1. Yes, Randall should die. It's unfortunate, but by his own admission, he's already confirmed that the group he was with are not the most savory characters. He knows where the farm is and who Maggie and her family are. Plus, he knows that most of Rick's group are keen to kill him, which makes his motive for escape that much more enforced. At least his former group never tried to kill him. (We can't speculate here; only that facts that are presented to us, the audience) So he's definitely a liability to Rick's group.

2. Karl wants to prove himself. He's got two father figures telling him what to do, on top of a guarding mother. How should his parents approach the situation? Well...they haven't seen anything "wrong" yet, other than mouthing off to Carol. They don't know he stole Darrel's handgun, or confronted a zombie in the woods, etc. As for Karl wanting his Dad to shoot Randall, I'm sure Rick will have a sitdown and try to explain to him the logic behind his initial decision, and then the subsequent change of mind. Will he confess responsibility about the zombie? Tough call; if the writer's stick with the old Karl, he will. But Karl has changed (per his actions in this episode) and we never saw an apology to Carol. He could just shut down and harden up. Will the guilt get the better of him? I'd say yes, due to 1) he seems to have been brought up with a sense of justice and "doing the right thing" in part because of his father being a cop, and 2) at that age, when you screw up that bad, you don't just hide it away. He'll either confess, or confide in someone. I would have said he would have confided in Dale, but...well...you know....

3. Was it the right time to kill off Dale? Is it the right to ever kill of a character? Well, seeing as they've COMPLETELY strayed from the original Dale/Andrea story line in the original source material, I guess now is as good a time as any. My guess his Hershel will step up and take the mantel of the archetypal wise old man; it could give his character some redemption, if the writer's choose to go that route.
My immediate reaction to him dying was thinking "Well, Jeffrey DeMunn's off the show....I wonder what he'll do next with Frank Darabont..." Was his early death motivated by television politics....who knows. It seems to me that when you get an actor/director pairings, like DeMunn/Darabont, Russell/Carpenter, Depp/Burton, those tend to be pretty strong allegiances. I'm sure if there was some background gaffing over Darabont leaving the series, DeMunn was more than onboard with Darabont and wasn't surprised his character was killed off. I'll wait for the eventual news story/tell all book.

***Possible spoilers ahead if you haven't read the graphic novels***
As an aside, I'll cut back to season 1 for a moment, and what Jenner whispered to Rick before blowing up the CDC. I don't think he whispered some major secret to Rick; I have a feeling Jenner explained to Rick that "they" were the walking dead, and not the creatures outside. This is given in a huge, revelatory speech at the end of one of the books, don't remember which, after Rick breaks down from all the stress/guilt/death (that will eventually happen?). Seems a perfect fit into the storyline as they haven't mentioned it since the beginning of season 2 (when he's trying to reach Morgan on the radio). And I'm still waiting on Merle to show back up as the Governor.

>> ^sillma:

Probably doesn't have the Max Payne feel because it's not developed by the same studio who did 1 and 2. Guessing it's going to be more of a GTA-esque max payne, looks a lot like the latest GTA.


Yeah, that's one reason. Rockstar are developers that just seem to watch movies. They watch movies, they write their games like movies, their games feel like movies.
Remedy on the other hand seem to read. Max Payne 1 and 2 was written to feel like a graphic novel. Alan Wake was written to feel like a novel. I bet Max Payne 3 will feature more in game movie-like cutscenes and less graphic novel cutscenes.

Retire to the wood's what?

<smirks, pops a neck pimple, flicks over a page of graphic novel>

disclaimer: I am a batman fan, I have a whole shelf full of Batman graphic novels so take what I say with a grain of salt

I really enjoyed both Batman Begins and the Dark Knight. I thought both stories were well told and well shot. Ironically, I felt the best parts of both movies was when Batman wasn't on screen. Bales "bat-voice" just didn't really work, and I didn't feel they captured the detective or martial artist aspects of the character that well.

I would actually say that the Arkham Asylum/City games are the best representation of my idea of Batman in any medium. The threefold split between predator, fighting and puzzle solving is the essence of Batman to me.

As for this, I think it will be more of the same. I am expecting a good story and a technically well executed film (although I agree with Deano, I thought the football field looked rubbish as soon as I say it).

That said, it is telling that in 130 seconds of trailer, there is about 4 seconds with Batman in it.

Carrey was perfect for this role. But the graphic novel was much better.

He didn't burn a book. He burned a "graphic novel". *ducks*

I can recommend the graphic novel: "Footnotes in Gaza" by Joe Sacco to get some good information as well as entertainment and good art.

I'm in lesbians with this graphic novel, and the film was pretty smashin' too: *promote!!

I Wish! My cover artist and illustrator is awesome.

My first book, The pregnant man diaries, is about Pregnancy from a masculine point of view, i.e., full of panic, fear and despair.

The second, How Parents are born, is about the first two years of a little girl in her poor dad's life.



In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
Are your books graphic novels? What are they about?

You should pick up some of the later stuff. Some of those graphic novels are awesome. I like "the gift", "all his engines", "pandemonium", and "hard time".

>> ^ponceleon:
Actually, I disagree with Budzos... I enjoyed the movie a lot more than the comic. I found the comics very hokey and disjointed in comparison, whereas the movie really encapsulated what I would LOVE religion to be. To me Catholicism is empty just because it has claims to relics, spells, and traditions which are ineffective in our world but pretend to be powerful in the way they are presented in this movie.
Religion would kick ass if it was based on a reality like this... I'm not sure how else to say it, but religion (and Catholicism specifically) is like people playing a childish game in which they are trying to imagine a world like this movie portrays.
To get more specific, I liked the explanations and backgrounds of the characters much better in the movie than in the comics. The comic has John Constantine being an ex glam-rocker who is slightly psychic/mystic and who's "damnation" doesn't come from an attempted suicide as in the movie, but rather a botched exorcism which is just kinda stupid. The whole suicide thing is really well done in the reimagining in the movie and makes a lot more sense.
Papa midnight is another character which is vastly improved in the movie. In the book, he seems more like a reject from Live and Let Die, a blaxploitation stereotype, whereas in the movie they really brought home the idea of someone that lives between two allegiances.
As for the use of "guns" and other 007ny stuff, I really thought it worked a lot better than the way they present him in the books. Frankly I'd rather have Constantine wielding a holy shotgun with blessed bullets than looking for a tape of his music video in his trashy apartment.
I'll admit that I only got through three of the graphic novels before I stopped, but I just feel that the changes made to Constantine's development improve vastly over what I saw in the books. As for making him American, I hate Keanu in most of his performances and I thought he really brought it for this one. I was pleasantly surprised and this movie remains one of my all-time favs.

I'll grant you that early Wonder Woman comics often played up bondage themes, but I haven't seen that exploitation post-Crisis.

I can't speak for all DC superheroes, but I think several good writers have really given Wonder Woman a well-rounded personality. Conversely, some have made her flat as paper. Still, I admire the character. If she had consistently good writing and a few top-notch villains (Cheetah's good, but the others are somewhat lacking) she'd be a top seller every month.

For a while Joss Whedon was attached to a Wonder Woman live-action film, but he's not now. If they could get him back I'm sure it would be a great film, and Wonder Woman's popularity would skyrocket like Batman's did after the Nolan films. Unfortunately the WW film is still in development hell, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed.>> ^xxovercastxx:

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.
That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.
Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

I was pretty much a Marvel-only type of kid; the two-dimensional DC characters could never hold my attention.

That said, early Wonder Woman stories were (in)famous for being riddled with bondage & domination themes. WW lost her powers when she was tied up, so she was constantly being chained, cuffed and restrained. It was no accident; her creator was very open about his intent and (confusingly) somehow felt that women being tied up was empowering them.

Power Girl was a parody of the over-sexualization of women in comics right from the get-go, but became very popular in spite of it.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."
I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now.

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now. >> ^rebuilder:

Call me a cranky heretic, but the superhero comic is the worst thing that ever happened to US comics... There's good stuff coming out all the time, but so much of the comic output seems to basically be softcore porn with outlandish, paper-thin action plots it's not even funny. At least in Europe, when they want to make porn, they make straight up porn - and the plot still beats the shit out of the usual Marvel fare.

Ha! Whether you were serious or not, it still got a chuckle out of me.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
>> ^kronosposeidon:

^It's based on a graphic novel, so they couldn't really make this just a western or just a scifi without completely gutting the story. As long as they don't Hex it up, I'll remain hopeful.


Based on a comicbook? Bleh. Nerds completely ruined cinema.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

^It's based on a graphic novel, so they couldn't really make this just a western or just a scifi without completely gutting the story. As long as they don't Hex it up, I'll remain hopeful.


Based on a comicbook? Bleh. Nerds completely ruined cinema.