Poll: Which do you prefer? Romero's last 3 dead films or The Walking Dead?

[Thorn]

Check and mate. Now I know for a fact that most here know he's said that before. So knowing that it isn't even a trilogy. He has in fact said something to that affect before I remember the last time we had a major debate about this that went back and forth for like ever that someone posted something that supported that line of thinking. I however could not find it when I just looked.

[shootemindehead]

To Bass and JP. Sorry lads. I ain't buying it. In the nicest possible way of course. ---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ---------- While Romero will never be and never operated on the same level as Kubrick (i brought him up in an argument regarding artistry and consumerism and NEVER compared the two, but hey pulling arguments out of context = the internet), calling the guy who did the original 'trilogy' a hack is just plain wrong. By the way; knightriders, Martin and Creepshow were pretty good genre films. In my opinion anyone creating three legendary films that influenced multiple generations of filmmakers and fans alike can be seen as a great director. No? Hmmm...no, not really. At that rate, Wes Craven would be counted as a great and as far as I'm concerned he's another chancer. Romero hit the nail on the head with his zombie movies, no doubt. Although, to this day I am dumbfounded at the lack of respect 'Day of the Dead' recieved when it came out. It's clearly and by FAR the best thing he's ever done. I just think his vision (the original vision) of the world gone to pieces with the living dead was spot on. But even so, some of the directing and editing is terrible in Night and Dawn. Night can be forgiven somewhat. But some of the stuff in Dawn is rubbish. I also think he got REALLY lucky with his dead stuff and people began to read into things into the film that he simply didn't set out to do. All this message nonsense wasn't there when Romero set out to do Night, or Dawn, or Day either. He simply set out to do a quick horror movie in 68. Revive his dead career in 78 and continue the franchise in 85. The "message" thing is nonsense. But, now it's gone to his head and has ruined his output. Day is his opus. He says so himself and I agree. But as I said, we all know he's capable of much better, so why continue to make utter rubbish? A great director? No. A decent guy who happened to hit paydirt with a particular series of films? Yes. If it wasn't for Night, Dawn and Day. Romero wouldn't figure on anybodys list at all. ---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ---------- well in GAR'S defense he never claimed to be a great director, if you watch any of his interviews or even the documentary in the Dawn box set GAR was always more fasinated with editing! Hmmm, I'd go so far as to say he's that hot at editing either. There's a lot more in 'Dawn of the Dead' that should have hit the floor too. And some reshoots needed of certain areas as well. ---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ---------- Y'know, I bet that the folks over at the "Alien" equivalent board to our board here probably have same type of squabbles about whether that God-awfully atrocious crime against humanity known as "Aliens: Resurrection" should be considered as part of the series/i.e. original 'trilogy' or just a terrible fluke. I remember trying to watch the whole series once back-to-back and made it into about 20 minutes of "Resurrection" before turning it off in dismay. Of course, I wouldn't even bother with the "AVP" films... j.p. Alien is a trilogy...simply because Resurection is a steaming pile of shite.

[Trin]

I know this will do nothing to change the closed minded opinions here... and this will be attributed as my own closed minded opinion, and not worth any consideration... however... After following this discussion for literally decades there is a commonality that has shown itself. Everytime GAR is quoted to disassociate Night, Dawn, and Day as linked stories in the same universe he has done so in response to very pointed questions around things like technology, style of dress, and setting of the films. These answers get quoted as gospel without faithfully reproducing the leading question. Often these are questions he has no interest in answering to begin with since they're often nit-picky and irrelevant to what he's trying to get across. Then those same quotes get compared to quotes where GAR has stated that the movies - Night through Land - are the same story in the same universe and people say that you can't trust what he says. This is one topic where GAR doesn't disagree with himself if you take all his comments in context!!

[shootemindehead]

Nah, not because they say it. Though many sites refer to it as exactly that. http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Zombie for example. and if that is not enough Romero links them together commenting on how the evolve through the series of films thus linking them together himself. http://movies.about.com/od/landofthe...adgr062105.htm GEORGE A ROMERO http://madeinatlantis.com/interviews...e_a_romero.htm Bingo.

[MinionZombie]

Andy - I wasn't specifically talking about you RE: haterade etc. I was speaking about haters generally. Mis-typed, or didn't type clearly enough I guess, so yeah - was speaking generally.

[Thorn]

I know this will do nothing to change the closed minded opinions here... and this will be attributed as my own closed minded opinion, and not worth any consideration... however... After following this discussion for literally decades there is a commonality that has shown itself. Every time GAR is quoted to disassociate Night, Dawn, and Day as linked stories in the same universe he has done so in response to very pointed questions around things like technology, style of dress, and setting of the films. These answers get quoted as gospel without faithfully reproducing the leading question. Often these are questions he has no interest in answering to begin with since they're often nit-picky and irrelevant to what he's trying to get across. Then those same quotes get compared to quotes where GAR has stated that the movies - Night through Land - are the same story in the same universe and people say that you can't trust what he says. This is one topic where GAR doesn't disagree with himself if you take all his comments in context!! I totally agree... and I strongly feel they are part of the same storyline simply due to progression. This of course leads some to debate that Land actually takes place before Day... so many of us have been over this ground of course.. .I still feel they are all part of the same progressive story line.

[krisvds]

Hmmm...no, not really. At that rate, Wes Craven would be counted as a great and as far as I'm concerned he's another chancer. Romero hit the nail on the head with his zombie movies, no doubt. Although, to this day I am dumbfounded at the lack of respect 'Day of the Dead' recieved when it came out. It's clearly and by FAR the best thing he's ever done. I just think his vision (the original vision) of the world gone to pieces with the living dead was spot on. But even so, some of the directing and editing is terrible in Night and Dawn. Night can be forgiven somewhat. But some of the stuff in Dawn is rubbish. I also think he got REALLY lucky with his dead stuff and people began to read into things into the film that he simply didn't set out to do. All this message nonsense wasn't there when Romero set out to do Night, or Dawn, or Day either. He simply set out to do a quick horror movie in 68. Revive his dead career in 78 and continue the franchise in 85. The "message" thing is nonsense. But, now it's gone to his head and has ruined his output. Day is his opus. He says so himself and I agree. But as I said, we all know he's capable of much better, so why continue to make utter rubbish? Message thing? Yeah that's rubbish. Though there IS a certain train of thought in the original three films that lead the viewer to a better understanding of who the director is and where he is coming from. These aren't shallow, just playing it for the thrills horror films, there IS intelligence to it. Way more than in whatever Wes Craven film. This is why, of all his films, I dislike Diary the most, because there the central idea was too much in your face (that voice over, yuck). And yes, I agree, Day of the dead is by far the best ... of the dead film. Perhaps the best horror film ever.

[darth los]

Well, it is the darkest day of horror the world has ever known so...

[Andy]

Andy - I wasn't specifically talking about you RE: haterade etc. I was speaking about haters generally. Mis-typed, or didn't type clearly enough I guess, so yeah - was speaking generally. I spent literally half an hour searching google for a picture of peter helping flyboy up after he aims his gun at him that i could caption 'WE'RE COOL' but i could not find one

[krakenslayer]

The original films did deal with interesting social themes. All films do, nothing comes from a vaccuum. Usually a writer is influenced by something they have seen/experienced in the outside world, and the end result is coloured by his opinions of that issue, even if it's not intentional. Unintentional themes can work well (i.e. Night) but most good writers will think about what their script is "saying" (even if they didn't intend the message from the very beginning) and aim to express that idea in a consistant, deliberate way. However, there is a downside to this. Sometimes, in doing so they lose sight of the original idea and get sidetracked, or they inflate the message and it becomes too obvious and clumsy. If the message is subtle, or at least smoothly integrated into the plot, then the people who spit out the dummy over "social commentary" will not even notice it's there, and therefore be perfectly happy. Meanwhile the people that enjoy "reading" films can have the satisfaction of analysing the themes the writer/director is touching upon. If the message is crowbarred in and then hammered home with a sledgehammer (i.e. Diary), then the anti-message crowd go nuts and everyone else feels like they are being patronized.

[MoonSylver]

Eh, I wouldn't say Romero is Orson Wells or Kubrick or whatever, but I certainly wouldn't say he's a "hack" either. Bruno Matti or Uwe Boll are HACKS. I'd call George a good-to-great low budge genre filmmaker & leave it at that. "Martin" & "Knightriders" are hampered by a LOT of factors, from budget to actors, but I've never felt that the DIRECTION was one of them. And Knightriders IMO is a beautiful film & one of my favorites ever. Don't agree about his editing either. I love the cuts in Dawn & think the running time is fine. Look at the Argento cut. Leaner, meaner & not as good IMO. But then again Shootem doesn't like anything, so there is that... Wait.. am I Tom??? You're Helen. GOD DAMN IT! I AM Helen... *adjusts breasts awkwardly* Here, lemme help ya with that...

[DEAD BEAT]

Okay, this is for all the land is part of the original trilogy folks: Trilogy: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme. So you see, by the use of the word three it is by definition impossible for a fourth film to be a part of that. That is all. yeah yeah yeah, and the knee bone is connected to the dick bone! lol jk buddy

[shootemindehead]

But then again Shootem doesn't like anything, so there is that... Humph. Well, I don't like YOU anymore! Hmmmmm...Where's that "I don't like you" smiley?

[MoonSylver]

Humph. Well, I don't like YOU anymore! Hmmmmm...Where's that "I don't like you" smiley? Right here s'ok, I still like YOU, even though I like things & stuff.

[bassman]

Shootem can't deny it. Moon isn't the only one that's noticed. It takes a life changing event to impress Shootem... the man likes NOTHING. Other than Day, of course.