AMC's The Walking Dead Season 1 Discussion & Spoilers

[the G-man]

PsychoPere wrote:

---

That depends on what you mean by "slavishly." Darabont and Hurd have consistently stated that the comic series provides the roadmap that the television series will travel, and that the tv series will take some logical detours off of that path but will always return to the path of the comics.

Shane's current fate and the CDC sequence already demonstrate they aren't slavishly following the comics.

[PsychoPere]

the G-man wrote:

---

Shane's current fate and the CDC sequence already demonstrate they aren't slavishly following the comics.

I don't think it shows anything more than what Darabont, Hurd, and Kirkman have said to expect: same roadmap, with detours. That's really all that either of those situations is. I expect Shane will ultimately die in the same manner as he did in the comics, and the CDC detour was exactly that - a perfect example of the "detour" phrase the producers keep using.

It comes down to a semantic matter of degrees, I suppose. It should be self-evident, from before the series even premiered, that The Walking Dead on AMC as a long-form adaptation was never going to, in a literal sense, "slavishly" adapt The Walking Dead published by Image Comics. It does not, however, follow from that obvious fact that the series is going to divert in a major way from the comics plotlines, and the producers have stated the exact opposite stance anyways.

[McCoy]

I wonder if they'll have Rick descend on TV the way he has in the comic though. He gets pretty dark and amoral, for the "hero" of the series.

[PsychoPere]

I only have clear recollections (or relatively clear, at least) through issue #49, but I really hope so. From what I've heard of Breaking Bad post-season one (which is the only season I've seen so far), Bryan Cranston's character is pretty much considered irredeemable, and we've had other nicely dark and amoral characters on cable as well (Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey, etc.). From their track record so far, I don't think AMC would be too concerned about shying away from that sort of characterization, so I'd be interested in seeing how Darabont and company could pull it off.

Speaking of the issues, I recently borrowed two hardcovers from a friend in order to work on getting caught up. I have books five and six, so I'll get up to issue #72 through these, then get fully caught up with single issues.

[Temis the Vorta]

McCoy wrote:

---

I wonder if they'll have Rick descend on TV the way he has in the comic though. He gets pretty dark and amoral, for the "hero" of the series.

I like Rick as the "sheriff" type morally upright character. Since they've kept Shane in the story, they can offload the dark stuff onto him. Shane should be the guy who yells at Rick that they need to do something nasty to survive, and then is the guy to do it, behind Rick's back if necessary.

This allows Rick to keep his leadership standing and maintain the group's morale. If Shane does something bad for the benefit of the group, it's not as damaging as if Rick did the same thing. They need a good guy to look up to. As time goes by, both Rick and Shane realize that this unsettling arrangement is for the best. I think both actors will do very well with that division of labor.

[sidious618]

PsychoPere wrote:

---

I only have clear recollections (or relatively clear, at least) through issue #49, but I really hope so. From what I've heard of Breaking Bad post-season one (which is the only season I've seen so far)

I'm going to have to stop you right there and order you to pick up the second season at once! It's my favorite show that still airs new episodes.

[JD]

Ok, I know this a major spoiler, but what is it that happens to Shane that you guys keep talking about?

[PsychoPere]

sidious618 wrote:

---

I'm going to have to stop you right there and order you to pick up the second season at once! It's my favorite show that still airs new episodes. It was similar to the scene with Shane and Rick in season one that Dale walked in on, except more intense and wasn't simply interrupted.

I plan on getting caught up at some point, but I'm currently unemployed, so it's going to be a while, unfortunately.

JD wrote:

---

Ok, I know this a major spoiler, but what is it that happens to Shane that you guys keep talking about?

In the comics, Shane died in issue #5. He and Rick were in the woods near the camp and started arguing, and Shane pulled his gun on Rick. He was preparing to pull the trigger when he was shot in the neck - by Carl.

[Alpha Romeo]

Just scored the Compendium # 1 for christmas. Already a quarter way in. How far will that get me issue wise?

[PsychoPere]

Compendium Volume 1 contains the first 48 issues, out of a current 79. There won't be another compendium volume until the series reaches 96 issues, of course.

If you don't think you can wait that long (and, trust me, it will be difficult!), check out this post where I outlined the other collected edition options.

[scnj]

Alpha Romeo wrote:

---

Just scored the Compendium # 1 for christmas. Already a quarter way in. How far will that get me issue wise?

The Compendium is 1-48 plus a small Christmas story. That's up to the end of volume 8.

[the G-man]

PsychoPere wrote:

---

I don't think it shows anything more than what Darabont, Hurd, and Kirkman have said to expect: same roadmap, with detours. That's really all that either of those situations is. I expect Shane will ultimately die in the same manner as he did in the comics, and the CDC detour was exactly that - a perfect example of the "detour" phrase the producers keep using.

It comes down to a semantic matter of degrees, I suppose. It should be self-evident, from before the series even premiered, that The Walking Dead on AMC as a long-form adaptation was never going to, in a literal sense, "slavishly" adapt The Walking Dead published by Image Comics.

So you agree with me. Got it.

[McCoy]

Temis the Red-Nosed Vorta wrote:

---

I like Rick as the "sheriff" type morally upright character. Since they've kept Shane in the story, they can offload the dark stuff onto him. Shane should be the guy who yells at Rick that they need to do something nasty to survive, and then is the guy to do it, behind Rick's back if necessary.

This allows Rick to keep his leadership standing and maintain the group's morale. If Shane does something bad for the benefit of the group, it's not as damaging as if Rick did the same thing. They need a good guy to look up to. As time goes by, both Rick and Shane realize that this unsettling arrangement is for the best. I think both actors will do very well with that division of labor.

They could do that, and they might, but it's a "safe" choice. Rick does some pretty dark things, and sometimes loses the group's confidence, but so far he's not disappeared completely and he gets the confidence back. Plus the members of the group are constantly changing anyway, as people die and new ones are encountered.

[Morpheus 02]

McCoy wrote:

---

They could do that, and they might, but it's a "safe" choice. Rick does some pretty dark things, and sometimes loses the group's confidence, but so far he's not disappeared completely and he gets the confidence back. Plus the members of the group are constantly changing anyway, as people die and new ones are encountered.

But the base TV audience will remain the same...and how many of us might bail if RIck consistently gets too dark? i think i might. i am not expecting 100% success or infallibility...but at least some hope in the midst of despair.

Rick expressed admiration for G's leadership in "Vatos", and it would be a shame if Rick completely turned away without coming back.

[RJDiogenes]

The thing I liked about Walking Dead is that it was written for adults. If they turn it into yet another adolescent nihilism-fest, that'll be it for me.