Deej & lou movie commentary thread - pick the movie

[DjfunkmasterG]

Did you follow union rules? Nope... I did not, and the Union if I did have one, would have had to accept the fact when it comes to zombies this is how we do things, if not fuck them too. I am not going to let someone stop me from trying to do what needs to be done because they don't like it. Its not their vision it is mine.

[EvilNed]

Nope... I did not, and the Union if I did have one, would have had to accept the fact when it comes to zombies this is how we do things, if not fuck them too. I am not going to let someone stop me from trying to do what needs to be done because they don't like it. Its not their vision it is mine. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Either you follow union rules or you don't. If you decide to sign a deal with someone and then go against that deal in real life, your movie wouldn't have cost 6,000 dollars. It would have cost something more along the lines of -250,000 dollars and you'd end up with no film. Your production company's insurance company would end up with half a film, tho. So I guess they could make something out of it.

[bassman]

Did I say that 6,000 quote?

[LouCipherr]

Well, here's all I can say about it at this point - yes, we did repeatedly harp on the fact that it wasn't "epic" enough, this is true, however.. we also pointed out a lot of other issues with the film (filters used, day for night shots, lack of decent characters, crappy CGI blood, the fact that most performances seem completely lackluster, no characters that you actually "feel" for or have any attachment to, filmed in 2.35:1 yet there were tons of closeups so you didn't get that 'large scope' feel). We even picked out some of the parts we did enjoy, even if they were few and far between (you're welcome, MZ.. ), so we tried to be balanced, although it was quite difficult for this flick. I noticed someone said "well, you're bitching because it didn't meet your vision for the film" - uhhh, well, yes, that's exactly true - and isn't that what people do? If it did meet our expectations, then we'd have no complaints. The whole reason people complain about movies is because it either didn't meet their expectations or were nothing like they were expecting or it was a bad film overall. Keep in mind, it's just two people's opinion on the flick. We don't expect anyone to agree with our assessment, we just did it for fun for those who might wanna take a listen.

[bassman]

Yeah, I said that. What I actually meant is that you built the film up in your own mind for 20+ years and expected it to be just that. Rather than giving it an open viewing and a fair chance, you expected it to be YOUR film. I would relate it to the shit Day originally received because it wasn't another Dawn.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yeah, I said that. What I actually meant is that you built the film up in your own mind for 20+ years and expected it to be just that. Rather than giving it an open viewing and a fair chance, you expected it to be YOUR film. I would relate it to the shit Day originally received because it wasn't another Dawn. For 20 years I had a lot of expectations, this is true, but even though my expectations were not met that doesn't mean LAND was a good film. It was horrible barely DTV worthy trash. I am sorry if people think the film was so great, but I honestly feel the DAWN remake, while it is a cookie cutter action horror film was way more entertaining and worthy of its accolades than LAND of the DEAD. Bassman, I am sure everyone could agree we were all excited for a new Romero Zombie film after 20 years, but can you honestly sit and watch that film and say or think it can be held in the same regard as the original trilogy? I can't, so I have opted to speak my mind on the situation. People have no idea how hard it is for me to find anything good about that movie because all I see is wasted potential. I had read the screenplay, and I was shocked at how poor of atranslation the screenplay was to final product. ---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 AM ---------- Sorry, doesn't work that way. Either you follow union rules or you don't. If you decide to sign a deal with someone and then go against that deal in real life, your movie wouldn't have cost 6,000 dollars. It would have cost something more along the lines of -250,000 dollars and you'd end up with no film. Your production company's insurance company would end up with half a film, tho. So I guess they could make something out of it. Well Ned, to be honest when Deadlands 3 gets made, the unions will either have to make some concessions for me so I can make the movie I want to make or I can just hire non-union personnel. There are many indie filmmakers out there with talent who will work outside the union, but I will follow as much of the standard working rules as possible and dictated by our budget.

[bassman]

can you honestly sit and watch that film and say or think it can be held in the same regard as the original trilogy? I don't know if I would put it up there with Day, but it's certainly the closest of his newer films. So pretty much...yeah. I quite enjoy Land. Probably because I didn't expect it to be the Shawshank of zombie films.

[LouCipherr]

I don't think for one minute we expected it to be "our" film, we expected it to be a GOOD film and it fell short. I certainly didn't expect Dawn, Night, or Day, but I expected better acting, some characters I cared about, and some better cinematography. If it was OUR film, it wouldn't turned out 100% different. Maybe not better, but different, lets just put it that way. I'm not one of those that expects George to crank about another zombie flick like the original trilogy. Matter of fact, bassman, I think you and I said something similar in one of the Survivial threads. To expect George to turn out another Night/Dawn/Day at this point in time is just not possible. It was the right films at the right time in our lives, and that can never be repeated. What I didn't expect what the mediocrity that was given to us with Land. We thought he could do much better. Then again, after seeing Diary and Survivial, perhaps that's not the case.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think there were some good things about LAND, but the overall package was shit. Believe me if I helmed that flick I would have done it much differently, but I didn't helm the movie and therefore can only voice my dislikes about it. I actually have more good to say about Survival than I do LAND.

[bassman]

I actually have more good to say about Survival than I do LAND. Ouch. I understand that you guys don't like Land. That's cool....different strokes and all that. But when your commentary is litered with "Not epic enough" and the opening is complaining about the menu music...it seems like you guys are stretching for some haterade. I'm starting to think you just enjoy bitching about it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ouch. I understand that you guys don't like Land. That's cool....different strokes and all that. But when your commentary is litered with "Not epic enough" and the opening is complaining about the menu music...it seems like you guys are stretching for some haterade. I'm starting to think you just enjoy bitching about it. the Menu music was more of a joke at Universal for inconsistency about HD DVD menus on their products. Plus it also gave me a chance to slide a quick love note to the DAWN remake in there as well. However, i still think it is stupid to use such cheesy music for the HD DVD Menu when they could have easily lifted off a track from the films score and used that... it would have at least set a better tone for the film.

[BillyRay]

What I actually meant is that you built the film up in your own mind for 20+ years and expected it to be just that. Rather than giving it an open viewing and a fair chance, you expected it to be YOUR film. Are we still talking about Land of the Dead, or Phantom Menace?

[EvilNed]

Well Ned, to be honest when Deadlands 3 gets made, the unions will either have to make some concessions for me so I can make the movie I want to make or I can just hire non-union personnel. There are many indie filmmakers out there with talent who will work outside the union, but I will follow as much of the standard working rules as possible and dictated by our budget. So you're not working with the unions, check. Question answered. (Opinions like this are exactly why Unions exist, ironically)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Are we still talking about Land of the Dead, or Phantom Menace? Aren't they one in the same? Both from a filmmaker named George Both contain a boring story and plot Both contain an annoying character

[LouCipherr]

No 'stretching' is necessary to find things to dislike about Land (for us, and in our opinion), and yes, we do enjoy bitching about it because, well, as far as we're concerned, it deserves it. The whole 'not epic enough' is well deserved when you sit and view the movie carefully. Sure, we mentioned it a lot, but that's because there were so many places where the film had such potential to have that feel and consistently fell flat on it's face. I hate to say it (actually, no i don't) Dawn04 had a WAY more epic feel and look than Land. I noticed many are complaining more about our 'epic' statements yet we threw a lot more in there than just that. Camera angles, filters used, aspect ratio not used properly in many cases, characters that no one cares about, poor dialogue delivery, wrong actors chosen for certain parts (Eugene Clark in particular, but he was just one of several), actors that just didn't seem into the project and just fell flat on their performance... I know we brought it up a lot, but there was a lot more to the commentary than the lack of an 'epic' feel.