In Defense Of George A. Romero. (long read)

[ZombieNihlist]

Hi Zombie Nihlist here. Long time lurker 1st time poster.





Many people on these forums and elsewhere have since the release of Land and Diary been very critical of the zombie maestro Mr. Romero. Their arguments are focused on the direction and the content of his zombie series. I am here to defend Romero and his body of work.

Romero's Living Dead.
What people don't realize about this body of work is that it is the only series of zombie flicks let alone horror to fully mature into a respectable body of work. You may not like Diary of the Dead but please don't compare it to garbage like Resident Evil. I belive that people want him to do zombie epics over and over again but what bothers them is that his latest films take the role of a sidestory. With a series of zombie outbreaks ranging from Night to Dawn to Day this is understandable as the domination of humanity by the creatures and fall of civilization in his films had reached their climax .

With the orginal trilogy you had the concept of the dead creaping in slowly with each film representing a different phase in their overtake of the human race. But Land represents a smaller more contained feeling of dread that is only releated to its immediate enviorment and setting. You don't feel the slow decline of humanity and dark collapse of society at large because it has either already happened or its just not emphasised.

With Diary you have a POV asthetic that is independent all of its own. What I am getting at is that the viewer unfairly expects Land and Diary to be epic zombie operas when that is not something that Romero wanted to do with his current ideas.

Many of you will cite land as an example but this was a story self contained within itself. Even Day of the Dead with all of its clausterphobic glory maintained a connection to the world at large giving an impression of total death and isolation which is something Land doesn't do or need to for that matter. If romero wants to go for smaller stories thats his thing. Just cause it isn't hyper climatic doesn't make it bad.

Sometimes smaller is better. His last two films are not worse just different. Sometimes I feel that the fans are coming from an unrealistic sense of nostalgia that prevents them from enjoying a good movie like Land. Diary and Land scared the hell out of me. His latest films operate on a different plane while maintaining the same themes and ideas. It may not be as acessable but that doesn't mean its bad.

Secondly I wish to critizize the arguement that Land or Diary sucked because of "implausablity." You can critisize a movie for a glaring thing like a huge plot whole or something bigger but I'm sorry critisising Land because of the money used in it is not justified critique. The plausibility of that concept is far outweighed by the social commentary George Romero intended by putting it in. Just because the film doesn't comply with your own interpretation of what survivors would do in a zombie apocalypse doesn't mean its bad.

Who the hell cares about wether or not supplies would last or if money would work in a zombie apocalypse? That is just as stupid as saying that "Edward Scissorhands" sucks because it was implausable for Edward to get ice to make a sculpture. Romero doesn't worry about that sort of thing because character devolpment and themes far outwiegh stupid Obsessive Detail like that. Its a void arguement anyway because what would work and what wouldn't is all subjective. His movies don't exist for your zombie survivalist fantasies. :annoyed:

All that Romero ever needs to do to keep making good zombie films is maintain that sense of Nihilism and misanthropy as well as keeping his unique asthetic which is something I can't 100% identfy. All of that is Something he has not failed to deliver yet. Mr. Romero doesn't have a series he has a mythos.

With a series that spans almost 50 years Mr. Romero has done a damn good job of maintaing a consistency that Lucas or Speilberg could only dream of. As well as a rabid insane fan base that while smaller is even more divisive over his work. My hat is off to you sir because you are the last of your kind. as a director that has stood the test of time he deserves to take his place in the film director hall of fame not just with his horror brethren but with the likes of Gus Van Sant, Chronenberg, and Lynch as a special breed of auteur that stand aside from all hollywood bull**** in order to create something magical and timeless.

[SymphonicX]

Look don't be offended, but this is nothing that most of us haven't heard before. People always have reasons for not liking something, and all of those listed in your post are totally valid reasons for not enjoying a movie. We all exist on a spectrum of "disbelief"...some of us can suspend this notion for longer and in much harsher territory than others.

This however doesn't mean anyone's opinions on these movies aren't valid, because we're a huge mix of different people and we all take different aspects from Romero's movies. The bottom line is, well, Romero and us included should all be thankful there are still people talking about his films.

Sure I get your point about people's percieved lack of grandiose set pieces and "opera" style plots. However I disagree with the notion that somehow Land was meant to be a smaller movie than any of it's predessors. Land was meant to be big, but it wasn't. If the movie was intended to be small then we'd have seen much less of what we actually saw, but we all know Romero had to again cut down his vision to fit in with budgetary constraints.

Diary however, was meant to be small - but that's not what hurt the movie. What hurt the movie was an absolutely DIRE and childish script. Some of the worst words Romero has ever put to paper. Not just the script, but the direction was way too tight for a handheld movie, it was contrived, outlandish and you never got a scope of the problems they were facing because Romero spent way too much of the script bitching at us about the Youtube generation...

Now I'm all for social commentary - but I feel that this phrase is banded around this board like the entire series rests on it. It doesn't. It rests on compelling characters, intense situations and a severe amount of gore, a bit of comedy, and overall a sense of adventure and even fun. Diary had the opportunity to embrace all of these factors and didn't. Romero was too interested in hammering home his point that we spend too much time behind screens and cameras....(ironic coming from a 70 year old director).

You ask "who the hell cares if supplies would last". Again you're forgetting about the suspension of disbelief. Apocalypse movies have always, and always will be, interesting to us socially because it's a place we can put ourselves in and guess how we'd react. Who here didn't imagine themselves with a whole city to themselves after watching "The Omega Man"? Who here didn't imagine what it'd be like to walk around a completely disolate London after seeing 28 days Later? Very few unimaginative people, I'd say. Now if you introduce a notion like money into the equation then you're asking us to assess the idea with money as a factor - and that's where people find it hard to digest. I find that a perfectly reasonable notion, especially after much smaller but REAL situations in the current world have occurred whereby money has become useless in certain countries - see the fall of Pol Pot (thailand?), money was worthless and blowing down the streets. We've seen humanity react to things like money, which in a life or death situation have no value at all, so in Land's case - we'd probably be right to expect the same - although it was a good talking point about the movie, but only because most of us had to spend a good 20 pages on this board coming up with an idea why Romero would be mad enough to introduce this for any other reason than he couldn't think of a better form of currency or something with value.

Just maybe, maybe, if Land and Diary had been something we'd rate highly even whilst not being fans of zombie movies, a lot of people would love them - but remove the "nostalgia" as you put it, and what have we got? Two subpar horror movies with way too much political bull**** and some outlandish characters and in Diary's case, a simply atrocious script that's both badly acted and badly directed - if anything a sense of nostalgia would protect Romero and these movies, but leave most people feeling a bit cold about them.

[Andy]

You cant really come on a george romero fan forums and critisize the community for obsessing over little details or becuase we discuss the plausibility of a situation.. thats what we do, hardcore fans of any movie or TV series do the same, its what gives them pleasure and it dosnt mean they dislike their subject, for example trekkies absolutly tear inconsistancies in star trek to peices, but they still love it.

Dont tell us about romero's social commentry becuase we already get it, trust me. but we like obsessing over details and discussing who did what and why, its not just land and diary that are subjected to this, if you look back through this forum you will see similar topics on every one of the dead films discussing something which is inplausable or which could of worked out differently, we know things arnt going to change and to be honest i dont think any of us want them to, its just fun to discuss.

If land and diary are good films in your opinion, then thats fine.. but that is just your opinion, and dont try to force it on people as fact. In my opinion diary is a good film but land is the worse Z film ever. im sure alot of people disagree with me but it happens lol.




Welcome to the forums btw :)

[Legion2213]

Land was poor, Diary was a comlpete and utter disaster, bordering on unwatchable.

No amount of argument will change my mind about this, that's my opinion.

GAR used to make fantastic, highly watchable zombie movies, he seems to have lost this skill IMO.

[axlish]

I guess everyone should turn off their brains, ingore the extreme disappointment and just simply accept that this is a GEORGE A. ROMERO film and praise it.

[SymphonicX]

I guess everyone should turn off their brains, ingore the extreme disappointment and just simply accept that this is a GEORGE A. ROMERO film and praise it.

yes, this thread does indeed seem to support "fanboyism"....simply like it because it's Romero.

Not for me thanks!

[Yojimbo]

Secondly I wish to critizize the arguement that Land or Diary sucked because of "implausablity." You can critisize a movie for a glaring thing like a huge plot whole or something bigger but I'm sorry critisising Land because of the money used in it is not justified critique. The plausibility of that concept is far outweighed by the social commentary George Romero intended by putting it in. Just because the film doesn't comply with your own interpretation of what survivors would do in a zombie apocalypse doesn't mean its bad.

Who the hell cares about wether or not supplies would last or if money would work in a zombie apocalypse? That is just as stupid as saying that "Edward Scissorhands" sucks because it was implausable for Edward to get ice to make a sculpture. Romero doesn't worry about that sort of thing because character devolpment and themes far outwiegh stupid Obsessive Detail like that. Its a void arguement anyway because what would work and what wouldn't is all subjective. His movies don't exist for your zombie survivalist fantasies. :annoyed:



I do respect your right to express your opinions, but I do not believe that anyone here thinks that Romero's movies exist for our "zombie survivalist fantasies." And though as "fans" of George A. Romero's living dead films we enjoy discussing the minutiae of what you call "stupid Obsessive detail" we are not "fanboys" and as such we are free to find fault in GAR's films and logic and do not feel that we are committed to accepting each and every GAR film on face value simply because it is a GAR film.

As one of the few here who actually liked Diary AND Land and has argued many an issue with my fellow posters who disliked Diary, or Land, or both, I do not believe that folks here dislike Land or Diary simply because what the survivors did does not comply with the what they would have done in a similar situation. In this regard, it is not the implausibility of certain plot elements in and of itself that cause folks here to dislike GAR's latest films, and if you go back through the complaints that folks have posted you will see that their reasons for disliking the film are not "stupid"


What people don't realize about this body of work is that it is the only series of zombie flicks let alone horror to fully mature into a respectable body of work. You may not like Diary of the Dead but please don't compare it to garbage like Resident Evil.

I think you have understimated the intelligence of the posters here at HPOTD. We do realize that Resident Evil is total garbage, but if we choose to compare any of Romero's films to "Resident Evil", or to "Gigli" we are free to do so, and in so doing we do not disrespect Romero or intend any disrespect.

Dude, like you we are all fans of Romero here. If you read through the threads here at HPOTD, you would see that Romero does not need your efforts to defend his work from us. Nor do we need someone to explain Romero's work to us.

[Danny]

i got to "what you dont realize" and was done, everyone has tastes unique to them, i dont need to hear someone preaching how everyone is wrong and they are correct.

[Wyldwraith]

Honestly,
This is something I've said in several threads now, and I'll say it again for the new guy. GAR *MUST* remember that a director's *first* duty is to deliver an enjoyable cinematic experience. If that director can manage to fit their message/vision into the finished work, wonderful. If not, they need to leave it on the cutting room floor where it belongs.

Many people don't dislike Land and Diary because they fail to be what the original trilogy was. They dislike them because they fail, period. You are able to watch them and determine what the director was shooting for and see that he didn't his the mark.

Want to talk about "stupid" implausibility? How about an army of the living dead somehow managing to walk across the bottom of one of the wider and faster-running rivers in America (yes, the film was filmed elsewhere, but in-movie it was supposed to be on the east coast) in the dark of night and in under 5 minutes.

If my inability to cope with the idea of a dead rotting body doing something that many SCUBA-certified individuals couldn't do with appropriate weights and breathing apparatus constitutes obsessing on stupid details, then what ISN'T a "stupid" detail?

Finally, I'd daresay that the community here represents the broadest spectrum of committed zombie-apocalypse fans I've ever become acquainted with. These aren't stupid people by any stretch of the imagination. Talking to people in a pedantic manner is completely uncalled for, and does nothing to serve the cause of supporting GAR's films.

Thank you, goodbye.

[Yojimbo]

Although the "new guy" said that he has lurked here for a long time, from the comments he made in his post it seems to me that in spite of having lurked for a while he made his arguments "in defense of romero" based on a few statements taken somewhat out of context from some recent threads and posts. I think that if he carefully reads through the bulk of the threads on these pages he will see where we are coming from and realize that we all love Romero here, and that simply criticizing his latest movies does not mean that we have a lack of respect for Romero or lack of perspective for GAR's body of work. I think that once he gets a true taste of the rhetoric that abounds and views those exchanges in their proper context that he will realize he is in good company and that his views and his philosophies are not all that removed from those of the majority of posters.

New dude will soon see that HPOTD comprises last motley crew of freaks in the world that Romero needs to be explained to or defended against.

[lullubelle]

All of us here are big Romero fans, the fact that we did not like or like his lastest projects does not mean we stopped being his fans or that we will not go to see his next project, but....if I (or anyone here for that fact) does not like it, we are entitled to our opinion and as much as I like Romeros work, if it stinks I will say it does (my opinion of course) again that does not mean I am not a fan, just that I did not like that particular project, it does not mean that I will try to preach to anyone to have my same views, thats why we are all here, some liked Land and Diary, some of us did not, but we are still fans of the mans work regardless of our views, like everybody else we are humans, I think.....:D

[Yojimbo]

regardless of our views, like everybody else we are humans, I think.....:D

Or we could all be really cleverly programmed bots. I think, therefore I am.:D

[lullubelle]

Or we could all be really cleverly programmed bots. I think, therefore I am.:D

Yeah, we are. :D

[ZombieNihlist]

Okay sorry for not responding but yeah I agree with you to an extent. It does come down to opinion. In my personal opinion Land and Diary are not the best but they are at least as good as stuff like 28 Days. Land was hampered by several things. I don't think they nuked the fridge. You take a 20 year break and come out with Land and that is something impressive. It really is about opinion sorry for the soapbox. You may not like talking gun using zombies but I do.

The one thing I still disagree with is the money argument. Yes part of what makes horror so engrossing is the "what if" but weather or not money would be of value and if dead people could walk is arguing on borderline semantics.
If the world ended would a mall really still be there fully stocked like in Dawn? No it would not but that doesn't mean Dawn sucks. Seeing the dead rise from the moonlit Pittsburg river was very cool image and I don't really care if that would work. Like I said its opinion. Opinion doesn't equal balenced critique.


Romero himself has admitted he doesn't know how to give the series closure and I think this is because the first three films had a natural progression whilst the last two don't. Dawn and Day were like a two part Magnum Opus. Its like when a classic band released a new album. Not only do they have to be good they have to be better than their previous albums.

[Trin]

Hey, ZombieNihlist, welcome to the forums. I think you threw out some good opinions and they are very well stated. I do, however, disagree with much of it.

In most cases the people around here are willing to overlook quite a bit in an otherwise good zombie movie. We point out the plausibility problems (cause that's how we are), over-analyze them (again, that's us), but in the end don't let them rule our overall enjoyment.

However in the case of Land there are several plausibility questions that Land forces you to accept or the whole plot structure fails. If money isn't valuable outside the Green then Cholo doesn't hold the city for ransom. If zombies cannot walk across the bottom of the river then the zombies don't get into the city. If zombies cannot spontaneously become intelligent then there's no Big Daddy and - heck, I don't know what happens then.

The point is that these aren't minor niggles on the periphery of an otherwise great story. They're major plot points right there in the thick of the story.

Dawn had some implausibility, sure. All the Dead movies do to some extent. A lot of it has been discussed at length here. But in the trilogy the main plot points were always sound. No one sat in the theater scratching their heads, or worse, shouting at the screen.

I don't think anyone is asking or expecting Romero to be better than his former best. I think what Romero fans are hoping for is a movie that fits into the range of quality and enjoyment of the former trilogy. Since all the polls show that Land and Diary heavily favor the #4 & #5 spots on people's favorite Dead movie rankings I think it's fair to say that in general people aren't as satisfied with the recent ventures as they could be. That, sadly, is something that Romero shares with the likes of Lucas and Spielberg.

But it is all opinion, as you say, and I respect that you can ignore the plausibility issues and enjoy the movies. There are times I wish I could turn off that aspect of my nitpicking personality!! :)

[ZombieNihlist]

Hey, ZombieNihlist, welcome to the forums. I think you threw out some good opinions and they are very well stated. I do, however, disagree with much of it.

In most cases the people around here are willing to overlook quite a bit in an otherwise good zombie movie. We point out the plausibility problems (cause that's how we are), over-analyze them (again, that's us), but in the end don't let them rule our overall enjoyment.

However in the case of Land there are several plausibility questions that Land forces you to accept or the whole plot structure fails. If money isn't valuable outside the Green then Cholo doesn't hold the city for ransom. If zombies cannot walk across the bottom of the river then the zombies don't get into the city. If zombies cannot spontaneously become intelligent then there's no Big Daddy and - heck, I don't know what happens then.

The point is that these aren't minor niggles on the periphery of an otherwise great story. They're major plot points right there in the thick of the story.

Dawn had some implausibility, sure. All the Dead movies do to some extent. A lot of it has been discussed at length here. But in the trilogy the main plot points were always sound. No one sat in the theater scratching their heads, or worse, shouting at the screen.

I don't think anyone is asking or expecting Romero to be better than his former best. I think what Romero fans are hoping for is a movie that fits into the range of quality and enjoyment of the former trilogy. Since all the polls show that Land and Diary heavily favor the #4 & #5 spots on people's favorite Dead movie rankings I think it's fair to say that in general people aren't as satisfied with the recent ventures as they could be. That, sadly, is something that Romero shares with the likes of Lucas and Spielberg.

But it is all opinion, as you say, and I respect that you can ignore the plausibility issues and enjoy the movies. There are times I wish I could turn off that aspect of my nitpicking personality!! :)

I'm not trying to be condecnding so sorry if I offended everyone.
I'm not trying to be a fanboy apologist either. I admit that Land and Diary are my least favorites but that is my taste. On a techincal and academic level they are sound enough to be in the same league as his other work abiet under the Dawn and Day.

With the money thing is was mentioned that there were satalite outposts under Koffman's control so it would make sense that money would work there. I think that there was more to it than that. Cholo wanted power. That money represented power to him not wealth. After trying to escape the lower class but being refused that money was a way of attempting to compensate for his entrapment as the underclass.

He wanted what Koffman had. And money was the closest thing to that he could achieve. In the end people were using money because it was what they were used to. Money burns and they were just ignoring the problem trying to act like everything was fine when in this world such behaivor would be useless. That was the whole point.

[darth los]

I'm not trying to be condecnding so sorry if I offended everyone.
I'm not trying to be a fanboy apologist either. I admit that Land and Diary are my least favorites but that is my taste. On a techincal and academic level they are sound enough to be in the same league as his other work abiet under the Dawn and Day.

With the money thing is was mentioned that there were satalite outposts under Koffman's control so it would make sense that money would work there. I think that there was more to it than that. Cholo wanted power. That money represented power to him not wealth. After trying to escape the lower class but being refused that money was a way of attempting to compensate for his entrapment as the underclass.

He wanted what Koffman had. And money was the closest thing to that he could achieve. In the end people were using money because it was what they were used to. Money burns and they were just ignoring the problem trying to act like everything was fine when in this world such behaivor would be useless. That was the whole point.


Welcome to the boards.

So, by that you mean that both land and diary are technically and academically superior to night!?!

I just want to get that straight before i continue. I await your response.

Regarding land, it WAS indeed intended to be an epic film. You need look no further than many of the elements of Day of the DEAd's original script that made their way into land and diary. Do the phrases Intelligent ghoulsand islands sound familiar to anyone? Day was intended to be an epic on a much grander scale than dawn was. I think it haunted him for 20 years that he really couldn't make the film he wanted to and then gave us land. Unfortunately, as was stated in other thread, "The direction of the series", in paricular, there are numerous reason why, on a fundamental level, it just doesn't work imo.

I would still love it if that original script were made though. Maybe he should focus his efforts on that.



:cool:

[ZombieNihlist]

no i forgot to mention night. I meant the orginal trilogy.

[Trin]

With the money thing is was mentioned that there were satalite outposts under Koffman's control so it would make sense that money would work there. I think that there was more to it than that. Cholo wanted power. That money represented power to him not wealth. After trying to escape the lower class but being refused that money was a way of attempting to compensate for his entrapment as the underclass.

He wanted what Koffman had. And money was the closest thing to that he could achieve. In the end people were using money because it was what they were used to. Money burns and they were just ignoring the problem trying to act like everything was fine when in this world such behaivor would be useless. That was the whole point.
See, here's my problem. Everyone knows that Cholo can't do a darned thing with that money. He can't spend it in Kaufman controlled satellite outposts, or Cleveland (which they haven't heard from in a while), and certainly not in the Green. It won't translate into power anywhere. It won't even really hurt Kaufman to lose it.

But in light of the social commentary it DOES make sense. I agree with that. Cholo *did* want the money because he equated it with power. They *were* just ignoring the problem. I agree that that was the whole point.

My problem then becomes this... I think the social commentary is itself implausible. It's just ridiculous to think that their little society evolved without anyone (even Kaufman) ever realizing money was not where the real power was.

So if it works for you I'm glad for you. Not sarcastic or anything - I really thinks that's good. For me, the implausibility in the plot walks hand in hand with the implausbility in the message, and I find that hard to suspend as I'm suspending my disbelief.

[ZombieNihlist]

I believe that if Romero would remake Day with his orginal vison it would be the perfect way to put closure on the series. The main problem. How to find the right actors for Bub and Capt. Rhodes. If that isn't done right a major part of the series would be lost.


See, here's my problem. Everyone knows that Cholo can't do a darned thing with that money. He can't spend it in Kaufman controlled satellite outposts, or Cleveland (which they haven't heard from in a while), and certainly not in the Green. It won't translate into power anywhere. It won't even really hurt Kaufman to lose it.

But in light of the social commentary it DOES make sense. I agree with that. Cholo *did* want the money because he equated it with power. They *were* just ignoring the problem. I agree that that was the whole point.

My problem then becomes this... I think the social commentary is itself implausible. It's just ridiculous to think that their little society evolved without anyone (even Kaufman) ever realizing money was not where the real power was.

So if it works for you I'm glad for you. Not sarcastic or anything - I really thinks that's good. For me, the implausibility in the plot walks hand in hand with the implausbility in the message, and I find that hard to suspend as I'm suspending my disbelief.

But cholo wasn't thinking clearly. The whole thing happened in a matter of hours. He was vengefull and wanted revenge on Kaufman. If this was a plan of his for a while his stupidity would be unfounded. As for the citizens the money was a security blanket. It was how society devided its ruling class from the servants. In a society that emerged from one freshly destroyed its somewhat possible that money would be used for explotation and trade. However the more likely scenario would be money slowly replaced by trade or bartering as society fell or become more prominent as it recovered. If credit cards were all you knew what would you use and be more comfortable with? Money or physical goods?

[Thorn]

What is funny about money is it is just paper now and yet it has "value" because we as a people agree that it has value. That you can work, give someone your time and skill and in return you will be rewarded with "money" and then someone else will accept that paper and in return give you something else for it.

This boils down to barter just by third party then right? I give you this, you give me that. It doesn't matter if it is beads, blankets, and booze in the case of the settlers trading with the natives for land in the United States of America. Or if you are trading paper. It has value because we believe it does, because we support the system. If in this case a pocket of the living continued to use paper money for whatever reason... perhaps because they believed the world was going to return to sanity at some point, or that perhaps SOMEWHERE in the world life was normal and money still had value. I mean in a bad situation a lot of us still hope for the best, and some people plan for the best. Others hedge their bets and accept reality but want to cover all the angles. "The world likely is gone and will never be the same but I am going to make sure if I am wrong that I have a big bag of money".

I also like what was said about Cholo just trying to take power for himself, or what was as close to it in his mind as possible. That rings true to me.

Maybe look at it this way in that movie some people wanted to just run, just get away. Get North because in their mind maybe things were better there. Maybe there was something better. Is it likely? I can not really say but I doubt it. But if you put yourself in the film, and try to think like someone living in that world I might NEED to believe that. By the same token someone else might need to believe that money, and therefore normal life had value somewhere.

At the end of the day it still boils down to your opinions. You either do, or do not like the films no matter what the reason. You either are or are not fond of the direction and results of Mr. Romero himself over the past 50 years.

Just my two cents. (if the dead were to walk would my two cents be worth less than they are now?)

[Trin]

But cholo wasn't thinking clearly. The whole thing happened in a matter of hours. He was vengefull and wanted revenge on Kaufman. If this was a plan of his for a while his stupidity would be unfounded.I get what you're saying but I think it goes deeper than that. Cholo may have acted without thinking clearly but that doesn't explain things. Why did Kaufman pack bags of money to flee the Green? Why did the board member who caught him red-handed seem aghast that Kaufman was taking the money? It was taken as matter-of-fact that whoever held the paper money held the power over the Green. No one in the movie ever questioned what would happen if he got the money.

If GAR were merely painting Cholo as ignorant and impulsive I could get over it. It'd be stupid and uninteresting, but plausible.

Brass tacks - Dawn's social commentary paints people as overly into consumerism. I can relate to that. Who wouldn't want to be left in a mall with everything yours? I would've acted the same way they did after securing the mall.

Land's social commentary paints people as stupid, set in their ways, and unable to recognize the changing needs of survival. So much so that they'd starve to death rather than part with their money. I cannot relate to that. Would anyone here actually do what Cholo did?

[DubiousComforts]

Brass tacks - Dawn's social commentary paints people as overly into consumerism. I can relate to that.

Land's social commentary paints people as stupid, set in their ways, and unable to recognize the changing needs of survival. So much so that they'd starve to death rather than part with their money. I cannot relate to that.
Well, now that you mention it, DAWN's commentary also "paints people as stupid, set in their ways, and unable to recognize the changing needs of survival." The television, the police raid on the tenement, the "redneck" scene and the biker raid in particular all support this viewpoint. You have to admit that Romero is consistent in his commentary.

[Danny]

ive said it before and ill say it again. on the whole humans are a stupid, greedy species that fear change and crave comfort and familiarity above all things. the pretense of using currency to still barter was an attempt to keep a power structure i believe, sometimes people will look for anyone to follow in a desperate situation if they lack confidence in themselves, but i also think it was holding on in the hopes that easy life we all enjoy would one day return.

[lullubelle]

ive said it before and ill say it again. on the whole humans are a stupid, greedy species that fear change and crave comfort and familiarity above all things. the pretense of using currency to still barter was an attempt to keep a power structure i believe, sometimes people will look for anyone to follow in a desperate situation if they lack confidence in themselves, but i also think it was holding on in the hopes that easy life we all enjoy would one day return.

you know hellsing, you got a point, people in general are acustom to things being a certain way and when change comes they (we) try to mantain what we are used just to keep going, its not about greed or stupidity, it's just human nature.

[Danny]

what can i say?, beyond my funny and charmingly witty exterior i have wisdom beyond my years.;)

[Trin]

Well, now that you mention it, DAWN's commentary also "paints people as stupid, set in their ways, and unable to recognize the changing needs of survival." The television, the police raid on the tenement, the "redneck" scene and the biker raid in particular all support this viewpoint. You have to admit that Romero is consistent in his commentary.Hahahaha!!! I admit nothing!!! :p

Okay, I'll admit you have a point. GAR movies are full of stupid people. It's definitely a consistent view of GAR's regarding humanity. I don't ever remember wanting to slap the screen though prior to Land.

So the consensus is that Cholo and Kaufman were stupid and coveted money because it was familiar and they were clinging to the old ways. And everyone else went along with it and allowed themselves to be subjugated to Kaufman's money because they were stupid and it was familiar and they were clinging to the old ways. And that's all nice and plausible. :confused:

[triste realtà]

The last time I watched Dawn, I had an 'aha' moment. I think there is a contrasting of the city vs the country in the beginning of the film. The city folk are shown constantly bickering and victims of their emotions. Then they get out in the 'sticks' and you hear 'They're probably enjoying the whole thing', but in Night 90 the response is 'Give me a break'. The 'rednecks' are shown getting the job done, organizing to eliminate the threat, while the city folks are getting eaten cause they're zombie huggers.

[lullubelle]

what can i say?, beyond my funny and charmingly witty exterior i have wisdom beyond my years.;)

And you are a smart*** too:D:D:D:D

[darth los]

The last time I watched Dawn, I had an 'aha' moment. I think there is a contrasting of the city vs the country in the beginning of the film. The city folk are shown constantly bickering and victims of their emotions. Then they get out in the 'sticks' and you hear 'They're probably enjoying the whole thing', but in Night 90 the response is 'Give me a break'. The 'rednecks' are shown getting the job done, organizing to eliminate the threat, while the city folks are getting eaten cause they're zombie huggers.


I think the country folk were TOO laid back and didn't seem to be taking it seriously enough. Imo that can be just as deadly as panic and chaos.



:cool:

[Yojimbo]

But cholo wasn't thinking clearly. The whole thing happened in a matter of hours. He was vengefull and wanted revenge on Kaufman. If this was a plan of his for a while his stupidity would be unfounded. As for the citizens the money was a security blanket. It was how society devided its ruling class from the servants. In a society that emerged from one freshly destroyed its somewhat possible that money would be used for explotation and trade. However the more likely scenario would be money slowly replaced by trade or bartering as society fell or become more prominent as it recovered. If credit cards were all you knew what would you use and be more comfortable with? Money or physical goods?


Hey ZombieNihilist, I see we have sucked you into arguing about the minutiae that exists in a GAR film. Quite fun stuff, isn't it? Welcome to the boards, brother, you'll fit in just fine here. :)

[EvilNed]

If my inability to cope with the idea of a dead rotting body doing something that many SCUBA-certified individuals couldn't do with appropriate weights and breathing apparatus constitutes obsessing on stupid details, then what ISN'T a "stupid" detail?

I was never, ever bothered by it. Infact, I think it's a cool detail and it enhances the so called "enjoyable cinematic experience", that you claim that GAR missed.

[Trin]

I was never, ever bothered by it. Infact, I think it's a cool detail and it enhances the so called "enjoyable cinematic experience", that you claim that GAR missed.I'm with Wyldwraith on this one. When they performed this miracle of underwater navigation I just threw my hands up and said, "Oh, come on!!"

What really irritated me was that the army guy says that the zombies cannot cross the river (which assumedly had been true for years) and then all of a sudden they can. So it was their intellect holding them back? Not that they can't swim and can barely walk on land? Please.

And I should believe that the river has served as a barrier simply because they have never tried before because they were too stupid? If anything their stupidity would've facilitated their attempts. We know they tend to walk straight into obstacles. In Dawn we saw a zombie walk into helicopter blades and decapitate itself. Why would they stop at a river? They would've walked straight off the dock, into the water, and not even noticed they were wet. Then they'd get swept away with the current.

I can believe that smart zombies would find a way across the river, but let them find a way that makes sense.

[EvilNed]

In Dawn we saw a zombie walk into helicopter blades and decapitate itself. Why would they stop at a river? They would've walked straight off the dock, into the water, and not even noticed they were wet. Then they'd get swept away with the current.

Dawn was a different movie, and the zombies acted differently in that one. Who says that the exact same zombie rules apply in both films?

[DubiousComforts]

What really irritated me was that the army guy says that the zombies cannot cross the river (which assumedly had been true for years) and then all of a sudden they can.
Why put so much stock into what the "army guy" says as being fact? None of the characters in these films are experts on the phenomena and if anything, it's a good example of a false sense of security.

In DAY, the living dead wait patiently at the edge of the elevator platform until it reached the bottom of the shaft rather than just plunge off the side, so it's safe to assume that they possess some type of distance/depth perception. The helicopter blade zombie in DAWN was in pursuit of a human when it walked into the rotating blades, so its perception had been compromised by the instinct to attack. Who knows if it would have even comprehended the helicopter blades as being dangerous regardless.

[SRP76]

Why put so much stock into what the "army guy" says as being fact? None of the characters in these films are experts on the phenomena and if anything, it's a good example of a false sense of security.



If zombies had been able to cross the river, they would have known it. There would have been zombies strolling down their streets.

[DubiousComforts]

If zombies had been able to cross the river, they would have known it. There would have been zombies strolling down their streets.
How do you know there weren't? If a few zombies had gotten through in this way, they would have been dispatched already (prior to a "secure" city being shown to the audience). The characters wouldn't have known where these zombies had come from unless they had actually witnessed one emerging from the water.

Just because it wasn't shown doesn't mean it didn't happen. The difference is that Big Daddy led a large group to the water, which was shown for the sake of telling the story.

[SRP76]

How do you know there weren't? If a few zombies had gotten through in this way, they would have been dispatched already (prior to a "secure" city being shown to the audience). The characters wouldn't have known where these zombies had come from unless they had actually witnessed one emerging from the water.

Just because it wasn't shown doesn't mean it didn't happen. The difference is that Big Daddy led a large group to the water, which was shown for the sake of telling the story.

The soldiers would know about any zombies, because they are the ones that deal with them. And Kaufman would certainly know about it; nothing goes without his knowledge.

If zombies could get across the river, they would have been doing it every day. If something happens frequently, nobody's going to think "it can't be done".

[Yojimbo]

Not that I think it is plausible for someone to walk across the bottom of a swift moving river, but suspending that disbelief and assuming that a ghoul could come across, then the question becomes why other zombies did not do this before, or why the zombies weren't doing this more often.

Perhaps the errant, occasional zombie managed to make it across the river from time to time, only to be dispatched by the soldiers on guard. I am assuming that a zombie would from time to time pop up on the riverbanks which is one of the reasons why they had armed men stationed there with searchlights (the other reason being to detect "living" river crossers who might try to inflitrate the green zone). Realistically, it would seem believable that a zombie or two must have at least floated across the river from time to time.

The difference with Big Daddy's arrival was that it was massive as opposed to a lone ghoul or two coming across, and there were two, really undisciplined stoners manning that guardpost who were surpised by the massive onslaught. The soldiers were never anticipating that such a large contingent of the undead would suddenly make it across en masse.

[darth los]

What really irritated me was that the army guy says that the zombies cannot cross the river (which assumedly had been true for years) and then all of a sudden they can. So it was their intellect holding them back? Not that they can't swim and can barely walk on land? Please.

O.K. First off guys, if we're looking for consistency from the dead films we're going to be sorely disapointed. Gar struggles to maintain consistency in the same film so forget about the series. Sometimes they shamble, sometimes they run. Sometime they're weak and listless, sometimes they can rip you head off. I guess it depends on his mood that day. I'm resigned to the fact that the"rules" change to fit GAR'S purposes for the moment. Or that film.


Dawn was a different movie, and the zombies acted differently in that one. Who says that the exact same zombie rules apply in both films?

This is sort of a continuation from the above comment. I truly believe the point you made. GAR'S been saying it all along that these are seperate movies. These are different outbreaks and different zombies. But we go on about timeline discussions and what not. If you notice, in every film the zombies are a little different and the scenarios such as the first days of the outbreak and virtual armegeddon couldn't be more diverse. At the end of NOTLD it's obvious that the situation was under control. Then we come to dawn and society is falling apart. The question has often been asked, "how did it get so out of control?" Well, perhaps they're just alternate realities that have nothing to do with one another. It's as good an explanation as any I've heard. Think about it. Other than zombies, is there anything at all linking the films? I can't remember any off the top of my head.



If zombies had been able to cross the river, they would have known it. There would have been zombies strolling down their streets.

That i agree with as well. I might not be a psychologist. But dealing with people everyday in my line of work i feel i can predict human behavior to a degree. Just having to deal with the ghouls on a daily basis you would get a sense of their tendancies. So for them to all of a sudden be able to do that seems off. Remember evolution happens SLOWLY. You just don't discover fire one day and discover the human genome the next.



The soldiers would know about any zombies, because they are the ones that deal with them. And Kaufman would certainly know about it; nothing goes without his knowledge.

If zombies could get across the river, they would have been doing it every day. If something happens frequently, nobody's going to think "it can't be done".

Exactly.



:cool:

[clanglee]

Why put so much stock into what the "army guy" says as being fact? None of the characters in these films are experts on the phenomena and if anything, it's a good example of a false sense of security.

In DAY, the living dead wait patiently at the edge of the elevator platform until it reached the bottom of the shaft rather than just plunge off the side, so it's safe to assume that they possess some type of distance/depth perception. The helicopter blade zombie in DAWN was in pursuit of a human when it walked into the rotating blades, so its perception had been compromised by the instinct to attack. Who knows if it would have even comprehended the helicopter blades as being dangerous regardless.

If I recall correctly. . in that scene of DAY, the zombies were first of all centering on the middle of the lift in attempt to get at Miguel. Then as the lift was making its way down one zombie did indeed fall off the lift.

[EvilNed]

If I recall correctly. . in that scene of DAY, the zombies were first of all centering on the middle of the lift in attempt to get at Miguel. Then as the lift was making its way down one zombie did indeed fall off the lift.

Just as some occasional zombie might fall into the river. As the movie clearly states, the zombies didn't get anywhere by preying around the humans city, because they just got shot. So that explains it.

There's no inconsistancy in the zombies not going into the river. Infact, the zombies had probably just never tried it. If anyone missed it, Land actually shows the zombies having some brains, so no, they're not the guided missiles of most zombie fictions. They think that "Hey, this is is a steep fall", and they avoid it, probably trying to find some way around instead.

[DubiousComforts]

Perhaps the errant, occasional zombie managed to make it across the river from time to time, only to be dispatched by the soldiers on guard. I am assuming that a zombie would from time to time pop up on the riverbanks which is one of the reasons why they had armed men stationed there with searchlight. Realistically, it would seem believable that a zombie or two must have at least floated across the river from time to time.

The difference with Big Daddy's arrival was that it was massive as opposed to a lone ghoul or two coming across
My points exactly, Yojimbo, and anyone that requires further reasoning beyond this in order to suspend disbelief should probably stop watching "living dead" movies.


If I recall correctly. . in that scene of DAY, the zombies were first of all centering on the middle of the lift in attempt to get at Miguel. Then as the lift was making its way down one zombie did indeed fall off the lift.

There were many more zombies than could comfortably fit on that lift. There should have been dozens pouring into the opening as per the zombie-walks-into-the-rotating-blades logic, not just one uncoordinated corpse stumbling a few feet to the ground.

[Thorn]

I have to say that I think that they would have had to deal with occasional zombies coming ashore, they likely were not counting an army of them. Because of currents and it was a natural obstacle.

People jumping into the river to kill themselves would end up somewhere, either out to sea or on a shore so they would need to clean up and watch for this. Even the occasional zombie-Klutz who just fell in. That said leaving one side of the city unsecured is kind of crazy. You would at least plan for it a bit better I would think.

My problem is that if you throw a bunch of rotting corpses into the water even ones that can move under their own power the strong currents and water life is going to do things that make getting from point a to point be very hard. More over the bottom of a river is not a highway there are obstacles. Yet Big daddy and his undead army come up on the other side in formation neat as you please. There is no way this would have happened. Visibility, the current, the obstacles, all of it would have prevented this.

It is not a show stopper for me but I have to say I hated it when I saw it.

Now maybe they never tried the water because they were unsure of how to traverse it, but once big daddy showed them it was okay they did not have a fear of it. Fear is a good thing it keeps you safe it is something we all deal with, so maybe they retained a fear of the unknown and avoided it. Then when directed to to they faced the fear and came up on the other side.

It just wouldn't have been a "walk in the park" and while it looked cool in the movie, it was for me anyway one of those moments where I went "yeah.. oh...okay ... sure" and that ruins immersion.

[clanglee]

That i agree with as well. I might not be a psychologist. But dealing with people everyday in my line of work i feel i can predict human behavior to a degree. Just having to deal with the ghouls on a daily basis you would get a sense of their tendancies. So for them to all of a sudden be able to do that seems off. Remember evolution happens SLOWLY. You just don't discover fire one day and discover the human genome the next.
:

Not to mention that evolution doesn't occur at all in one generation of a species. Expecially a species that can't reproduce to pass on it's genetic code at all.

Evolution is the wrong word to use with zombies. Dead things can't evolve. what they did in land is . . remember? progress? Of course you know I have a problem with a rotting brain making any sort of foward progression. . but damn. .havn't we been over this before? It all sounds quite familiar. :D

[SRP76]

Dead things can't evolve. what they did in land is . . remember? progress?

.....totally wreck a movie?

And what exactly is the whole "deep message" supposed to be, anyway? Some recite the whole "it's about ignoring the problem!" crap. What problem? "They're just looking for a place to stay", remember? So, there's no problem to ignore.

The movie just has no logical sense to it. And is it fun to watch? No. All the characters suck (except maybe Kaufman), and nobody's doing anything even remotely exciting. So, it fails.

[EvilNed]

It just wouldn't have been a "walk in the park" and while it looked cool in the movie, it was for me anyway one of those moments where I went "yeah.. oh...okay ... sure" and that ruins immersion.

I take the opposite standpoints. When the dead emerge from the water is one of the coolest bits in the film for me. I loved it. I was even more immersed in it, because of this.

[Trin]

Why put so much stock into what the "army guy" says as being fact? None of the characters in these films are experts on the phenomena and if anything, it's a good example of a false sense of security.
Come on Dubious. The guy who stands watch giving an assessment of the situation doesn't know? I believe he should be considered an expert on what he has had to defend against for the past several years.


Not that I think it is plausible for someone to walk across the bottom of a swift moving river, but suspending that disbelief and assuming that a ghoul could come across, then the question becomes why other zombies did not do this before, or why the zombies weren't doing this more often. That is my question. In addition to the army guy saying they couldn't, they obviously never have. And getting smarter doesn't make that easier.


I am assuming that a zombie would from time to time pop up on the riverbanks which is one of the reasons why they had armed men stationed there with searchlightsI don't believe they had guards stationed along the riverbanks. Remember that Big Daddy and crew were literally spreading through the streets before any alarm was raised.

I believe it is plausible that they originally had guards/guardposts/patrols along the river, but over time they stopped them. But only if there was no activity along the banks.


...I'm resigned to the fact that the"rules" change to fit GAR'S purposes for the moment. Or that film.It's very true that he changes the rules to meet his current need. Roger dies from infection in days and Cholo in hours. Fine. But the rules of physics??


GAR'S been saying it all along that these are seperate movies. These are different outbreaks and different zombies.He's also said things to imply that they are the same outbreak and the same zombies portrayed in different time periods of the outbreak and just filmed in a different era. His statements are easily twisted to support either stance.


I take the opposite standpoints. When the dead emerge from the water is one of the coolest bits in the film for me. I loved it. I was even more immersed in it, because of this.And that is reason enough for you to love it, probably the best argument made so far here, and I applaud you for it!!

[Doc]

O.K.

At the end of NOTLD it's obvious that the situation was under control. Then we come to dawn and society is falling apart. The question has often been asked, "how did it get so out of control?" Well, perhaps they're just alternate realities that have nothing to do with one another. It's as good an explanation as any I've heard. Think about it. Other than zombies, is there anything at all linking the films? I can't remember any off the top of my head.


I always though that was because in Night it didn't look like they took bites in to consideration. Didn't look like anyone in the film knew bites also turn you too.

[Bub666]

I always though that was because in Night it didn't look like they took bites in to consideration. Didn't look like anyone in the film knew bites also turn you too.

Thats a great point,They never mention the bitting turning people into zombies.

[SRP76]

Bites don't turn people into zombies; they never did. Dying turns people into zombies. That's everybody, no matter how they die (unless it's of head trauma, of course).

Bites just cause people to die quicker. This was mentioned from the very start ("who knows what kind of diseases those things carry" - Ben). A funky mouth plunging directly into your bloostream does that.

[DubiousComforts]

Bites just cause people to die quicker.
Right, so in effect, bites do turn people into the living dead because perhaps a person wouldn't so easily expire from a normal bite wound.


Come on Dubious. The guy who stands watch giving an assessment of the situation doesn't know? I believe he should be considered an expert on what he has had to defend against for the past several years.
I think as is typical of most Romero films, the guys in power and authority are shown to be complete asshats. What does it tell you that the most effective of Kaufman's soldiers (Riley, Cholo) were renegades?

[Trin]

This thread is awesome. We've discussed defending GAR vs. criticizing him, money issue, river crossing, timeline & universe, zombie evolution, and now whether bites kill you because of some fictional zombie thing or because any normal bite wound would kill you.

What's left on the tour of inflamatory topics? Running zombies? Comparing Land vs. Dawn '04?

We all know Land wasn't as _______ (awesome/lame) as Dawn '04 because the running zombies were such a _________ (fresh/failed) concept.

:p:p:p:p

[Thorn]

This thread is awesome. We've discussed defending GAR vs. criticizing him, money issue, river crossing, timeline & universe, zombie evolution, and now whether bites kill you because of some fictional zombie thing or because any normal bite wound would kill you.

What's left on the tour of inflamatory topics? Running zombies? Comparing Land vs. Dawn '04?

We all know Land wasn't as _______ (awesome/lame) as Dawn '04 because the running zombies were such a _________ (fresh/failed) concept.

:p:p:p:p

If you want to inflame the masses we could also just say that the Night Millennium Edition was like the best thing to EVER to happen to Zombie flicks.

EvilNed I think that is one of the best things about discussing these movies everyone has their own opinions and things they like and dislike. We all have a chance to take something else out of a film. Visually it was cool, that I can not argue.

[darth los]

This thread is awesome. We've discussed defending GAR vs. criticizing him, money issue, river crossing, timeline & universe, zombie evolution, and now whether bites kill you because of some fictional zombie thing or because any normal bite wound would kill you.

What's left on the tour of inflamatory topics? Running zombies? Comparing Land vs. Dawn '04?

We all know Land wasn't as _______ (awesome/lame) as Dawn '04 because the running zombies were such a _________ (fresh/failed) concept.

:p:p:p:p

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Dude, I'm suprised at you. You've been here a while. How can you not mention the infamous Land comes before/after Day debate!! :stunned:





Not to mention that evolution doesn't occur at all in one generation of a species. Expecially a species that can't reproduce to pass on it's genetic code at all.

Evolution is the wrong word to use with zombies. Dead things can't evolve. what they did in land is . . remember? progress? Of course you know I have a problem with a rotting brain making any sort of foward progression. . but damn. .havn't we been over this before? It all sounds quite familiar. :D

I think it's more that they're remembering. But why now and not before?

I find that disturbing and inconsistent as well. Just like a ghoul's mobility continues to be impaired with decay over time it only stands to reason that the same would happen to their brains. They should get dumber not smarter.




It's very true that he changes the rules to meet his current need. Roger dies from infection in days and Cholo in hours. Fine. But the rules of physics??

He's also said things to imply that they are the same outbreak and the same zombies portrayed in different time periods of the outbreak and just filmed in a different era. His statements are easily twisted to support either stance.

Then he'd make a great politician. :D

But I'll bring it back to my earlier statement. Name something in the films that that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the same outbreak and timeline.



Bites don't turn people into zombies; they never did. Dying turns people into zombies. That's everybody, no matter how they die (unless it's of head trauma, of course).

Bites just cause people to die quicker. This was mentioned from the very start ("who knows what kind of diseases those things carry" - Ben). A funky mouth plunging directly into your bloostream does that.


Right, so in effect, bites do turn people into the living dead because perhaps a person wouldn't so easily expire from a normal bite wound.



I think that the zombie bites do indeed turn you into a zombie. That's why if there was indeed an explainable cause to it I have always leaned toward a viral cause as the reason and that's mainly why.


Think about it. If a dog bit you, or let's just say some psycho mental patient just up and took a chunk out of you. What are the chances of you surviving? Excellent i must say. Now apply the same scenario and a ghoul takes a bite out of you. How good are the chances that you'll survive then? 0%. That's how good. Zombie bites have a 100% mortality rate. How do you explain that?

Let's look at it scientifically. Take 100 humans. Take Two of the same stimuli (bites) One from a human, ane from a zombie. I gaurantee that everyone bit by a ghoul will die. How do you explain that? One bite is different than the other. There's something in the zombie bite that you CAN'T survive.






:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Now apply the same scenario and a ghoul takes a bite out of you. How good are the chances that you'll survive then? 0%. That's how good. Zombie bites have a 100% mortality rate. How do you explain that?
I explain it as a corpse bite being lethal, thus exposing the newly-dead body to whatever phenomena that is causing the dead to rise. Dr. Foster: "Every dead body... gets up and kills. The people it kills get up and kill." The living dead bite, however, is not the phenomena that causes the dead to rise, it's just an expedited means towards that end.

Of course, nobody has ever been bit by a living dead corpse in real life, so how can we know for sure that it's not lethal?

[darth los]

I explain it as a corpse bite being lethal, thus exposing the newly-dead body to whatever phenomena that is causing the dead to rise. Dr. Foster: "Every dead body... gets up and kills. The people it kills get up and kill." The living dead bite, however, is not the phenomena that causes the dead to rise, it's just an expedited means towards that end.

Of course, nobody has ever been bit by a living dead corpse in real life, so how can we know for sure that it's not lethal?

That's very true. But since we're here....


Granted every dead body barring massive head trauma will rise and attack the living. So the egg did indeed come before the chicken. My point is that once "patient zero", for lack of a better term, rose they was something making them walk around after they were dead. That something is what i'm saying is transfered through their bites.

Perhaps we're making the same point.



:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Granted every dead body barring massive head trauma will rise and attack the living. So the egg did indeed come before the chicken. My point is that once "patient zero", for lack of a better term, rose they was something making them walk around after they were dead. That something is what i'm saying is transfered through their bites.
If you see it as a virus, then it makes sense in regards to an outbreak that is initially spread by a patient zero.

I view the phenomena as depicted in the original NIGHT which has the outbreak beginning somewhere in the southeastern USA--obviously not a virus due to its rapid spread, but possibly caused by radiation in the atmosphere, etc. So a corpse bite in of itself does not cause the dead to rise, but it does apparently hasten one's demise. Make sense?

[darth los]

If you see it as a virus, then it makes sense in regards to an outbreak that is initially spread by a patient zero.

I view the phenomena as depicted in the original NIGHT which has the outbreak beginning somewhere in the southeastern USA--obviously not a virus due to its rapid spread, but possibly caused by radiation in the atmosphere, etc. So a corpse bite in of itself does not cause the dead to rise, but it does apparently hasten one's demise. Make sense?


It does make sense. All the evidence points towards it. It could be an airborn strain. Or perhaps it was somethings that had been dormant in humans for years and something triggered it one day. (venus probe?) Also, for it to work the bodies must be extremely fresh (not a new concept, re-animator anyone?) and still have a trace of brain function or electric charge left in their bodies? It would explain why only the recently dead rise. :confused:



:cool:

[Trin]

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Dude, I'm suprised at you. You've been here a while. How can you not mention the infamous Land comes before/after Day debate!! :stunned:Aw, crap. You're right. I should be ashamed of myself!!



But I'll bring it back to my earlier statement. Name something in the films that that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is indeed the same outbreak and timeline.I cannot. There is no evidence of that. Likewise there is no evidence within the movies that GAR intended them to be separate.

In the absence of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidence I think there are things that point to continuity. For example, Day as a completely standalone movie makes little sense. Without the backdrop of Night and Dawn you really don't have any idea of what's going on. There is an assumption that the viewer enters the movie with some base knowledge.

The zombies are good evidence as well. You say they are inconsistent from movie to movie. I think that's true, but ONLY if you assume the movies are tightly tied together. If we were to assume that the movies came from different directors or different visions or whatever then the zombies are so similar that they might be construed as infringement from movie to movie. And there's a progression in the zombies too that infers continuity. In Night and Dawn they're acting on base instinct. In Day they begin to learn. In Land they take a leap of intellect.

This whole argument didn't even exist in the 70's and 80's. It was just impied that Dawn was a continuation of Night and Day was a continuation of Dawn. Each movie took the baton from the last and showed the next progression of events, albeit from a different group's perspective.

The whole basis of the idea that they are separate is taken from remarks GAR made trying to avoid questions of why the technology level is different from movie to movie. Stuff he doesn't care about. In separate comments he's said he's considered bringing back characters from previous movies, but it just never made sense given the storyline and the aging of the actors.

I particularly like the argument that Blades in Land was not the same Blades from Dawn. Yes, he looks the same, is dressed the same, and was played by the same actor, but he was listed as "Machete Zombie" in the credits so clearly he is a completely new character not tied to the previous movie. His inclusion was only a "nod to the fans" and not intended to link the movies together. Lol - rubbish!! GAR has come right out and said that he couldn't use the name Blades because he didn't secure the rights to Dawn. He had no intention of it being a different character. He probably had no intention of it being anything - that is, I agree that he included it as a nod to the fans without thinking about how the timeline nitpickers (like me) would interpret it.


...a ghoul takes a bite out of you. How good are the chances that you'll survive then? 0%. That's how good. Zombie bites have a 100% mortality rate. How do you explain that?That is the damning piece of evidence. No matter how full of bacteria or filth or whatever you think a dead body might be, you would never see a 100% mortality rate. Minor bites that are treated quickly would almost never be fatal. Even the worst infections have to get a foothold in the human body.

I don't think a virus can serve as an explanation. First, there is no patient zero. Dead rose all over the country at the same time. A virus transmits through close proximity - airborne or bloodborne. Second, I don't believe a viral infection massive enough to kill someone could hide from inspection, and we know Dr. Logan and Sarah could not find the cause of reanimation.

Here's an offering to the folks who just must have an explanation. What if the reanimation is the byproduct of a biological chemical reaction? Cancer, for example, is the byproduct of a chemical reaction in the body that makes certain cells go berzerk and multiply. Chemical reactions, like cancer, can be caused by radiation, thus explaining how it could happen everywhere at once from a space probe. Chemical reactions are also possible in dead tissue. And, finally, if the chemicals released in the dead body were transferred to a live body it could promote the same kind of effect that causes reanimation, and that effect might be incompatible with the normal processes of the human body, thereby killing the body. Chemical reactions can be extremely difficult to detect, hence why cancer is just now being linked with chemical reactions, which explains why Sarah and Dr. Logan were making no progress.

[Yojimbo]

Could it be long range electrodes shot by aliens into the adrenal glands of the dead...ok, that was Plan 9. :lol: But it is as good of an explanation as any, just as logical as John's explanation of being "cursed" by the "creator" in DAY.

On a bite causing death, it seems clear that it does. It would also stand to reason to remember that we don't know how much worse it would be to be bitten by reanimated corpse. Perhaps their saliva, or their decaying mouth might speed up infection, but it does not mean that the answer has to be a virus.

[darth los]

Could it be long range electrodes shot by aliens into the adrenal glands of the dead...ok, that was Plan 9. :lol: But it is as good of an explanation as any, just as logical as John's explanation of being "cursed" by the "creator" in DAY.

On a bite causing death, it seems clear that it does. It would also stand to reason to remember that we don't know how much worse it would be to be bitten by reanimated corpse. Perhaps their saliva, or their decaying mouth might speed up infection, but it does not mean that the answer has to be a virus.

We don't know anything for sure but as i stated earlier "something" is being transfered though these bites. That's the only way to explain their 100% mortality rate:/




:cool:

[EvilNed]

I particularly like the argument that Blades in Land was not the same Blades from Dawn. Yes, he looks the same, is dressed the same, and was played by the same actor, but he was listed as "Machete Zombie" in the credits so clearly he is a completely new character not tied to the previous movie. His inclusion was only a "nod to the fans" and not intended to link the movies together. Lol - rubbish!! GAR has come right out and said that he couldn't use the name Blades because he didn't secure the rights to Dawn.


Source, please? Because as far as I know, it'd be pretty hard to copyright the name of "Blades" for a character. Sounds like something you just heard from hearsay.



In the absence of "beyond a shadow of a doubt" evidence I think there are things that point to continuity. For example, Day as a completely standalone movie makes little sense. Without the backdrop of Night and Dawn you really don't have any idea of what's going on.

Yes, you do. That's like, what the entire first 10 minutes are all about. Day was the first of my films from the trilogy, and I watched it without ever having seen Dawn and Night. It made complete sense to me.

[clanglee]

Here's an offering to the folks who just must have an explanation. What if the reanimation is the byproduct of a biological chemical reaction? Cancer, for example, is the byproduct of a chemical reaction in the body that makes certain cells go berzerk and multiply. Chemical reactions, like cancer, can be caused by radiation, thus explaining how it could happen everywhere at once from a space probe. Chemical reactions are also possible in dead tissue. And, finally, if the chemicals released in the dead body were transferred to a live body it could promote the same kind of effect that causes reanimation, and that effect might be incompatible with the normal processes of the human body, thereby killing the body. Chemical reactions can be extremely difficult to detect, hence why cancer is just now being linked with chemical reactions, which explains why Sarah and Dr. Logan were making no progress.

Ahhh, but what about when Sarah cuts off Miguel's arm? She seemed to think that might stop the spread of the "infection." I think she even said something about "getting it before it spread". This would indicate that there is indeed some kind of virus involved, and that Sarah was aware of it. And that she was attempting to take steps to avoid it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Land was garbage. Don't try to say he was making a smaller film or story. The title is LAND of the DEAD, which means mass, which means epic etc. You don't shoot a zombie film in 2.35:1 unless you are trying to convey a real sense of epic doom. THe thing that ticked me off is that Day and DAWN, even Night, felt more epic than LAnd, and Land cost nearly $20,000,000 to produce.

I have read the script for Land, and believ me what translated to screen was garbage through and through. The biggest problem with Land is Big Daddy.

Seriously the argument the OP presents is not very compelling. You forget, Romero started the modern zombie plague, and if anyone considers Land a masterpiece, they really need to have their head examined (My Opinion).

Basically it has come down to a few things. Romero is getting older, his style hasn't adapted well to modern movie making. If you notice he does everything that way they did back in the days. Very little camera movement, most stationary shots. That doesn't work in todays hyper cinema, and lets also not forget... the movie was utter trash.

Diary was a sort of return to form, I enjoyed felt it was more epic than Land, so I dug it. This new Island of the Dead looks to be another Land, I will spend my $10.50 to see it, but I have no high hopes for it. I am lowering my expectations greatly, which is a shame because I really loved Romeros work.

[darth los]

Source, please? Because as far as I know, it'd be pretty hard to copyright the name of "Blades" for a character. Sounds like something you just heard from hearsay.



Yes, you do. That's like, what the entire first 10 minutes are all about. Day was the first of my films from the trilogy, and I watched it without ever having seen Dawn and Night. It made complete sense to me.

I agree. Watching the other films just puts it in a different context.



Ahhh, but what about when Sarah cuts off Miguel's arm? She seemed to think that might stop the spread of the "infection." I think she even said something about "getting it before it spread". This would indicate that there is indeed some kind of virus involved, and that Sarah was aware of it. And that she was attempting to take steps to avoid it.


It definitely points to that. Perhaps it's all that reseach she was doing was about.


Diary was a sort of return to form, I enjoyed felt it was more epic than Land, so I dug it. This new Island of the Dead looks to be another Land, I will spend my $10.50 to see it, but I have no high hopes for it. I am lowering my expectations greatly, which is a shame because I really loved Romeros work.


Perhaps then you'll enjoy it more. :p


Big daddy was indeed awful. People can make any argument they'd like against the raptor shrieks of the zombies in dawn 04' but i just throw that hammed up holler big daddy let's out at them which is god awful and ruined the film for me. I just couldn't get past the ridiculousness of his character. I sorta blacked out after that. lol



:cool:

[Trin]

Ahhh, but what about when Sarah cuts off Miguel's arm? She seemed to think that might stop the spread of the "infection." I think she even said something about "getting it before it spread". This would indicate that there is indeed some kind of virus involved, and that Sarah was aware of it. And that she was attempting to take steps to avoid it.That's a good point, but it's circumstantial. We don't know if Sarah actually knew something or whether she was just grasping at straws. Earlier in the movie she indicated that they hadn't figured out much of anything.

I agree that it does point to the idea that Sarah knew it was something biological transmitted from zombie mouth to victim tissue, but it does not necessarily mean a virus. I wouldn't expect chopping off the arm to help with a virus. With a bacteria, yes.

Here's another equally circumstantial point just to gnaw on. We saw the state of the labs they worked in. We saw how they handled the zombies. They were taking virtually no precautions normally associated with a bloodborne pathogen such as a virus. Logan was covered with zombie blood prior to eating. If they knew it was an infection they were being awfully cavalier about thier handling of the infectious materials.

[Yojimbo]

We saw the state of the labs they worked in. We saw how they handled the zombies. They were taking virtually no precautions normally associated with a bloodborne pathogen such as a virus. Logan was covered with zombie blood prior to eating. If they knew it was an infection they were being awfully cavalier about thier handling of the infectious materials.
Excellent point

[Philly_SWAT]

I find that a perfectly reasonable notion, especially after much smaller but REAL situations in the current world have occurred whereby money has become useless in certain countries - see the fall of Pol Pot (thailand?),
Pol Pot was Cambodia :)

[kona843]

I do think Romero has lost his touch, to that much of an extent that im now starting to think that his little sparkles of zombie genius and subplot messages in night and dawn were nothing more than happy accidents.

Maybe that sounds a bit harsh, again i love a good zombie film and none more than Romero's first two films, for some reason Day just didnt live up to my expectations.

Again its all down to opinion, i believe zombies should be zombies, slow, dumb, simple and devoid... and thats what Romero really hit home with in the first two films. Call me a classic zombie fan, my favorite zombie flick being the 1991 remake of Night. Anywho... after his first two films it almost seemed like Romero decided to take his Zombie concept in a new direction that people seem to either love or hate. The idea of learning zombies was just, again in my OPINION... wierd, and a little too optimistic. I feel Romero should have kept things simple and creepy. I use the word 'simple' to help express my views in that Diary of the Dead seemed to spend too much time on the message behind the plot rather than the actual values of the film itself... which was meant to be a good ol' zombie film.

[Andy]

Land was garbage. Don't try to say he was making a smaller film or story. The title is LAND of the DEAD, which means mass, which means epic etc. You don't shoot a zombie film in 2.35:1 unless you are trying to convey a real sense of epic doom. THe thing that ticked me off is that Day and DAWN, even Night, felt more epic than LAnd, and Land cost nearly $20,000,000 to produce.

I have read the script for Land, and believ me what translated to screen was garbage through and through. The biggest problem with Land is Big Daddy.

Seriously the argument the OP presents is not very compelling. You forget, Romero started the modern zombie plague, and if anyone considers Land a masterpiece, they really need to have their head examined (My Opinion).

Basically it has come down to a few things. Romero is getting older, his style hasn't adapted well to modern movie making. If you notice he does everything that way they did back in the days. Very little camera movement, most stationary shots. That doesn't work in todays hyper cinema, and lets also not forget... the movie was utter trash.

Diary was a sort of return to form, I enjoyed felt it was more epic than Land, so I dug it. This new Island of the Dead looks to be another Land, I will spend my $10.50 to see it, but I have no high hopes for it. I am lowering my expectations greatly, which is a shame because I really loved Romeros work.
DJ we aint always seen eye to eye, but i agree with you 100% my friend. i salute you.

[darth los]

Perhaps diary felt more epic because the protagonists were actually out and about and we got to see what was happening in the streets. The other films had a much more clausterphobic feel to them. I realize that in land they went outside the perimeter but it was so dark that you really couldnt' see very far.



:cool:

[Trin]

Diary? Epic? It had like 20 zombies in it (yes, I know it was a few more than that). It felt smaller to me than original Night. They may have covered a lot of ground being a road movie but their plight was small. How many times were they even outnumbered by the zombies?

I mean, seriously, Diary was just a bunch of zombie vignettes strung together around an RV and an over-inflated message. They should call it the Zombgina Monologues.

[EvilNed]

Speaking of Diary being a roadmovie, did anyone notice how obvious it was that the bus was standing still while they were filming in it? Check out the scene where another car passes them by. Painfully obvious...

[Yojimbo]

I do think Romero has lost his touch, to that much of an extent that im now starting to think that his little sparkles of zombie genius and subplot messages in night and dawn were nothing more than happy accidents.

Hearing things like this just makes me sad.

[AcesandEights]

I feel GAR is the greatest of all time when it comes to zombies, and I feel Muhammad Ali is the greatest of all time when it comes to boxing, but even I could get in the ring and pound the everlovin' daylights out of Cassius Clay nowadays.

Things change and if GAR doesn't produce viable, stimulating or even passable films anymore, then he's going to run into problems. He--just as any other artist--deserves to be judged on the merits of what he's producing, while being respected for what he's already accomplished.

Sorry, I couldn't be arsed to get involved in the thread till now, because the initial prospect of defending my right to like or not like someone's work, regardless of their back catalog of grand accomplishment that I truly enjoy and appreciate, made me roll my eyes.

And for a point of reference, I liked Land, warts and all, and did not like Diary.

[darth los]

Hearing things like this just makes me sad.

I too believe that the social commentary and satire that we see in dawn and night shone through way more than GAR intended it too. I'm sure that if you ask him he say that they were just trying to make a horror movie. We fans make a bigger deal of it than he does. What do we expect him to say when people are fawning over the brilliance of the satire? "Dude it was an accident"?



:cool: