Why people hate LOTD

**clanglee** · 29-Oct-2007

I'm starting to think this is a generational thing. With MOST of the older people disliking the movie, and MOST of the younger people liking it. Ahh well, with age comes wisdom. . .

**darth los** · 30-Oct-2007

Maybe because we're old enough to recall when movies were actually good and original. Have you seen what passes for a blockbuster movie in the past few years? It's sickening.

**Doc** · 30-Oct-2007

Originally Posted by darth los

Maybe because we're old enough to recall when movies were actually good and original. Have you seen what passes for a blockbuster movie in the past few years? It's sickening.

I'll hurl with you.

**darth los** · 30-Oct-2007

If any more people join the hurl parade others might think that we're at the back end of a kegger !!

**clanglee** · 30-Oct-2007

. . .

uh oh

**Skippy911sc** · 30-Oct-2007

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles. And don't get me started on the CGI stuff. I like the idea that guys pushed plungers down and fake blood sprayed out all over...instead of the computer putting the blood in. But we must evolve with the films. Not everything is a Citizens Kane or DOTD

**MinionZombie** · 30-Oct-2007

Land of the Dead is far removed from the brainless likes of many modern horror movies, or films like SAW which are horror-on-crack fast.

As for fast pace, dude - Dawn of the Dead. The pace of that film, even in the extended cut, is quite often rip-roaring. The opening 15 minutes is damn-near relentless, fast cuts, shedloads of action, guns going off, heads exploding, flesh-eating - you name it, it's got it.

Now, Yawn04, that is the ADHD-addled ugly stepchild of zombie horror. Flashy colours and MTV style ... and no substance.

**darth los** · 30-Oct-2007

This is definitely one thread that never seems to burn out. People feel how they feel and i doubt that will ever change.

**Doc** · 30-Oct-2007

Originally Posted by Skippy911sc

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles. And don't get me started on the CGI stuff.

I know what you mean.

**Danny** · 30-Oct-2007

Originally Posted by Skippy911sc

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles.

lol, as i said on my radio shwo t'uther day, i watched my first hd-dvd movie, children of men and had to stop 55 mins in from a head splitting migrane.

high definition officially kills your brain.

**clanglee** · 31-Oct-2007

You have a point, but what I really think it is is the whole "Set in our ways" thing. Land broke away from too many staples of the George Romero zombie films. We oldies grew up with these movies. We have a certain brand loyalty. When Land came out, I think we felt a bit betrayed by the movie. It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting. Kind of like when New Coke came out. (and if you don't remember that whole horrid affair, you are of the younger generation) I happen to like Dawn'04 Which was fast paced. I don't think Land was fast paced, it was rather well paced as a matter of fact. My problem with Land is is a juvenile effort compared to GAR's previous dead movies. Crap plot, with holes the size of Pittsburg. Silly characters, and sub par acting. Dawn'04 wasn't a GAR movie, and it was much better constructed than Land. Sad sad sad.

**Legion2213** · 31-Oct-2007

Originally Posted by clanglee

You have a point, but what I really think it is is the whole "Set in our ways" thing. Land broke away from too many staples of the George Romero zombie films. We oldies grew up with these movies. We have a certain brand loyalty. When Land came out, I think we felt a bit betrayed by the movie. It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting. Kind of like when New Coke came out. (and if you don't remember that whole horrid affair, you are of the younger generation) I happen to like Dawn'04 Which was fast paced. I don't think Land was fast paced, it was rather well paced as a matter of fact. My problem with Land is is a juvenile effort compared to GAR's previous dead movies. Crap plot, with holes the size of Pittsburg. Silly characters, and sub par acting. Dawn'04 wasn't a GAR movie, and it was much better constructed than Land. Sad sad sad.

I actually cared and worried about the fate of one of the characters in Dawn 04 (Andy), I found it very hard to worry about the fate of anybody in Land. I just didn't care about any of those people.

Dawn 04 is a decent movie...one of the best non-GAR zombie movies in my limited experience. As for Land, well, it had the same effect on me as the first "new" Star Wars movie...

**Griff** · 31-Oct-2007

Originally Posted by hellsing

well unlike day they werent jsut shambling, they were all remmbering, the couple walked hand in hand, the brass band ect. daddy just seemed to be gaining a little more cognitive ability than the others, but only a little i.e he just rmemebered that much more, and when he showed others the lightbulb clicked above them too, least thats my view, big daddy rocks - and with that im off to watch land again, screw y'all i love that movie.

Yes! Here was my theory on the zombie evolution in LAND:

"The zombs in LAND (well, those from Big Daddy's hood, at least) seem to have certainly learnt to develop beyond mere eating machines. Like live humans who are able to satiate that basic desire, they're then free to pursue other endevours. Like starting families and living in communities. Or playing the tamborine.

The other thing to consider, however, is that they also seem very adept at mimicry and the ability to learn upon that. Big Daddy wields a gun because he's seen what it can do. Ultimately, its his influence that spreads across the living dead of Uniontown. You could almost picture Bub, at the end of DAY, wandering out into the dead community with the skills he's developed and becoming the catalyst for a similar situation. This has been hinted at since before Stephen led the brigade up the stairs in DAWN, indeed all the way back to when the dead first gravitated to that one particular farmhouse in NIGHT.

The evolution of the zombie may be less gradual and more spontaneous than we think. All it takes is that initial impulsion to motivate progress and then the evolutionary process is off and running at an indeterminable rate. A lack of stimuli, on the other hand, could explain why certain zombie groups seem to stagnate - just like primitive cultures that remain unchanged, even after tens of thousands of years. Then they have their first, small taste of 'civilization' and the next thing you know, they're using steel instead of stone and wearing Nike t-shirts that cover up their genitalia.

In otherwords, the zombie's ability to to develop culturally may have been innate from the very beginning, it just requires a little provocation."

I found it almost profound how once food had been taken out of the equation (for the dead residents of Uniontown must've gone a very long time without eating since their stores have yet to be raided), the zombies began to re-develop their old pre-death behaviours. Big Daddy is back at the gas station... the band is playing in the gazebo... a couple goes for a leisurely stroll, hand in hand... hell, one zombie is even content enough to just chill out on the park bench.

Its only when this kind of tranquility is violently torn apart by the supply raiders that Big Daddy throws down his gas pump, picks up a weapon and marches off to war, with those he has enlightened in tow.

To others with their fleeting consideration and brisk dismissal of the whole thing, its just another plot hole. To me it says alot about Romero's thoughts on revolution, violent revolution and its quest to establish some kinda of civilized order out of chaos.

To me the LAND vs DAWN04 debate isn't about age, its about perception, or the lack thereof...