Why people hate LOTD

[MinionZombie]

As for the original trilogy and the film plots - they're more centered around social commentary, which directly connects with the viewer, and besides - I think the plots are more subtle. Night covers one night, so you can't go very far. Dawn has a simple plot, but it is there, it's about seeing these characters in their world and slowly crumbling - plus it's the biggest one for social commentary. Day has a bigger arc than the previous two and indeed Land has the most of "in movie plot". Really, the first three focus on "story" - which means not only what you see IN the movie itself, but all the stuff you didn't see which came before it (that the characters on screen have been through). Land took a step closer to 'normal' movies in that there was a greater focus on "plot", which means specifically what you see on screen in those 90 minutes. There is a surrounding "story" of course, but GAR moved along the slider towards "plot" a bit more with the fourth flick. One of the things I really like about the saga is that you fill in a lot of the details yourself, you're not just told "this is how it is", there's plenty of discussion surrounding the movies - hell, here we are as a community many years old talking about these films. You don't find that sort of thing with say, Bad Boys 2 - a flick which focusses totally on "plot" rather than any smidgen of "story". Yep, the film degree comes in handy these days

[Adrenochrome]

As for the over-expectation...well, after that long, GAR could have made the perfect finale and most of us would have been left feeling cheated. We've all spent so long wondering and writing/reading what others thought it should have been. The film was doomed to critcisms before it started. BINGO!!! nicely put.

[Humor Tumor]

Well, according to GAR himself you're "a real troll" because you like Day the most, lol. Those most into Dawn are the groovy fun-lovers and those into Night are the straight-lined "original is best" folk. So I wonder what those who most like Land would be called by GAR... I'm a troll as well, I admitted it to Lori Cardille over e-mail. As for Land, I think it was the weakest entry and could have been great. Could have. As it is now it's a decent film, not spectacular, but it's decent overall. As for those who like Land more, I think they would be called mainstreamers as this installation didn't feel exactly Romero like, it felt like many of the other zombie films coming out.

[MinionZombie]

Visually yes (non-GAR cinematography and editing + better equipment), script-wise though it felt just like good old GAR.

[Apocryphism]

As has been said plenty already in this thread alone, most folks disliked Land beacause they expected more than they feel they recieved. I do have a comment about characterization, however. I don't think it can be denied that the scope and scale of Land is much broader than any of the previous films. In a film that only lasts an hour and a half, has a more swiftly-moving plot, and has more flesh and blood characters than the previous films, you can't expect characterization to be on the same level. Well... technically, you can, but to do so is only a set-up for some amount of disappointment. Given screen time and what had to be accomplished, I think Romero did a decent job with the characters. I agree that more characterization would have been absolutely golden, but a lot of other things would have been forsaken within the same timeframe. Personally, my sole disappointment in the film is running time. This film would have shined brighter in every way with a precious extra thirty minutes. Even so, I do thoroughly enjoy the film as it is.

[DjfunkmasterG]

30 minutes may help it but I dunno about you, all I can say is that I just didn't feel threatened at any point in the movie. So adding in 30 minutes maynot really do anything for it, however I am curious as to what you think should have been added.

[Apocryphism]

I simply feel that thirty extra minutes would have given George a good deal more elbow room to tune a few things. It would have allowed him to explore things he wasn't able to do so more thoroughly in an hour and a half. I wouldn't necessarily want thirty more minutes of plot or an extension of the action... just thirty intercut minutes of dog shots, thoughtful bits, small characterization cues, and such like. Just a little more room to work. Some people complain that films like Dawn have too much of this (and are essentially "too long" or "too slow"). My feelings are quite the opposite.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think DAWn 78 is perfect for that reason. Land is too action driven (Not as much as the DAWN remake) but driven just the same. That is probably why there is no 'Dog Shots'

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, Dawn 78 is perfect - the fact it ponders upon it's situation and yet also doesn't FEEL it's length. Some flicks DRAAAAAAAAG so much (*cough* Night Watch *cough*). When I first saw Dawn I sat down, was utterly blown away in five minutes and didn't budge a centimeter until it was over 2 hours and 20 minutes later - and I was shocked it had been that long. It just flows...

[RaVeN]

I didn't hate Land. I just didn't love it either. It was alright for what it was. A late night horror movie at the local cinema. Did it feel to me like a Romero movie ? No. Does it deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Night or Dawn ? Hell no. It had its moments but these were for the most part too little too late. Fiddlers Green was ridiculous and Dead Reckoning didn't cut it for me much either. The soldiers for the most part also came straight out of the inflatable dartboard school of warfare. I own the movie on DVD. I've watched it a few times. That's about as much as I think of it.

[ZombieFood]

Of course we did. Our version had perfect acting and perfect setup. LOTD could have been a great movie. In the end it was an ok movie. I think LOTD had 2 flaws. First, Big Daddy was wrong. Smart zombies are fine. In fact, smart zombies can be a pretty horrific. However smart zombies who are angry and cry just plain suck. Had Big Daddy been portrayed with the same emotion scale of Bub (or better yet, slightly dialed back) it would have been a whole different movie. Now, GAR wanted to transition to being a story where the zombie is the protagonist. Well that doesn't really work. Here's my take on zombies. They can either be creepy (NOTD/DAWN/NIGHT90) or Intense (DAWN2K4). What they can't be is the protagonist. Once you try and make the viewer feel for the zombie with anymore more than Pity, they will never be creppy and can never be intense. The second flaw was the living characters. They were as uninteresting as they were wooden on the screen. Much of that was the script but the performances didn't help. The ONLY on screen chemistry was between Slack and Charlie of all people. Everyone else was a wash. But I have to say, I was never personally offended that GAR didn't deliver a perfect movie. And I not only saw it twice, but I pre-order the DVD. Bingo! We have a winner! Now I liked LOTD. Not my favorite, but it had the one criteria that is necessary for me to like zombie movies: Zombies. Admittedly, it doesn't take much to reach my expectations in this genre. That said, when the viewer wants the zombies to really stick it to those miserable scummy living humans, well, something has gone very wrong.... I remember watching it in the theater and thinking at the end when Big Daddy and the zombies head off that I hoped they found somewhere nice and peaceful to settle down. My next thought was "WTF is with that....I'm cheering on the zombies!!" But I still liked it!

[MinionZombie]

But that's the point - you're cheering on the zombies - that's what GAR has been going for over the trilogy, you start out rooting for the humans (of course) and then slowly turn towards the zombies as they become more human like and the actual humans get more and more screwed up.

[DjfunkmasterG]

But that's the point - you're cheering on the zombies - that's what GAR has been going for over the trilogy, you start out rooting for the humans (of course) and then slowly turn towards the zombies as they become more human like and the actual humans get more and more screwed up. I have to no problem with that either. I think it is just the level of humanity the zombies showed that I had a problem with. Was it me or did Big Daddy seem way more intelligent than the rest of the flock. Ya know when ya think about it there is a really kinda funny way about Big Daddy. In the real world he was just a Gas Station Owner/Attendant, then he dies comes back, now he is the smartest one in the litter. Is GAR trying to tell us that a Gas station attendant will lead us to our salvation. I just found some really funny irony in the fact a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer ended up being a leader. (then again look at the white house)

[Adrenochrome]

I just found some really funny irony in the fact a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer ended up being a leader. (then again look at the white house) LOL Good one!

[ZombieFood]

But that's the point - you're cheering on the zombies - that's what GAR has been going for over the trilogy, you start out rooting for the humans (of course) and then slowly turn towards the zombies as they become more human like and the actual humans get more and more screwed up. Well then...Looks like LotD was a outstanding success!!