitude, of whether someone has the ability to determine whether that is right or wrong. you can't say that and neither can i. if they want it to be the best sci fi they have seen and thus something they can call the best out of the lot they have seen, let them. what does it matter? who cares?

but it's still an opinion based on a limited scope. whether they like something better than somethign else is immaterial to the discussion. people can say Lady Gaga is better than say, Mozart all they want but it doesnt make it true. some opinions are more right than others

and i mean what the **** is this, really? this is actually the stereotypical response i loathe most when it comes to people sizing up films, you took the cliche right out of my mouth by bringing up casablanca and citizen kane in one sentance. i couldn't care what their history or credibility is, or whether or not they reach the top of charts and have done for years upon years - i'll decide how much i want to enjoy it and where it should sit in any form of 'top' lists of favourites and i'll let critics and reviewers hold it in theres. i don't want to be swayed by any of that sort of bullshit.

I'm not asking you to however anyone who understands film would be able to recognise something good when they see it. ie I may not like Michael Jackson all that much and never cared for his music but I at least recognise that he was a major talent. and I chose casablanca and citizen kane because they were instantly recognisable. if I had mentioned La Strada or the Bicycle thief or the conformist or birth of a nation or notoris or gaslight etc etc most people wouldnt have understood the context without havign seen those films. at least with citizen kane and casablanca it's in our collective consciousness

would i rather take flying advice from a pilot or someone who likes planes re: a pretty serious, life depending matter such as FLYING A PLANE? yeah, a pilot, you've sussed me! oh wait, turns out watching films is a solitary lone personal enjoyment from the comfort of my home and i'll pick and chose preferences as i like without having to worry as to whether i might crash my couch into the side of a mountain.

the problem is that you mistake personal opinion with fact. just because you like or dislike a film doesnt make it good or bad. only consensus does and only to a point as their are differing levels of opinion both legit and otherwise. if everyone says planet 9 from outer space is the worst film ever chances are it is

because i like the comics and how can i fairly assess how well of a tv show it is without watching it? it's like 50 minutes a week and it's television, why wouldn't i watch it?

because you hate it? I hate the Hills and as a result absolutely never watch it

the question is, how can you talk about the show in this manner without reading the comic books?

easy; the show exists outside of the comics; you dont need either to enjoy the other

you seem fairly grounded in fact when you say it's supposed to just be a zombie show with low-level actors who are expected to be bad just made to garner ad revenue when

no, that's what you're saying. I'm saying that it's no surprise they didnt take the high brow approach; I dotn even think it's all that possible in anything but film; I just cant see the studios bankrolling a zombie show that's not about zombies

... that shouldn't be what it is. there are countless great shows out there that have all the same characteristics of the walking dead because of the fantastic characters and amazing writing. they don't have zombies, no, but the comic isn't about zombies.

like what? the premise is no differnt than the old incredible hulk tv series; man on the run runs into various people who help or hinder his quest. every single episode is built around that premise because it works

read the comics man. please. you're just missing out for the most part; i don't care about petty arguments, i just want people to appreciate the writing and not for how it's been portrayed by this show.

when I did read comics I only read independent stuff from talented people like matt wagner or david lapham or the hernandez bros. I'll take your word for it

 

[CptStern]

stern, read the comic. your arguments regarding why the walking dead can only merit so much aren't really fair when you haven't read the source material and decided upon what kind of potential it could actually have in your own mind. right now you're explaining why the walking dead isn't that great because of what the tv bods and writers have made of it, and barely anything that they have done is based upon the comic, save for locations and characters. a couple of events, yeah sure, but done differently. very differently.

what you're saying holds some fair ground for why it, as just a zombie show, has low level actors or easily watchable scenarious and plot devices for people to digest, but it, as a zombie comic, from the original writing, could be so, so much more and i don't think you understand that because you haven't read it.

I'm not saying it couldnt be more I'm saying I dont think the studios would let it be anything more. the comic book reaches a small fraction of the viewers the series gets by the very nature of the medium; they have far more leeway

also I dont see why you guys have to blow a gasket when discussing this issue. I'm defending the show because it's certainly not the worst thing on television

 

[knut]

i really can't be bothered to argue back, all i can really hope for is you to read the comics and maybe that'll change your expectations of the show. in the last few years i've been smothered in great television and the fact that the walking dead had so much potential based upon it's original writing and that it turned out really, really badly for me just grinds my gears somewhat. i was assured that we had reached an age where we had no reason to sink into shows mentioned such as glee or hills because there was someone out there hiding at the backburner to release another the wire or more sopranos - and they are, they still do and will continue to - it's just you get good content already existing and then for some reason it was dumbed down and made really really badly. it astounded me, took me by surprise somewhat.

that's not to say i'm not eagerly awaiting season 2. to answer one part of your post, i don't want to hate it. i didn't go into it hating it and i didn't decide to hate it two or three episodes in. i watched them all over the six week period and then assessed what i thought about them after that. my conclusion was that i didn't enjoy it as a whole, but as i said, i enjoy the process of sitting down to watch television, so i'll continue watching it right till it's end of airing. i wouldn't want to get caught stuck in the mud if it suddenly ramped up in quality and i wasn't there to enjoy it, would i?

 

[morgs]

I'm glad I hadn't read the comics before watching it, it sounds like I probably wouldn't be enjoying it.

 

[Yuri]

[quote=']i judge the winner of this quote war to be me[/qoute]

 

[Krynn72]

[{break}quote=']i judge the winner of this quote war to be me[/qoute]

For the winner of the quote war, you sure do suck at quoting.

 

[Ennui]

My 2 cents... I've read all of the comics except the last couple of issues and IMO the series is far too young and covers far too little of the comic to make any judgments yet about whether or not the show does the comic justice. I mean we're barely past the expository phase of the comic or the show. The first several issues of the comic that are covered by the first season aren't even that good in the first place, the comic gets better down the line...

 

[knut]

i don't think the show has achieved at setting the same tone as those first issues, though, and for some bizarre reason has gone out of it's way to add in a whole load of new things that have been pretty awful, and taken away a few key events that made the last issue of the first volume quite powerful and replaced it with something that wouldn't of been too akin from something like lost. if this is the approach they are taking, it doesn't leave me hopeful for what's to come, but what do i know - darabont did afterall just fire the entire writing team.

i think really what i'm trying to say is so far the only resemblence this really bares to the comic is the fact that there are zombies, and what i cannot stress enough is just how little the comic is about zombies. that's what boggles me.

 

[CptStern]

i was assured that we had reached an age where we had no reason to sink into shows mentioned such as glee or hills because there was someone out there hiding at the backburner to release another the wire or more sopranos - and they are, they still do and will continue to - it's just you get good content already existing and then for some reason it was dumbed down and made really really badly. it astounded me, took me by surprise somewhat.

just wanted to address this point. I had no expectations coming in to the series. I also have low expectations that anything fantasy, sci-fi or action related will be hard fantasy/sci-fi/action on network tv. I mean could you imagine a tv series around say asimov's Foundation? or a series around Ian Watson's the Embedding?

Ian Watson's 1973 novel The Embedding is, of all the science fiction about linguistics that I've written about so far, the story that most directly addressed ideas from theoretical linguistics. Where most SF authors have been content with simple ideas from the shallow end of the field, Watson dives right into the deep end, displaying some familiarity with then-current ideas about Universal Grammar and the phenomenon of center-embeddings in syntax.

it just would never happen because there's no pew pew and sci-fi dramas do not sell well to a wide audience. but then again if wanted to experience the Embedding as the author intended I'll read the book. tv/film adaptations are rarely even remotely as good as their printed counterparts because the medium is limited by time constraints budget, actors, script etc etc. with books all you have to do focus is on plot and character development. that said I'll be seeing Mordecai Richler's Barney's Version movie adaptation at some point. I havent read the book (apparently the best of Richler) but I have no doubt the film isnt as good

 

[knut]

urgh, forget it. you had no expectations because you haven't read the comic, which isn't fantasy sci-fi action writing. it's drama about peoples emotions, problems, issues and attempts to survive. there is no point in me continuing this because unless you have read the comic, then your thoughts are nothing more than swayed by what the tv show has tried to portray. that's all very good and well, but i can't participate in an argument that looks at both sides of the coin when the other person has only seen the one side. it's basically not going to go anywhere for either of us.

 

[CptStern]

urgh, forget it. you had no expectations because you haven't read the comic, which isn't fantasy sci-fi action writing. it's drama about peoples emotions, problems, issues and attempts to survive. there is no point in me continuing this because unless you have read the comic, then your thoughts are nothing more than swayed by what the tv show has tried to portray. that's all very good and well, but i can't participate in an argument that looks at both sides of the coin when the other person has only seen the one side. it's basically not going to go anywhere for either of us.

no need to get upset. and my expectations would probably be the same as what my expectations are of any other comic book adaptation:

 

[knut]

well, i had high expectations, because the comic book is great. i went into the show with hope, it sucks to see you lost that just because of a few shitty adaptations along the way. maybe that works best for you because you can lap up and appreciate the garbage that they shovel you and shrug it off because you were expecting something mediocre in the first place, but me? i'm not going into it expecting rubbish just because everything else before it was. i expect better for each and every time. so maybe it hasn't happened here, maybe it's gonna take a few seasons and a few more comic adaptations or maybe it's not going to happen at all, but i'm going to get ready for the second season expecting good things just as much as i was for the first season, because you gotta have hope.

 

[CptStern]

well, i had high expectations, because the comic book is great. i went into the show with hope, it sucks to see you lost that just because of a few shitty adaptations along the way.

a few? I'm still waiting for a good adaptation (sin city was closest imho)

maybe that works best for you because you can lap up and appreciate the garbage that they shovel you and shrug it off because you were expecting something mediocre in the first place, but me?

I'm not lapping up anything nor am I appreciating this take on zombies. it's a zombie tv show on sunday night when absolutely nothing is on tv. it's just not as bad as most of you claim it is. it might be compared to the comic but this is an altogether different beast

i'm not going into it expecting rubbish just because everything else before it was.

I dont expect rubbish but I also dont expect it to be War and Peace

i expect better for each and every time. so maybe it hasn't happened here, maybe it's gonna take a few seasons and a few more comic adaptations or maybe it's not going to happen at all, but i'm going to get ready for the second season expecting good things just as much as i was for the first season, because you gotta have hope.

that captain america pic in my last post is from a tv series from the late 1970s. we havent come that far yet

 

[knut]

i don't expect it to be war and peace either, i expect it to be to a similar standard and at least faithful to the comic. because you haven't read the comic, you have no idea what this standard is nor have you any idea as to what was and wasn't faithful in the tv show which renders this argument moot.

 

[CptStern]

but I have watched comic book movies after having read the comics. they just cant do the punisher right. doesnt mean I cant enjoy the movie somewhat; it's the punisher after all

the only argument here is "what were you expecting? it's a tv adaptation of a comic book and therefore holds little resemblance to the source material" we can agree on this right?

 

[Stigmata]

"TV sucks, audiences are stupid, thread over."