Why I'm leaving George Romero

[DjfunkmasterG]

and that budget = quality. Sorry, we all know that's not true. Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans. And yes Ned... Survival is a shitty movie, not as shitty as Land, but it is a shitty movie nonetheless.

[JDFP]

The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement. Gary, I personally find your attack of New Coke to be offensive and completely out of line. When I was five years old I remember when New Coke came out, and if I remember correctly I quite enjoyed that drink at 5 years old. Comparing New Coke to Romero's new films is just flat out insulting. How dare you compare a fine American beverage to such subpar films! New Coke deserves better than comparing it to Romero's newest films, buddy. It's just beyond offensive that you could insult the Coca-Cola Corporation in such a way to me. If zombies ever did rise, I would tell Joan Crawford what you said about Coca-Cola and tell her where you live. I think they should bring New Coke back on a limited basis say one month of every year -- I would love to try it again and I think if it was a "special collector" thing where it's only released one month a year it could do well -- just like special seasonal beers by Sam Addams. On a side note, I think Surge was the best cola ever created in the history of sodas -- and I miss it. Surge was like the heroin of sodas. That shit didn't mess around! j.p.

[Trin]

OK, then why are you still here? Bitch, bitch, bitch... this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo... Did you understand what I said at all? The way we back GAR's films is by going to see them in theaters and by purchasing the DVDs. Posting on this site is in no way shape or form providing Romero with backing. So my point is that anyone who didn't pay money for Survival has already left GAR. And yes I bitch. But I'm not a hater. If George was not the (hate to use this term for obvious reasons) maverick film director he is we wouldn't have the great films we got out of him. But why must it be maverick or sell out? Is there no room between being so hard to work with that it takes 20 years to get a deal and complete loss of artistic freedom? His artistic freedom isn't giving us great movies anymore anyway.

[darth los]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans. And yes Ned... Survival is a shitty movie, not as shitty as Land, but it is a shitty movie nonetheless. You're argument has facts and numbers on it's side deej. It SHOULD be embarrasing to GAr that a film that basically amounts to fan fiction made on the same budget blows his last 3 films out of the water.

[C5NOTLD]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans. . It comes down to what it always does on any film - the people. Budgets don't squander themselves. The fans had a better group around them spending the money than the zombie maestro did. Spending the $ not only what would be seen on screen but on the selecting the people to get that vision on screen. Same formula for the original versions of NOTLD and Dawn (which contributed to their success) and Titanic - vast differences in budget from NOTLD/Dawn to Titanic but Cameron knows how to spend the $ on what matters. He did it with the massive Titanic budget and he did it with the smaller budget of the first Terminator film. .

[Trin]

The fans had a better group around them spending the money than the zombie maestro did. Spending the $ not only what would be seen on screen but on the selecting the people to get that vision on screen. This is something that has always bugged me about Land. Did no one think to spend some money having someone just go through the script and identify potential WTF moments? How much would that've cost anyway? Assuming it wasn't just free since so many people would love to contribute.

[CooperWasRight]

Did you understand what I said at all? The way we back GAR's films is by going to see them in theaters and by purchasing the DVDs. Posting on this site is in no way shape or form providing Romero with backing. So my point is that anyone who didn't pay money for Survival has already left GAR. And yes I bitch. But I'm not a hater. But why must it be maverick or sell out? Is there no room between being so hard to work with that it takes 20 years to get a deal and complete loss of artistic freedom? His artistic freedom isn't giving us great movies anymore anyway. You seem to be skipping over the essential point I made... Let's try this again shall we... You don't get the films that made him the master is you don't give George the freedom to be George... Also the issue of him getting funding wasn't and issue of him being difficult. The industry has changed... Up to the about 90's getting money for independent genre films was viable with people like Dino DeLaurentis and Moustapha Akkad willing to fund genre pieces expecting a modest return. Even the studio system was run much differnly then it has been since the 90's... The demise of the studio system started in the 70's when the studio's started being sold off and there was a mass exodus of people who were at the top positions in the industry whom were actually worked in film and were in one way or another part of the craft... Fast forward to the late 80's and 90's by this time the studio system was run by stock holders and corporations who simply bought up the film industry... These are for the most part guys whom have never held a camera or acted a day in there life... Ironically it was because of this mass change in the system that gave people like Martin Scorcese ,Lucas, Coppola and many others there break. The point is is that the reason Romero had to wait for so long is the industry has changed since the 80's and The people who hold the purse strings would rather give a Zach Snyder 28 million dollars because they can tell him what to do with it because he is a new guy and is happy for the break... Now I use that as an example... I cannot not say what happened on Zach's set. George has a reputation for getting with people that want to help facilitate George's movie... And Thank god for people like George, Kubrick and Carpenter... You have to be willing to follow your vision... Thats were the classics come from and sometimes the reviled.

[EvilNed]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. It show that, indeed. It shows that to you. Get it? You speak of this as if it were fact that Survival was a shittier movie than Shaun. I know you couldn't possibly think it is, because there's no such thing as "fact" when it comes to opinions of movies.

[Wyldwraith]

Something I consider an erroneous attempted application of logic, The notion that Romero's unwillingness to accept any creative input, or alter his style and the overall presentation of his films are the source of the Original Trilogy's greatness holds less water than a sieve. Further, I don't accept the entire "It's Indie film, so commercial principles don't apply" argument. To craft another example of where I believe that argument departs from reality, consider the following: If Romero was making a movie entirely with his own money, or money DONATED to his movie-making with no expectation of its return, and GAR subsequently finished and displayed his film at the hundreds of film festivals where TRUE Indie-Films are shown free of charge, the Indie Firm Argument would hold water. Reality: Romero DOES accept financial backing in part or whole from investors who demand a profitable return for their investment. Romero DOES present his Dead films primarily via the Commercial Theater and/or Back End DVD Sales in order to generate the aforementioned profit. Its been said that we can't have it both ways. That GAR's stubborn unwillingness to deviate from his long-established Message > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere is the cornerstone of what brought us the greatness of the Original Trilogy of Dead films. Bullshit! In reality, two oft-unmentioned factors played a huge part in determining the quality of the finished product the Original Trilogy. 1) GAR's Message/Preaching/Social Critique > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere Method coincidentally did not work at cross-purposes beyond a minor level with his first three films. The late 60's/mid-70s was a time when a huge and VERY VOCAL counter-culture was just as intent on preaching against the evils of modern society as GAR was. In that setting, and against the backdrop of the Rising Baby-Boomers, a fully engaged civil rights movement and general commonality of the activist mindset, it was only natural that the factors which have combined to detract from GAR's last three films were not nearly as discordant or out-of-step with the subjectivity of the target audience. 2) GAR's Original Trilogy predated all this "Godfather of the Modern Zombie Genre" crap, and all the rest of the hype which has come to surround Romero. At the time of Night/Dawn & Day's making, GAR did NOT see himself as a massive success with a huge following of die-hard fans. Absent this later hype, the man concerned himself simply with NOT BLOWING HIS CHANCE. That's where the cherished relish and crafting of the first 3 Dead films comes from. However, once GAR bought into the perception that he'd become "big enough" to automatically generate a successful film by slapping his name on any old 2nd-rate hack job that the downward spiral began? As evidence I offer the ever-increasing alignment of the concerns of critics and fans, where once the two very different groups COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been further apart in their views of Romero's body of work. It doesn't make sense that Romero is continually being misunderstood and underappreciated only now. Much more likely, and what I believe to be the case, is that GAR has fallen out of step with the delicate harmony that collectively makes up a great survival horror film. Finally, GAR ***DOES*** commercially market his work on a large scale. For this reason alone, the commercial principles I detailed in my last post carry much more weight than the Maverick Indie Director argument. ***ROMERO*** can't have it both ways either. Commercial success requires serious consideration of the current pulse, ie: tastes, of the movie-purchasing audience. Creative License is not a sacrosanct shroud to enfold subpar work and deflect honest criticism of the movie's faults. What do the rest of you think?

[CooperWasRight]

Something I consider an erroneous attempted application of logic, The notion that Romero's unwillingness to accept any creative input, or alter his style and the overall presentation of his films are the source of the Original Trilogy's greatness holds less water than a sieve. Further, I don't accept the entire "It's Indie film, so commercial principles don't apply" argument. To craft another example of where I believe that argument departs from reality, consider the following: If Romero was making a movie entirely with his own money, or money DONATED to his movie-making with no expectation of its return, and GAR subsequently finished and displayed his film at the hundreds of film festivals where TRUE Indie-Films are shown free of charge, the Indie Firm Argument would hold water. Reality: Romero DOES accept financial backing in part or whole from investors who demand a profitable return for their investment. Romero DOES present his Dead films primarily via the Commercial Theater and/or Back End DVD Sales in order to generate the aforementioned profit. Its been said that we can't have it both ways. That GAR's stubborn unwillingness to deviate from his long-established Message > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere is the cornerstone of what brought us the greatness of the Original Trilogy of Dead films. Bullshit! In reality, two oft-unmentioned factors played a huge part in determining the quality of the finished product the Original Trilogy. 1) GAR's Message/Preaching/Social Critique > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere Method coincidentally did not work at cross-purposes beyond a minor level with his first three films. The late 60's/mid-70s was a time when a huge and VERY VOCAL counter-culture was just as intent on preaching against the evils of modern society as GAR was. In that setting, and against the backdrop of the Rising Baby-Boomers, a fully engaged civil rights movement and general commonality of the activist mindset, it was only natural that the factors which have combined to detract from GAR's last three films were not nearly as discordant or out-of-step with the subjectivity of the target audience. 2) GAR's Original Trilogy predated all this "Godfather of the Modern Zombie Genre" crap, and all the rest of the hype which has come to surround Romero. At the time of Night/Dawn & Day's making, GAR did NOT see himself as a massive success with a huge following of die-hard fans. Absent this later hype, the man concerned himself simply with NOT BLOWING HIS CHANCE. That's where the cherished relish and crafting of the first 3 Dead films comes from. However, once GAR bought into the perception that he'd become "big enough" to automatically generate a successful film by slapping his name on any old 2nd-rate hack job that the downward spiral began? As evidence I offer the ever-increasing alignment of the concerns of critics and fans, where once the two very different groups COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been further apart in their views of Romero's body of work. It doesn't make sense that Romero is continually being misunderstood and underappreciated only now. Much more likely, and what I believe to be the case, is that GAR has fallen out of step with the delicate harmony that collectively makes up a great survival horror film. Finally, GAR ***DOES*** commercially market his work on a large scale. For this reason alone, the commercial principles I detailed in my last post carry much more weight than the Maverick Indie Director argument. ***ROMERO*** can't have it both ways either. Commercial success requires serious consideration of the current pulse, ie: tastes, of the movie-purchasing audience. Creative License is not a sacrosanct shroud to enfold subpar work and deflect honest criticism of the movie's faults. What do the rest of you think? I never said nor made an argument that money has ever been just given to him with no expectation on return... I believe I said modest return. And again up through the 90's independent genre film's were made with modest expectations on returns.. Horror was considered in the 80's a slam dunk for modest return... This very principle launched the careers of John Carpenter, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, amongst others. Your opinions have nothing to do with the FACT the Romero is considered an Indi director and the vast majority of his films are FACTUALLY independent films. Simply because his films have been distributed by film studios has NOTHING to do with whether a film is a studio film or indi. I urge you to do a little research on the history of the film industry. It is highly probable the vast majority of the films you will ever see have had financial backing. Before I ever decided to seriously engage in this conversation I thought this thread was kind of a joke. Im sure to not win any popularity contest with some of the things I have said and certainly wont with this but... Some folks here actually have studied film as a art form and have studied the industry as a business... Others just open there mouth(or typed) what ever comes into there mind with no thought of objective understanding of what they speak about... And hey lets face it that's part of the internet. Most people in general have NO flushed out concept of what it takes to make a film. It easy to sit by and say ... "I could do better!" and not put anything up... and sit by a tear down from the comfort of there own home. Some have and I would think being as they live in a glass house they might be more careful with there wording but I guess there is some comfort that there friends on the board have been very kind and will continue to do so. Im frankly tired of it... Some people have brought up this board may be in trouble and honestly it's not getting mouthy and distasteful pictures being posted... The thought that this thread exist on a board that would not be around if it were not for Romero's work.. And that people continue to go on and on... JUST LEAVE ROMERO ALREADY.... I remember when I 1st migrated over here from ATZ forum I thought this board had it jokers and it's silliness but I remember thinking it was also filled with thoughtful people whom didnt always agree about certain things but it was pretty clear on what is objective and what was up for debate... It hasn't taken long to start to change my mind and with some but some of the baseless opinions being peddled as fact and this thread is why things around here are in trouble... I guess it's a double edge sword... But most forums would have locked a non-sense thread like this long ago... On one hand its nice that this isn't that kind of forum... But how can anyone look at the thread title with a serious face? If that's the bottom line then GO... It reminds me of a feeble attempt from a partner trying to gain leverage in order to manipulate. If someone want to be gone then they go. Anything else is simply showboating for whom? Does someone really believe Romero is gonna read there threat of leaving and that's gonna make a difference?

[MikePizzoff]

This thread is getting really heated... I'm going to go ahead and say that I feel George has lost touch with his last three films. Well, Land is tolerable if you ask me; it was his first taste of having a big budget for a zombie film. So, he really lost touch with his previous two films. HOWEVER, this does not mean I'm giving up on him. He's still got time to redeem himself and I'm certainly hoping he does.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It show that, indeed. It shows that to you. Get it? You speak of this as if it were fact that Survival was a shittier movie than Shaun. I know you couldn't possibly think it is, because there's no such thing as "fact" when it comes to opinions of movies. No NED.... I bet 90% of Living Dead fans would say Shaun is better than SURVIVAL and I am stating that as FACT! Anyone who thinks differently is a fool. What you regard as opinion, I can flat out say is fact because any sane person would look at both films and agree with me 100%. ---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ---------- This thread is getting really heated... I'm going to go ahead and say that I feel George has lost touch with his last three films. Well, Land is tolerable if you ask me; it was his first taste of having a big budget for a zombie film. So, he really lost touch with his previous two films. HOWEVER, this does not mean I'm giving up on him. He's still got time to redeem himself and I'm certainly hoping he does. I agree with Mike, the thread is getting heated and that Romero has lost touch with the last three movies. After going back and forth with Ned I decided to pop in my Survival Blu-Ray and re-watch the movie. I still firmly believe it is crap, but crap that had potential to be great. I like it better than Land, but not more than Diary. I like Mike am still a fan and still willing to watch what Romero puts out in the zombie genre. I will admit that other than Martin and Creepshow his non zombies films are not very good, but I still support his zombie flicks, maybe not to the extent some hard core fans do, but I have bought my fair share of re-releases and posters for all 3 films. My belief is this... Once he lets go of that social message hype and all the other crap that surrounds him and just sits down with a real, and I mean, real back to basics approach, the Romero we all fell in love with will be back to form. [NED Notice I said my Belief ] I also can't believe that as a filmmaker he isn't thinking about the criticisms being lobbed at him over the recent three entries. I mean I am sure he or his assistant probably reads over this place and other message boards and when you start getting a majority of negative reaction from even your devout fan base... that would be a wake-up call to re-examine your approach. I am hoping and believing that is what he is doing at the moment. Supposedly another Dead film will be coming from him in the next year or two so lets see what happens with that... I am not giving up on George, but my expectations of him have dropped drastically since Land of the Dead.

[CooperWasRight]

No NED.... I bet 90% of Living Dead fans would say Shaun is better than SURVIVAL and I am stating that as FACT! Anyone who thinks differently is a fool. While I would agree it is probable to guess more fans may give it to shaun.. As a film maker myself I would have to say DJ you are either have a massive scotoma in your logic or you have massive balls to lay out public opinion dictates which film is better... I personally would not like to say take a poll on whether any my work is considered better then survival... By the way you speak maybe you wouldn't have a problem doing so... It's seems clear you think your work would be preferred over survival. Also public opinion differs by location/time.... recent examples, Anchorman did something like 95-99% of it's business stateside... People loved it over here.. The rest of the world at least theatrically didn't. M night recently talked about how different parts of the world have different favorites of his work. And there is the factor of time... Anyone whom is old enough or have read the reviews knows the FACT that when day came out it was universally panned by audiences and critics for a number of reasons including but not limited to: Acting, No real plot, dialog, heavy handed anti military message, over reliance on special effects. The list could go on and one but that fact is that when the film came out it was not well received.... And look at it now... Many claim it is one of the best if not the best zombie film. Now im not claiming in 25 years people will by in large think Survival is Romero's best work... But in 85 not many people would have made that argument for Day... They would have been fools to do so. I just finished watching "Zone of the dead" and it makes me glad that I haven't left Romero.

[DjfunkmasterG]

While I would agree it is probable to guess more fans may give it to shaun.. As a film maker myself I would have to say DJ you are either have a massive scotoma in your logic or you have massive balls to lay out public opinion dictates which film is better... I personally would not like to say take a poll on whether any my work is considered better then survival... By the way you speak maybe you wouldn't have a problem doing so... It's seems clear you think your work would be preferred over survival. No Scotoma in my Logic, I do a lot of reading and research on his films and I do it for a few reasons, one being as a film maker who does zombie horror I want to see what fans focus on the most. Now, dragging my work into this is really pushing it because I never said nor hinted or even thought my work would be preferred over Survival nor would I ever put it to the test against it and only for a couple of reasons... the biggest being it doesn't have the modern day film look, while it looks more film than most shot on DV features... I know without the specific depth of field glass gives the picture, people will automatically dismiss because it doesn't look like film. Say it anyway you want, but this is a cold hard fact. However, here is a statement I will make plain as day and you can laugh at me, joke or even dismiss me for it... Give me $1,000,000 and I bet I could out do what Romero has done since LAND, and get a much larger appreciation from it. I don't need his $2-$15 million budgets... I will do it on One Million and I guarantee it would be a better film than Land Diary or Survival... if Zombie fans didn't agree I would give up film making and put Deadlands 1 & 2 in public domain for people to do with as they choose once all distribution contracts expire. So since you brought my work into this, there is the statement I am willing to make and believe in... but I would not put Deadlands 1 or 2 against any of Romeros current stuff (Land through Survival) simply because of the technical limitations... because an average movie watcher cannot see past that aspect of movies... it's sad but true. Might I also add for future reference.. if you want to be taken seriously don't bring up stupid fucking movies like Anchorman... it's garbage. Also M. Night hasn't turned out anything decent since Signs, and some people would argue that with me as well, but it is what it is.

[Wyldwraith]

I never said nor made an argument that money has ever been just given to him with no expectation on return... I believe I said modest return. And again up through the 90's independent genre film's were made with modest expectations on returns.. Horror was considered in the 80's a slam dunk for modest return... This very principle launched the careers of John Carpenter, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, amongst others. Your opinions have nothing to do with the FACT the Romero is considered an Indi director and the vast majority of his films are FACTUALLY independent films. Simply because his films have been distributed by film studios has NOTHING to do with whether a film is a studio film or indi. I urge you to do a little research on the history of the film industry. It is highly probable the vast majority of the films you will ever see have had financial backing. Before I ever decided to seriously engage in this conversation I thought this thread was kind of a joke. Im sure to not win any popularity contest with some of the things I have said and certainly wont with this but... Some folks here actually have studied film as a art form and have studied the industry as a business... Others just open there mouth(or typed) what ever comes into there mind with no thought of objective understanding of what they speak about... And hey lets face it that's part of the internet. Most people in general have NO flushed out concept of what it takes to make a film. It easy to sit by and say ... "I could do better!" and not put anything up... and sit by a tear down from the comfort of there own home. Some have and I would think being as they live in a glass house they might be more careful with there wording but I guess there is some comfort that there friends on the board have been very kind and will continue to do so. Im frankly tired of it... Some people have brought up this board may be in trouble and honestly it's not getting mouthy and distasteful pictures being posted... The thought that this thread exist on a board that would not be around if it were not for Romero's work.. And that people continue to go on and on... JUST LEAVE ROMERO ALREADY.... I remember when I 1st migrated over here from ATZ forum I thought this board had it jokers and it's silliness but I remember thinking it was also filled with thoughtful people whom didnt always agree about certain things but it was pretty clear on what is objective and what was up for debate... It hasn't taken long to start to change my mind and with some but some of the baseless opinions being peddled as fact and this thread is why things around here are in trouble... I guess it's a double edge sword... But most forums would have locked a non-sense thread like this long ago... On one hand its nice that this isn't that kind of forum... But how can anyone look at the thread title with a serious face? If that's the bottom line then GO... It reminds me of a feeble attempt from a partner trying to gain leverage in order to manipulate. If someone want to be gone then they go. Anything else is simply showboating for whom? Does someone really believe Romero is gonna read there threat of leaving and that's gonna make a difference? First, I'm NOT one of the people going on about "Leaving GAR." I have serious doubts which I BELIEVE to be reasonable that concern the negative trend surrounding Romero's more recent work. Something that's true for any director is just as true for GAR. Namely, HIS actions have created the IMPRESSION he is indifferent to the reception his movies receive. Second, I freely admit my knowledge of the Indie Film Culture and its practices is much less than some others here. HOWEVER, the main bone of contention (at least for me, and regarding your words Cooper) is you saying that Romero's body of work is Indie Film (which may very well be true), and that as an Indie film director, commercial principles and the perceptions of the target audience do not apply to GAR's work. I cannot disagree more, and here's why. Even 30 years later, new reconfigurations and extras are put together to repackage Romero's Dead Trilogy once again. Additionally, it isn't in question that Romero's new films are heavily marketed in the DVD format. I don't have corroborated statistics to substantiate this next statement, but I feel it's simply common sense to understand that these large-scale DVD releases are a large part of the movie-making process. This simply ISN'T about whether or not GAR is entitled to exercise his vision as an artist, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself CooperWasRight. It's just not that simple. The very fact that this thread has become so heated is an example of what's really being debated here. Some people are happy with GAR's newer work and feel a need to defend it, or at least believe that GAR owes his fans nothing. Not even a high-quality product. Others (including me) are frustrated with the drop in quality that GAR's last three movies represent. Not because we didn't like a particular movie, but WHY we didn't like it. Simply put, a significant fraction of the fans represented here believe that GAR prioritizes his heavy-handed social commentary, aka "The Message", to the detriment of his work as this trend has become more pronounced. Additionally, many in this camp believe that Romero is completely unwilling to so much as reconsider his priorities....or the reception his movies receive. Finally, there is nothing wrong with this board. Members expressing negative thoughts, facts and feelings concerning Romero has NOTHING to do with the health of this board. If someone crosses the line and makes a personal attack instead of simply expressing their opinion, the Mods step in promptly to restore the peace. In the years I have been a member here, I have NEVER seen a hegemony of thought concerning various directors and movies. Nothing I would even call a general consensus, because many board members feel quite strongly about the stance they take concerning this or that debate. There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing, that is, except the thinly disguised demand that everyone and anyone cease expressing their position if that position is critical of Romero, under the auspices of "concern for the health of the board." Zombie fans have always agreed and disagreed in approximately equal proportions for as long as they've gathered. Again, nothing wrong with this. Honestly, I believe this to be a waste of time. Romero doesn't give a damn what any of us think about his movies, and no one is ever persuaded to forsake the position they entered such a debate with. That said, I'm mystified how ANYONE can believe the last three Dead Films even come close to the quality of the Original Trilogy, or what GAR has done in say, the last 20yrs to indicate he's headed anywhere but down when it comes to making zombie movies. Either the man is willing to try and return to the general formula that made his earlier films so successful or he is not. If he isn't, doesn't that mean things CAN'T go anywhere but down? I just don't get how some people can believe that viewer satisfaction isn't one of, if not THE primary factor in movies. Does GAR have the right to spend his own money and the money of people who don't expect a return on their investment on making a movie exactly as he wishes? Of course he does. Will GAR ever even come close to re-attaining fresh glory if he keeps making movies with no sign that he's paying attention to which elements are or aren't working with his fans? THAT is the CORE division in the two intellectual camps here.