Billy Crystals @ November 4, 2010 12:22 AM
Originally posted by: Kermit ButtsOriginally posted by: VISIONARY
Those ratings have got to be based on the size of the audience tuning in right? There's no way that can be based on quality considering what shows have the top spots
Its concerning to me that this question had to be asked.
Originally posted by: LastOnePicked
WREN @ November 7, 2010 12:52 PM
Originally posted by: adam.
i'm always wary of tv shows based on action, just because the production and effects value is almost uniformly terrible. you can't keep up good effects with a tv budget, but the reaction sounds good, so maybe it won't look like a semi-polished turd.
The comic series is more based on drama rather than action. Not that it doesn't have action or anything.
This is about as good as it gets with zombie stories. For the longest time I thought the Holy Grail of zombies was Romero's original Dead trilogy. They were the pinnacle of zombie stories in my opinion, then I was introduced to the Walking Dead. This is such an indepth story now that it's retarded. What's most striking is that no characters are off limits. You really never know who is going to live or die and sometimes they happen in the most quick second scenario it's incredible. Robert Kirkman even said that he's not sure if Rick (the main character) is safe.
And for the timeline....28 Days Later came out in November 2002 and the first issue of the Walking Dead was October 2003.
I personally don't care about that little similarity about the main character waking up after the disaster happened. The stories have gone in such a completely different direction that comparing them is silly.
Quick Reply - RE: The Walking Dead thread
Your ad here?