Zombie on Human Love Nixed for Walking Dead Season 2
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
They sorta explained it with that scientist guy. Maybe we'll start getting bits and pieces of backstory?chickenlord said:
technically both are consider necrophilia, just so happens Zombies look/act dead where as vampires don't.
...gross
::cringe::
...gross
::cringe::
they never explained it in the Comic, and for 80+ issues, i've never really cared why either. unfortunately these zombies really are dead and aren't living ppl with super rabies, so they can never die out.chickenlord said:
in it, the zombie outbreak isnt an infection or disease, its what happens to everyone that dies. Seemingly the act of god.
Yes please give us another half assed story about a government funded virus, it'd make the series so much better... oh no wait, that really would be "dumb". Zombies have been explained so many times before that I really don't see the point in trying to come up with another possible reason. Why do people feel like a definite answer is somehow better than mystery? Especially since the reason has absolutely no bearing on the characters and their lives unless they do some stupid "save the world" story line like I Am Legend did at the end (which utterly ruined the movie). Reality is these people would never stumble across the reason so why should the writers manufacture some ridiculous senario where they would?chickenlord said:
In regards to:
"I don't know if we'll ever tell people how the zombies came about," he said. "I don't think it's important to the story which is about characters. When you delve into where they come from it delves into science fiction."
So he admits the final episode was ass? Because a good portion of that was spent explaining the process of how people turn into zombies.
I loved the first episode, totally brilliant. I was still on board with the second, and then the show just went for a fishing trip, literally.
Not even remotely interested in season 2.
"I don't know if we'll ever tell people how the zombies came about," he said. "I don't think it's important to the story which is about characters. When you delve into where they come from it delves into science fiction."
So he admits the final episode was ass? Because a good portion of that was spent explaining the process of how people turn into zombies.
I loved the first episode, totally brilliant. I was still on board with the second, and then the show just went for a fishing trip, literally.
Not even remotely interested in season 2.
The governor does some weird things to Zombies >.>
I really have no idea where they'll go with the show, they've already strayed pretty far away from the comic and I don't think a lot of the stuff in the comics is feasible for them to pull off on screen.
On a side note I absolutely can't wait for trade paper back 14 >.<
I really have no idea where they'll go with the show, they've already strayed pretty far away from the comic and I don't think a lot of the stuff in the comics is feasible for them to pull off on screen.
On a side note I absolutely can't wait for trade paper back 14 >.<
Having gone to school with the guy playing the sheriff, I can testify that zombie human action will be a step up from his girlfriends back then.
Absolutely a good thing.Tom Goldman said:
The unanswered question is what keeps people talking and speculating. It creates tension and discomfort, the two main ingredients of motion in a story.
Knowledge is power, right? So knowing your enemy gives you power over him. And that power makes him less scary and threatening. This is why horror movies/shows/games/stories need to get over the overdose of backstory--it undermines the entire feeling the game sets out to create.
Usually, sci-fi mistakes like that come about because someone goes, "Oh, man! I just thought of a really cool way to explain how the zombies were created! We should build the story around that!" And then we end up with Star Trek, which is all about the tech and gadgets, and character development suffers as a result.
Consider Jurassic Park. Yes, they tell you "how the dinosaurs were made." And in the book, they go through the process laboriously, as Crichton was fond of doing. It was interesting, from an academic perspective... but unimportant to the story. It slowed the pace down in the first half of the book. (Still a great book, and I always appreciated Crichton's commitment to researching his stuff... but he always did feel he just had to show off all the stuff he learned.)
Hmmm, seems like a lack of guts to me. I mean comon we had "Re-animator" so why not bring zombie sex to TV! 
That said, I think the lack of revealing where the Zombies come from is a cop out, and one common to the sub-genere. Simply put the entire zombie apocolypse scenario is very difficult to justify, and a lot of creators try and justify around establishing any kind of solid mythology due to all of the questions people rightfully raise about the feasibility of
things turning out like this.
Once you determine where the zombies come from, you then have to explain how the plague spread so far and so fast. A "patient zero" scenario won't work in a case like this. Unlike a lot of stories about regular diseases, a zombie virus has something you can kill through conventional means to prevent the spread, it doesn't travel through the air or anything to infect huge numbers of people.
This of course leaves them with supernatural explanations, or setting things up so the virus WAS airbourne and the survivors happen to be those who are immune (this also explaining how the infrastructure was decimated) but of course it wrecks the whole "if you get bit, you get infected" logic that generates a lot of the drama in this setting.
I haven't read the comics where they might explain things to a nessicary degree, however as far as the TV show goes I kind of feel that if they don't establish their mythology that's actually going to hurt the show in the long run, despite it's initial success.
As it is, "Walking Dead" is already full of "WTF" moments, as I for one can't see how the heck Zombies overrun a bloody tank that isn't crewed by morons (and not every tank crew is going to be full of morons). Not properly handling military response, or saying that the military is "overrun in two weeks" or whatever, even if it was somewhat decimated in the initial outbreak is REALLY pushing credability since the military will form up under crisis, establishing a new structure based on whatever ranking people survive, and truthfully with the right tactics and weapons I don't think any number of zombies could overrun them.
I mean, yes there could be an apocolypse, yes the military could be overrun in specific places, but your not likely to see the entire thing wiped out, especially not as quickly as we see in these scenarios. You'd have tons of hold outs, and I'd imagine a lot of those "safe zones" that people head for and always find destroyed when they get there, actually wouldn't be overrun unless the people running it were a bunch of mouth breathers, and not every outpost is going to be full of retards.
That said, I think the lack of revealing where the Zombies come from is a cop out, and one common to the sub-genere. Simply put the entire zombie apocolypse scenario is very difficult to justify, and a lot of creators try and justify around establishing any kind of solid mythology due to all of the questions people rightfully raise about the feasibility of
things turning out like this.
Once you determine where the zombies come from, you then have to explain how the plague spread so far and so fast. A "patient zero" scenario won't work in a case like this. Unlike a lot of stories about regular diseases, a zombie virus has something you can kill through conventional means to prevent the spread, it doesn't travel through the air or anything to infect huge numbers of people.
This of course leaves them with supernatural explanations, or setting things up so the virus WAS airbourne and the survivors happen to be those who are immune (this also explaining how the infrastructure was decimated) but of course it wrecks the whole "if you get bit, you get infected" logic that generates a lot of the drama in this setting.
I haven't read the comics where they might explain things to a nessicary degree, however as far as the TV show goes I kind of feel that if they don't establish their mythology that's actually going to hurt the show in the long run, despite it's initial success.
As it is, "Walking Dead" is already full of "WTF" moments, as I for one can't see how the heck Zombies overrun a bloody tank that isn't crewed by morons (and not every tank crew is going to be full of morons). Not properly handling military response, or saying that the military is "overrun in two weeks" or whatever, even if it was somewhat decimated in the initial outbreak is REALLY pushing credability since the military will form up under crisis, establishing a new structure based on whatever ranking people survive, and truthfully with the right tactics and weapons I don't think any number of zombies could overrun them.
I mean, yes there could be an apocolypse, yes the military could be overrun in specific places, but your not likely to see the entire thing wiped out, especially not as quickly as we see in these scenarios. You'd have tons of hold outs, and I'd imagine a lot of those "safe zones" that people head for and always find destroyed when they get there, actually wouldn't be overrun unless the people running it were a bunch of mouth breathers, and not every outpost is going to be full of retards.
I haven't seen it here yet, so I'm going to say it.
It's not October anymore!!! It's now July!! We get the new season a full 2 months early!
It's not October anymore!!! It's now July!! We get the new season a full 2 months early!
Only my opinion, but, here goes...
From what I've read of the Walking Dead comics, it's not a zombie comic, and it's not meant to be 'Evil Dead 4'.
It's a fairly plot and character driven tale about a disparate group of people pushed together by a common threat, which happens to be zombies.
To dump on the series for not being shotgun orientated enough is to do both the original a disservice and also to damn the idea that comics can be more than a bunch of superheroes and action.
I imagine if you showed most people the pilot episode, the majority would guess it was either a book adaptation or an original screenplay, not a comic book.
I think that's a good thing, it's doing it's part to break the stereotypes.
From what I've read of the Walking Dead comics, it's not a zombie comic, and it's not meant to be 'Evil Dead 4'.
It's a fairly plot and character driven tale about a disparate group of people pushed together by a common threat, which happens to be zombies.
To dump on the series for not being shotgun orientated enough is to do both the original a disservice and also to damn the idea that comics can be more than a bunch of superheroes and action.
I imagine if you showed most people the pilot episode, the majority would guess it was either a book adaptation or an original screenplay, not a comic book.
I think that's a good thing, it's doing it's part to break the stereotypes.
You've pretty much made my day with your 'Shaun' quote.Geo Da Sponge said:
I was thinking that ever since I started reading this article.
Whoever said it couldn't be a friendly love?
No, and apparently whomever wrote this article hasnt bothered to pick up it up, either. If they did, he wouldnt have commented that Rick will at least make it through Season 2. Seriously?kibayasu said:
1. what pervert asked that question?
2. there is a visual difference between a vampire, which is almost always a pale abercrombie model, and a pile of rotting flesh
3. that zombi love thing reminds me of that one guy in Preacher who had that "meat" in the warehouse
4. THANK GOD
2. there is a visual difference between a vampire, which is almost always a pale abercrombie model, and a pile of rotting flesh
3. that zombi love thing reminds me of that one guy in Preacher who had that "meat" in the warehouse
4. THANK GOD
Meh.
The first season was inconsistent. Didn't feel like we got any closure on anything at all, and most of the characters were left unexplored. They had the chance to do something far more interesting with that research centre too, instead of just blow it up after one episode.
*sigh*
One day, something as good as Lost will be on. One day.
(Don't get me wrong though, I still enjoyed it.)
The first season was inconsistent. Didn't feel like we got any closure on anything at all, and most of the characters were left unexplored. They had the chance to do something far more interesting with that research centre too, instead of just blow it up after one episode.
*sigh*
One day, something as good as Lost will be on. One day.
(Don't get me wrong though, I still enjoyed it.)
Andrew Lincoln? And ouch, did he steal one of yours? xDalbino boo said:
Actually, he wrote that because of the original Hollywood Reporter article:Riff Moonraker said:
I know what I'm about to say is only quasi-related to the topic, and I have said this probably more times than I should have, but...
*AHEM*
WHERE IS MY LIVE ACTION HELLSING MOVIE!?
It would print money because you get the gore fans, the vampire fans, the zombie fans, the anime fans, etc. And it would be SO easy to do...
I want to see Nazi Werewolves get killed damnit.
*AHEM*
WHERE IS MY LIVE ACTION HELLSING MOVIE!?
It would print money because you get the gore fans, the vampire fans, the zombie fans, the anime fans, etc. And it would be SO easy to do...
I want to see Nazi Werewolves get killed damnit.
