Reply With Quote
You clearly dont understand the concept of minor and major characters.
Dude, they've killed almost everyone from the Atlanta group. Rick, Carol, Carl, Glenn, and Daryl are the only ones left from that fairly large group.
You clearly dont understand the concept of minor and major characters.
I understand that Shane, Lori, Dale, and Andrea were all main characters and were all killed.
Don't forget Merle , he was OG and a fan favorite.
It's obvious they are dumbing down the show since it's so popular. I doubt we'll ever see the same writing/directing from Season 1.
of course you won't see the same thing as season one, they fired frank darabont after season 1
I considered adding him to the list, but some see him as a recurring character. He was in very few episodes before season 3.
Last time I remembered a show replacing their showrunner more than 3 times was Dexter. But over a 7 year period that's understanble.
This show has had just as many directors in just 3 seasons. That's a terrible precedence.
Just watched a movie last night called "28 Days Later" (2002). So many ideas for Walking Dead appear to be ripped off from this film. Watch it and judge for yourself.
Actually, it's famously known that 28 days later copied from TWD. TWD comic book came out before the film, and here's Kirkman the creator of TWD being nice and commenting on it.
EW: I suspect a lot of people who are coming across the story of The Walking Dead for the first time would have thought that the guy-wakes-from-coma-to-discover-that-the-world-has-been-overrun-by-zombies plot was very similar to 28 Days Later. Presumably you had seen that film when you wrote the first issue of the comic?RK: No. Welcome to my life seven years ago. It was complete coincidence. I saw 28 Days Later shortly before the first issue of Walking Dead was released. That first issue came out in October of 2003 and 28 Days Later was released in the States in June of 2003. So we were working on our second issue by the time I saw it. It was going to be a matter of somehow trying to restage the entire first issue, because it was a very similar coma opening. I made a decision—which I pretty much regret at this point—I said, “You know what? It’s so different [from that point on], I will probably never hear anything about this.” And I was wrong.
EW: So when you saw the movie you must have thought, “Oh s—!”
RK: Yeah. It was a little annoying. But great minds think alike, right?
How can it be "famously known that 28 days later copied from TWD" when 28 Days Later came out in 2002.
That's what I was thinking.
And there are plenty more similarities besides "guy-wakes-from-coma-to-discover-that-the-world-has-been-overrun-by-zombies".
But I'm sure they are all just coincidences.
What's funny is 28 days came out in November, which means it was written in probably 2001 or so, maybe earlier.
The 90-minute episode featured similarities in style and substance to films such as Danny Boyle's '28 Days Later', however, the original writer plays down concerns surrounding the show's originality, insisting his books came first. In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Kirkman said, "I saw 28 Days Later shortly before the first issue of Walking Dead was released. That first issue came out in October of 2003 and 28 Days Later was released in the States in June of 2003. So we were working on our second issue by the time I saw it", before adding, "Yeah. It was a little annoying. But great minds think alike, right". Kirkman, who also wrote the 'Invincible', 'Ultimate X-Men', and 'Marvel Zombies' comic books, denied rumours that one of the zombies in the pilot episode was played by Jim Carey, saying, "It's not Jim Carrey at all. And dammit, most days I remember that guy's name. He's a great guy".
You basically reposted the article from earlier.
If anything he's puzzled that there were similarities such as the opening coma scene. By default there will inevitably be similarities here and there because both are from the same genre so it's common sense.
But one thing is for sure, the movie certainly didn't copy from the comic. Unless Danny Boyle had dibs on Kirkman's work.
After some Googling, apparently I'm a few years behind in this "revelation". Lol
yeah I didn't wanna say anything.... anyways, don't watch 28 weeks later. it's painfully stupid.
Yep. Another nail to coffin that Robert Carlyle's carrer should be in. Dude had two ood movies, both directed by Danny Boyle.
But... Ravenous wasn't directed by Danny Boyle.
Actually, I found "28 days" while looking for "28 weeks". I'll take your advice and avoid it. 28 days was pretty damn good, tho.
Smart move. I first watched 28 weeks about 5 years ago and thought it was ty. I then watched it a few months ago, thinking I was overreacting and missing te point, but it was still ty, probably even tier than I remembered. There are just so many plot holes and unforgivable moments.
**SPOILER ALERT**28 Weeks Later starts off great, with the main character running through the field chased by 30 or so infected after abandoning his wife in the house. Then he gets to the city, and finds his kids, and the movie becomes really slow and boring. They kill off the coolest character in the movie in the end, and its supposed to set something up for another sequel. It was dissapointing but not entirely unwatchable imo.
you're already lying. right off the bat, they let that stupid kid in the house. that's when I lost faith in the whole movie.
That damned kid was the one who led all the infected there in the first place, but it sets the ball rolling for the movie.
LOL that dude in the opening scene was the baddest in teh movie. Not giving a , took off running and almost got away in the boat. That lame ass main character attracted all the infected toward his area and really ed broseph up badly.
The movie got screwed up when they introduced the NATO troops or whatever. It would have been better if there was only group of survivors like the first one.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
