Why I'm leaving George Romero

[CooperWasRight]

I don't consider it "entitlement" to deserve something if you're spending money for it. If you're giving of your hard-work (money) for a product you expect to obtain your money's worth. An individual should get their money's worth in a good plot, good character development, and well done film. For example, when I go to see a Polanski film I expect a masterpiece of film-making. He hasn't let me down (yet). When I go to see a Romero film -- I expect the Godfather of Modern Zombies to present an exceptionally well crafted piece of horror film-making. Unfortunately, that's not what we've been given the last decade (generally speaking, much longer depending on who you ask). If you were to buy a Corvette you'd expect speed -- not a Corvette with a 4-cylinder engine. It's not entitlement to expect the best from known items/people that can provide the best. I don't consider expecting the best from the best as a "strange sense of entitlement" at all but rather a valid expectation for a product that has delivered the goods in the past. How is it not practical to expect nothing but the best from the best? Would you spend $5K on a Rolex for the watch to stop working a week later? You say "you are not owed a good film simply because you spent money to see it". Why else would someone spend money (especially with high ticket prices at a theatre) to go see a film if they didn't expect it to be worth the money they spent for it? I suppose there are people who spend money for a subpar product and are happy with it -- I'm certainly not one of them. I understand what you are saying about "subjective" interpretations as to what good is or is not, but based upon a proven track record you should certainly come to appreciate something by the value/craftsmanship/proven ability of the item. Otherwise, what use is it? Would you go to an opera and spend $100 expecting for a five minute show in which no one could sing? To quote from Roger Ebert: "It's not what the story is about, but how the film goes about the story". I don't think it's beyond realistic expectations to expect obtaining the best from something that should be the best. That's just my opinion though. j.p. Im trying to not be insulting but your analogy doesn't hold any water... And you prove to not be objective in your analogies. You are not paying to see a great film when you see a film.... You are paying to see a film.... Nothing more and nothing less. A corvette cost more because there is a bit more objectivity in industry.. One can use objectively better quality parts when building products. That is simply not very translatable in art. I could start understand this out pour if you were paying some sort of premium for a Romero films... Again I cant stress it enough... When you go to the theater you are not paying for a great film... Sure you can hope the film you are about to sit down and watch is great... Your ticket entitles you to very few things... That you get to watch the film and that you get to finish the film with a reasonable level of comfort. ---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ---------- This is a very postmodern notion of art/literature/etc. Shit is shit. You can take the shit and wrap it in something expensive, it doesn't make it something more than shit. You can't take a film that has poor dialogue, crappy writing, nonsensical plot and then call it a masterpiece of film-making by making it a black and white film instead of in color. It's still a terrible film in black and white except for color. While aesthetics are generally subjective, there's an overarching objective nature to things -- there is merit in creating a product that can appeal to people based on the quality of it by cutting across cultural/social/etc. borders and senses. Britney Spears is not a better singer than Maria Callas because "you like her more than Maria". There's something more to it than just subjective belief. Again, this is my personal perspective, but I think it's short-sighted to judge things just on a strictly subjective level of being. j.p. This has nothing to do with the post modern art movement... This has to do with the literal term and intrinsic definition of art... Art exist externally of commerce. And im not even gonna touch your shit..argument.

[JDFP]

Im trying to not be insulting but your analogy doesn't hold any water... And you prove to not be objective in your analogies. You are not paying to see a great film when you see a film.... You are paying to see a film.... Nothing more and nothing less. A corvette cost more because there is a bit more objectivity in industry.. One can use objectively better quality parts when building products. That is simply not very translatable in art. I could start understand this out pour if you were paying some sort of premium for a Romero films... Again I cant stress it enough... When you go to the theater you are not paying for a great film... Sure you can hope the film you are about to sit down and watch is great... Your ticket entitles you to very few things... That you get to watch the film and that you get to finish the film with a reasonable level of comfort. I understand what you're saying and I don't find you to be insulting in the least. You're stating your perspective on the matter and I'm simply disagreeing with your premise. There are objective qualities to a film that make it a good film: 1.) Writing (i.e. dialogue for example) 2.) Character Development 3.) Plot The same can be said about literature. While directors can be subjective in how they go about presenting these things in their film/story/etc., these are objective principles above this subjective interpretation. I don't expect the same type of quality in watching an amateur making a film as say someone like Polanski or Bergman who have proved they know these objective principles and how to present them in their own subjective way in their films. But, when a director has proven they can master these fundamentals of film-making, it's nothing short of insulting when they make something that is below their ability to create a film. This, to me, is why there is such anger directed towards Romero's newest zombie films -- we know the man can do far superior in presenting the story but has chosen not to do so. I'm a big fan of Norman Rockwell's art for example. But, it's a certain quality in Rockwell's work that I appreciate. If Rockwell were to spend five minutes in creating a work even though he had a mastery of making a much finer piece of art but just didn't because he didn't feel like it then it would be short-changing not only himself but those who come to expect a certain aesthetic and well-crafted piece from him. Of course quality is translatable into art just like it is in the quality of making a car. You can tell the difference between a Corvette and a Taurus because of the craftsmanship that went into making the former. Likewise, you can tell the difference in quality in a Polanski film versus a film by an amateur that has no idea what they are doing or a work by Caravaggio vs. my drawing a stick figure. It's a matter of mastering your work -- no matter what the work may be. j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

I understand what you're saying and I don't find you to be insulting in the least. You're stating your perspective on the matter and I'm simply disagreeing with your premise. There are objective qualities to a film that make it a good film: 1.) Writing (i.e. dialogue for example) 2.) Character Development 3.) Plot The same can be said about literature. While directors can be subjective in how they go about presenting these things in their film/story/etc., these are objective principles above this subjective interpretation. I don't expect the same type of quality in watching an amateur making a film as say someone like Polanski or Bergman who have proved they know these objective principles and how to present them in their own subjective way in their films. But, when a director has proven they can master these fundamentals of film-making, it's nothing short of insulting when they make something that is below their ability to create a film. This, to me, is why there is such anger directed towards Romero's newest zombie films -- we know the man can do far superior in presenting the story but has chosen not to do so. I'm a big fan of Norman Rockwell's art for example. But, it's a certain quality in Rockwell's work that I appreciate. If Rockwell were to spend five minutes in creating a work even though he had a mastery of making a much finer piece of art but just didn't because he didn't feel like it then it would be short-changing not only himself but those who come to expect a certain aesthetic and well-crafted piece from him. Of course quality is translatable into art just like it is in the quality of making a car. You can tell the difference between a Corvette and a Taurus because of the craftsmanship that went into making the former. Likewise, you can tell the difference in quality in a Polanski film versus a film by an amateur that has no idea what they are doing or a work by Caravaggio vs. my drawing a stick figure. It's a matter of mastering your work -- no matter what the work may be. j.p. Qualities that make a great film differ from person to person. For some may say it is: 1)Direction 2)Acting 3)originality 4)cinematography This list can really go on and on... The are no objective checklist of rules as to what make a good film and as long as you check x amount off you have a great film.. And certainly if we were to use your criteria that would all but through out many works by Lynch, Kubrick, Tarkovsky amongst genres such as art film, surreal film, Most of short film, Documentaries among other things. While the varies "qualities" you mention can be debated on a somewhat objective manner.. Example... "The plot was under developed" ..... But there are many examples of art that simply does not fit into a nice little box. And again the corvette has absolute quantifiable factual qualities such as alloys used, horsepower, aerodynamics, top speed gas mileage. The quantifiable elements that go into film do not have any hard causal links to whether the film is a masterpiece... If so hollywood would be crank in em out left and right... Because time and money and the talent involved which are the counterparts to the car analogy do not guarantee greatness. I will certainly grant you that there can be a consensus on if a film has many qualities that are generally considered good or bad... But honestly this thread is rooted in the most recent works of films that there are "mixed" feelings on and some people are acting as if these films have been universally branded not good... And this is simply not so.

[Trin]

Qualifying art as an external response seems to miss the point of art. Art is an is externalization of internal ideas and feelings... It is expression and does not matter if anyone likes it. Art is art. I expect GAR shares this opinion. It's quite evident in both Diary and Survival. And maybe he deserves to be applauded for not selling out to the interests of his financial backers or fans. But just like his movie's focus on message has been detrimental to the plot, his focus on art has undermined his film's viability as a business. And ultimately he has limited his ability to create more of his art by making it financially unattractive to financial backers.

[CooperWasRight]

I expect GAR shares this opinion. It's quite evident in both Diary and Survival. And maybe he deserves to be applauded for not selling out to the interests of his financial backers or fans. But just like his movie's focus on message has been detrimental to the plot, his focus on art has undermined his film's viability as a business. And ultimately he has limited his ability to create more of his art by making it financially unattractive to financial backers. Well Land got him his creative freedom to do a movie independent of the studio system... And Diary got him is quickest turn around with yet again more freedom... And Last I heard he has been making more personally off his last couple films due to him directly has more direct ownership on em as apposed to a studio funded project.. Sound like a win win for George. His newer films say Romero/Grunwald productions.

[rongravy]

I beg your pardon? I don't think I care for that word -I hope I have misunderstood you. You did. Someone even posted on where I got it from. Backing up a buddy is fine, just please don't try to make me something I am not. Meant it in no way like you might have taken it, and my past posts can attest to that. I live and work in a place extremely diverse: Northwest Arkansas, if you can believe that. One of my best friends is from the Sudan. I'm married to an awesome El Salvadorean woman, meaning my kids are Hispanic. And I love the shit outta them. I speak Spanish, and a bit of a few other languages like Laotian, Marshallese, and French(which I learned in high school.) I'm all about the love, man... EDIT: Glad that I misunderstood. Will promise to read the whole thread more carefully from now on before posting. Cheers. Yes, billlyboy, I agree. We can all chill. I'm chill. Let's all be chill. Not trying to hate. Give me the same? That's all I ask... Not trolls, it's just the agressive language lately that's disturbing. There's no need for it. We're all intelligent people, with differing opinions yes, who I'm sure can make their points without insults or namecalling. And it seems there's been a spike in that sort of activity lately. I'm down with that, and offer an olive branch. I like new Dead films, and you don't. I can live with that. This place seems hostile at times, and it kind of rubs off, admittedly. You've seen proof that, although it was obscure to you, my quote was nothing more than a reference to a kickass cartoon. I'm cool if you're cool. If you're not, at least I tried...

[Trin]

And Last I heard he has been making more personally off his last couple films due to him directly has more direct ownership on em as apposed to a studio funded project.. Can anyone on the forums comment on this statement with facts/numbers? If Romero made more money personally on Diary than Land, and more on Survival than Diary, then it does become a win/win. A lose for us, but a win/win for him. All I can see is Diary got a limited distribution and Survival never showed in my city. Romero appears to be one step from making home movies and releasing them on Youtube. Compare that to what might have been if Land had been released to critical and fan acclaim. We might be sitting pretty as GAR gets handed a huge budget for a truly epic Dead finale. I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls.

[CooperWasRight]

Can anyone on the forums comment on this statement with facts/numbers? If Romero made more money personally on Diary than Land, and more on Survival than Diary, then it does become a win/win. A lose for us, but a win/win for him. All I can see is Diary got a limited distribution and Survival never showed in my city. Romero appears to be one step from making home movies and releasing them on Youtube. Compare that to what might have been if Land had been released to critical and fan acclaim. We might be sitting pretty as GAR gets handed a huge budget for a truly epic Dead finale. I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls. George has made it clear he made an active choice to go back to making indi films... He was not forced out. He prefers creative freedom to big budgets. He pretty much has always been that way. As he puts it he prefers the 2 dollar betting window. Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's.

[rongravy]

I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls. We all gotta eat. Who doesn't want their shit to get a wide release. Hard to be relevant when you're starving. Ok, I can see how purists can't like anything new. Believe me, I've unfortunately thought about it... I'm old school, but I like new schnizz. I can see how people might not like Diary, but geez. I saw Diary(twice) a week after Jennifer's Body, which got alot more publicity. Ask me which one I'd see again and I'd ask you what drug you were on. Blind? No. Who doesn't have their daydream of the perfect apocolypse? Give me, sayyy 300 million, and I'd hand-fucking-deliver the best EPIC, STAR WARS-LIKE, zombie saga you ever did seen... What I lack in charm, let alone my moonspeak, I make up for in forthrightedness.

[Trin]

George has made it clear he made an active choice to go back to making indi films... He was not forced out. He prefers creative freedom to big budgets. He pretty much has always been that way. As he puts it he prefers the 2 dollar betting window. Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's. I don't buy it. After Land he was all stoked to do Land 2 when Universal was going to offer it. It was in every interview how much he was on board. Then Land didn't do as well as everyone hoped and no one was offering and all of a sudden he was all about the creative freedom of indie. That's called finding a silver lining. It's a very far cry from "he pretty much has always been that way." Nope, not buying it. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the man for finding a creative way to continue to make movies, and if he's making good money and has his artistic freedom, all the better for him. But I don't see him turning down the 50 Million budget if a studio came offering "World of the Dead" ya know?

[CooperWasRight]

I don't buy it. After Land he was all stoked to do Land 2 when Universal was going to offer it. It was in every interview how much he was on board. Then Land didn't do as well as everyone hoped and no one was offering and all of a sudden he was all about the creative freedom of indie. That's called finding a silver lining. It's a very far cry from "he pretty much has always been that way." Nope, not buying it. Don't get me wrong, I applaud the man for finding a creative way to continue to make movies, and if he's making good money and has his artistic freedom, all the better for him. But I don't see him turning down the 50 Million budget if a studio came offering "World of the Dead" ya know? I can only assume...And I may be wrong... But I can only guess you dont know much about George's history in film making. 1) Land of the dead was a financial success... 2) he was beating the drum of a sequel after land was out. 3) his entire career except for Land has been outside the traditional studio setting 4) George could have had double the budget he had on Day but he would have lost creative freedoms so he opted to do it small and and keep the tone of the film... George's history as a independent film maker and reputation far exceeds the niche of devoted zombie fans. George's independent spirit and integrity is why he is respected by film makers of all walks of film.

[SymphonicX]

This thread is way too deep.

[EvilNed]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we, the fans, are the cause of his demise? With our increasing demands for better films, yet we are constantly disappointed with what we get? A self-fulfilling prophecy!

[SymphonicX]

That is a far better example of irony than anything Alanis Morisette came up with "A traffic jam when you're already late A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break" I mean, they're nothing but inconveniences really

[DjfunkmasterG]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we, the fans, are the cause of his demise? With our increasing demands for better films, yet we are constantly disappointed with what we get? A self-fulfilling prophecy! We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks