posted
So I like EW.com a lot, and THEY like TWD a lot so there's lots of articles and then people posting about it and stuff.
I'd say 90% of those fans have never read the comic.
A lot of them are calling TWD, "My new Lost". I never watched Lost. So, those that watched LOST, my question is: Is TWD the new LOST? If so, what makes it the new LOST?
(an EW aside: One of the EW writers called Adlard AdLER. I posted: "I hate to go all comic-book geek on your butt, but his last name is AdlARD." I got a e-mail response thanking me for catching the error; I responded back that I love EW and love that EW loves TWD.
quote:Originally posted by ML LASH: A lot of them are calling TWD, "My new Lost". I never watched Lost. So, those that watched LOST, my question is: Is TWD the new LOST? If so, what makes it the new LOST?
I'd say the thing about TWD most reminiscent of Lost at this point is occurring in these last two episodes with the CDC. The scenes of the scientist alone in there reminded me somewhat of similar stuff done in Losts's hatch.
If TWD decides to make the show largely gravitate around the mystery of what happened with the outbreak, then it would feel a lot more like Lost. Obviously, the comic has rarely lingered much on that aspect and has always been much more about survival in such an apocalyptic scenario along with the social implications. I hope the TV series sticks to that and that the CDC stuff doesn't shape the series into that kind of show. I love Lost, but I'm not looking for something that tries to ape it. I honestly don't think that TWD will be doing that.
To me, though, calling TWD "my new Lost" is more about how it potentially is the next show to inspire a huge cult following and of it being another high-quality show with a sci-fi bent. I suspect that is more what the posters meant by that comparison.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ML LASH: (an EW aside: One of the EW writers called Adlard AdLER. I posted: "I hate to go all comic-book geek on your butt, but his last name is AdlARD." I got a e-mail response thanking me for catching the error; I responded back that I love EW and love that EW loves TWD.
NEVER forget the LARD!!!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kirkman himself recaps every episode over there, and he did seem to prefer to want to keep the focus on the people fighting to survive and not the WHYS of it all.
He also stated that the comic will ALWAYS be the road the TV show travels, with the ocassional off-road excursion.
He also seriously laments not being able to go back in time and insert Darryl into the comic, something I (am surprised that I) find myself agreeing with.
posted
I absolutely LOVED Darryls expression when when Carol was taking care of her half eaten husband...over and over. You just know it's messed up when he looks at you like you're nuts.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, a few complaints from me (why am I always the stinker?):
Spoilers from the book follow:
Click Here For A SpoilerI'm a bit of a purist so I don't like the detours from the book (hate the Lord of the Rings films too BTW), but I'm living with that barring a few exceptions:
It seems that some of the stuff they are changing is so they can play it safe.
They seem to be diverging form the Shane death, mostly because they don't want to put a gun in a kid's hand and deal with that. Imagine the flak they'd get from groups of all political stripes for having a ten year old killing with a gun, even on cable? But it's still an important and serious part of the book and marks Carl's development.
The polygamist relationship has been dropped, though a bit of a Andrea/Dale bond formed here. That was another important indicator that societal "norms" were out the window, it was strange to just drop it.
From: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dave, regarding the "polygamist relationship" being dropped, to this point there has never been one portrayed in TWD. If you're referring to Dale, Amy and Andrea, there was never any polygamy involved there. Dale simply took the two under his wing and they stayed in his RV. There was never any sex or romantic elements in there until after Amy died when Dale and Andrea began having sex during their stay at Wilshire Estates. From that point on, Dale and Andrea were a couple.
It's true that Donna thought there was something going on among the three at the campsight, but Kirkman clarified that that was just her spin on it, especially as he made such a big deal of their consummation scene.
If you're referring to Carol wanting to have a polygamous relationship with Rick and Lori, that happened during the prison era. Still, Lori and Rick never went along with it, which helped lead Carol to her suicide (along with other factors).
I agree that polygamy would be a natural theme to explore during the TWD story, but so far the series has had none to adapt from the source material.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Iam Legion: I love the Comic series. I like the TV series a lot. However if ____ does not die (and within the first 2 episodes of the second season) and die at the hand of _____, then I will stop watching the show. That part of the story is nescesary.
Click Here For A SpoilerI agree that Shane's death shouldn't be altered, but I've nothing against the show exploring things at more length and depth than it was in the comic. At this point I have no solid reason to doubt that Shane will eventually die by Carl's hand. The show is slowly setting up for a confrontation to be sure. I doubt I would drop the show if his fate is different, but I'd be disappointed.
"they basically rejected the use of metaphor subtext and satire in the story, as if deeper thinking and layering in storytelling was a bad thing."
I think there is a big assumption on his part here. I took their stance to mean that they were not trying to make a "Dawn of the Dead" consumerism type analogy witht heir story...not that they were not going to have deeper thinking and layering.
I see a lot of different thing happening in the first 6 episodes. I also think that the writer is not taking into account that they had no idea that they would get a second season until well after the shooting for the first season wrapped. Sure they hoped, and probably set up some things tho carry forward...but there were no guarentees. They needed to capture the audience instead of worrying about having a subtextual gimmick.
It seems to me that the writer does not really get what they are trying to do here. They are doing a show based on a comic that is about how people survive in the world that is overrunby a nightmare. This isn;t a hour and a half movie that can be wrapped up in a nice neat bow with a wink and a nod to the camera at the end to say "look, did you see what I did there...I made a statement against such and such. That was not Kirkmans goal for this book, and now series.
The story is about the humancondition and how fragile it is given the right circumstances.
Comparing a television show (even the comic) to movies is not a good benchmark for his argument. Let's see the original Dawn of the Dead (and let it be known that I love that movie) last another 4 - 4 1/2 hours and sustain it's consumerism undertones. Not going to happen without people getting annoyed that you are beating them over the head with it. Television shows have to be fluid moving things.
He had a lot of interesting things to say, I just do not think he thought it through...but that's just my opinion.
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Iam Legion: I love the Comic series. I like the TV series a lot. However if ..... does not die (and within the first 2 episodes of the second season) and die at the hand of .... defending ..... , then I will stop watching the show. That part of the story is nescesary. If they don't do it then the show will end up as butchered as the 'Harry Potter' films with most of the heart and soul carved from it.
Click Here For A SpoilerI think Shane will die sometime n the second season...and it will be extremely similiar to the book. However, if it happens at the end of the season...as long as good stories continue to flow...I'm not gonna mind. They're building tension, the best way they see to do it for television.
[ December 04, 2010, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Dev Em ]
From: Turn around... | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
