BafflingBeerMan

Oh, I am sure

But for a one-to-one comparison, these six episodes are better than Vol. 1. In my opinion, of course. But that's because TV allows for more breathing room and is a bit more dynamic. As you said, Vol. 1 is an introduction, so it rushes through a lot of things that I think are important. That, though, may be due to watching the show and feeling certain events should have more weight in the comic.

I will write up my thoughts when I am done with all 6 volumes, but I agree, somewhat. It is nice to see Scott and Ramona interact a lot more in the comic (though that has its own set of problems). Though I do like the (somewhat limited) characterization of Kim Pine in the movies over what I am reading. Then again, I love cynical girls.

Also, the fights in the movie are a lot better than in the book. Again, probably do to the more dynamic possibilities live-action allows for me.

That being said, I am enjoying reading both.

Having just finished Vol. 1, comic-Rick is, overall, a lot less forceful than TV-Rick. Not that comic-Rick is passive, but he seems less a solo leader in the first volume than a part of a council of elders, as it were, with at least Shane. Comic-Rick is somewhat fine with voicing his opinion, loudly, as to what he thinks he should so, but doesn't force anyone else to really follow along.



SPOILERS












Comic-Rick drags along only Glenn to return to the city.

He also argues with, but never advances past that point in the conversation, Shane about relocating.








It is obvious that TV-Rick is supposed to be the leader of the group while it seems, so far, that comic-Rick will, at most, be the reluctant leader. Now, that will certainly change in the next volumes, considering the climax of Vol. 1. Mind you, I think the adaptation of Vol. 1 so far surpasses the actual volume one, which is full of rushed plot points, so-so dialogue and flimsy characterization.

It would, at least on the surface, allow for some more standalone, or more varied writing, since Darabont would be bringing in outsiders/freelancers, which may be a good thing.

Actually, that was another silver-haired actor who was once known for his more seirous roles: Lloyd Bridges (father of Beau and Jeff).

Leslie was the president in the later Scary Movies.

Based on the previews for next week, I bet we get some backstory for the CDC.

I think he, as a member of the CDC, may feel guilty about the spread of the zombie plague and the appearance of other people just throws that into sharper relief. He was complaining about feeling isolated, but maybe he likes to feel isolated, rather than stare the guilt of being a survivor in the face. Survivor's guilt, y'know?

Gotta love suicidal guys in underground bunkers who find the will the live when others show up and proceeds to switch on a light

You don't remember Hugh Jackman hosting two years ago?

He was pretty good (and, in fact, pulled Hathaway on stage to sing briefly in the opening number), but then again, Jackman is a huge theater man, so he has experience playing it to the backrows and would seem a more natural fit then more straight ahead actors.

I am sure there will be idiots in any group. But I think just like now, people need and will tolerate some idiocy as long as the overall safety and well-being isn't threatened. These people who do idiotic stuff often provide other benefits that their (hopefully temporary) idiocy can excuse

Take the example of Andrea and Amy last night. Andrea should have put a bullet in Amy's head ASAP and everyone knew it. But they let her have her moment (or idiocy, if you are thinking it that way). Why? In part because she had a gun. Can you imagine what would have happened if Daryl had crossbowed Amy from a distance? I am sure Andrea would have turned around a fired wildly at him, endangering the rest of the group. I also think that between Laurie's conversation with Rick and Andrea's use of a gun, she is a valuable "commodity" in that she is another body that can defend the group at large.

Or, in the case of Jim, waiting to make a decision was somewhat idiotic, but was also in part to insure the safety of the group in the future. How so, you might ask. While Jim was obviously bitten, they waited to see what his condition was. Could you imagine what it would imply if he was shot as soon as the bite was discovered? It would mean that anytime someone was injured by what may have been a zombie attack they would have to be killed. If Rick went into the woods and got scratched by a tree limb and fired his gun at a bunny, but missed and he came back, what would happen? Would people notice the scratch, remember hearing the gunshot, and think Rick was attacked by a zombie and kill him? Even if he insisted he wasn't? I think that's what Rick (and the show) was trying to say with the Jim situation: the line can constantly change especially in a situation where fear is the primary motivator.

Zombie tales, and apocalyptic stories in general, tend to show that all idiocy leads to danger and death for dramatic reasons, but I am not sure that is the case in real life. We have the Darwin Awards, sure, but I think the real dangerous idiocy comes from complacency. When we are too used to living in times when nothing can possibly harm us. In an apocalpyse-scenario, we will have lapses of judgement that could lead to danger, but, alas, that could happen to anyone. From the suicidal guy who just can't take it anymore and runs into a horde or strong-willed leader who hasn't gotten a lot of sleep lately and won't allow for a moment of rest, lest something bad happens (which, according to fiction, insures something will happen). You are as likely to have that lapse as is Person X. That's why there needs to be some leeway, I think.

You also have to remember, if an apocalyptic event happens suddenly or irrationally, like a zombie outbreak, a lot, a lot of people are going to be in shock. It is easy for all of us to watch TDW and say "Oh, we'd do this or prevent that" because we are witnessing events from afar, emotionally removed from that universe. Add in the shock of actually living these sorts of events and we go back to letting raw emotion guide us and leading to those lapse of judgements.

Actually, I think that would make a good zombie flick: a nerd (like us) being the natural leader due to his or her immersion into zombie pop culture and immediately recognizing that head shots work, what tropes to avoid, etc. Could be done in the style of Shaun of the Dead, tongue-in-cheek.

Between these boards and the comments section of The A/V Club, I can't keep straight where I get the smart insights and where I pass them off as my own

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWMMMMM