I've changed my mind...
Originally, I thought "Oh, a zombie game. How original... Pass", but now ive found a friend who was kind enough to lend me his copies, and its not really about zombies, its about human spirit in a world of death. Or from what I can tell, anyway. I'm only up to issue 3 so far, plan to read more tonight.
Anyway, I hope Telltale does this as well as they've done past comic book adaptations! Also fables!
Anyway, I hope Telltale does this as well as they've done past comic book adaptations! Also fables!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Everyone else died due to their sense of sanity.
Im actually having a hard time remembering those that died due to the zombies, I remember one character dies about maybe the 7th comic in, but I forget who. She was barely important anyway.
I actually just read Comic 61 and that had the most shocking death of all.
They even take note that the zombies arent showing up because "they are letting us deal with out own problems"
Why am I the ONLY one not finding this that original or interesting?
Ecclesiastes 1:9 (New International Version, ©2011)
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Your sentiment itself is nothing inherently new. There is nothing new per say, but how it is portrayed and delivered gives each its own inherent value. Humor of a genre is never new, but how it is delivered can make me laugh time and again.
Read the books.
It's like someone who doesn't particularly care for seafood stepping into a fish section of the a market and expressing to everyone how they just don't care about their catches and how he'd rather go to the butcher section. No one's keeping him there and there's a butcher a few feet away.
Want me to be real honest? Fish sucks, alright? It smells. It has a skeletal structure so weird you can't pick it up all before you eat it, and when you eat the fish its bones just pierce through the flesh in your mouth. It doesn't taste nice, it doesn't smell nice, it doesn't look nice, plus I'm allergic to fish if I eat it alongside ketchup. Still... PEOPLE LIKE FISH. I can't believe that! On top of that, it's considered meat (which is why I'm expected to ally fishlovers against mainstream FPS pla-- I mean, vegeterians), which baffles me even more. And one more thing; fish sucks. I don't like veggies but you can at least use them on occasion. I can't even eat some anchovies as a side dish to my smoking ribs. It doesn't even sound nice.
Only thing I want from humanity is to stop liking fish, just eat meat or maybe even CHICKEN, so that demand can get higher and more meat can be produced to satisfy it. I'll accomplish this task of mine or I'll end up laughing my ass off to those who are displeased by my comments. This works for me well except in an online platform, especially forums, where moderating takes place
:rolleyes: Wasn't being serious.
My point was, well, I don't like the franchise and it's one thing, it varies from person to person. Likewise I don't really know what all the Star Wars fans find in their horrid, tangled mess of fiction that has a plotline only consisting of plot conveniences and randomly designed muppets making annoying sounds in every scene. I'm okay with that. I however wouldn't call Star Wars creative, or The Walking Dead an interesting mixture of a zombie story and a survival drama. And well, I believe "it's uninteresting, because..." is a good comeback to, well, "it's interesting", which is in the content of the post I first quoted. I'm sorry if I was being redundant by saying it over and over here but, the argument was kinda about that, not The Walking Dead in every aspects.
And Star Wars IS creative. Find me another mixture of science fiction, Arthurian fantasy, Chanbara, and a seedy criminal underbelly with a down-to-earth rebellion plot running through the whole thing. It's hardly formulaic, and the "plot conveniences" are derived from the influences of the film. The logic is internally consistent, and nothing is truly a contrivance. After all, "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck".
I only exposed myself to the part of the franchise which did not require me to cruise through one continent to another, and by that I mean I only watched the show, which I'm aware it's not that faithful to the original material. Yet still it's not enough excuse for me to go to the Europe half of Istanbul, kick the door on the only store I know that sells imported comic books, and buy some heavily taxed comic books of that title. Or, well, download scans of it, perhaps...
I'd try, but first I'd like to know why in the hell I was looking for spesifically Chanbara in a fiction. Plus I'm mainly talking about the original trilogy. Maybe the other three movies made a good job at delivering good fighting sequences and I'll give them that, but in the original three the real perspective was on the rebels rather than the last Jedi of the universe, who happened to fight in a pretty pansy-like fashion, waving around lampshades and all. And you know what, it's the number one thing that bothered me in the movies. I don't mean it like "where are the awesome duels, man?", given the technology and the safety of actors I guess they couldn't do much of a thing anyway, but the philosophy of the Jedi and the force (ESPECIALLY the force) which was shoved into our faces, telling us what's good and what's evil without giving any reasoning behind such ethics. Okay so, Emperor is bad alright? He's dominating the galaxy with the power to kill in massive amounts. That's an evil thing to do I guess, although we haven't seen the usage of this power against anything other than the rebellion itself that has a beef with it, but it's just something to be resolved in the movies that comes later anyway, so can't bitch about it yet. Then suddenly, there comes the talk about "dark side of the force" and its much more conservative and less hot sister, uhh, the other side of it; and it goes on there, pointing out bland VAUGENESS about the differences between the sides and how the main protagonist should be wary of the dark side's power. So I guess Sith has better mind trick powers, maybe, but it's only puppet mastery rather than a real "decision". You don't choose it, you're forced to choose it, and the irony will bite you somehow here and there. How does being angry at one point can turn you evil, make you willing to betray your friends and rule the universe? If the willingness of evil really comes from the puppet mastery of the Emperor, won't killing him solve the situation? Then why did he say his presence was unimportant and evil will continue to carry on even if Luke killed him? Then it's not just a simple, powerful mind trick of Emperor. It ends up in the individual and it's his decision. Can't good just be angry? Why not, it's in their rights? "I'm angry at you, I'm trying to kill you, but it's force, so... I'm turning into one of you". The only force I see there is the pushing of the vague meaning of that "force" and how it's put there to fill the plotholes with crap. And Vader just decides on shit, then suddenly becomes good again in a minute, as if he was THAT evil. He only did three evil things; sucking Emperor's wrinkly dick, carbonite-izing Han Solo which didn't KILL HIM ANYWAY, and sissy lightsaber nudging with his son (and, well, slicing his hand off). And then movie not only redeems Vader, now Anakin, good again, but actually introduces him as a completely different person than its dark counterpart. Why? Does force have such a sense of humor so that turns Jedi to each other by randomly selecting people "you, try dominating the galaxy, you, go against him" without much reasoning (at least not "enough" reasoning anyway, since that reasoning + all the things he and Emperor planned, built and worked on was outweighted on the scale instantly by Emperor doing the electric boogaloo on Luke) other than "well, it's dark, so you do evil"? It does not add up. Vader may have his own other reasons but why should Luke bow down to evil, by destroying evil but destroying it while being angry? IT DOES NOT ADD UP. I had to watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit after that trilogy to regain my metasanity. And it's just ONE thing I'm bitching about. I have many, and I already produced a huge fucking rant which is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the topic. Do not do that again, thank you.
The Senate is dissolved, removing the personal representation in government that the planets had(this is not a minor point in the first film either, it's quite important). The Death Star is tested against a whole planet's worth of people just to get rid of one person. The Death Star itself is meant to be a weapon so terrible that all people will have to obey the Empire out of fear that the weapon might be turned against them. The Storm Troopers don't mind wiping out the Jawa Sandcrawler or Luke's aunt and uncle. The Empire is consistently shown actively doing things that is inherently bad. Our focus is generally on the rebellion, but it's not like we are never shown any reason for the Empire being bad guys. Hell, the Empire spends their entire screentime on this goal.
The Force, and the Jedi/Sith religions as a whole, take a lot from eastern religions like Taoism and Zen Buddhism. The Jedi believe that the path to enlightenment involves peace of mind, patience, and knowledge. Things like fear, anger, and aggression cloud the mind.
The "Dark Side" is not a trick, or some act of puppetry. It's the quick and easy path to raw power, but it only leads to a violent cycle. It's seductive because it gives a thrill, it gives the feeling that you've gained so much strength due to the outward aggressiveness of it, and the ease and speed of advancement. But without wisdom, knowledge, patience, and peace, an aggressive path leaves you as an aggressive person with clouded judgement.
He "helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights". That means turning against the order that raised him, and killing them all. He killed his former mentor. He killed his own men for their failure, even when they did the honorable thing and took the blame voluntarily. He sent men into obviously dangerous situations because he saw his soldiers as expendable in the grand scheme of his overall plot, in comparison to the Rebels who cared about their own. This was obviously horrifying, even by Imperial standards. He approved of and aided in torture as a means of interrogation. He was willing to kill off Leia until he realized she could be used as bait for Obi-Wan. He tried to take over the galaxy, and rule it with an iron fist. He tested the cryogenic freezing tube on Han Solo because he DIDN'T know if it would kill a human, and thought of Han's life as being entirely expendable next to the importance of finding out of the thing could transport a live Luke to the Emperor.
You're watching the Special Edition cut that replaces the original actor ghost with the Prequel edition ghost. It's a stupid change that is almost universally panned.
This whole bit doesn't make grammatical sense, but I'm going to try to make sense of it. You seem to think that Vader destroyed the Emperor in anger, but that's simply not the case. If Luke had struck down the Emperor in rage, he himself would be tainted by the aggressive nature of the Dark Side. What Vader did, on the other hand, was redeem himself by protecting and defending his son, as an act of love and redemption, rather than one of anger. Luke could not have defeated the Emperor. For him, it would have been revenge.
Some other day, some other time Dashing.
And I only knew of this series since Feburary:D
I'm definetly going to look into reading it.
So for those who are hating on it because of 'ugh, zombies', I gave it a chance, and it was definetly worth it.
Yes, but TellTale's voice acting is better than Fall Out by leaps and bounds. ;-)
Sushi lover. ;-) Ate yellow tail nigiri just earlier and I've got three different sushi rolls with Eel, crab, shrimp, and other "meats" in them in the fridge right now.
Seriously though, from what I've seen in America chicken and beef or spades more popular than fish. You ever see a whole franchise chain of fast-food fish restaurants other than Long John Silvers? And even LJS is in the same building almost always with Kentucky Fried Chicken. It's like they can't sell enough fish to justify having their own building. I've NEVER seen a Long John Silvers in it's own building! Okay, Tacobell was a long time monopoly it seemed but I know of two other fast food taco franchises now - Moe's Burritos (I think is the name) and now Hardees is partnering with Red Burrito or whatever it's called to offer an entire Taco/Burrito/Nacho/etc line of food products on their menu. But fish? I'm not seeing it. Maybe you have.
It's really just all about personal taste and opinion. Nothing really worth arguing about. :-)
Don't forget the samurai influences via unarmored sword weilders in robes! :-) No kidding, George Lucas said in an interview he was inspired to add some things to his baby by the black and white Akira Kurasawa films such as 7 Samurai.
I did read some of the comics. It made me squeemish, lol. I'm more of an Army of Darkness fan.
Character-driven zombie fiction isn't new. The exclamation that zombie fiction is dumb comes off like the viewpoint of someone who has never watched a zombie film before.
Kirkman loves zombie movies, and doesn't see his own work as a departure. His is very well done, but honestly? On the whole, the big difference between The Walking Dead and any given zombie film is that The Walking Dead doesn't end.
And that's great. It means that it can go, with the same universe and a continuous cast, through all the tropes of all the different zombie films and toss some stuff in that wasn't there before; e.g. the "herd" concept that has popped up recently in the comic. That concept is new, but it goes along with the same logic as the movies that Kirkman loves.
We have to realize that Kirkman did not want to reinvent the zombified wheel. His research for the show involved immersing himself in zombie media, and it shows. There is no reason, absolutely none, that you should dislike the Romero zombie movies if you like The Walking Dead. Day of the Dead is an especially good place to look, as it is Kirkman's favorite zombie film and greatest influence.
Romero's movies are by no means "dumb", and they're hardly obscure(they're the fucking CORNERSTONE of the genre), so I don't know where this idea comes from. When talking about Day of the Dead, Romero said:
That's about a film in 1985, which was hardly the first zombie picture to include social commentary or focus on a strongly human element. Essentially, The Walking Dead is "just a zombie story", done extremely well, and with all the bonuses(and detriments) of being a story that doesn't ever end. And zombie stories have not really been done serially before, so it's definitely quite a treat to see the genre ported to this new format.
I also got my mom involved in the show, and she hates zombie movies with a passion. It took me a long time to even get her to agree to watch it, but after I did, it was her idea for us to watch episode two.
I take Zombies as passive Nihilists and "survivors" as yet-to-become active nihilists ... it's like Nietzsche said, there is hope for us to escape the upcoming nihilism era (zombie apocalypse) but the task of escaping it is very hard, and that's what our "survivors" are doing, thought they didn't create the 'virus" that makes people nihilists (zombies) ... I like to see the government ending up being the original creators of the zombi-fier virus ... or better, I like to see one of the survivors being the creator of the virus! ... (I've just read 3 issues of the comics, don't spoil anything for me please ...)
Sorry Telltale, I'll give my money to Double Fine Adventure project...
...Tim made a monster game recently which he pitched to Cookie Monster as a zombie game. Who knows, he might make a zombie 2D adventure game next sponsored by you...
What? It's possible!!