I read the article with the link you provided and it does indeed seem that Amy is the first risen,,however if you read my original post you will see that in season 1 episode 2 there is the scene with Kieran crawling out of his grave,,if you re-watch that episode you will also see Amy crawling out of her grave at about the same time and there are several other 'Risen' walking around already,,so like I said in my original post,,it is possible that Amy was the first to rise,,but she was not the first Walker/Zombie/Risen to climb out of her grave,,in season 2 that woman at the hotel told the woman who was convinced that if she killed the first Risen that she would bring about the second rising,,and that woman told her that Amy was the first to rise as she saw her climbing out of her grave. So while I am not disputing what the show director is saying,,I am simple pointing out that in season 1 episode 2 it clearly,,with out a doubt shows that other people were already out of their graves and walking around while Amy was still climbing out of her grave. The show at that time had no intention of making a second series,,it was only because so many people said they wanted more of "In the Flesh" that they made a second series,,and in doing so they decided to make Amy the first Risen,,but they forgot about how in season 1 episode 2 they had shown that scene with other 'Risen' walking around while Amy was still crawling out of her grave.
In short,,the makers of the show screwed up,,,I love the show,,I think it is brilliant,,but while Amy is absolutely the first Risen because the show creator has confirmed it,,it is a goof on the shows part,,because it was stated in season 2 that thee woman who said she saw Amy as the first to climb out of the ground could not be right because there were already several others walking around before Amy.
It is just a goof on the part of the show,,its not a big deal,,but it is a goof.
reply
share
Sekraan
9 years ago
Simple explanation: unreliable narrator.
The zombie scenes are from the perspective of the zombies, often their direct point of view. I'd imagine that all that rotting away and malfunctioning higher cognitive abilities, not to mention absence of sleep to help you encode memories, would make it quite difficult to recall those early events with any precision. It's amazing that they can remember anything at all for that matter!
*yes yes I'm being facetious. The show clearly set up the 'rules' so to speak for its universe, which included a clear explanation from Kieran that he could remember everything that happened in his untreated state quite vividly (not to mention the fact that the dead rose at all!)
reply
share
paradoxone
9 years ago
That certainly is the most logical way to explain the conflicting statements. There was a plothole here - it's gone now... ;)
But I think you're actually giving the writers a leg up. This is not something where they can say, the audience should be clever enough to figure this out, no. No matter if you go scientifically or philosphically about it, this is just faulty writing.
I love the show. I think in some aspects it's even better than Walking Dead, because it's a fresh concept. Walking Dead basically is a zombie movie turned into a series. A great series mind you, the ultimative zombie series, as far as the common concept goes. But that undead horse has been beaten to death so many times. Walking Dead basically puts the lid on the genre.
In The Flesh on the other hand is the next step in the evolution of that genre. Nice tip of the hat to Walking Dead there with Kieren WALKER ;)
Having said all that, from what I could gather from reading through this thread, the fault seems to lie with the unexpected success of the show. They didn't plan on doing a second season at first, so Amy or Kieren being the first risen was not endgame at the time of the first season.
They created a marvelous mythology, but forgot to fix a little plot hole. They could have done it. A flashback scene where your explainations play out. Or how about this: Kieren was confused and got it wrong (maybe he was the only one starting into the other direction and didn't see the others and thought he was alone jk ;)
And the one that you thought was Amy surrounded by the other risen could have turned out to be the hooker who had a passing resemblance. Maybe a little convoluted and not very elegant, but it would have fixed the plothole.
So why didn't they do it? Maybe because what I just said in the last sentence? Maybe they simply overlooked it? Bad that - you should know the mythos you created inside out. Maybe they thought they could get away with it? They did. With me. At first. Took me reading this thread to remember the first rising ^^"
So that plot hole I didn't even notice at first. What irked me was something else entirely: The mauled nurse and Kieren's conviction. What, they see Kieren being rabid and manage to return to normal and all is forgiven and forgotten? Him overcoming Blue Oblivion had nothing to do with his conviction to begin with. If things were put right in this regard, then Gary should have been shown to be shunned for trying to make Kieren go rabid. We don't know either way. Yeah, he's sitting alone in the pub, but getting a beer from his friend makes it harder to believe that train of thought even if you want to, still ...nm.
Coming back to the conviction - that plothole could have been fixed if the two fanatics would have stepped forward and admitted their guilt.
Anyway, even with these little oversights, I still would love to see a season 3!
____________________________
All I can see is an owl, but I know it's not an owl.
reply
share