Well, it was recommended on the board, and I was looking for something to buy, so I picked up Walking Dead, as it was cheap.
What did I think... (may well contain spoilers)
Well, it was a bit 'hmmm...'
In the introduction it claimed to have more in common with Romero's movies than the splatterfest ones, and I'm not so sure. I think the remake of Dawn beat this into a cocked hat on all fronts, never mind the original.
Not much happened, the start of the book was the same as 28 days later, a certain plot set up is resolved really quickly, and in my opinion hugely fucking coincidentally (millions of people and he finds the ones he wanted in a group of TEN survivors).
It's over emotional in all the wrong places, the guy cries so often he must have a hormone imbalance, slightly cringeworthy in this and the general gung-ho-edness.
I found the thought of seven year olds being armed with guns and killing people as well as zombies very distasteful. Yeah so they look a bit sad when the kid kills someone, but fucking hell, this is gun nut whacko philosophy here. 'oh, if he does something bad with the gun, we'll take it off him' Bloody hell! And no, killing a man doesn't count, he was bad you see (bad in several ways really, when he goes onto his rant at the end, I would have happily shot him).
On the plus side, nice art, often too 'jokey and fun' for my liking but very nice. There were a few nice characters, I liked the old man with the camper. But nothing really meaty in the relationships. Basically it's not bad, I just expect a lot more.
I've tried 3 american books recomended to me in the last year or two. Hellboy, Y the last man, and now walking dead. I have to say, they really all do come across as pretty lightweight pieces of entertainment. Fluff, for want of a better term. I think I'm better off not bothering with american comic books, they really just don't give me what I want. Very dissapointing.
I'll be flogging this back off at bristol I reckon ;)
Avoid the GN of 'Dawn of the Dead'. Its a load of poorly drawn crap.
...and once again, in defence of Hellboy ;-)
HB is pure pulp: Kirby meets Nazi superfiends and world mythology. It's a very personal book to Mignola, but I don't believe it is - or is intended to be - anything more than an entertaining diversion. If you go looking for something more than that in the book, you're not going to find it.
I found this book to be much stronger than the review above. Yeah, so he finds the people he's after in a convinient way, but the explantion doesn't seem that forced.
There is some great imagery, like the full page spread of zombies all over a tank and filling the entire street.
While I've not been able to get hold of it regularly, the later issues have built on the premise and it looks like it will be long running. No usual end of zombie film "what happens now?" stuff. The author has promised we will follow the hero all the way through. He has recommended jumping off at about issue 70 or so as that's when he thinks he'll run out of zombie ideas and have aliens invade.
I've been enjoying the series since Adlard took over art duties, as it's got a bit more serious, and pretty damn tense as well! The characters feel a bit more relaxed and real as well.
Know what you mean about the others: I didn't rate Y at all, but Hellboy is lightweight fun - fantastic art, but not much of a story really.
Don't give up on American comics altogether though Paul, you've just got to search around a bit for the good stuff, but it is out there.
PVS
I kinda agree with u:) I do hear a lot of books recommended heartily by folks and most of em do end up being a little on the light side. Although I do enjoy them a lot more when I readjust my sensors to "do not expect earth shattering fiction" such as the Mighty Alan Moore's major works.
Dunno if this has been mentioned here yet, but I read one of the starman books recently, and that was indeed very good. It was called "grand guignol" and was a very good superduper book IMHO. Nice art too. I just ordered the other 8 books in the series to see if it all holds together.
I read Fables recently too, and that was pretty nice, tho I'm thinking these comics could do with some more compressed/dense srorytelling, as nothing seems to happen for page after page. The curse of reading 2000AD i think.
But as for US comics not giving what u want, well theres' a lot out there and I'd say that the stuff you WOULD like is most likely going to be the stuff that people WON'T reccomend, as is always the case. So I won't suggest anything:)
F
Considering all of it's ingredients, hellboy should be much more entertaining than it is. It's laregely style over substance, which, fair enough is probably what it was meant to be. I've read three collections, all very shoulder shrugging stuff.
In WD, he does say he's going to carry the story on. Whether that's to the point where it's stayed beyond it's welcome, I'm not sure. Still, it's not a great goal, just in itself. Maybe he's purposefully missed out the start of the book, and started where we normnally leave zombie movies, but I think that was a mistake.
Plus I don't give his family long, they'll be emotional zombie fodder soon enough. I bet he can't go 2 issues without a big old weep.
In six episodes all that happened was:
Man wakes up in hospital to find zombies have taken over. He returns to his house, gets some guns and goes to find his wife in atlanta. He finds her in a camp of about a dozen people, he doesn't like the camp's location, he's proved right, and his friend has an episode and tries to kill him in a jealous rage.
And er, that's it. 70 issues of this doesn't seem like hard work to me.
As for how society crumbled, well, they all were told to go to the cities, and all the people, died. Grrreat. I also think sending people to the cities (unless you intend to nuke them to remove the problem of an undead population) is a really dumb idea.
I'm sure it develops more later on, and is entertaining enough. But the promise the author sets out at the start is not fulfilled in the book I read.
Most US comics are pish, but I quite liked Walking Dead. The art was great in the first GN, and I'll have to reserve judgement on Adlard's run until I get to see the next tpb in the series, but I'd certainly recommend checking out the first one.
I believe PVS has one going spare.
Know what you mean about these stories taking a long time to get going. I tried reading a tpb of Fables, largely because I rate Mark Buckingham, but I just couldn't get into it, and wasn't sure what, ultimately, it was about.
Warren Ellis seems to suffer from this slow burning/rinsing stories. Sometimes it works (take a look at the early Planetary stories), but these days he seems to be a bit of a victim of his own successs, and he'll sometimes spend two (or even three) issues doing something that should have really been covered in half of one. Having said that, however, the most recent issue of Planetary was good, but then it does have John Cassaday on art duties.
But I think in terms of mainstream American writing, it's only Alan Moore who has an exact and masterly grasp of pacing in comics.
The problem with American comics for me is that I stopped reading superhero titles proper about ten years ago, and I just can't really motivate myself to start reading about a load of egocentric, idiotic tosspots mincing about in PVC and leather. Unless of course it's Zenith.
Having said all that, you should definitely check out Fred the Clown, by Roger Langridge, which is excellent. Although it's not actually American. Just published by Fantagraphics.
"The stuff you WOULD like is most likely going to be the stuff that people WON'T reccomend, as is always the case. So I won't suggest anything:)"
I'm sure that's true Fraze, but I buy stuff not just based upon anyone's reccomendation, more that it's a subject which really excites me to begin with and has been reccomended by someone I know, and can therefore gauge whether there's a chance I'll like it.
The ideas behind Y, Hellboy and WD, we're all in my mind more exciting than the end result. All okay, average comic books I guess.
The person who recommended the book isn't to blame, it just didn't do much for me. As I said, it's not an awful book, it's just not good enough for me to want to read more. The only books I'm tempted to borrow are the 100 bullets ones. They sound very good.
I agree on the density of story telling. I think it must be great to occasionally just enjoy the roomy space of a 24 page comic book, but really I need a bit more to it. I too blame all those 5/6 page 2000AD stories and their super dense action.
I think you might find the same problem with 100 Bullets - I did. Azarello's writing is nice, often particularly Noirish, like in The Counterfifth Detective. Risso's art is amazing, but something just doesn't seem to live up to the initial promise of it for me, and it just seems to go up it's own arse a bit, too obsessed with it's own internal chronology.
hummm well i like the walking deads pace in the first book and wilst i would aggree about it being a bit 28 day ish i liked the feel of it very creepy with the conveniant finding stuff like
that does happen long lost family members bumping in to each other in the street and such like so it could happen. as for Our Lord and Savour Mr. Moore... um... now dont all get all upset with me but... has anyone noticed his stuff getting abit... same-ie? i mean all his theams seem to be establish hero/heroin with long past (about 100 years) history so we have to find out "earlier" adventures in flash back hummm... dont kill me
One american comic I've yet to find anyone say about word about is JM Strazynski's "Rising Stars". A group of children while "in vitro" (or in the womb" are given powers by a meteor type thing. It's about how they fit into the world and how they use their powers. Book 1 starts with someone exploiting their weaknesses to start killing them. It's really good and the 3rd and fnal book should be out next year. Well worth checking out.
Please, let's stop the 28 Days Later references right now. The waking up in hospital is not like 28 Days (even tho it is) but it's like John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids. That's where the idea originated from.
As for the pacing, well that's one of the thing's I loved about WD. Guess we all just like things differently. I do get where you're coming from Paul, it's just that I do like the slower pacing, which I find develops both character and atmosphere differently to the slam, bam action of Tooth and the like. Not to say it's better, I just think it works well with WD.
As for the DotD movies. Whilst I did enjoy the new film (as far as mindless action films go) I don't think it comes even close to the Romero original, nor to Walking Dead either. Whilst a brilliant roller-coaster ride, I think it misses the social comentary that Romero's films carried (and I hope WD develops).
I do think that vol. 2 of WD is better than the first. I'm not sure all your fears will be put aside, the book *is* as much survivalist soap opera as it is horror but the story does take some unexpected (and some obvious) twists with the 2nd volume.
I personally thought that the 7 year old with a gun was a tremendous way to portray the full horror of the situation the characters find themselves in. They know he shouldn't have a gun (the mother especially) but also realise that the world is now such a dangerous place that it's a sacrifie they have to risk.
Needless to say, I love WD and i'm a little saddened that you don't (in a I wish you hadn't wasted your money way). Personally I think it's a breath of fresh air in the mainstream comics industry.
Oh well, each to there own!
Alan!
"Please, let's stop the 28 Days Later references right now. The waking up in hospital is not like 28 Days (even tho it is) but it's like John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids."
Yes, I am aware of mr Wyndham's work. But you know, that's not where he took the idea from is it? It's pretty obvious he saw 28 days later, the week before he started writing WD and copied it. Call my cynical if ye want! If I thought he was a Wyndham fan, well, maybe he'd get more credit! There's certainly no other sign of it in the book.
"As for the pacing, well that's one of the thing's I loved about WD. Guess we all just like things differently. I do get where you're coming from Paul, it's just that I do like the slower pacing, which I find develops both character and atmosphere differently to the slam, bam action of Tooth and the like."
Ah, now I wasn't asking for wham bam action in it. In fact I thought there was a lot of wham bam action in it, despite the authors protestations. What I was actually complaining about was the lack of anything happening, including character development. I'm a (terry nation's) Survivors fan, I love my post-apocalyptic personal drama, so that's not the reason I didn't like it.
In the camp there was a man who was traumatised by what he'd seen, a jealous friend, an old guy (actually my favourite 'character'), a far right christian, and well, a few other people. There isn't much that happened between them to write up is there in six issues? Bar the slightly bonkers homicidal friend. I thought at least we'd have some scary Straw Dogs hunting scene tension. Er, nope. An embarressing rant and a threat to kill resolved by a 7 year old NRA member dispensing street justice.
I also think there's flip all chance of any social comemntary coming in, there hasn't been any so far, apart from the gun nut philosophy. I still don't think any seven year olds making choices to kill real living people is something we want to be encouraging! And I can't imagine a more stupid, dangerous thing to do bar giving me a semi-automatic and a license to kill.
Who here really thinks that's a good idea and wouldn't end badly?
To be fair on the author he claims to have not read Day of the Triffids nor seen 28 Days Later at the time the book was written. Is he telling the truth? Who knows?!
I think the develpoment will come, but it may take a while. Kirkman's aim is to show "what happened next" in regards to the zombie genre. Whether he succeeds or not, well... we'll just have to wait and see.
Nothing happened? I dunno, I disagree with that. I think a lot happened, the whole thing took place over a few days (apart from the pre-hospital bit) and saw the end of the world as we know it, the lead character finding himself emerged in this new reality, finding his family and facing the consequences of this new frighteneing world. Remember this is essentially just episode one. It's only the "origin" story and there's a long way to go yet!
Same with character development. In just one episode we've seen the character go from being a smalltown cop that's never fired his gun before to a man that's had to change his whole outlook on life. Who's world has been turned upside down, and whose friendships and relationships to his loved ones is put into question, and the way he's had to adapt and learn very quickly to survive this new world. He's come from being a quiet, decent, "backseat" kinda guy and had leadership and responsiblilty he doesn't really want thrust upon him. The guy at the end of the book is a different person to the one who drew his gun on page 1.
As for the "seven year olds making choices to kill real living people " comment. Well he isn't is he? He's making the choice to protect himself from walking dead people that will eat him if they get close enough. This is the (only) social commentary so far, true... that the ideals and morals of our society cannot be maintained in this new world... or can they?
I do think you're seeing something that isn't there regarding giving the child a gun. There is no license to kill. It's pure protection, and agaist people that are already dead, not "real living people"!
Maybe things will end badly, but I do know that if I were in the same situatiion, I would want my loved ones protected. Maybe it will prove to be a wrong move, but I can understand the motives of the character, and it's not like they have just given him a gun and said "point that wherever you like!. They have introduced a training regime into the equation.
Like I said, i've read another half a dozen episodes from here and there is more to come, both regarding the changes in the world but also the changes in the outlook of the characters involved and the hard decisions they have to make in the face of this new, horrific world they've found themselves in.
I'm not saying you should like it Paul, I genuinely mean it when I say each to there own, but I do disagree with some of your reasons for not doing so.
Alan!
I don't think we're going to agree over whether it's morally responsible to train a seven year old to kill. That is effectively what happened, the kid has killed already, and I don't think he was equipped to make that decision. I also think it's very unrealistic, but hey, that's a different point.
As for what we saw in the strip, one thing we didn't see was the end of the world as we know it. We skipped that bit.
As for being a backseat guy, well the first time we meet him, he's just decided to make a break for it to get the drop on a gun man. he wasn't ordered to do that, he just did it. He also came right out and criticised the plans his friend had made. I mean, this guy really does want to be in charge from the start. We never saw the character he claimed to be, this backseat do as you please guy. I don't think he is much of a different person at the end. He's been through some experiences, but he's still the same person.
This is my problem, much of what you say is what the author says in his introduction. I happen to think that much of that isn't true. It really isn't what it says on the tin.
I'm willing to believe he's never seen the movies, but think most people have seen some of The Day of the Triffids. But you don't have to have seen the film to have heard the idea.
I'm enjoying talking about this, more than I enjoyed the book by the way.
"This is my problem, much of what you say is what the author says in his introduction. I happen to think that much of that isn't true"
Well I haven't seen that as I bought it in the individual issues and haven't read that introduction. I saw it just from reading the comics so it must be there.
Back to the kid. They aren't training him to kill. They're training him to defend himself against things that are already dead. The fact that he does kill is something the parents never considered (rightly or wrongly) and is something that *must* be addressed sooner or later.
"I'm enjoying talking about this, more than I enjoyed the book by the way."
Good! I'm trying to disagree with (some of) your points in a way that's both interesting and non-abusive. I tend to get carried away at times and usually spend that much time trying not to come over as insulting that I end up doing exactly that.
I too am enjoying the discussion! Differing opinions are what these things are all about and can be real eye openers. I do think that it may be a case of me gladly overlooking the books shortcomings because I enjoy it so much, whereas I think you're focussing on those bad points and ignoring the good because you didn't. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle! :)
Alan!
"I do think that it may be a case of me gladly overlooking the books shortcomings because I enjoy it so much, whereas I think you're focussing on those bad points and ignoring the good because you didn't."
That's always going to be the case, isn't it. I have said the book wans't bad per se. Just not very good!
I just thought I'd clarify I was enjoying the argument, rather than it was born of anything else. I do get accused of having my motives I'm afraid.
As for the kid. Erm, they are training him to kill. You may not see the zombies as fully alive, but regardless those same skills he used to kill the zombie, he used to kill a man, a man who we only have the authors simplistic view to say that it couldn't have been resolved some other way apart from murder. Training a kid to destroy something that was once a human by shooting him in the head, is also training someone to kill. That kid, with all his seven year old wisdom, decided to kill a man. I find that as scary as anything else in the book.
Just to pop back into this
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
The latest issue I just read had the group at a farm, where the locals were rounding up the zombies and holding them in a barn. Their reasoning? "How do you know they won't get better? Why are you killing them?"
Leading into an argument about how to treat the people that have become zombies, not something I've ever seen or read before. Maybe it's out there and I haven't seen it, but there you go.
And when all hell breaks loose and the barn zombies get free, the issue still isn't fully resolved for the characters. It's the kind of depth I wasn't expecting at the start of Book 1, but appreciate now.
The loved ones looking after infected/dead relatives has been done before. But really if you think a bunch of rotting, festering, fly ridden walking corpses are going to get better, then that's a psychiatric condition!
Reminds me, all that stuff about zombies differentiating between the living and dead by smell. Hmmm...
I think it might work better with adlard's art, it was all a bit catoony before (zombie stuff looked great though).
I dunno, seeing the remake of Dawn of the Dead inspired me to do my own zombie thing, I may have to give it a go at some point.
"That kid, with all his seven year old wisdom, decided to kill a man. I find that as scary as anything else in the book."
Yes.. that point is scary as hell, that's the point imo. It's just the motives behind that training I don't agree with you on, not the outcome or questions raised. They are in a completely different world now and have to re-evaluate things like this. Getting these sort of things right is the tricky part. I think that raising these sort of questions are the books strong points.
Alan!
So what is mentioned about it in the following six episodes Alan, much or nothing?
My view is, that a 7 year old with a gun, scared and firing wildly is more dangerous than zombies.
It's not touched on in a way that I think will satisfy you Paul, although it sin't completely ignored either. The characters do have other things on their minds tho. ;)
The dangers of taking a 7 year old out into that environment is addressed tho, only this time round....
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
(you have been warned)
... it's the little kiddie himself that gets shot whilst out hunting with his Dad. This does lead to quite a confrontation regarding the ethics of people just walking round with guns but the matter isn't neccesserily resolved. There is still a long way to go tho! :)
Alan!