Why people hate LOTD

[DjfunkmasterG]

Financially it did ok $50,000,000 world wide. However, as a part of the saga it was an utter failure to many fans.

[Adrenochrome]

I'm going to watch it again right now!

[Humor Tumor]

I'm watching Day, then Land

[MinionZombie]

I too liked how the "small fish" in life became the "big fish" in zombie-dom. But that's the whole point in Big Daddy - he's smarter than the average zombie, like how Bub was - but multiplied by a few - and Big Daddy teaches (like a monkey would teach, through action) the other zombies and leads them. He shows them they shouldn't be afraid of the water, he starts to show them how to master a weapon - well, master it in terms of how a toddler would 'master' an M16, lol. Rock on Big Daddy!

[jdog]

I too liked how the "small fish" in life became the "big fish" in zombie-dom. But that's the whole point in Big Daddy - he's smarter than the average zombie, like how Bub was - but multiplied by a few - and Big Daddy teaches (like a monkey would teach, through action) the other zombies and leads them. He shows them they shouldn't be afraid of the water, he starts to show them how to master a weapon - well, master it in terms of how a toddler would 'master' an M16, lol. Rock on Big Daddy! i agree 'BIG DADDY" was altot smarter then the rest of the zombies. clarks acting was a bit weak,but the concept of a smart zombie is something i enjoyed. myself i love LAND because its is a new GAR movie and the firt one i got to see on opening night.

[ZombieFood]

Financially it did ok $50,000,000 world wide. However, as a part of the saga it was an utter failure to many fans. Was it the best in GAR's series? Absolutely not! But it was a fine entertaining movie all the same. And that is the measure I use to gauge how successful a film is: Did it entertain? Case in point: Lord of the Rings. There are people that love the movies, there are people that hate the movies. What I find is that the people that hate them in general did not like the adaptation that was made from book to screen. Those people wouldn't have been satisfied regardless of how close it came to the original. If it wasn't spot on, then there would be no quarter. And to a certain extent, that's fine as long as they acknowledge this fact while they are criticising it. There is plenty I wish GAR would have done with LotD. I have plenty of ideas on how he could have changed it to make it a better film. Oddly enough though, he never called to ask me. I could criticize it for would it could have been, but I'd rather just enjoy it for what it is.

[DjfunkmasterG]

[QUOTE=jdog]clarks acting was a bit weakQUOTE] weak? more like... DOWN RIGHT FRIGGING HORRIBLE. That is the role GAR should have saved for Howard Sherman Was it the best in GAR's series? Absolutely not! But it was a fine entertaining movie all the same. And that is the measure I use to gauge how successful a film is: Did it entertain? Case in point: Lord of the Rings. There are people that love the movies, there are people that hate the movies. What I find is that the people that hate them in general did not like the adaptation that was made from book to screen. Those people wouldn't have been satisfied regardless of how close it came to the original. If it wasn't spot on, then there would be no quarter. And to a certain extent, that's fine as long as they acknowledge this fact while they are criticising it. There is plenty I wish GAR would have done with LotD. I have plenty of ideas on how he could have changed it to make it a better film. Oddly enough though, he never called to ask me. I could criticize it for would it could have been, but I'd rather just enjoy it for what it is. I do agree with you 100% that people will hate something no matter what, but this isn't really one of those cases like LOTR. This was just poorly executed from the get go. I blame many people with this issue. (Producers, Universal, and GAR himself.)

[Scousezombie]

I hated Land because I felt insulted by the script. I have issues with the idea of 'smart' zombies, which to me undermine the very thing that makes zombies frightening in the first place (their lack of humanity and loss of 'self') but hey, that's a matter of personal taste. However, I can't forgive a script that expects me to believe that, in a world overrun by walking corpses in which humanity survives in heavily defended enclaves and scavenges for supplies, US dollars have any value whatsoever. The idea that Cholo would threaten the Green simply for worthless scraps of paper which cant be spent anywhere is ludicrous. It's as if someone bolted on a terrorist/ransom plot onto a zombie film without stopping to think about the world in which it's set. It would have made more sense for Cholo to demand tins of spam, which would at least have *some* barter value (and they have their own key!) Another thing which made no sense to me was the existence of the 'suits' inside the Green. Just what do these people *do*? They seemed for all the world to serve no purpose other than to be eaten later; if they have some function in the new world, I'd have been fascinated to have learned what it was! There cant be a big demand for stockbrokers, bankers and lawyers in a walled city with no economy to speak of (except for the low level trade for basic necessities) which is completely cut off from the rest of the world.

[ZombieFood]

One thing I have noticed is that when things become "mainstream", they lose character. Computer games are like this. My first PC was a Commodore 64. The graphics, while good at the time, were horrible by today's standards. However, what they lacked in the visual aspect they more than made up for with content and substance. I think the same analogy holds true with many things. I think this analogy would apply to the difference between NotLD and LotD. While I still maintain that LotD was enjoyable (at least in a visual sense), I would also say it lacked the character and substance that GAR's previous "less polished" films had. But to me, that doesn't mean it was a failure.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It would have made more sense for Cholo to demand tins of spam, which would at least have *some* barter value (and they have their own key!) Now that is fricking funny. One thing I have noticed is that when things become "mainstream", they lose character. Computer games are like this. My first PC was a Commodore 64. The graphics, while good at the time, were horrible by today's standards. However, what they lacked in the visual aspect they more than made up for with content and substance. I think the same analogy holds true with many things. I think this analogy would apply to the difference between NotLD and LotD. While I still maintain that LotD was enjoyable (at least in a visual sense), I would also say it lacked the character and substance that GAR's previous "less polished" films had. But to me, that doesn't mean it was a failure. This is why I feel it is a failure. The less polished stuff seemed more real, more frightening. LAND, didn't have any of that. it felt like he spent $15,000,000 just because he could. George was more effective when he is below the radar.

[MinionZombie]

Oh FFS...not this bloody "money" complaint again. At least three times on the old forums this has been discussed before and everytime we came to the conclusion that it was justified and that money was necessary. Land is the sort of movie that actually gets you to think about things more, to delve into the intricacies yourself, rather than just flat out telling you like you have to tell a toddler not to sh*t itself. The point is they've created a new world, a new - mini - society WITH an economy, people's functions are based on trade and industry. Vices are sold in exchange for money, which is in turn exchanged for other vices or supplies - only some people go out raiding, it's not like any old bugger can just step out and pick up a pack of smokes - or even want to, in a zombie infested world. It's like in the real world - not everybody can produce beer, or fags, or grow vegetables or provide bread etc. I really don't understand why the whole mini-economy is SO HARD to understand, like I said, it's been discussed endlessly on the old Dead Discussion forum and each time the money was justified. I'm not flaming you and I'm not looking for a fight - I'm just stating the facts as I know them and giving a brief explanation of why money in Land = perfectly reasonable.

[bassman]

I'm with you on that one, Minion. Makes perfect sense to me...

[MinionZombie]

*high five* for perfect sense

[jdog]

i like the idea of a super zombie but clarks acting was a little over the top. but i love the way it showed the zombies evolving as the movie played out the ending was a little to hollywood for me .

[Arcades057]

OK my complaints with this movie... 1) The soldiers. It's been 3 years. You know that all you have to do is shoot them in the head. So you spray a whole magazine at the body and extremities of a trapped zombie to kill it. Then you act like you're cool. I guess the Green's residents have the Springfield Armory running again. Also they seem to have no concept of safe points or secondary defensive positions. They sit in a tower where they are safe and then quickly drop into the advancing arms of zombies to be eaten while screaming "no!" With soldiers like that it's no wonder we lost the world to cadavers. 2) Riley. I just didn't like him. He reminded me of John Kerry for some reason, whom I dislike intensly. This guy is such a goody-two-shoes, you gotta wonder how this past and present pacifist survived the rising of the dead. I wonder how many weeks it took him until he could bear to touch a gun without shivering. He's such a good guy, looking out for the little people, but he's ready to run off to Canada and forget about the rest of them real quick, no? 3) Slack. Didn't like her either. At first I thought she was supposed to be "mentally challenged," then some helpful soul told me she was just Italian, which explained the accent. It did not explain the ****e acting. That little brat from Sopranos is Italian and she's a better actor. She does have one funny part where she shoots off Charlie's ear. I laughed at that. But this is a zombie movie. I did not laugh during Dawn '78, either Night, or Day of the Dead. You aren't supposed to laugh at a movie like this. But that's what Hollywood's become these days. The very fact that there are laugh-out-loud parts in this movie is proof enough that GAR HAS gone Hollywood. 4) Here's your plot: Guy gets fed up, guy wants out. Other guy gets fed up, other guy wants revenge. Guys get together. One gets out, one dies. It's a plot about escape. Someone said this is the only movie that had a plot, seeing as Night was about hiding, Dawn was about setting up house, and Day was about watching the survivors unravel. Land was about escape, and that's it. There is only one plot to this movie and that is escape. Everything else is only incidental to that. 5) Big Daddy. I wish I could call him what I really thought of him, but that's offensive to some. Let's just say I cringe whenever he enters the screen. If Land had been kick-arse in every other way, Bd would have still brought down it's kick-arse rating a point for me. Sure, Bub was smart too, but he did not emote at me! What's with the "NNOOOOO!" he does when his buddy gets his body shot off? Or the "AH-HA!" when he sees the gas coming from the hose? Smart zombies, OK, I can see that. Anyone who's read my remake in the fiction section (Valley of the Dead) will see my idea of smart zombies. Why is the smartest zombie a friggin gas station jockey, a Petroleum Dispensing Engineer, as DJ said? If BD had been a teacher, or a guy wearing scrubs, or even some white dude with frizzy hair and a pocket protector, I'd get it. But why is it a guy who in life probably went home to an efficiency and drank Colt .45 while watching his rabbit-ear-equipped TV? 6) Kaufman. A stab at the current White House, like a lot of other movies that come out these days. *yawn* Again, he provided a few laughs. Again, that detracted from the movie. This guy was like a maniacal "Bruce Campbell" from Dawn '04. "Bruce" ruined Dawn, Kaufman only helped to ruin Land. 7) The way all of the civilians died to the living dead in the end. Here's a newsflash: Every time something hits that electrified barrier the energy output increases. Send enough people or objects against that barrier and it will short out. Not to mention if you knock the little knuckle-size transformers off the fence it'll turn off. Or if you turn around and grab those retaining barriers you can start knocking the crap out of the living dead. Or form holes in your line, grab zombies and start hurling THEM into the fences. Wait, instead just cringe and wait for the zombies to start eating you. Then scream and scream. Much better idea. No idea whatsoever how these fools survived the rising of the dead. (political agenda ON) Here's the ultimate failing of GAR's vision. He tries to show how the capitalist system fails. The higher-ups beat upon the lower-downs and profit from their sweat. But here at the end he proves that socialism does not work either. Socialism puts everyone at the service of the state; the people rely upon the state for protection. But the State cannot help the survivors and they are deserted and annihilated. (political agenda OFF) 8) The "ending." What ending, you say? Well you're right. I'm kind of tired and I forgot that there IS no ending. Just a bunch of fireworks as Wussy McPusserson rides into the sunrise. Yay. OK, that's what I didn't like. I gotta say now that I've seen this movie with three girlfriends, my mother, and scattered friends. Every one of them say it's their favorite zombie movie I've forced them to watch. Either they'e all crazy, stupid, or have no concentration to get into Dawn 78, or a lot of us are missing something. Are we hating this movie only because we expected more? Is the movie really good, but we can't see it? I think if we haters came out and said "this movie SUCKS! It's NOTHING like Day/Night/Dawn" then maybe that would be the case. From what I've seen from the other haters (or those who merely dislike, as I do) we actually have beefs with the movie besides "GAR sold out." So there it is. Feel free to flame away, but be prepared, as I will flame back.