Usually, sequels are crappier than the work they are based upon. Yes, take this as a postulate! Please don’t ask me to refer to the The Pillars of the Earth TV show where Ellen is a gruesome hag. In previous posts, I mentioned Battlestar Galactica 2004 (BSG) and its prequel Caprica, I also talked about how The Walking Dead TV show and Left 4 Dead video game are alike. Sometimes, a sequel is captivating enough to push you to watch the original work: I enjoyed Fallout 3 (missing nifty hardcore mode though) after Fallout: New Vegas, and I keep an open mind about Fallout 2 (even if its gameplay looks dire at first sight). So, as I already suggested I’d do, I took a look at the original BSG series and at the Walking Dead comics.
About BSG, I won’t comment the visual layout: it would be just damn stupid to compare special effects considering how computing evolved during these 25 years in between. Note also that I didn’t had time to watch the whole original series yet.
Allow me to introduce Lieutenant Starbuck on both shows. Notice a little difference? Their crotch maybe? Suffice to say that watching the original series provides you with a world consistent with the 2004 series, you follow a similar story, but it’s like listening to two versions of the same song by two bands with strong and divergent identity. In one case, he smokes, in the other she’s on the booze. It’s not the same but it’s hard to determine which one is best – except if you blame the 1930’s recording to be of nastier sound quality than the 2000’s one. It’s just a simple obvious example. If you enjoyed BSG 2004, please give a try to the original one.
Now, regarding The Walking Dead, I’m a bit annoyed. I already said about the TV show that “characters are where we expect them to be”. Well, it’s untrue for the comics. Characters are way more humanlike in the comics. The story is quite different too and I must admit I’m not sure some comedians have the guts to be credible in the events that should, at some point, take place in the TV show because it already happened in the comics.
The very childish boy Carl of the TV show seems unfit to me to even just comprehend the reality of the prematurely growned-up Carl of the comics. I admit this is open for debate, though. But it’s not enough to make a kid wear khakis, I just do not see at all the same light or fire in the eyes – I’d be glad to be proven wrong. Also, in the comics, the antagonism of Shane and Rick is shortly lived. So, Rick determines itself through the incidents his group are living, not in regard of Shane. As result, the comics character stays consistent over time, striving all along to determines what still makes him human despite the fact he regularly butchers humans, while the TV character suddenly and oddly change when the Shane counterpart is removed. The list of differences is endless. That’s not an issue in itself, but, contrarily to BSG case, the Walking Dead TV show appears just less smart than the Walking Dead comics. Don’t waste your money on a new set of speakers, You get more mileage from a cheap pair of sneakers.