AMC's The Walking Dead

[kman]

The connection between the beginning of Walking Dead and 28 Days Later is pretty well-founded, though, you have to admit. Guy wakes up in a hospital to find the world overrun by zombies. That's not a watering down of it, either. That's exactly what happens in both stories. I read the pilot a month or two ago, and SPOILER if the final product is anything like the version I read, the intro with the shootout that puts Rick in the hospital is way more drawn out. So there's a good bit of time for the backstory before he wakes up in the hospital. Not that that really diminishes the connection w/ 28 Days Later, but still... END.

[pigeonmilk]

It's hard to have an original idea when it comes to this kinda genre... fack dem haters...This show will ROCK beyond 28 days later, that movie wasnt that great anyways. 28 weeks later was ok..

I guess they totally forgot about all the zombie movies from 30 years ago... these retards think 28 days later was the FIRST ever movie made about zombie type creatures..lol

[JPJ]

Didn't 28 Days Later come out AFTER Walking Dead #1???

[pigeonmilk]

28 days later came out per IMBD.com in 2002
Walking Dead came out per Wikipedia in 2003

However there is NO similiarites in the 2 besides the whole waking up in the hospital thing...NOTHING..so anyone that says this ripped off 28 days later is probably knee deep in the sauce.

[alfred183]

Its not getting here fast enough.

Couldn't agree more with this

[Popninja]

28 days later came out per IMBD.com in 2002
Walking Dead came out per Wikipedia in 2003

However there is NO similiarites in the 2 besides the whole waking up in the hospital thing...NOTHING..so anyone that says this ripped off 28 days later is probably knee deep in the sauce.

28 Days Later was released in theaters on June 27, 2003. The Walking Dead #1 came out in October 2003. Now, who knows when either story was initially conceived, but yeah that one single similarity is quite the coincidence. And yes, the ONLY coincidence. 28 Days Later isn't even really a zombie movie. Those infected sprinters aren't zombies.

[pigeonmilk]

true but the way it plays out is different..in the movie he wakes up with nothing.. no memory etc.

the book, we have a prequeal as to why he was in the coma, then he wakes and runs into zombies while in the hospital.

I think it was a interesting take on how to brign the character INTO the zombie situation more than trying to swipe the intial idea.

Waking up from a coma to an unknown world is a pretty good way to establish the character in that timeframe with a clean slate so to speak.


28 days later was released first in the UK in 2002, then here in 2003.

[oqnet]

I always thought it was more of a ripoff of the end of resident evil(the movie). She wakes up in a hospital and goes out to find it's zombie infested as well. That was in March 2002(opening day).

[Inkthinker]

The connection between the beginning of Walking Dead and 28 Days Later is pretty well-founded, though, you have to admit. Guy wakes up in a hospital to find the world overrun by zombies. That's not a watering down of it, either. That's exactly what happens in both stories. I read the pilot a month or two ago, and SPOILER if the final product is anything like the version I read, the intro with the shootout that puts Rick in the hospital is way more drawn out. So there's a good bit of time for the backstory before he wakes up in the hospital. Not that that really diminishes the connection w/ 28 Days Later, but still... END.

I don't know... I think that makes a good bit of difference. 28DL begins with Guy waking up, and as viewers we're as confused as he is. With Rick, we get a lead-in and an understanding of why he's in the hospital, and while we might be a bit confused as to what's happening when he wakes up (presuming we have no clue as to the plot of the damn show) it's not the same sense of disconnect and utter displacement.

Really, there's only so many ways to have a character lose 30 days or whatever, with no understanding of what happened in the outside world, so that they can be dropped into the middle of the situation. A coma is the easy answer, and back when Kirkman wrote it it was not the obvious answer.

[pigeonmilk]

The point being is the story is not based on how the character is introduced but how the whole story plays out.

[oqnet]

The point being is the story is not based on how the character is introduced but how the whole story plays out.

That's totally it, what we have here is people watching a very brief clip of the show and comparing it to 28 days later like they can tell the whole story from the brief clips people have seen. Yes the beginning is like 28 days later in that he wakes up in the hospital but it has nothing to do with the story outside of the first episode. I don't think there's much point arguing it I think 90% of the people in this thread know walking dead and agree it's completely different.

[dfbovey]

28 Days Later was released in theaters on June 27, 2003. The Walking Dead #1 came out in October 2003. Now, who knows when either story was initially conceived, but yeah that one single similarity is quite the coincidence. And yes, the ONLY coincidence. 28 Days Later isn't even really a zombie movie. Those infected sprinters aren't zombies.

Isn't that scene derivative of some movie that was made over 20 years ago that both of them lifted from?

[davechisholm]

isn't the beginning of 28DL NOT the guy waking up but the scene w/ the activists breaking into the animal experiment lab place?

[kman]

Yeah, that's right. It's, like, a 2-minute scene, though. Either way, the protagonists are both introduced the same way.

[golgotha]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid83327935001?bctid=593569611001

i saw this today.