George plans two more films to continue the diary/ survival story

[bassman]

All I want is for the man to take a step back and breathe a minute. He's been spewing zombies for three straight movies in what....5 years? Now he's quickly working on two back-to-back? I don't want the guy to stop. Let him have his fun and I will definitely give it a shot, but just take it a bit slower. Rushed work is only going to produce sub par results. The ten-ish years between the original trilogy probably did him wonders. Now he's churning em out every two years....

[darth los]

With the release of every succesive turd it's becoming easier and easier to come to grips that the man is done. That much you have right.

[Trin]

I agree with all of what Wyldwraith said up there. I'll add my own thoughts... Romero has lost focus on what scares us and what excites us. He's pushing gimmicks and messages now. "Hey look what cool little facet of society I've spotlighted. Look how creative I am." He's become the Seinfeld of horror. "Did you ever notice that unless something is on Youtube no one considers it real?" Want to make shambling zombies scary again? Put a lot of them into a movie and instill that feeling of claustrophobia that first gripped us with Night. Make them mindless and relentless. Show us how the apartments are chaotic death traps that make us collectively want to flee for our lives. Show us how hiding inside a mall just creates a prison. Show us that if you land your helicopter you'll soon be faced with a WALL of zombies which makes you flee back to your cave. Show that there is, in fact, no where to run. Want to make it exciting again? Give us real world characters and give us hope for their situation. Show them making good decisions to further their survival in a bad situation. Make them likeable. Make them smart. Make them caring. Make it so we can identify with them. Allow us to put ourselves in their shoes without a constant stream of WTF as a result. Land failed because the plight of the characters was implausible. There were no zombies around. Kaufman had no basis for his hold on power. There was nothing hampering Riley and crew from changing things. And when we did face zombies they were reasonable and sparse. In short, there was no desperation in their desperate plight. There was only WTF. Contrast that with the plight of the characters in Dawn or Day. The sense of desperation was palpable. Zombies need to be numerous, mindless, relentless, and they need to be coming to get you!! Not gimmicky, and evolving, and emotional, and contemplative. They aren't a study in society or dietary requirements. I firmly believe that Romero could make another movie on par with the trilogy. And I'm glad to hear that there are potentially 2 more Dead movies on the horizon. I just wish it'd get better.

[Legion2213]

Even those of us who have hated his recent offerings will give him another chance...hope thrives on meagre fare (or something). I've been very critical of his last two movies I have blasted the third which sounds like crap (sight unseen), but I really do want to see him make another good zombie movie. But for gods sake, as others have said, get back to making good zombie movies with some decent plots, decent characters and a sense of "OMFG, these billions of zombies are a massive threat" Somebody here suggested making a zombie movie that focused on the people who have to manage and contain it such an outbreak, but I don't think GAR could do that without making the entire film an attack on the gov, the military and emergancy services.

[krakenslayer]

I do. People are unable to leave their egos at the door. The chances of Romero ever making another DAWN of the DEAD at 0%. He's said as much himself over and over and over. Come to terms with it. Technically, the chance of any physically possible outcome occurring is always above 0%. However, if he doesn't make films, the outcome becomes no longer physically possible, and therefore must be 0%. Personally, I don't want another Dawn of the Dead, anyway. That film was already made and it was great. Then Day came along, and it was great in a whole other way. I just want another great movie that is different again, many would disagree with me, but in my subjective experience, Survival felt like a step in the right direction. So it's not really out of the question that he will make another film that I consider "great", as individual and arbitrary as that word is.

[rongravy]

(in Yoda voice) This is why you fail. Why you fail, this is. Wouldn't that be better?

[Wyldwraith]

::Applauds and agrees wholeheartedly with Trin:: THAT is what I'm saying people! Romero isn't failing "because we're close-minded" or "because we insist on the exact same thing forever!" No, he's failing because of all the reasons outlined by Trin and myself. This isn't about creative innovation or the lack thereof. It isn't about people being unwilling to accept anything that departs from the formula established by the original trilogy. It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died. Stop the presses. Need go no further. If the viewer does not care what happens to the characters NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Movie fails. FACT: Diary and Survival (at the very least. Again, I'll leave Land up for debate) departed from, and were DEVOID of the atmosphere that made the Original Trilogy great, for all the reasons Trin so eloquently described. Absent that atmosphere of desperation. Absent the feelings of dread, revulsion and a macabre horrified fascination evoked by the zombies of the Original Trilogy, the movie has no power, and no draw on the viewer to imaginatively immerse themselves in the plot, or relate to the character(s)' struggles. Again, MOVIE FAILS. I could go on and on in this manner, but I believe the point has been made. This isn't about whether we're open to GAR trying new things. It's about the reality that Romero has either forgotten or no longer finds value in the very elements of characterization, plot and atmosphere that made his first three movies great. It's like Romero is trying to create a new means of lighting a fire, except his new methods don't include Oxygen or flammable materials. No one is saying Romero should basically redo the first three movies, but abandoning ALL the basic elements of the formula that went into them is foolish and can only lead to more awful movies. I don't know what it is with Romero, but he either reincorporates the elements required to make ANY Survival Horror film a potential success, or there's simply no hope of anything better.

[EvilNed]

I'd rather have two more films by George Romero than George Lucas.

[JDFP]

It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died. Since when does personal conjecture become "fact"? An opinion is an opinion, even if a great number of other people agree with you. I would say, FACT: Land sucked, and it's not debatable as to whether it sucked or not. But this is not a "fact", it's my personal conjecture on the issue. Liking or disliking a film is a matter of personal aesthetics, and aesthetics as being abstract (not a concrete philosophical/scientific system) isn't a matter of absolutes (either something that is or is not). I agree with you in the extent that none of the films from the new trilogy live up to the standards of the original trilogy. Call it mass-aesthetic approval because I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree with this argument. I also agree that if Romero keeps with the approach he's taken with the last three films than any new films he does will also probably suck according to our mass-aesthetic opinion. There were two characters I actually did like quite a bit in "DIARY" (and far more than any actor/actress that was in "LAND" save Dennis Hopper) -- the first being the professor, Maxwell (played by Scott Wentworth). With a not-so-great script or production values I think Wentworth really shined in this role and I wanted to see more regarding this man and his fate. I'd be interested in knowing why Wentworth (a Shakespearean stage actor) decided to audition for the role in a Romero flick exactly (perhaps they were drinking buddies or he needed a paycheck?) but I enjoyed his performance. Second, I would seriously like to bang Moynihan (Michelle Morgan). I thought she did a fine job given the limitations of the film -- she was a strong-willed feminine archetype similar to Fran and Sarah at an early stage (the beginning). I found her character interesting and if you watch the "documentary journal" with her she actually fleshes out some interesting tidbits on the character of Moynihan. Part of the problem with "DIARY" is a weak script and relying on too many different archetype-characters as opposed to more realistic individuals -- with the exception of the acting of Wentworth and Morgan who I believe rose above this archetype challenge. There are just too many characters for 'fodder' without relying on a core group of individuals in divulging in their back-story and their confronting the experience. I did find the film entertaining though, certainly more so than "LAND", but I digress... All in all, I just wish that Romero would leave the social commentary/ideology to the side and focus on characters. What makes the original films so great is that they are character driven films. If you took away all the blood, gore, and all that silly stuff that supposedly people think make a "horror" film you'd still have a great horror flick because of the central story and the relating to the well-crafted characters. It's also what made "Knightriders" (as a character-driven piece of film-making) so damn good. I don't know what has happened along the way to Romero and why or how he lost this focus in creating films... but I'd love to see him be able to re-create character-driven stories again -- and if that can happen, we can have another epic zombie flick to add to the original trilogy as being a great work of film-making. j.p.

[EvilNed]

It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died. I disagree with your "fact". Humm. Didn't know you could do that. But here I am. Doing it.

[fulci fan]

I think that Romero will not go back. In fact, I think if the next two get made, they will be even worse. I could imagine him thinking that talking zombies going to work in an office would be a good idea. Or a zombie dad playing catch with his son. Hell, if Romero could make as many zombie films as he wanted, he would have the zombies be just like humans. Thus defeating the idea of a "zombie". Imagine the worst, people. It ain't getting any better. Where is the Fulch when you need him?.

[Rancid Carcass]

he would have the zombies be just like humans. But that's what they are, us - just functioning less perfectly, as the old saying goes.

[fulci fan]

But that's what they are, us - just functioning less perfectly, as the old saying goes. Yeah, but, the more he has them advance, the sillier it gets. Know what I mean?

[Danny]

Yeah, but, the more he has them advance, the sillier it gets. Know what I mean? no, honestly i don't. look at the antagonists in day, they werent zombies, they were humans driven by base human emotions like fear. The origins of romero style zombies is based in that cold war era paranoia of anyone around you secretly being an enemy, a monster. romero chose the infamous undead ghouls, others chose things like spores from space that grow a replica that replaces you. the fact that zombies were undead made them creepy, but never scary. right from night of the living dead the scary thing is a situation where you are completely out of your own control. with people who are more dangerous than the zombies because they think, they feel, they could explode on you at any minute. Zombies have really started out as just a plot device, a catalyst like a natural disaster where people batton down the hatches and huddle together to wait out the storm so to speak. With changes people tried to make them the scary part, like the rage infectees of 28 days later but they lacked something that instilled the same reasoning that made the ideas of the romero trilogy really resonate with people. For the time they were so warped and bizzare, and at the same time familiar and all the more chilling because of it. Nowadays we have seen much creepier and scarier stuff in movies, and in news reports. The dawn of the century was rife with mass fear and paranoia, not about human invaders, but microscopic invaders. We no longer feared the neighbor who might be a commie, but the unseen contagion we might be breathing in. attacking us from the inside. So it was no surprise the change in the narrative took the "bite and your infected" route from day and ran the fuck outta town with it. Unfortunately in our fast paced, overssaturated global media society it grew stale much faster. On the whole romero fans are a stuffy, unwavering bunches who either want that magic of the original trilogy recaptured and anything else is heresy or just fear change for what it may bring, regardless of the fact that a change can be bad and instantly changed back, or to something better. On the whole wether you staunchly want to defend it or not the idea of the old black and white shambler has grown stale and the biting, infectious runners are catching up with alarming swiftness. Someone needs to find that successful revamp of the movie monster we all find so creepy that will continue there position up there with the vampires, werewolves and frankenstein monsters and such of the horror genre. Or it will get to the point where people will grow up saying "this is stupid, why dont they just run faster than them?"-not that some arent doing that now. But on the whole thats still looking at it the wrong way. Zombie movies arent traditional horror really, there the unnatural disaster movie. The zombies are a mindless swarm, a storm of gnarled hands and gnashing teeth, a blizzard of rotten flesh and flies. All they serve to do is put people together in situations where the rules and laws of society dont apply and they must work together regardless of backgrounds they had before then. Right now shamblers aint cutting it for that and it needs a nice refreshing change, if romero has an idea thats a bit more different than "but no, wait, see- these ones can use hammers!" then right on. This aint goerge lucas ere talking about. Wether you liked or hated romeros last 3 flicks there were still choice points in each that shone through like diamonds in a turd and i still have enough faith in the old coot that he can come up with something way more out there than we expect that might be surprisingly entertaining and cause another generation fo filmmakers to go "oh no, now lets copy THIS films plot and monsters instead!"

[JDFP]

On the whole wether you staunchly want to defend it or not the idea of the old black and white shambler has grown stale and the biting, infectious runners are catching up with alarming swiftness. There will always be room for traditional Romero-esque zombies just as there will always be room for traditional vampires who can't go out in sunlight and who can be killed by a stake through the heart and be hurt by crucifixes and holy water. Sure, you have your niche markets of "Hey, let's create a vampire that can go out into sunlight or isn't afraid of crucifixes! That'll knock their socks off!" -- but it's only a niche. I couldn't disagree more that the idea of shamblers has "grown stale". Directors have grown lazy and thus their product is stale. An argument could be made (quite successfully, I believe) that Hollywood as a whole has grown stale. The creative juices are there but studios would just as soon settle for a re-make they know they can make a profit off of as opposed to tell a new and compelling story. And hey, who needs plot / story / character-development in this stuff? Let's just make the zombies faster, let's use better make-up, let's blow alot of shit up and people won't care if the movie is bankrupt of emotion or feeling. And it works. Michael Bay makes millions off of it. The whole argument of: "Shambling zombies don't scare people anymore" is bullshit. What the director who is saying this is really saying is: "I can't find a way to really scare people with shambling zombies." So, to make up for imagination and the ability to tell a good story Hollywood settles for creating zombies with superhuman strength that can sprint. Another example would be torture porn films in which they attempt to make every film more graphic than the last ("Hostel" / "Martyrs" / "A Serbian Film"). Instead of worrying about telling a compelling story with development and plot, let's just throw up a bunch of gore, blood, and mutilation. 'Cause that'll keep peoples minds off the fact that we don't really have any character-development or plot worth watching. EDIT: Romero did his own "re-making" of zombies and vampires as well. I'm not saying it can't be done and can't be done well, but if the reasoning behind it is because you can't scare people with traditional ideas/monsters than it's a weak argument from a weak director. It's all about the story and the characters. j.p.