The final piece

[clanglee]

I figured it out. The final piece of the puzzle. The other thing that bugs me about Diary. . . .


There was no Zombie chow down scene. :eek: What gives? There was a nice extended group buffet in every other GAR zombie movie. Even Land. In diary, all we get is mommy zombie chowing down on daddy. But no big sick out gore fest gross zombie eat-em-up. What the hell? :mad:

[bassman]

If I had to guess, I would say because the film is shot in the first person perspective. If you saw a bunch of zombies chowing down on dead people around you like in the previous films, would you hang around?

It would have made a cool scene for Jason and his filming obsession, though.

And on a side note - Why does it have to be just like the older films? Expectation can be a bitch.;)

[DubiousComforts]

I warned everyone about five months ago (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=9663) that this film would be extremely divisive and not to expect a zombie epic. But did anyone listen? Nooooooooo!

Man, I hate being right all the time.

[SRP76]

If I had to guess, I would say because the film is shot in the first person perspective. If you saw a bunch of zombies chowing down on dead people around you like in the previous films, would you hang around?



The surveillance cameras in and around the mansion don't run and hide. We got plenty of other footage from them; this could have been part of it.

[bassman]

The surveillance cameras in and around the mansion don't run and hide. We got plenty of other footage from them; this could have been part of it.

I've only seen the film a few times, but....does someone get really chowed down on before they turn and rise again? Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I don't remember it...

[SRP76]

No, I don't think anyone really got eaten. But they could have done a feast scene, if they used the mansion's cameras for the scene.

[clanglee]

I'm not saying that they all have to be the same. I'm just saying that that is one of my favorite parts in all the previous movies. . and this movie doesn't have it. Sure maybe its cliche. . .but it's an enjoyable cliche. Once again. . nothing to do with my expectations. I just noticed it after a few viewings. . so I couldn't have been expecting it now could I?

[DubiousComforts]

Sure maybe its cliche. . .but it's an enjoyable cliche.
I agree with you that it's an enjoyable aspect of most every other Romero zombie film. However, keep in mind that it served a specific purpose in both DAWN and DAY: the zombies, which are purposely portrayed as ineffectual in both films particularly DAWN and the originally-scripted DAY, have their final devastating revenge against the human characters that have become complacent with the situation. Without any real villains, I can't see this as being anything but filler in DIARY.

[SRP76]

It's a logical point of what's going on. Zombies exist only to eat the living. Over the course of any timeframe, you have to believe they're going to actually get their chow on. Going through the whole movie without them managing to corner and chomp on a group is against the odds.

[clanglee]

Without any real villains, I can't see this as being anything but filler in DIARY.

Yeah, maybe. But it would have added something to the movie that I would have enjoyed. And that would have been nice. :(

And they had a great chow scene in Land, and the zombies weren't really the villains in that one. . .

[bassman]

And they had a great chow scene in Land, and the zombies weren't really the villains in that one. . .

True....but they were chowing down on the armed forces guys. So it was turning the "chow down" scene on it's head to where the good guy(zombies) were eating on the bad guys(armed forces). So it still had the same meaning, only reversed. That's my view on it, anyway...

[clanglee]

I just saw it as George "throwing a bone" to his fans. Maybe because it is so expected. I dunno, I just would have liked to have seen it in Diary. It's just one more thing that lowers the enjoyment of the movie for me.

And before I get called shallow. .etc etc. Please see my other posts for my other problems with the movie. This thread was just to discuss this particular issue thankyouverymuch. :D

And you know. . .In Dawn, Day and Land it was the "bad guys" getting eaten. Bikers, soldiers, soldiers.

[bassman]

I just saw it as George "throwing a bone" to his fans. Maybe because it is so expected. I dunno, I just would have liked to have seen it in Diary. It's just one more thing that lowers the enjoyment of the movie for me.

And before I get called shallow. .etc etc. Please see my other posts for my other problems with the movie. This thread was just to discuss this particular issue thankyouverymuch. :D

And you know. . .In Dawn, Day and Land it was the "bad guys" getting eaten. Bikers, soldiers, soldiers.

Why no love for Night? Those were protagonists getting eaten...

[clanglee]

Why no love for Night? Those were protagonists getting eaten...

No no. . . much love for Night. Loads of it. But I was just pointing out that the bad guys getting eaten isn't relly the reverse, because that's what usually happens. Night is actually the opposite in this situation. Ya know?

[AnxietyDilemma]

If I had to guess, I would say because the film is shot in the first person perspective. If you saw a bunch of zombies chowing down on dead people around you like in the previous films, would you hang around?



Yeah, this was basically Romero's explanation for the lack of "banquet scenes" in the commentary.

[sandrock74]

I would think that the effects of a chow down scene would have been hard to manage from a technical stand point, due to how the movie (and the effects) were handled. If you watch the bonus features, they explain how several sfx were essentially slight of hand or carefully orchestrated just off camera.

[SymphonicX]

ahh **** Diary, **** the commentary, **** it all....even if it had 70 minutes of gorey **** I'd still be disappointed by it. I know what you're saying though, nothing demonstrated just how intense things should feel, and a chow-down scene might have helped that - it certainly pushed the point home in dawn...

[Trin]

I think a chow-down scene would've been useful both to satisfy the Romero faithful who want and expect one and to further convey the message. It wouldn't have had to be Jason doing the filming. Enough of the YouTube video stuff was shot by film crews or bystanders watching/filming as others got attacked/bitten.

For me it wasn't a noteworthy loss. In the previous movies the chow-down scene served to bring out the horror of the situation. Especially in Night when not only is the character first witnessing this but the viewer is also. For me (and I'd expect most viewers) the zombie chow-down scene is no longer shocking.

[clanglee]

No, no shocking, but it is fun. . in a sick way.

And Jason could have waded into an entire horde of zombies chowing down and not been attacked. As long as he had other people around to get eaten instead.

Actually. . That might have been a nice ending for jason. He wades into a throng of zombies. . and they consume him while he captures it all on camera. Would have been some neat first person horror there.

[Trin]

I would've liked a good zombie chow scene had it been mixed with good acting on the part of the humans as they watch in horror.

For Jason to get eaten by a throng of zombies there would have to actually exist a throng of zombies.

Which brings up one of my main Diary gripes. If Jason was so driven to get the video coverage then why was he farting around in the sticks with a bunch of dillholes in an RV? He should've been heading to the urban areas where the real action - the action he was watching on YouTube - was happening without him.

[AcesandEights]

I don't think a 'chow down' scene (sounds like a porn term) would have saved the film. There was far too much that didn't work otherwise. Would it have hurt? Pffft...who knows, but the way most everything else was implemented in the film doesn't give me any hope.

/sigh