Why I'm leaving George Romero

[CooperWasRight]

Coop where is the proof... Seriously, Romero didn't start doing the social commentary thinguntil press brought it up. With Night he admits they didn;t think about Duane Jones being the lead, nor did they associate it with any thing going on. Once critics started reviewing it and commenting on the parts they may have resembled current conditions... Romero has said that was not his intention but he could see what they were getting at. So again, when George and Company made Night... social commentary wasn't nowhere near the forefront of the story... It became an after thought. Seriously trying to defend shit that doesn't exist or has been embellished because of years of interviews and what not is not changing the fact Romero admitted none of the stuff touched upon by others was their original intention when making the movie You know talking to you is like talking to a brick fucking wall. How friggin thick are you man? Are you another dubs that wants ot be a knob slobber? seriously... you are totally out of your fucking mind if you think you're going to convince me that social commentary was in georges mind from the get go when many interviews he has been on record saying that was not the case, especially with DAWN. DAWN was conceived because of a tour of the mall and how he thought it would be cool to hold up in. He references the CD boxes and what not and how you could rough it out there during any type of event... including zombies. That was the sole thread or piece of fabric that brought DAWN to life. Night was a bunch of friends kicking in a few bucks to make a horror movie... again something he has been on record saying. Nothing more nothing less. If the social commentaries were really at the forefront of his writing then those films would have been as heavy handed as the newer three film. People don't suddenly change writing style unless something profound is brought up in regards to what they most likely unintentionally did. To be honest I don't even pick up on anything in DAWN until.... Fran says what have we done to ourselves... Any fucking writer with half a brain and going off the material things don't bring happiness could have written that... That moment in the film isn;t some profound statement of the 70's or consumerism. I am sure once people started talking about the comparisons he would agree with them... and maybe just figured to go with the flow. Again not knocking the man but don't sit here and try and tell me this has been his thing all along. You don't go from making three great films to 3 shit films unless you start believing in some BS hype that doesn't work in your favor. there is enough evidence to support where i am coming from on this. maybe you need to brush up on your Romero interviews. You are being willfully ignorant... You ask for the proof... WATCH DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD.... I was perfectly clear on that point several post back... obviously I have to be so clear. D O C U M E N T O F T H E D E A D. It definitively settles the fact that the social commentary was not a invention of the fans and critics on Dawn.. It was factually the directors intention.

[Wyldwraith]

I'm just going to say it, Those familiar with my posting and my conduct since I began visiting here can attest to this, but just for the record, I've never willfully resorted to making something that began as a debate/intellectual conflict into something personal. Until now. CooperWasRight: You're sanctimonious, patronizing in the EXTREME, condescending (just in case you didn't get it when I said you were patronizing), and you have all the charisma of a 500,000 Scoville Heat Unit Solution enema. I'm sick of the trolling, and your disrespectful manner of declaring things to be so as if you were the Herald of God Almighty, and then having the gall to split hairs with people when they call you on your B.S. Congratulations Cooper, you managed to make the shitlist of someone heavily doped with pain meds and anti-anxiety/sleeping pills for a major disability. That takes REAL talent. Bravo. I doff my cap to you. Asshat.

[Trin]

It is a fact that he made comments on the social commentary BEFORE the film was finished... So anyone buying off on it was a peewee herman lives in lala land. There is evidence that supports that... There is no logical way to dispute that... Even if George himself forgets that or contradicts this would not change the reality that on the record the commentary was intentional... I'm not really contending that he didn't say it, and I'm eager to see the documentary so I can judge for myself. But there is a lot to be said for context around GAR's statements. For example, it's entirely possible that the interviews I saw back in the day were asking questions that so overly emphasized the commentary (which interviewers often did back then) that GAR responded with his classic, "You're reading too much into it." The only things in this statement that is not FACT are things like me saying the person lives in lala land... As with my other comments on this thread... The objective way to put such things goes like this.... Your argument has a a fundamental that is ignoring incontrovertible proof... There for it makes your argument void and one could infer your current thought process is based on faulty logic. I love the term "incontrovertible proof." As if there's no room for interpretation or context. The last "incontrovertible proof" of GAR's intentional social commentary in Dawn was the script excerpt that mentioned the mall as a consumer edifice. To some that was just the crowning evidence, but when I read it I was like, "Seriously, you're hanging your hat on this?" Sure, it pointed to some acknowledgement of the character's draw to the mall as consumers, but did it portray an underlying social commentary of the whole movie? Not really.

[JDFP]

That takes REAL talent. Bravo. I doff my cap to you. Asshat. Hey Wyld, just make sure if that hat you're doffing is a fedora not to wear it in any future profile pictures you may put up, otherwise some more seemingly uncouth (a.k.a. jealous people here that don't have their own groovy fedora) could attempt to pick on you for it. Otherwise, I agree entirely with your sentiment. j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

I'm not really contending that he didn't say it, and I'm eager to see the documentary so I can judge for myself. But there is a lot to be said for context around GAR's statements. For example, it's entirely possible that the interviews I saw back in the day were asking questions that so overly emphasized the commentary (which interviewers often did back then) that GAR responded with his classic, "You're reading too much into it." I love the term "incontrovertible proof." As if there's no room for interpretation or context. The last "incontrovertible proof" of GAR's intentional social commentary in Dawn was the script excerpt that mentioned the mall as a consumer edifice. To some that was just the crowning evidence, but when I read it I was like, "Seriously, you're hanging your hat on this?" Sure, it pointed to some acknowledgement of the character's draw to the mall as consumers, but did it portray an underlying social commentary of the whole movie? Not really. Look man.... to the question as to whether or not it was a figment of the critics and fans when the man who wrote,directed and edited the film says during the filming process that it is intended the social commentary... That is "incontrovertible proof". What more could someone want? As for peoples grumbling about my personal attacks they should really re-read this thread... I did not start it and frankly I have been pretty mindfull about going personal... They only person I have personally gone after would be DJ and it was after many personal attacks on myself and the most personal I got was stating something to the effect that I think he has issues... This thread contains MANY direct attacks on one person or another. Again anyone who want to bring up specifics they are more then welcome to and if I have stepped over the line call me on it... But because you disagree with said evidence that I have provided does your opinions right. I have read many books on Romero and spent much of my free studying cinema/independent cinema. Does that make me a GOD? no... But when I present an argument.. I tend to base it on fact... Do I have opinions? yes... I personally am aware of the difference. It seems there is a problem with people whom are ignorant on an issue confusing there right to have an opinion with being right because they "feel" strongly on an issue. You wont find me getting into heated debate on open heart surgeons with people whom spend much of there time and life devoted to such issues... I realize I would be out of my depth and if I did voice and opinion that was wrong and I was corrected I would realize im out of my depth. I dont often get into heated debate on issues for which im out of my depth. And when I do they would be subjective issues and I would be the first to admit such. The things I have heavily debated on this thread are either objective for which I know through hard fact and evidence to be true...or they are issues that are objectively subjective. Me belief is you go with the truth takes you... And more often then not that will prove ones initial theory to be incorrect, If one is not being proven wrong often they are getting no closer to the truth. My primary interest in joining this forum is not to make friends... My interest was to learn of news, information and intelligent conversation on Romero and his projects. So sorry if I made your shit list but it really is not relevant to me. You felt the need to personally attack me.. Bravo to you sir. Enjoy your pills... And im aware that this post is not simply address you Trin.

[Trin]

Had to go back a few pages lest I let this gem go. Howard Sherman. They seemed like they were learning to me. Throughout the film they do the same stuff BD does. I personally liked the fact that we never saw BD eating. In a weird way that makes him more menacing, imo. Straight to the goal. Let the grunts have their meal. Howard Sherman... lol... it'd be interesting to see how he'd do. Might work... But my suspicion is that Eugene Clark could do Bub better than Sherman could do Big Daddy. I thought the other zombies were learning too. And they were showing socialization behaviors, too, like holding hands and stuff. So I agree that the intent was there. But where Big Daddy was making huge leaps of reasoning the others were still doing mostly mimickry. The difference between Big Daddy and the rest was too pronounced. So pronounced that we as the audience felt the need to explain it. I feel that if the general populace of zombies all began to learn and make leaps of intellect we would never have questioned it. We would also have felt a much higher tension because it would've elevated the threat. I can see how a non-eating Big Daddy is menacing since he has a more focused motive of revenge. I just can't stomach the zombies losing their primary drive. And as to this... Look man.... to the question as to whether or not it was a figment of the critics and fans when the man who wrote,directed and edited the film says during the filming process that it is intended the social commentary... That is "incontrovertible proof". What more could someone want? I acknowledged that he probably did say what you're contending he said on the documentary and that I should watch it. I'm more than willing to do so and challenge my own opinion. What I'm not willing to do is accept your interpretation of the documentary as incontrovertible proof. As my example clearly pointed out I've been down that road before and found the proof lacking. So what more could someone want? I want to judge it for myself. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Let's face it. Taking GAR statements out of context is a hobby around here, often times unintentionally, and often times second hand. If you are a scholar of GAR then you already know that GAR contradicts himself. You also know that he makes flippant remarks without thinking them through. And you also know that when you put a camera in his face and ask him a question you may or may not get the same answer from one day to the next. I'm sorry that this topic has gotten heated. But when you throw around things like my recollections are things I made up in my own head and that I'm being willfully ignorant or stupid... well, that does not predispose me to accept your interpretation of anything.

[CooperWasRight]

Had to go back a few pages lest I let this gem go. Howard Sherman... lol... it'd be interesting to see how he'd do. Might work... But my suspicion is that Eugene Clark could do Bub better than Sherman could do Big Daddy. I thought the other zombies were learning too. And they were showing socialization behaviors, too, like holding hands and stuff. So I agree that the intent was there. But where Big Daddy was making huge leaps of reasoning the others were still doing mostly mimickry. The difference between Big Daddy and the rest was too pronounced. So pronounced that we as the audience felt the need to explain it. I feel that if the general populace of zombies all began to learn and make leaps of intellect we would never have questioned it. We would also have felt a much higher tension because it would've elevated the threat. I can see how a non-eating Big Daddy is menacing since he has a more focused motive of revenge. I just can't stomach the zombies losing their primary drive. And as to this... I acknowledged that he probably did say what you're contending he said on the documentary and that I should watch it. I'm more than willing to do so and challenge my own opinion. What I'm not willing to do is accept your interpretation of the documentary as incontrovertible proof. As my example clearly pointed out I've been down that road before and found the proof lacking. So what more could someone want? I want to judge it for myself. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. Let's face it. Taking GAR statements out of context is a hobby around here, often times unintentionally, and often times second hand. If you are a scholar of GAR then you already know that GAR contradicts himself. You also know that he makes flippant remarks without thinking them through. And you also know that when you put a camera in his face and ask him a question you may or may not get the same answer from one day to the next. I'm sorry that this topic has gotten heated. But when you throw around things like my recollections are things I made up in my own head and that I'm being willfully ignorant or stupid... well, that does not predispose me to accept your interpretation of anything. Fair enough... I do not have a problem with the fact he does say many things... That is were one must apply critical thinking... That is why I said it wouldn't even be if Romero himself forgets what he said in the past. That is why I keep stripping the argument done to fundamentals to its objective cores... One must figure out what is objective and what is subjective. If he is asked what the premise of the film is and he says it is about some survivors that are held up in a mall during a zombie outbreak... This does not in anyway invalidate there is a intended message in the film... That has to do with the questions asked and how they are framed and edited in a interview. If the man himself during an interview while making the film says there is a message there.. That does effectively close the door on any future debate one whether it was intended. It is really the fact that such issues that have definitive answers that can be thrown up for debate that is just silly.... And instead of people realizing they are out of there depth on an issue they continue to argue.. Simply because they don't want there feelings or ideas to be invalidated. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.. Not everyone can be right on issues that are objective... I find my self thinking there are some parallels to the meaning of Diary and the problem with everyone having a voice makes it just that harder to find the truth.... At some point you have to either think to yourself Im either making this shit up... In which case I would be a piece of shit and a moron to keep going on and on as Document of the dead is not that hard to track a copy down...Or you can accept new knowledge an adjust your way of thinking. That is a big reason I joined this board... For new information... I enjoy learning new things on topics that interest me.

[EvilNed]

Yes, but no. The smart zombie idea is just fucking stupid. I will allow for bub because Logan coached him along, but zombie in land had no human teacher... therefore their actions were way to stupid to be taken seriously and Eugene Clark was seriously miscast in the role of Big Daddy... Big Daddy was just a plain old bad idea, but the screenplay didn't have him nearly as smart as he was in the movie which makes no sense to me. Hey, I like Big Daddy. I've always been pro-Eugene!

[DjfunkmasterG]

You are being willfully ignorant... You ask for the proof... WATCH DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD.... I was perfectly clear on that point several post back... obviously I have to be so clear. D O C U M E N T O F T H E D E A D. It definitively settles the fact that the social commentary was not a invention of the fans and critics on Dawn.. It was factually the directors intention. Doc of the Dead is not what I will consider as any evidence and I will explain why... Roy was a huge Romero fan, and began following him and learning about him after he had seen Night 68. Nothing wrong with that the guy is a fan, however, this was after critics began saying hey... the movies has some underlying social themes to it etc etc. When Roy and George walk and talk about the movie he actually leads the question with the nod to consumerism message, his questions actually led George, or anyone from that matter, down a given path and at no time do the answers ultimately reflect anything that can be considered hard data because again the documentary was being produced and shot by a fan who had probably done some homework read many reviews and interviews and had already bought into said hype about the social message. Again, the fabric that started Dawn of the Dead will always be and has never ceased to be George touring the mall and thinking this would be a cool place to hold in a zombie attack. Just like the piece of thread that started Night was friends wanting to make a movie... They all admit casting Ben was because he was the best man for the job and it had no bearing on race, it wasn't until critics pointed out the "Taboo"s of what was going on did they realize it. As I said, I love George, I love the movies... but this whole "Oh he has been doing social commentary since the beginning...." No, not buying into it especially because evidence exists that proves that to be Bullshit. And honestly the first 3 films... whatever "Message" was in them was so far pushed to the background that it wasn't really brought up until Critics began writing reviews and comparing the films to current times and situations. Then comes the 20 year Hiatus between Day and Land... more interviews, most discussions... Romero begins touring the con circuit in the 90's, more hype surrounds the Message of the movies... then finally 9/11 comes, DAWN remake i greenlit after world simmers down, Romero is suddenly in the spotlight again, New releases of the original trilogy are popping up with new interviews and docs that were structured to this "Social Message" thing and then BAM! Land of the Dead is greenlit with the heaviest in your face punch your momma in the Jaw MESSAGE then any previous film. Coincidence... who knows? My opinion... No Fucking Way... I look at the previous 3 flicks and don't see nowhere near the amount of Social Message that is found in the 3 newest, although Survival wasn't as bad as Land or Diary. Diary's social message or THEME was more or less exactly spot on with the times so I don't think it is blatant as some others seem t think it is... However... LAND. Jesus that had such a heavy handed anti Bush Administration stance a 3 year old could dissect that and come up with the conclusion.... Yep, he hates republicans, or at least GWB ---------- Post added at 05:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 AM ---------- Hey, I like Big Daddy. I've always been pro-Eugene! I think you're the only person I know or willing to be Pro-BD/EC That is cool, but never met a Romero fan that stood up in that way for BD/EC

[CooperWasRight]

Doc of the Dead is not what I will consider as any evidence and I will explain why... Roy was a huge Romero fan, and began following him and learning about him after he had seen Night 68. Nothing wrong with that the guy is a fan, however, this was after critics began saying hey... the movies has some underlying social themes to it etc etc. When Roy and George walk and talk about the movie he actually leads the question with the nod to consumerism message, his questions actually led George, or anyone from that matter, down a given path and at no time do the answers ultimately reflect anything that can be considered hard data because again the documentary was being produced and shot by a fan who had probably done some homework read many reviews and interviews and had already bought into said hype about the social message. Again, the fabric that started Dawn of the Dead will always be and has never ceased to be George touring the mall and thinking this would be a cool place to hold in a zombie attack. Just like the piece of thread that started Night was friends wanting to make a movie... They all admit casting Ben was because he was the best man for the job and it had no bearing on race, it wasn't until critics pointed out the "Taboo"s of what was going on did they realize it. As I said, I love George, I love the movies... but this whole "Oh he has been doing social commentary since the beginning...." No, not buying into it especially because evidence exists that proves that to be Bullshit. And honestly the first 3 films... whatever "Message" was in them was so far pushed to the background that it wasn't really brought up until Critics began writing reviews and comparing the films to current times and situations. Then comes the 20 year Hiatus between Day and Land... more interviews, most discussions... Romero begins touring the con circuit in the 90's, more hype surrounds the Message of the movies... then finally 9/11 comes, DAWN remake i greenlit after world simmers down, Romero is suddenly in the spotlight again, New releases of the original trilogy are popping up with new interviews and docs that were structured to this "Social Message" thing and then BAM! Land of the Dead is greenlit with the heaviest in your face punch your momma in the Jaw MESSAGE then any previous film. Coincidence... who knows? My opinion... No Fucking Way... I look at the previous 3 flicks and don't see nowhere near the amount of Social Message that is found in the 3 newest, although Survival wasn't as bad as Land or Diary. Diary's social message or THEME was more or less exactly spot on with the times so I don't think it is blatant as some others seem t think it is... However... LAND. Jesus that had such a heavy handed anti Bush Administration stance a 3 year old could dissect that and come up with the conclusion.... Yep, he hates republicans, or at least GWB ---------- Post added at 05:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 AM ---------- I think you're the only person I know or willing to be Pro-BD/EC That is cool, but never met a Romero fan that stood up in that way for BD/EC Of course you dont want to take it into account because it does indeed prove you are wrong... So let me get this straight... The man who had turned down the potential for wider release and more money if Dawn was simply trimmed to and R rating... The man whom could have sold Night by changing the ending.... The man who cut the budget down on day of the dead in order to tell the story his way and express his own point of view.. Which by the way meant in order for that integrity and to keep his voice he re wrote and basically shot a different film because be able to tell a story and have his voice matter and tell it his way was that important... That sounds like the type of guy that would allow someone to not only make up an interpretation but have George also regurgitate that in a doc. Im sorry but by the logic you are demonstrating the only way you could settle this is if you go back in time and get in George's head somehow... Because his word's while filming the movie before critics and fans could notice the collective figment is not good enough for you... Your whole post is a bunch of speculation... While my argument is based on documented reality. Rather then admit you are wrong.. You would rather resort to some conspiratorial idea that George was led in an interview on his own film...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Of course you dont want to take it into account because it does indeed prove you are wrong... You owe me a laptop monitor from spraying coffee all over it from laughing hysterically at how hard core you truly believe your own Bullshit and the Bullshit spewed out over past embellishments on Romero and the social message. So let me get this straight... The man who had turned down the potential for wider release and more money if Dawn was simply trimmed to and R rating... As usual you're wrong again. He never turned it down... he never submitted it because everyone knew it had to play as is. It was studios who wanted to cut it and he they turned down studio offers. Not the rating or the wider release... The only time the R rating came into play was when Rubinstein submitted it and made cuts so they could re-release it with Creepshow at Drive-ins back in the 80's, but ended up surrendering the R rating and restored the cuts because of fan backlash. (you better know your trivia if you're going to debate me on this shit coop, MPAA site even lists the R certificate as surrendered in 1983) The man whom could have sold Night by changing the ending.... I am not 100% sure on this, but I will give to you anyway because it seems plausible.. I have to re-watch some Night Docs before I debate that statement alone. The man who cut the budget down on day of the dead in order to tell the story his way and express his own point of view.. WRONG WRONG WRONG! Watch your documentaries you bubble head. He didn't cut it down. When he turned in that epic script Sallah Hussein who owned United Distribution told him he wouldn't give him $7,000,000 to shoot it and release it unrated, for that much it had to be an R or nothing. However, Sallah did say I will give you $3,000,000 and you can do whatever you want. George then went on to re-write the screenplay and out of his anger at being censored is why the script and movie is laced with hundreds of F-bombs. George, and this is confirmed by David Ball a co-producer on day, wrote a very angry re-write because of that situation. What the DAY doc didn't include was that Romero was upset about only being allowed $3,000,000 to do it his way because Sallah and Richard made a fortune off Dawn of the Dead and neither lobbied to change anyone's mind. (FYI back in the 70's between US and Foreign releases DAWN grossed upwards of $55,000,000) Which by the way meant in order for that integrity and to keep his voice he re wrote and basically shot a different film because be able to tell a story and have his voice matter and tell it his way was that important... Again re-watch the Day documentary on the 2 disc set this is stated plain as day as not being the case this is YOU embellishing incorrect statement to sway your argument. That sounds like the type of guy that would allow someone to not only make up an interpretation but have George also regurgitate that in a doc. Im sorry but by the logic you are demonstrating the only way you could settle this is if you go back in time and get in George's head somehow... Because his word's while filming the movie before critics and fans could notice the collective figment is not good enough for you... Your whole post is a bunch of speculation... While my argument is based on documented reality. Rather then admit you are wrong.. You would rather resort to some conspiratorial idea that George was led in an interview on his own film... ROTGDFLMMFAO - Dude you are delusional to the highest extreme. Everything we are debating here is in Documentaries as extras on the DVD's or in former written interviews. You have been manipulating it so bad to your favor that this time you clearly show how much you are wrong because everything in this last reply of yours is debunked by the DAY documentary alone. The sad part in all of this is... YOU WENT TO FILM SCHOOL! and just had your ass handed to you by someone who holds a degree in Computer Sciences and just started making his own films instead of wasting 4 years on my life learning theory that I can get out of any fucking book for $10.00 This debate is officially done. You have proved to be not only moronic but someone coming up with shit out of thin air. See ya, and good luck with your career as a PA. However when we roll on Dead 3 you can come and be my personal assistant and this way if I am ever famous... you can easily say NO WAY I was on the set and Gary never would have done or said that if someone made some BS up about me or my methods. Then I will show you how to make Zombies scary again with straight forward brutality tactics in the process.

[LouCipherr]

[Trin]

The man who cut the budget down on day of the dead in order to tell the story his way and express his own point of view.. Which by the way meant in order for that integrity and to keep his voice he re wrote and basically shot a different film because be able to tell a story and have his voice matter and tell it his way was that important... This is an example where I take issue with your contention that you are listing nothing but objective fact and incontrovertible proof, and everyone else is just throwing out opinion that was "made up in their heads." Where Day is concerned GAR is repeatedly quoted through the years as saying, "They wouldn't let me make it as hard as I wanted," where he uses the term "hard" to indicate graphic in terms of violence and gore. Here you are construing that to indicate some lack of creative freedom with his expression of point of view. You make it sound like the studio had a problem with his message when in fact all they cared about was offending people's sensibilities with an overly gorey movie. Your posts are filled with this kind of skewed conjecture of what would otherwise be factual statements. You expect people to take your "facts" as proof but you undermine your own credibility with stuff like this.

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is an example where I take issue with your contention that you are listing nothing but objective fact and incontrovertible proof, and everyone else is just throwing out opinion that was "made up in their heads." Where Day is concerned GAR is repeatedly quoted through the years as saying, "They wouldn't let me make it as hard as I wanted," where he uses the term "hard" to indicate graphic in terms of violence and gore. Here you are construing that to indicate some lack of creative freedom with his expression of point of view. You make it sound like the studio had a problem with his message when in fact all they cared about was offending people's sensibilities with an overly gorey movie. Your posts are filled with this kind of skewed conjecture of what would otherwise be factual statements. You expect people to take your "facts" as proof but you undermine your own credibility with stuff like this. I couldn't take it anymore... the amount of incorrect statements he used were debunked easily by watching the documentary feature on the Day of the Dead 2 disc dvd set. I ended up ignoring him all together because you can't argue with a moron.

[Danny]

It's been almost half a decade since i joined here. back then opinion was to each there own, not a childish battle where you must defend yours to the last because it is the only possible option ever. What happened to enthusiastic debate and respecting alternative points of view instead of "NO U! I AM RIGHT ALL THE TIME SO EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG AND STUPID". This is the goddamn cancer killing this forum and it's a damn shame it takes one of the youngest members to point it out.