What happened George?

[Neil]

Did you just respond to yourself? He's lost it!

[Wyldwraith]

LOL, Just quoted myself instead of who I was talking to. My bad.

[BillyRay]

It happens. Don't get nervous. ---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ---------- It happens. Don't get nervous. He's right, you know...

[Trin]

He agreed with himself at least... up to a point. I agree with Wild up to a point to. But I see a potentially different, but similar, viewpoint. Where I agree with Wild is that Romero has convinced himself it is the fans who don't get it, and not his movies that aren't giving it. That's a lack of self-awareness. I disagree that he's blatantly and consciously doing something against fan wishes. In my view Romero became great by taking his brainchild and delivering it his way in spite of critics. So maybe he's trying to recapture that formula for success and has convinced himself that being swayed by the fans or critics would hurt his chances? If that's the case then we're not looking at a director that has ignored and abandoned his fans... just one that has lost the formula for success.

[Neil]

Land was awesome. I can see how many would hate Diary and definitely Survival, but geez. Land is a polished gem. Finally, zombies done right. As much as I love the original trilogy, it still has its fair share of cheese. Land is OK, but the script feels clunky in places IMHO...

[Doc]

Land is decent, but it contains many questionable scenes for me. And somethings that make no sense. Kaufman escaping with money? Ok, I can buy that. Him escaping without ammunition, food, or anything else essential? Don't buy it......not one...bit!

[ChokeOnEm]

Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's. Ok, let me rephrase that… I don’t mean to say that Savini or Rubinstein were literally typing right alongside George on his old manual typewriter. But film is a collaborative and often improvisational art form. The character of Ben wasn’t meant to be black in the original Night script. That was a fluke, which gave the film much more added resonance. It goes without saying that a film’s cast and crew can contribute ideas that can make a movie better – or worse (such as Eugence Clark’s suggestion that Big Daddy escape unharmed). Who’s to say that Savini or Rubinstein weren’t critical in reigning in George, and helping shape what’s up on the screen? If you prefer to think that the recent quality decline is due to carelessness or old age, go right ahead. ---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ---------- Land is decent, but it contains many questionable scenes for me. And somethings that make no sense. Kaufman escaping with money? Ok, I can buy that. Him escaping without ammunition, food, or anything else essential? Don't buy it......not one...bit! Big Daddy ruins the effort for me. He truly is the Jar-Jar Binks of the Romero universe. I can't believe the same director who oversaw the masterful, almost-moving portrayal of Bub in "Day", thought that Daddy's barking and grunting was acceptable. Night-Day are films you show your friends on Halloween and scare the crap out of them. Land is campy. I watch it alone.

[zomtom]

You can discuss this until you're blue in the face. The reality is GAR has a huge fan base but they are only going to stay loyal for so long. I'm a fanboy since 1968 and damned proud of it. HOWEVER, please do not take me for granted. Survival of the Dead sucked ASS!! Even tho it sucked, I went out and bought the damned blu ray tho I don't see myself watching it too often. Shit, I enjoyed Land and Diary ten times as much as Survival. What I'm trying to say is GAR; don't take your fanbase for granted. If you throw another piece of crap like Survival at me again; I will no longer be a fan. Please don't take me for granted or thumb your nose at me. I've been a fan for too long and I know what I like. George; you need to get back into the realm of "The Walking Dead". You're the master when it comes to this; now it's time to reclaim your throne.

[UndeadChicken]

I agree with this topic, Romero's recent films just aren't as good as his old ones. I think maybe it's because his first 3 films were purely horror films meant to scare viewers, but now it seems like he's trying to potray the zombie apocalypse as a sort of "Mad Max"-type world where colorful survivors live in well-protected settlements and find all sorts of creative-yet-cheesy ways to combat the zombies (like using fireworks or bow and arrows) instead of doing the practical stuff like destroy the brain with a bullet or blunt instrument. Also for the record I haven't seen Survival of the Dead, but why the hell would you make a movie starring the asshole soldiers who robbed the main characters from the previous film and left them to die? Even if it was because the lead soldier was "looking out for his men", that makes it pretty hard to have any sympathy for those characters. And the fact that they were soldiers and the characters from Diary of the Dead were college kid civilians just makes the whole thing worse in my opinion.

[AngryNeighbour]

I liked Land of the Dead, but in Survival and Diary he tries too hard to make them a commentary of society rather than focusing on the character and vibe. Diary would have been okay but it made no sense..."I'm going to put music and make it seem like an actual movie..." yaaa right, should have done it more cloverfield style, although who knows how good or bad that would have been...

[UndeadChicken]

I guess Land of the Dead isn't so bad if you try to think of it as an apocalyptic adventure film instead of a horror film. I did like some parts of it like how the scavangers were exploring the abandon zombie-infested city looking for supplies to bring back to their survivor settlement. Maybe the problem with Land of the Dead is that Romero's zombie films have always been known for being scary, and he tried a new approach with this one and it wasn't well-liked because everyone was expecting a traditional horror film about zombies? My problem with Diary of the Dead is that too many things in the film were either silly or didn't make a lot of sense. Like the main character's choice of weapons: the old professor deciding to use a bow and arrow instead of a gun and the Texas girl going for one of those fancy cowboy revolvers (which I don't think she even got to use in the film). Speaking of the Texas Girl, I don't understand why she decided to abandon her friends in the end? She spent so much time with them helping them out and nothing in the film seemed to imply that she had any hostility towards them, then towards the end of the film just because of the one jerk who decided to film her getting attacked by a zombie instead of helping her, she steals their vehicle and leaves them behind, without even bothering to take any supplies with her (which was a pretty stupid thing to do). I just think that was completely anti-climatic and ruined a character who was likable in the beginning.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic. ---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ---------- I dunno. The first two episodes blew me away. Some of the other episodes were just as lame as Diary. Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's. Speaking of YES MEN... Everyone knows I hate Land... Like another poster mentioned I had issues with Big Daddy and that the zombie infested world didn't see so zombie infested. The movie was more about the gore as opposed to characters and story. Tis a shame because George is one of the reasons I got into making movies.

[C5NOTLD]

I liked Land of the Dead, but in Survival and Diary he tries too hard to make them a commentary of society rather than focusing on the character and vibe. Diary would have been okay but it made no sense..."I'm going to put music and make it seem like an actual movie..." yaaa right, should have done it more cloverfield style, although who knows how good or bad that would have been... That is what made NOTLD so great - They were not worried about a social commentary in 1967 when they made it. As John Russo has said they just told a "good, honest, emotionally involving story." And allowed viewers to get their own social commentary out of the film.