Walking Dead to debut on Halloween

Too early for Halloween plans? Not really. The Walking Dead TV show debuts on Halloween at 10 PM ET with a 90-minute opening episode. Based on Robert Kirkman’s comics, the show follows the adventures of the survivors of a zombiepocalypse, and stars Andrew Lincoln, Jon Bernthal, Shane Walsh, and Sarah Wayne Callies. The four-and-a-half minute trailer previously seen at Comic-Con was also released, and we would absolutely set our DVR for this while we were out trick or treating!

www.amctv .com 2010 8 24 16 24 Walking Dead to debut on Halloween

Comments

  1. It definitely has been looking good. The production has been top notch.

  2. I find it interesting how many zombie/post apocalyptic movies begin with someone waking up in a deserted hospital room.

    Looks interesting, though!

  3. I guess I’m just a HUGE geek but it is a bit of a let down that they just HAD to say “based on the graphic novel”. Is it sooooooooo hard to say based on the comicbook series?

  4. “The video you are trying to watch cannot be viewed from your current country or location.”

    Way to lose an interested viewer, AMC.

  5. No mention of the artists in the trailer–you know, the people who DREW the original comics…

  6. Army of Dorkness says:

    “No mention of the artists in the trailer–you know, the people who DREW the original comics…”

    Probably because Kirkman holds all the rights to the property. It also probably has to do with the deals that were signed and how the money was paid out. I wouldn’t assume it’s intended as a slight, and I’m not saying that’s what you’re assuming. It’s just the way things work.

    As essential as an artist is to the creation of a comic book and to the process of selling the rights to that comic book property in film/TV/etc., I know I would prefer to retain full ownership of what would essentially be my creation. Just because an artist can draw and I can’t doesn’t automatically entitle said artist to half of my creation. If a writer/creator decides to cut an artist it, great. If not, I don’t see a problem.

  7. Bob Mitchum says:

    “I guess I’m just a HUGE geek but it is a bit of a let down that they just HAD to say “based on the graphic novel”. Is it sooooooooo hard to say based on the comicbook series?”

    It occurs to me that it makes total sense for the source material to be referred to as a “graphic novel,” as anyone prompted to check it out will be more more likely to seek the trade or hardcover in a mainstream book store, rather than a comic book shop. That’s just the reality of it.

  8. Dollars to doughnuts, I’d bet Walking Dead has sold more in graphic novel form (tpbs and those marvelous hardcovers) than in monthly form.

  9. in Hollywood, no-one knows what a “comicbook” is.
    Really.
    They only buy graphic novels.

  10. Barry Buchanan says:

    I can’t wait. Sad thing is, like most movie trailers, they show way too much in this promo. Though considering I’m a fan of the “graphic comic novel book” don’t confront me none. What’s really gonna be interesting is in one of Kirkman’s interviews he said that the shows story and the books story are gonna diverge somewhere down the line. If the show has a long enough run.

  11. Really can’t wait for this to come out.

    Maybe for whatever reason people can take “Based on a Graphic Novel” seriously over “Based off of Critically Acclaimed Comic Series.” Even though comics are more socially accepted, thanks to movies and TV shows based off of them. Maybe people are able to swallow the Graphic Novel pill before the Comic one.

    Regardless does it really matter since we’re getting an awesome comic in TV form?

  12. Army of Dorkness,

    I assume, as you do, that Kirkman holds the rights, and that’s why Charlie Adlard’s name wasn’t mentioned in the credits. Just wanting to give some props to my fellow illustrators.

    However, I disagree with the statement in your second paragraph:

    “As essential as an artist is to the creation of a comic book and to the process of selling the rights to that comic book property in film/TV/etc., I know I would prefer to retain full ownership of what would essentially be my creation. Just because an artist can draw and I can’t doesn’t automatically entitle said artist to half of my creation…”

    Is it YOUR creation? Once the decision is made to do the project as a comic book, I would argue that it is no longer the sole creation of the writer. All the artists–including the colorist–bring that idea out into the world.

    If you want to be known as the SOLE creator, in my opinion you should write a short story or a novel. Then sell that to Hollywood!

    It is a fascinating turn over the last handful of years where the writer has become the focal point of comics from the public’s perspective. I think, for the most part, this is a positive development. We need great scripts.

    But I can’t think of the original “Swamp Thing” without thinking of Len Wein AND Bernie Wrightson. Or “Fantastic Four” without thinking of Lee AND Kirby.

    Just arguing for a bit of balance, that’s all.

  13. Eric H. says:

    Barry, I agree that they tip their hand a bit too much. If you hadn’t read the books, but were paying close attention, there are actually a couple sizable spoilers.

    But yeah, show looks like it’s going to be top notch and at least for now it looks to be staying pretty close to the source material. There are a couple of shots lifted right off the page.

  14. Army of Dorkness says:

    “However, I disagree with the statement in your second paragraph”

    Of course you do. You’re an illustrator.

    “Is it YOUR creation? Once the decision is made to do the project as a comic book, I would argue that it is no longer the sole creation of the writer. All the artists–including the colorist–bring that idea out into the world.”

    Depends on how you look at it. I see no problem with splitting profits from a comic book with an artist 50/50, but as far as giving that same 50/50 deal for other media, that’s a different story. It IS “my creation” because before you can draw anything I have to tell you what to draw. You’re not suddenly an equal partner where the rights to the property are concerned because you can draw pretty pictures. The writer is still the only one that brings the idea into the world, but the writer and artist bring the comic book to the masses.

    There are lots of artist/writer collaborations that are much more involved than “I write, you draw” and that’s great. A lot of times something is created by two people talking about wanting to work together and so on. I’m not talking about those instances.

    “If you want to be known as the SOLE creator, in my opinion you should write a short story or a novel.”

    And if you want to own a piece of a comic book property, I suggest you create your own and not expect half ownership of every property you work on.

    “It is a fascinating turn over the last handful of years where the writer has become the focal point of comics from the public’s perspective. I think, for the most part, this is a positive development.”

    As long as you get half the money?

    Wanting to write comics doesn’t equal wanting to give half my creation away.

    As an example, Fear Agent is copyrighted by Rick Remender and Tony Moore not Rick Remender, Tony Moore, and Jerome Opena even though Opena seems to draw as many issues of the book as Moore. That’s because he wasn’t part of the process of actually creating the book.

    I’m not saying that every artist/writer contract/agreement should follow the same rules and guidelines. I’m actually saying the opposite. Each deal is its own thing subject to its own rules.

    If you want to talk about bringing balance to the subject, how about this. Writers write on spec for most, if not all, of their “creations”, but it seems like all artists (remember, I said “seems like”)walk in with some sense of entitlement where they get a page rate AND half the rights to the property. That’s just plain unreasonable. It’s no different than if an artist creates a bunch of characters and a general setting and tries to find a writer to write a story about them. The original concept belongs to the artist as should the rights and the decision to release any portion of those rights to another person.

    It’s almost pointless to talk about this hypothetically. In the end, all I’m getting at is artists don’t assume you get half the rights for working on a book. It’s not like the old days where an artist gets a paragraph about what happens in the book and the artist basically creates the story and then the writer fills in the stuff each character says along the way. Then again, it might still be that way in some artist/write collaborations, hence the need for each agreement having its own rules.

    I am absolutely not arguing for the “superiority” of the writer over the artist.

    Eh, whatever. It’s the internet. By this point, people either want to hang me or shake my hand and no further discussion will sway either side.

  15. “You’re an illustrator.”

    No, he’s a COMIC BOOK ARTIST. Do you also think of film directors as “photographers”?

  16. “It IS “my creation” because before you can draw anything I have to tell you what to draw. You’re not suddenly an equal partner where the rights to the property are concerned because you can draw pretty pictures.”

    Wow. Good luck in your future comic making endeavours with that attitude. I wouldn’t suggest continuing to grossly underestimate the workload of a comic artist. That guy who draws the “pretty pictures” is developing a visual brand. No matter how eloquent the descriptions are that responsibility falls on the comic artist.

    “I am absolutely not arguing for the “superiority” of the writer over the artist.”

    Boy, considering the first half of your manifesto it sure seems like it.

  17. Army of Dorkness says:

    Scott Chantler says:
    08/25/2010 at 5:33 pm
    “You’re an illustrator.”

    No, he’s a COMIC BOOK ARTIST. Do you also think of film directors as “photographers”?

    –That’s a poor analogy. And it seems to be reversed. I had no idea comic book artists viewed the term “illustrator” as an insult. Especially when you actually read Peter’s comment where he says “Just wanting to give some props to my fellow illustrators.” Go attack him. He said it.

    Marley says:
    08/25/2010 at 6:29 pm
    Wow. Good luck in your future comic making endeavours with that attitude.

    –exactly, but it’s because of that sense of entitlement that artists seem to possess now and not because I’m being unreasonable. You’re aware of the term “overcorrecting”, yes? I think that’s what has happened. After years of being shit on by publishers, comic book people have overcorrected and now fight each other over this crap.

    ” I wouldn’t suggest continuing to grossly underestimate the workload of a comic artist.”

    –I don’t underestimate. I have a firm grasp of the situation, actually. I see loads of people (artists included) that underestimate the importance of a writer and what it takes to create something from nothing. At least an artist has a script most of the time.

    “pretty pictures” is a compliment. I didn’t say “all you do is draw pretty pictures.” I said “just because you CAN” doesn’t entitle you to half of the rights to the thing.

    Another example, Kirkman’s Invincible is created and copyrighted by him and Corey Walker. Not Ryan Ottley. Ottley kills on that book, but if it’s optioned, Kirkman and Walker get the money because that’s the way it works. It’s not a “manifesto” or an “agenda”. It’s the reality of the situation, and the reality is an artist shouldn’t get half the rights AND a page rate just because the writer can’t draw.

    >“I am absolutely not arguing for the “superiority” of the writer over the artist.”

    Boy, considering the first half of your manifesto it sure seems like it.<

    Pay closer attention, then.

  18. Army of Dorkness says:

    and fine, in the interest of fair play, “just because you can make words go good together and make fun to read don’t mean you get half of the rights to the property”.

    It may seem the things I said were one-sided but that’s because I was responding with an opposing viewpoint to an artist. It’s also the most common and likely situation as it’s rare to see an artist create stuff and then look for a writer to write about that stuff.

    Also, note I always said specifically “half” the rights.

    And it may look like I’m taking shots at Peter. I’m just making pointed comments in response to a potential shot at me or an attempt to get him to clarify his position. It’s the way I do things. Pisses people off sometimes, and I’m okay with that. Doesn’t mean I have any less respect for him as an artist or as a person.

    If I didn’t appreciate artists, I wouldn’t buy comics or sketches or art books or original comic art or prints or….the list goes on.

  19. Army of Dorkness,

    First off, in answer to Scott Chantler, I have no problem with the use of the word “illustrator”. Call me that or “comic book artist”–I have no qualms with either.

    Back to A of D–you’ve assumed a bit with the “50/50″ deal that a writer might have with an artist. I never mentioned percentage nor money. You inferred that. My main contention was that credit should be given to the artist(s) who bring the visuals to the writing–and help turn the script into a comic book.

    But personally, I do think the artist should share in the success of the book–and that would include ancillary projects as well as the publishing.

    I’ll try to address a few of the points from your penultimate posting. You wrote:

    “Depends on how you look at it. I see no problem with splitting profits from a comic book with an artist 50/50, but as far as giving that same 50/50 deal for other media, that’s a different story. It IS “my creation” because before you can draw anything I have to tell you what to draw. You’re not suddenly an equal partner where the rights to the property are concerned because you can draw pretty pictures. The writer is still the only one that brings the idea into the world, but the writer and artist bring the comic book to the masses.”

    First off, you do write and I draw my INTERPRETATION of your script. If the script calls for a bug-like alien, I draw my version of what that is. It’s probably a bit unique, since it’s my IDEA of what that creature would look like. Get where I’m going? Yes, the artist brings his ideas to the table as well as the writer. That’s what happens in a collaboration.

    You go on:

    “And if you want to own a piece of a comic book property, I suggest you create your own and not expect half ownership of every property you work on.”

    Again, I never mentioned half ownership. These types of shared ownership would be negotiated–every arrangement is different.

    You continue:

    “If you want to talk about bringing balance to the subject, how about this. Writers write on spec for most, if not all, of their “creations”, but it seems like all artists (remember, I said “seems like”)walk in with some sense of entitlement where they get a page rate AND half the rights to the property. That’s just plain unreasonable.”

    I can only answer from my experience that writers I’ve worked with in this circumstance are not writing on spec and are getting a page rate as well. Again, the monetary arrangement is negotiable–but I think credit should go to the artist and writer for the creation of the comic book.

    Army, we’re probably not going to agree, and it seems from your posts you may have had some bad experiences regarding this subject. Most artists I know have so much respect for good writing. If anything, I feel a bit of disregard for the art from your “pretty pictures” dig. Artists work hard–and generally longer than the writer on any individual project. It’s just the nature of drawing.

    Ultimately, since comics require both script and visuals, I feel creators from both sides of the tracks should share in whatever rewards accrue from their collaboration.

  20. “That’s a poor analogy.”

    It’s a perfectly appropriate analogy. A script, whether it’s by William Goldman or Alan Moore, is only the skeleton of a work of art. You wouldn’t write a screenplay and then announce to people “I made a movie!” It’s the very same with comics. You might be giving your artist a story to tell, but they’re the one actually telling it.

    “I had no idea comic book artists viewed the term “illustrator” as an insult.”

    I don’t view the term “illustrator” as an insult. I’ve been a commercial illustrator for 14 years, in addition to my comics work. But that’s the important distinction. When I do it, I’m doing something vastly different than when I’m doing comics, which involves so many more creative decisions than simply how to draw. As many decisions as oh, say, directing a movie. ;)

    Seriously, if you think that an artist is indulging a sense of “entitlement” by asserting ownership of a story which they’ve crafted from script into a tangible form, I don’t think you’re quite ready to be writing comics yet.

  21. “First off, in answer to Scott Chantler, I have no problem with the use of the word “illustrator”. Call me that or “comic book artist”–I have no qualms with either.”

    Yeah, but there’s a difference between how YOU mean it and how HE means it.

  22. Synsidar says:

    If I’m interpreting AoD’s comments accurately, he’s emphasizing that the elements in a story exist independently of the artists’ depictions of them. However an artist chooses to draw the heroine in a romance doesn’t alter the writer’s conception of her.

    A writer might choose to do a story as an outline, letting the artist design aliens for maximum visual impact and structure action sequences as he sees fit; conversely, he can also do a story as a prose story (with, presumably, less descriptive text than a full-fledged prose story would have) and require the artist to draw panels so that the dialogue in the text will fit into the panels.

    If the creators are writing to deadlines, the creative process will be a collaborative one; otherwise, wanting artwork for a story might be mostly a matter of reaching a particular audience. A writer who emphasizes ideas, details, and introspection might have nothing to gain from artwork.

    SRS

  23. Army of Dorkness says:

    Mr. Krause,

    “Back to A of D–you’ve assumed a bit with the “50/50″ deal that a writer might have with an artist. I never mentioned percentage nor money. You inferred that. ”

    It was originally part of an example. I didn’t intend to infer that this was your personal standard practice or representative of any agreement you’ve made with anyone.

    Further, your original comment seems to have been simply to say “hey, let’s not forget about Charlie Adlard and Tony Moore even though it’s just Kirkman’s name up there” and it has turned into something else. For this I apologize. However, the whole reason they aren’t mentioned is what led to the ensuing discussion.

    “But personally, I do think the artist should share in the success of the book–and that would include ancillary projects as well as the publishing.”

    I somewhat agree. It’s the “shoulds” and “somewhats” that give rise to the details. Details on which we might disagree. Nothing wrong with that, I think.

    “If the script calls for a bug-like alien, I draw my version of what that is. It’s probably a bit unique, since it’s my IDEA of what that creature would look like. Get where I’m going?”

    Yeah, I get where you’re going, but my script wouldn’t just say “bug alien”. If I bother to insert a bug alien, I’m going to detail what type of bug it looks like, etc…maybe even send you some photo reference. But that’s just me.

    “Again, I never mentioned half ownership. These types of shared ownership would be negotiated–every arrangement is different.”

    On point 2, we definitely agree. That comment to which you’re responding was a kneejerk response to what you said about writing a book instead. It sounded dismissive to me. It probably wasn’t. Also, I put it there to show that the opposite tactic could be used in response. I know you never said “half ownership” and I apologize for the implication.

    “I can only answer from my experience that writers I’ve worked with in this circumstance are not writing on spec and are getting a page rate as well.”

    To that, all I can say is lucky you. Unknown unpublished people have to create something on their own and get it published on their own and then maybe hope to one day get to the point where they can have that same benefit which you enjoy. It sounds like your specific experiences are nowhere near what I was talking about.

    “Army, we’re probably not going to agree”

    I think we agree enough, but your perspective isn’t from the same angle as mine and that means we’ll never agree completely. I can say that in a true collaboration where neither artist nor writer work on spec and are each paid page rates I would absolutely not quibble about ancillary revenue and be happy with a joint copyright.

    “it seems from your posts you may have had some bad experiences regarding this subject.”

    Absolutely. Not that it really matters. I’ll never have a comic published. I usually walk when it comes to the discussion about a joint copyright for a project which I’ve already written 5 issues in full-script style plus detailed character descriptions.

    But I know it all depends on the person you’re talking to. Not every artist fits my experiences. It just seems (there’s that word again) like they do because I have bad luck.

    “If anything, I feel a bit of disregard for the art from your “pretty pictures” dig.”

    Wish you wouldn’t. I LOVE pretty pictures. A James Jean cover is damn pretty, in my opinion.

    “Artists work hard–and generally longer than the writer on any individual project. It’s just the nature of drawing.”

    Absolutely. I know this. I’m sorry my phrasing seemed to indicate otherwise. Most artists can do one, maybe 2 books a month…and that’s a huge maybe. Meanwhile, a writer can write any number of books. However, a writer isn’t the one with the long sketch list at a convention. Frequently, artists make a killing on more than just the book they’re currently working on. Sometimes only BECAUSE of said book.

    “Ultimately, since comics require both script and visuals, I feel creators from both sides of the tracks should share in whatever rewards accrue from their collaboration.”

    I agree with “share.” “Rights” would require more discussion. And we both know that even .000001% is still a share, if you want to look at it semantically. Maybe not a “fair share,” but it’s a share.

    Thank you for your response. I appreciate the discussion.

    Scott Chantler says:
    08/25/2010 at 8:57 pm

    “It’s a perfectly appropriate analogy.”

    No it isn’t. You even continue with more bad analogies. Which I will now ignore due to their awfulness.

    “I don’t view the term “illustrator” as an insult.”

    Tell that to yourself a few comments back. You pounced on me like I had stepped on your nutsack the last time we met.

    “Seriously, if you think that an artist is indulging a sense of “entitlement” by asserting ownership of a story which they’ve crafted from script into a tangible form, I don’t think you’re quite ready to be writing comics yet.”

    Already written some, thanks. They’re just not ILLUSTRATED. What you said, yes that’s entitlement. And yes, it’s unjustified. Stop acting like a magician that’s spinning a writer’s words into gold. You seem to fit the description of a potential bad experience.

    Scott Chantler says more things:
    08/25/2010 at 8:58 pm
    “First off, in answer to Scott Chantler, I have no problem with the use of the word “illustrator”. Call me that or “comic book artist”–I have no qualms with either.”

    Yeah, but there’s a difference between how YOU mean it and how HE means it.

    BULLSHIT. Nice backpedal, but it’s utter shit. You know FUCK ALL about how “I” mean it. That’s obvious because you seem to think there’s a difference between the two. It’s almost laughable how you presume to know my mind…

    FYI, smartass, I fucking used the fucking word “illustrator” ONLY because HE used the fucking word “illustrator.”

    So to sum up, Peter–good guy; Scott–wants half your creation, so stay away.

  24. Funny thing AoD: an artist can make a comic book by him/herself, but a writer cannot.

    But good thing you don’t use your real name or you would be screwed in the industry.

  25. James S. says:

    “Scott–wants half your creation, so stay away.”

    Ah yes, the typical amoral, unscrupulous comic book artist… trolling the internet looking for a down-on-his-luck writer to seduce, only to put in months of sleepless nights toiling on pages for typically less than minimum wage so he can steal half of your ancillary profits!

    The Ultimate Scam!

    Seriously though dude, if you’re working in a graphic medium such as comics and you can’t draw them yourself, then you can’t expect the whole pie. You’re essentially hiring a ‘CREATOR’ to ‘CREATE’ every graphic nuance of your script, not a mindless automaton who’s your minds puppet interpreting the aesthetic exactly as you see it. From how your characters move/look/act/interact to the world they live in, all of it goes through them on to the final page. No amount of googling reference photos of insects for what you think the ‘bug eyed alien’ should look like matters, it’s still the artists interpretation.

    Yes, you wrote the characters, set the plot, mapped your theme, etc etc, but ideas are cheap. A finished script isn’t a finished comic. Unless you plan on putting in the hard years it takes to learn the drawing side of the craft, you’ve got to collaborate. With a ‘CREATOR’. That’s the key word here. Shockingly enough, Creators like getting Creator Rights.

    I only argue this because your whole stance lies on “I thought of the idea, so it’s mine”, but you don’t seem to realize that you’ve only thought of one aspect of the idea. If you get over this hurdle, I’d expect a miraculous improvement in your relations with artists, and with given what you’ve said, would only make your life better.

    If not, get used to staring at stacks of sad, lonely, undrawn scripts. Cus, y’know, there aren’t enough of those around.

    –WRITER/ARTIST James Stokoe.

  26. Tom Spurgeon says:

    Heidi: Army of Dorkness actually falls *above* your unpleasantness standard? Thank you for keeping the other stuff away!

  27. Army of Dorkness says:

    Random bits:

    “an artist can make a comic book by him/herself, but a writer cannot.”

    It’s amazing how some artists seem to think that they’re also writers now. Some are. Others, not so much.

    “good thing you don’t use your real name or you would be screwed in the industry.”

    Those that dare to speak out are rarely rewarded.

    “ideas are cheap”

    Ideas are the source of all entertainment.

    “you don’t seem to realize that you’ve only thought of one aspect of the idea”

    First, you’re entitled to your opinion as biased as it may be. Second, regardless of what I’ve thought of it’s mine. I can make a low-budget film if I want to with my idea and get less shit about creator rights for it.

    “If you get over this hurdle, I’d expect a miraculous improvement in your relations with artists, and with given what you’ve said, would only make your life better.”

    Signing away half of my creation makes my life better how?

    “If not, get used to staring at stacks of sad, lonely, undrawn scripts.”

    I am used to it. What I could never get used to is getting squeezed for half the rights to my property.

    “Heidi: Army of Dorkness actually falls *above* your unpleasantness standard? ”

    Pardon me for being pissed off at a guy (Scott) that took a shot at me. He deserved it, and the extra cursing helped to hammer home the point that escaped his grasp the first time. I apologized to Mr. Krause for the misunderstandings, but my comments did what they were supposed to do which was prompt him to respond and clarify a few things.

    People don’t seem to be getting the distinctions I made every effort to lay out in my comments. I used words like “seems” and “some” to avoid absolutes and stereotypes. I talked specifically about “half” and “50/50″ because that’s based on my experiences whereas Mr. Krause didn’t really give specifics except to say something about both writer and artist getting a page rate which is great for them and ideal. Instead, I get a lot of shit for what I said not being the PC thing to say.

    I am not advocating sole ownership of a property by the person that comes up with it and every other agreement being blasphemy, yet the opposing viewpoint seems to be common amongst my detractors. Big surprise. I’ve given several good examples that help to illustrate the point and detailed why some situations are preferable to others, yet all some of you are hearing is *asshole writer talking shit*. Fine, whatever. It’s the internet, after all.

    Take out all of the misunderstandings and cursing, and you’ll see that all I’m getting at is I don’t want to pay an artist to take half of my creation just because I can’t draw, and that’s not an unreasonable position. This opinion is based on my personal experiences and is not reflective of all artists and writers and their experiences or contracts/agreements.

    Simply put, I could tell you exactly what I think is a fair deal if there was a survey question that said “which of the following do you think is a fair deal? (check all that apply),” but there isn’t. What you’re getting instead is arguing over details. Arguments that aren’t going anywhere. Peppered with resentment in regard to past experiences and a dash of some people and their sense of entitlement…which might or might not be justified depending on the details of the situation.

    If you want to see where the comments went off the rails, look at Scott not me. I was having a back-and-forth with Mr. Krause (which I’d like to point out came to an end, reasonably) until he decided to charge in with a flamethrower.

    You can label me as “unpleasant” if you like. Doesn’t make my opinions any less valid. Can’t make a comic book without a printer either. Where’s everybody jumping in and making a case for the printer getting a portion of the rights?

  28. Tom Spurgeon says:

    Your being wholly unpleasant doesn’t make your opinions less valid, it just makes you a curious survivor into the era of substantive, less-unpleasant posting.

    However, I am afraid your displayed moral bankruptcy, general inability to argue and that fact that you’re a grown-up human being that goes by the idiotic sobriquet of Army of Dorkness makes your opinions, well, less valid. When you’re ready to join the adults at the big table with a real name, I’d be happy to explain why, and to expand on the moral bankruptcy and inability to argue parts. Until then: 10-4, good buddy.

    As to the general subject matter, I think it’s worth noting that the credit is “written by.” I personally don’t have any problems with that and I think I’m reasonably sensitive to such issues. It’s accurate, and I bet a less scrupulous person in that position could just score a “by” or an “authored by” if they pushed for it. Credits are a serious business. Getting a “drawn by” credit is up to the folks that might receive such a credit to secure for themselves during contract negotiations, or, perhaps, to make a case why they shouldn’t have had to or were kept/discouraged from doing so. Until we hear from them on such a point, I wouldn’t think about it a second more.

    Also, I really like and admire Robert and enjoy Darabont’s films and this looks like a lot of fun, but I have to say it: when the zombie apocalypse arrives, I am so going to use the other highway lanes.

  29. See now THAT was a put down. I gotta up my game.

  30. Hassler says:

    I wonder if Walking Dead would have been such a smash hit of a comic if Rob Liefeld was the original artist as opposed to Tony Moore? I’m sure it would be AoD, I’m sure it would be. After all, it’s Kirkman’s idea and writing that made it the hit it is today.

    Tony’s badass visuals had nothing to do with that world, did they?

    Ask Tony next time you see him how many sketches he does for people of zombies. Last time we met his queue was my Fear Agent request and 15 zombies.

  31. As you become older, the mens health issues could very well transform. Could a new dark beer intestine result in illnesses? Will be men’s the menopause any delusion or simply a real men’s ailment? Could possibly androgenic hormone or testosterone treatment allow you to come to feel little just as before? Obtain strategies to most of these and other males overall health queries.

Speak Your Mind

*