My initial review wasn't very balanced. I suspected it wouldn't be. That's why I called it "First Impressions." I harped on and on about one aspect I didn't care for (and still don't--I haven't changed my mind on that point), then mentioned what I liked in a single perfunctory paragraph. To restore a bit of balance, I'd recommend Leonard Pierce's much more positive review at A.V. Club, which does a nice job of explaining a lot of what I think works about this first Walking Dead episode.
One point Pierce touches on is comparisons between the show and the comic, and he rightly reminds us that, "the show is not the comic." I get that. I'm not a purist who will get in a snit every time the former departs from the latter. So just to clarify, my point of saying in my review, "Rick and Shane's conversation about women never happens in the comic," wasn't to criticize the show for not being faithful enough to the comic, but was rather, as I've said before, "Of course adaptations have to take some liberties, but why take them in this direction?"
1 comments:
I don't think you really should have to feel the need to justify or qualify your comments. I appreciated your review and, in my opinion, reviews are less about presenting a balance and more about saying what you personally felt about something, and why. I think the 'why' part is the part many reviewers miss, but you never have in my memory. Personally I found the comic boring and the TV show off-putting and even offensive, and I didn't bother to finish the first episode. I can only imagine how many fans of the comic were put off by it too, to say nothing of general viewers who got an awkward opinion of the comic from it.
Regarding the Onion's review, I think it's important to mention that even if it's not supposed to be the comic, it gets both its title and its premise, as well as its cast, from said comic of the same name. If it is not true to the comic, then it is a betrayal of that expectation. They might as well just call it 'Atlanta of the Living Dead' or something. This is where I will always disagree with reviews that criticise viewers for expecting adherence to the source materials; if it weren't supposed to be an adaptation, why even bother securing the rights and giving it the same name? It's deceptive.
On the other hand, I do understand that things must be adapted for other media. It's unrealistic to expect everything to be the same, especially since considerations must be made for the medium and what can be conveyed through it; things that are brilliant in written form are not always so in visual. But many of the changes, from what I remember about the comic, were really not improvements, and I can't see where anyone could possibly have thought 'hey, this is a great idea!' Then again, I don't think that zombie apocalypse drama really suits a story of indefinite scope. As someone else commented, this is likely a single-season series.
Post a Comment