Would you say...

**rightwing401** · 09-Oct-2012

I've been watching over the last two seasons of the Walking Dead. Still so badass that I'm just about to mess myself waiting for the third season. Now I've gone back and looked at Romero's Land of the Dead, while good, didn't nearly live up to almost a life long period of anticipation. I've also gone back and watched both Diary and Survival of the Dead. In comparison to the Walking Dead, neither movie really seems to come close to matching this TV series.

The question that I'm getting at here for all the other fans of the living dead in comparison to these two different trends of the living dead is...do you all think that the students (fans of the living dead) have now surpased the master Romero?

**krakenslayer** · 09-Oct-2012

Originally Posted by rightwing401

I've been watching over the last two seasons of the Walking Dead. Still so badass that I'm just about to mess myself waiting for the third season. Now I've gone back and looked at Romero's Land of the Dead, while good, didn't nearly live up to almost a life long period of anticipation. I've also gone back and watched both Diary and Survival of the Dead. In comparison to the Walking Dead, neither movie really seems to come close to matching this TV series.

The question that I'm getting at here for all the other fans of the living dead in comparison to these two different trends of the living dead is...do you all think that the students (fans of the living dead) have now surpased the master Romero?

I see where you're coming from. Personally, it's hard to give a decisive yes or no to this. While I agree that Land, Survival and Diary are certainly a lot less tight and well-written than the original trilogy, and while The Walking Dead is technically superior (in terms of production value and whatnot), I still like Romero's later films, and if I'm honest, I've never managed to get very much involved in The Walking Dead, despite slogging through most of the first season and running out of the will to continue just before the final episode.

I think it boils down to this: The Walking Dead is as middle-of-the-road and "vanilla" as zombie apocalypse fiction comes. I don't mean in terms of violence and gore (it seemed surprisingly splashy for a US non-HBO show), I mean in terms of the storyline and characters. Survivors hole up together, look for supplies, bicker amongst themselves, zombies eat some of them, they kill some zombies, look for a safe place, etc. This stuff is the bread and butter of zombie movies, sure, but anyone who's dipped into the HPotD fiction section knows there's a hundred fan-written stories in there that cover the exact same ground as TWD, many adding more interesting and novel elements, and most of them were written long before TWD was ever conceived. The situations, dialogue and characters in TWD are completely obvious defaults for this sort of fiction, offering nothing original or unexpected. The show handles the tropes of the genre perfectly, but it adds no original slant, it has no character of its own.

Romero's later stuff has been very hit and miss. But one thing I will say in his defence is the man has always tried to do something new or add something unexpected in each of his films. Whether or not his attempts pay off is best left up to each individual fan's assessment of each individual film (I don't want to derail your thread with old arguments, haha!) but at least he tried! When a new Romero movie comes out, you never know what kinda shit (good or bad) he'll try to pull off this time, and that's what keeps me coming back. If GAR's movies had turned into TWD after Land, I'd have tuned out years ago.

**Mike70** · 09-Oct-2012

my main problem with Survival was the mixing in of the comedic elements. that never really worked for me. it felt awkward and out of place. Survival is one those films that seems to be trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up.

**krakenslayer** · 09-Oct-2012

Originally Posted by Mike70

my main problem with Survival was the mixing in of the comedic elements. that never really worked for me. it felt awkward and out of place. Survival is one those films that seems to be trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up.

In spite of what I said above, I do agree with this.

**rightwing401** · 11-Oct-2012

Nice assesment KS. I certainly wasn't trying to compare Romero's movies to the TWD, it's just that it's one of the few non-Romero zombie stories in film that is worth a damn. Zombie land and Shawn of the Dead were beautiful blends of zombie horror and comedy, so I could have used those films in comparison as well.

What I'm kind of getting at here is that, Romero's last three films just didn't have the same feel in them that his first three did. I do give him credit that he's always tried something different in each of his films. In some parts it works, but in most of each film, it really doesn't. At least for me. Survival for me was the worst, where Romero broke the rules of the universe he created (granted he can do whatever the hell he wants with his own movies) by having the dead only attack humans, when it was established in all the prior films that they eat any warm blooded creature.

And while I do agree a good bit about the generic formula of TWD, Romero's own works have a similar trend that have played out in all of his movies. Small group of people hold up in a farmhouse, shopping mall, missle bunker, city-something goes down between the survivors on the inside, the dead break in, and only a few of them escape to greener pastures. (Excluding first Night of the Living Dead where everyone dies)

It really feels that, in recent years, fans of the genre he single handedly created have been putting out work that is superior to his latest works. That's what I meant with the question about fans of his work surpassing him in crafting zombie tales.

**MoonSylver** · 11-Oct-2012

His later works may be a bit scatter shot, & TWD may have surpassed them in both technical terms & in terms of cohesion, etc, but it's easy to reach the stars when you're standing on the shoulders of giants.

When you blaze a trail, it makes it easier for those who follow after you.

**shootemindehead** · 11-Oct-2012

As far as I'm concerned 'The Walking Dead', despite its flaws (which I've been very vocal about), is much better than 'Diary of the Dead' and light years ahead of the utterly wretched 'Survival of the Dead'. The latter isn't even fit to lick the boots of 'The Walking Dead' in my opinion.

So, yes, the students have surpassed the "master". A master whom I've always felt was a bit of a hack that got lucky with zombies. The rest of his output is fair to rubbish, at best. It's a shame, because Romero did give us the greatest zombie film ever made ('Day of the Dead') and I still look forward to a Romero zombie film, despite the general awfulness of the "reboot" films, 'Diary...' and 'Survival...'.

'Land of the Dead' is episode 4 in the original series and fits in well enough, even if it's built on some dodgy ground in places. I like 'Land of the Dead' and can overlook its flaws, like I do with much of Romero's work, but the "reboot" films just look like someone who's frustrated with a lack of "other" material and has begrudgingly gone back to the money-spinner out of necessity, not choice. Romero is thankful to his zombies, but I think he just doesn't enjoy them any more.

'The Walking Dead' on the other hand is being made by people who seem to genuinely love the old zombies, especially Nicatero and crew, who have given us some of the most convincing rotters I've seen in anything. Granted, some of the writing is a bit soapy, but that's due to the writers being different for episodes and American TV's "by the numbers" approach. That said, 'The Walking Dead' overcomes its flaws by being stunning and genuinely exciting in other areas, whereas the likes of "Survival of the Dead' and if advance notice is anything to go by, Romero's next outing, is just taking the piss.

**MinionZombie** · 11-Oct-2012

In short - yes.

Night, Dawn, and Day remain the paragons of zombie movie perfection - they are the icons that everyone aspires to, but Romero's work today doesn't match those entries at all. That is not to say that they're bad, rather that he has no doubt changed a lot as a man in an industry that has changed a lot around him in the intervening years.

Land of the Dead - over time more flaws have presented themselves to me, numerous small things where I think to myself "I'd have changed that line, I'd have tweaked that shot, I'd have covered that scene differently, I would have not had Big Daddy wailing so much even though I dug the general idea of it" etc - however, I still enjoy Land of the Dead a lot. Diary of the Dead on the other hand, is blunt-as-a-sledgehammer, and my opinion of it has been as wildly inconsistent as a stormy sea. When I first saw it I was kidding myself into really enjoying it - and while I did enjoy numerous parts of it, the film itself was a let down. It was interesting to see Romero playing around with an idea and going 'indie' again, but it was ever-so blunt and I never really connected with the characters.

Then we come to Survival of the Dead (which I have bought twice). I can understand some of the criticisms levelled at it, however I very much enjoyed it. It's nowhere near the league of Night/Dawn/Day - back in the days when I imagine Romero was hungrier and angrier ... he's still got some fire in him, but as an older man worn down by a few more decades of battered-down acceptance, I imagine that he's generally just having fun now. I'm okay with that, there was a bit of a message in Survival, but it didn't get overcooked ad nauseum like in Diary. Some of it is a bit too silly - hence the aforementioned uneasy tone it holds - but I watch it not wanting another Night/Dawn/Day, rather I'm watching it just wanting a bit of fun and a cuddlier and calmer Romero in terms of the film's outlook - the man wants to have a few yucks in his twilight years, and fair enough I say. All the interviews you see of him now, he's cracking jokes left-right-and-centre, so at least he's happy and enjoying himself - to which, again, I say fair enough.

Now - The Walking Dead - this is the product of hungrier and more youthful bellies. Yes, it is standing on the shoulders of giants, but as it progresses, it too is becoming it's own giant. The bredth and depth of the story, the zombies, the effects, the scale, the drama etc etc etc, it's the best thing in serious zombie work since Day of the Dead, without a shadow of a doubt.

Long live The Walking Dead, says I. Good lord I can't wait for the new season to start!!!

**MoonSylver** · 11-Oct-2012

Originally Posted by shootemindehead

A master whom I've always felt was a bit of a hack that got lucky with zombies. The rest of his output is fair to rubbish, at best.

And he wonders why I think he doesn't like ANYTHING....

**shootemindehead** · 11-Oct-2012

I dun loves me some hatin'

**krakenslayer** · 11-Oct-2012

Originally Posted by shootemindehead

A master whom I've always felt was a bit of a hack that got lucky with zombies. The rest of his output is fair to rubbish, at best.

WHAAT!? I'm sorry you feel that way, Creepshow is one of my favourite films and far surpasses even the original Dead series, for me.

**shootemindehead** · 12-Oct-2012

Yep. Afraid so Kraken. Most of Romero's films I find a struggle. His only non-zombie flick I can say that I truly enjoy is 'Martin', but even that gets a limited outing. I think 'Creepshow' is OK...just, but the Steven King part is rubbish, to say the least. I just can't watch 'The Crazies' any more and have given in to my original feelings of "It's just not that good is it", despite denying them for years. 'Knightriders' is largely pish and goes on WAY too long to be enjoyable and god knows I tried hard to like it, which is the case with most of Romero's films, the reason being that he gave us what I consider the greatest horror film of all time, 'Day of the Dead'. His post 1985 output, 'The Dark Half', 'Monkeyshines' and 'two Evil Eyes are all meh and 'Bruiser' doesn't work terribly well either, but I may need to return to that.

The simple fact is, that without his zombies, Romero's name wouldn't even get a mention.