View Single Post
11-02-2010, 05:06 PM
the word*
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: rearranging atoms
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,960
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Agreed here. I like slow moving plot development. Not because I need more time to "get it" but that it creates more atmosphere and I prefer to feel it. Soak it in. Takes us more to the place. I like as well that they didn't fill us with meaningless details of the personal lives. But enough for the plot to make sense.
So in short the long takes exploring the surrounds and lay of the land is what makes it interesting imo. The first person shoot em up thing gets old fast and something I can see anywhere.

I would've preferred for there not to be zombies in the hospital and bodies all around the hospital and a bit more time spent before the protagonist starts figuring it out and being exposed more gradually to the riddle of what is going on. That could have been more fascinating.

One thing I was curious about as far as plot was the protagonist had already seen weird crawling corpse bicycle girl by the time he met the son and his father. Why at that point was he so incredulous about the story? The zombies. One would think some details might have been filled in by then for him.

But then again perhaps in the walking dead world zombie movies never existed..

I'm sure theres an interesting chicken or egg byline there somewhere.
That's an ongoing development in the genre as a whole. I mean sooner or later someone has to see the first tell tale signs of the dead walking and say, damnnn, zombies...

The first person perspective worked in 'Quarantine.' Difficult to suspend the rules of disbelief in the first person, but that closing scene was creeeeepy. Jennifer Carpenter is the cool.

I wonder if 'The Walking Dead' was meant to go head to head with 'Dexter'? If so, tall order.

the word* is offline   Reply With Quote