What do you think really happened to Romero?

[JDFP]

So, I'll keep this brief as I look forward to responses. What do you think really happened to Romero? How did the man go from making one of the finest horror films of the 20th century (i.e. "Day of the Dead") along with two other epics ("Night" and "Dawn") as well as some other excellent material (namely "Knightriders" in my opinion which I think is his best non-Dead film) -- to making shit like "Survival"? "Bruiser" was shit. "Land" was mostly shit. I thought "Diary" was somewhat redeemable shit (I enjoyed it to an extent, actually, but I'm in the minority on this one here). Oh God, no, I'm not trying to set this up as "Land" V. "Diary" V. "Survival" -- we've done that to death. I'm just asking -- what the hell happened? I don't know. How the fuck can he honestly look at "Night" or "Dawn" or "Day" and then look at "Survival" as an intelligent (or so he seems to be) individual and honestly think it's decent work? I just don't get it. I really just don't get it. What the hell happened? Has he gone senile? Nuts? Anyway, I'm not 'trolling' here as I'm a vested member here, it's just something I honestly don't understand and I'm asking for opinions on the matter. What's your honest opinion on the matter as to what happened to Romero? j.p.

[Danny]

because times change, people change and taste is, most importantly, subjective, to most folks all of those movies are complete dogshit and would argue romero was never good. For most on here he just can never be as good as he was when his schtik was brand new, simple as that.

[JDFP]

because times change, people change and taste is, most importantly, subjective, to most folks all of those movies are complete dogshit and would argue romero was never good. For most on here he just can never be as good as he was when his schtik was brand new, simple as that. I don't know that it's really that simple, Hellsing. Most critics consider "Night" and "Dawn" to be EPIC horror films. Most mainstream individuals I know have a profound respect for the films too. "Day" has always been a different matter -- but with time it seems that more and more people consider it to be his best work (I do) for the sheer psychological horror and darkness of the film. Over time, I think "Day" will be remembered as one of the greatest horror films of the 20th century (of course, this is just my subjective opinion). Of course, I agree that times change and people change. But these are excellent horror films any way that *most* people look at it -- even including critics. I just don't understand how he went from this to creating the new trilogy of films which are a complete mess. You could add Carpenter's newer films to this as well -- he did two of the best horror films of the 20th century ("The Thing" and "Christine") to mostly shit too. If you learn the skills and know how to make an excellent film -- do you just suddenly forget how to create an excellent film with tension and elements of horror because you get older? That doesn't seem so plausible to me. j.p.

[bassman]

There are ups and downs for every filmmaker. If I were to give an "excuse" regarding his last films, I would say that he's become too comfortable because of 'yes men'. While I enjoy Land and actually consider it a counterpart to the original trilogy, he's obviously been slipping off in recent years. I'm afraid he doesn't have anyone to look at his ideas and say, "you sure you wanna do this?". Just listening to his new producing partner/crew on commentaries makes that obvious. With crew out of the way you've also got to consider that the guy is getting old. Maybe he just wants to make films no matter what it takes? Back in the day it was more about completing a great story, maybe now its more about having fun because the end is near? It's sounds pretty bad, but its always an option.... Regardless of what he's done recently, the man has created three of the greatest horror films of all time. Not only horror, but he created his own genre. And for that I raise my glass to him. He is, without a doubt, a legend of filmmaking.

[MoonSylver]

Meh. Don't know & don't care anymore TBH. Never thought I'd say that, but there it is. Not sure if anything did "happen" but if something did I think Hells nailed it: because times change, people change and taste is, most importantly, subjective.

[Mr. Clean]

because times change, people change and taste is, most importantly, subjective, to most folks all of those movies are complete dogshit and would argue romero was never good. For most on here he just can never be as good as he was when his schtik was brand new, simple as that. second...

[shootemindehead]

My own opinion is that nothing has happened really. He just isn't that good a director. I know to some that's blasphemy, but the simple fact is, that the vast majority of his output is way below par. The only real success he has achieved is with his living dead genre, which has subsequently imploded with two terrible films and a very poor choice in an awfully misguided "reboot", that has backfired incredibly. Other than 'Martin', his backlog is mediocre to rubbish as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I couldn't care less about an announced Romero project, unless it contained the words "zombie", or "dead' and even that has left me cold (VERY cold) in recent years. I think he hit paydirt with 'Day of the Dead', which along with JD, I believe is one of the finest horror movies ever made. In fact, I believe it to be the greatest horror movie of all time. However, I think it also stands alone in his repertoire. I believe that much of "Day's" success lies in the fact that he wasn't able to make the film he wanted and had to pare it back to it's existing content. 'Night of the Living Dead' and 'Dawn of the Dead' are of course classics, but they remain clunky and actually embarrassing in places, let's be honest. But, nothing he has done has approached 'Day of the Dead' and I am sad to say that nothing he will do again, will approach it. Romero's time is over.

[Mr.G]

I agree with almost everything posted above. I think it's more common for people to be hit or miss than to be on their game for the majority of their life. No one stays relevant forever. I prefer to think that he created a great trilogy and a couple of others (Creepshow, Knightriders) that I can sit back and enjoy whenever I want. Let him keep making movies if he feels he needs to, but unless I hear otherwise, I'll never expect him to create another great one; but I appreciate and will always respect what he's done for the genre.

[AcesandEights]

I think those SEALs killed him and he was buried at sea, just like Obama done tol' us. Oh...sorry I think Hells nailed it... Or, that. Yeah, that sounded about right, actually.

[Trin]

I think he has changed his focus. It used to be that he'd start with a setting and characters, add events and plot, craft it to have a message, make it scary, then film it. Plausibility of characters and events took the highest priority. Now he starts with message, wraps setting, plot, and characters around it, adds gags, then films it. Message takes the highest priority. Plausibility in setting, character and events takes a back seat. The original formula worked very well because message almost by definition needs to be a subtle undercurrent of the plot and story. When message becomes front and center the plausibility in the plot and story suffers, and that is glaringly obvious even to the least invested viewer.

[AngryNeighbour]

I agree with Trin. He tries way too hard to make a point with his movies now or to make it a "social commentary" so to speak, that he really loses out on the vibe, character and fun of it all. I also find it quite funny, that as his budget got bigger, his movies got worse ahahah

[Mitchified]

Regardless of what he's done recently, the man has created three of the greatest horror films of all time. Did he really, though? I thoroughly enjoy the original trilogy, but I'll be the first to admit that they haven't aged well at all. Are they even close to being in the same league as, say, The Exorcist? The more I look back on Romero's movies, the more I wonder if they were really as good as I first thought. I think about movies such as Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Clockwork Orange, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Vertigo; despite the special effects being dated, movies like these are still rewarding to watch (or in the case of Clockwork Orange, downright disturbing to watch). I can't really say the same for Night, Dawn, and Day. I'm starting to believe that Romero's success was simply a case of being in the right place at the right time, and that the passing of time has simply put a spotlight over his many, many flaws as a writer and director.

[EvilNed]

I can see your point when it comes to Night and Dawn, Mitch. But not Day. Day, to me, has aged superbly and is the best film I've ever seen. And I can't imagine ever seeing a film that's better than Day. To me, it's a pure masterpiece.

[Danny]

I think he has changed his focus. It used to be that he'd start with a setting and characters, add events and plot, craft it to have a message, make it scary, then film it. Plausibility of characters and events took the highest priority. Now he starts with message, wraps setting, plot, and characters around it, adds gags, then films it. Message takes the highest priority. Plausibility in setting, character and events takes a back seat. The original formula worked very well because message almost by definition needs to be a subtle undercurrent of the plot and story. When message becomes front and center the plausibility in the plot and story suffers, and that is glaringly obvious even to the least invested viewer. i'd say thats exactly the problem with the last few seasons of south park dude.

[clanglee]

I think he has changed his focus. It used to be that he'd start with a setting and characters, add events and plot, craft it to have a message, make it scary, then film it. Plausibility of characters and events took the highest priority. Now he starts with message, wraps setting, plot, and characters around it, adds gags, then films it. Message takes the highest priority. Plausibility in setting, character and events takes a back seat. The original formula worked very well because message almost by definition needs to be a subtle undercurrent of the plot and story. When message becomes front and center the plausibility in the plot and story suffers, and that is glaringly obvious even to the least invested viewer. Words outta my mouth