Keeping The Faith

[ItsJustaScratch]

I thought I would start this thread with a view to discuss GAR's current direction constructively; looking back on his last two installments in particular, to see if/why his deviation with the genre is at all nescessary.

I for one, am slightly dismayed by the way GAR has been received of late.
I'm sure he could of made another Dawn had he wanted to, that involved another group of survivors holed up in another location; say an airport or train station for the duration of the film, however I think he saw the need for change when it was most relevant and adjusted accordingly.Sure, the remake of Dawn incorporates some of the old fun and adrenaline from the original,but is, on the surface, a bit of a 2nd hand,souless computer game; is that what we want?:rockbrow:

All good bands for instance, will automatically feel the need to rethink the design of their music, because it goes against the grain to do what the fans want all the time,which takes guts and integrity. Loyal fans will generally except that things need to move on, even though the music is missing some elements of it's previous body, they will give the band the backing it needs to expand...George it seems doesn't have this support.It's like Nirvana fans standing with their arms crossed shouting 'play Teen Spirit'.

Us GAR fans are a sensitive bunch, and I'm Sure there's a lot of room for give and take; I would like to see him humble himself,and maybe co-produce a film with a younger filmaker like Simon Pegg, who understands GAR and where he needs to go, for at the moment there is a divide between fans that needs to be closed.

LAND:

Land is a definate grower, many people turn their nose up at this film,
mostly because of it's hammy 80-90's (escape from New York) feel; but isn't that all part
of the GAR charm? I also believe that most people were lead by the nose by initial reviews

It's unfortunate that some traditional GAR elements are missing, but there are also many new ones added.This movie is the first 'mainly' exterior based film in the series,has the first series link (Savino's Biker zombie from Dawn cameo) and the first natural death to zombie transition (old guys suicide), along with subtleties woven into the film, that can take a couple of views to grasp.Take Riley,the main protagonist;he has a connection with Big Boss,that really holds the key-answer to the story line. At the start of the film, we see Riley observing Big Bosses habits and understands that there is a common need for them to exist in their own right, and realises they are slowly becoming the lesser of two evils in the current predicament and can potentually be used as a helpful tool.This is a risky experiment that pays-off in the end, unlike that of 'Dr Frankensteins' in Day Of The Dead. In the final scene, we see Riley and the boss acknowledge each other, and there is almost a sense of harmony.Again, Riley holds fire, because he knows there is a chance they can co-exist separatley.Big Boss then steers them away from confrontation, to the safety of Fiddlers Green.
With a sly wink at peace in the middle-east from GAR, this for me, is the most positive conclusion
in the franchise (so far).

My main gripe is that this film was plot over character orientated,
and also that the heroes were never really faced with impossible odd's after gaining control of the Dead Reckoning.I'm opening myself up to ridicule here, but after 4 views it has become my favourite (alongside Dawn). I only wish they'd release an extended edition with more character interaction between all groups and a bit of extra combat between the heroes & zombies thrown in.


Diary:
Not really my cup of tea. I feel it could have been executed in a better way, but also think it's a needed (brief) side-step to the series.



Bring on ...Of The Dead I say!

Thoughts?....:shifty:

[Andy]

There are 2 main gripes with land, neither of which you have addressed..

1. The entire plot does not work. at all.
2. Big Daddy.

[Trin]

I think you've hit on some important topics, Scratch, and you present a well thought out post.

As to GAR deviating and an artist's need to deviate and expand/grow - I cannot entirely agree. I think of the GAR zombie universe as a horror genre all its own. Like any genre as a fan you expect certain themes and plot structures to remain intact. To do otherwise will lose the fans. It would be like a Star Trek or Dr. Who episode attempting to break the pattern. Fans come back to the genre for consistency. We like to see the same story told over and over again.

I liked the whole atmosphere of Land and although it was a departure from the previous movies in that it was held in large parts outside the protected area, I felt it still had the feel of old - a group of survivors isolated and confined in a prison of their own making.

I did enjoy the interplay between Riley and Big Daddy. I found it disturbing that the zombies were growing (*purposefully avoids use of term "evolving"*) past the need/desire to feed on human flesh. The message of peace is definitely evident in the film.

The deviations you've mentioned are mostly fine with Land. I'd add the fireworks to the equation. I thought it was a fresh revelation of zombie behavior without substantively breaking the pattern.

Like Andy says I think you've missed the main crux of the problem. The plot just doesn't work for me. It was silly on too many levels. I couldn't believe in any of the actions/motivations of the characters so it was impossible for me to put myself in their shoes and go along for the ride. The whole movie needed a big re-think in my opinion.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Please explain Andy?

Big Boss is just another Bub/Bob, who's learn't more from being in the outside
world, instead of one toy at a time. I do however wish that this "evolution" goes no further.
We don't want them all running around like Forrest Gump and climbing ceiling grids.:rant:

What exactly is wrong with the plot? They can't just keep on locking themselves
up everywhere and then trying to extract like in the first three.:annoyed:

I see your point there Trin, for some reason the words Lucas and George
came into my head as I was reading your post.

As for individual actions/motivations, the genre is choc full of bad moves,
especially where flyboys are concerned.

I can't see why everyones motivation wouldn't revolve around taking
down Fiddlers, when they're having to risk their lives to scavenge and
supply for the rich and wealthy.

Another nice point about this film is that it's the first in the series
to push the story to the point of seeing the grand scheme of things.
In the first three, we didn't really know about any other survivors,
let alone communes, towns and cities. We were all pretty blind-folded
in our little safe houses before that. Scope is what the genre needed,
and scope is what Land Of The Dead gave. I hear that fans detested
the original Day Of The Dead upon it's release; I hope this ones a
slow burner too.

[blind2d]

I'm behind you on this one 100%, Scratch! Plus I thought Land had some great characters! ...or at least Charlie...

[MoonSylver]

I hear that fans detested
the original Day Of The Dead upon it's release; I hope this ones a
slow burner too.

I've been thinking along the same lines for awhile now. Time will tell. I enjoyed Land & Diary both thoroughly. I realized that both are flawed films, & maybe not as good as the originals, but that didn't keep me from liking them just the same.

[clanglee]

Please read the stick thread "Why people Hate Land of the Dead" . . . . enjoy.

Apparently no longer sticky. .ah well. .here ya go

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=168&highlight=people+hate+land

[Andy]

Please explain Andy?

Big Boss is just another Bub/Bob, who's learn't more from being in the outside
world, instead of one toy at a time. I do however wish that this "evolution" goes no further.
We don't want them all running around like Forrest Gump and climbing ceiling grids.:rant:

What exactly is wrong with the plot? They can't just keep on locking themselves
up everywhere and then trying to extract like in the first three.:annoyed:

Zombies dont evolve. they dont learn, they dont grow they dont mature.. they kill, they eat, they rot and that is all they do.

I Dont like bub for the same reasons but at least you could explain that away by saying he is copying dr logan and acting from vague memories of his existance, which we have seen countless other zombies do.. but big daddy is unbeleivable.. we are expected to swallow that a single zombie has evolved to the point where it can lead others by itself out in the wild? what is it? the fucking buddha of zombies? no way.

Also the plot, it dosnt make sense, putting aside the fact that these people have had time and resources to build a huge enclosed camp while under constant attack, night and day, they have erected this camp, kaufmann has somehow become leader of it and instated a monetry system.. why? everything is there for the taking, why bring money back? thats creating a rich/poor divide again.. and why would you follow it? you could leave the city, go to a bank in a neighbouring city and become a instant millionaire, or better yet you could go to a store and get something that matters, like they do at the start of the movie.

Speaking of money (money is my huge problem with this film).. what is the mexican guy going to do with that money when kaufmann has paid him? congratulate himself and roll around in it? there is nothing for him to spend it on.. he cant go back to the city with it becuase he would be arrested and killed on sight, out in the wild, whats he going to do? pay zombies to dance for him? it dosnt work lol it just dosnt work.

i hate land with a passion, i really do, i was so psyched up for it i couldnt wait to go see it, i was first in line at the cinema, and what i saw... wasnt even a disappointment, it was a mental scar that i now have to carry for the rest of my life.

[Skippy911sc]

I think both movie had promise!

I thought a lot of scenes were added to simply display something visually instead of add to the story. If a smaller budget and more hands on approach had been taken I think the movies would have had a different feel entirely. That sense of dread and despair were not in these films...and the whole Big Daddy thing...that is GARs Jar Jar and he must live with it. I just had a brilliant idea, someone needs to re-cut the movie taken Big Daddy out.

I like the older films and I like Dawn '04 (for what it is), however the 2 latest films are not my cup-o-tea. After watching the trailer for ...the dead I am feeling a little let down. I can't help but feel like the stories are just crap! The films must be lead by the story and the visuals need to follow.

For that reason I am looking forward to WWZ, I enjoyed the book and feel they have a lot to work with. Thats not to say they won't totally hollywood this one up. ;)

[AcesandEights]

Please read the stick thread "Why people Hate Land of the Dead" . . . .

And don't forget to read between the lines (the master didn't feed them what they wanted and they turned on him ;) ).

Land was fine, as far as I'm concerned*, but Diary was wretched. I'm quite sincere when I air my opinion that the film was a poor outing for anyone who has any experience above, say, film school. I appreciate George trying something new (for him, anyway), but it was a limp story, poorly implemented and not very well thought out/implemented.

Welcome, by the way.





*= That's not to say that Land wasn't weak in the areas of acting in some respects, plot/script (not personal or character-driven enough) and--as a result of the aforementioned issues--not scary enough.

[blind2d]

Remember Andy, Cholo was in a zombie world. Insanity hits you hard, man. It's very difficult to keep, and he probably figured he could take Dead Reckoning out into another place somewhere similar to Fiddler's Green and become the the new king there. Anyway, yeh, his mind was gone at the start of this film, and just kept getting worse. That's my theory, anyway. - 2D

[sandrock74]

It's unfortunate that some traditional GAR elements are missing, but there are also many new ones added.This movie is the first 'mainly' exterior based film in the series,has the first series link (Savino's Biker zombie from Dawn cameo) and the first natural death to zombie transition (old guys suicide), along with subtleties woven into the film, that can take a couple of views to grasp.Take Riley,the main protagonist;he has a connection with Big Boss,that really holds the key-answer to the story line. At the start of the film, we see Riley observing Big Bosses habits and understands that there is a common need for them to exist in their own right, and realises they are slowly becoming the lesser of two evils in the current predicament and can potentually be used as a helpful tool.This is a risky experiment that pays-off in the end, unlike that of 'Dr Frankensteins' in Day Of The Dead. In the final scene, we see Riley and the boss acknowledge each other, and there is almost a sense of harmony.Again, Riley holds fire, because he knows there is a chance they can co-exist separatley.Big Boss then steers them away from confrontation, to the safety of Fiddlers Green.


Thoughts?....:shifty:

I would just like to point out that someone who dies of hanging has not died a "natural death". :p

[ItsJustaScratch]

I would just like to point out that someone who dies of hanging has not died a "natural death". :p

Easy! You know signs of higher intelligence are frowned upon in
these parts.:lol:


Zombies dont evolve. they dont learn, they dont grow they dont mature.. they kill, they eat, they rot and that is all they do.

I Dont like bub for the same reasons but at least you could explain that away by saying he is copying dr logan and acting from vague memories of his existance, which we have seen countless other zombies do.. but big daddy is unbeleivable.. we are expected to swallow that a single zombie has evolved to the point where it can lead others by itself out in the wild? what is it? the fucking buddha of zombies? no way.

Also the plot, it dosnt make sense, putting aside the fact that these people have had time and resources to build a huge enclosed camp while under constant attack, night and day, they have erected this camp, kaufmann has somehow become leader of it and instated a monetry system.. why? everything is there for the taking, why bring money back? thats creating a rich/poor divide again.. and why would you follow it? you could leave the city, go to a bank in a neighbouring city and become a instant millionaire, or better yet you could go to a store and get something that matters, like they do at the start of the movie.

Speaking of money (money is my huge problem with this film).. what is the mexican guy going to do with that money when kaufmann has paid him? congratulate himself and roll around in it? there is nothing for him to spend it on.. he cant go back to the city with it becuase he would be arrested and killed on sight, out in the wild, whats he going to do? pay zombies to dance for him? it dosnt work lol it just dosnt work.

i hate land with a passion, i really do, i was so psyched up for it i couldnt wait to go see it, i was first in line at the cinema, and what i saw... wasnt even a disappointment, it was a mental scar that i now have to carry for the rest of my life.


There's alot of pain in there mate,
but bare with me....

As you know Big Boss is just an extention of Bob, that's trying
to resume normal life,as was the plan in 'Day'.

Ultimately zombies are a shadow of ourformer selves;
ghosts not knowing they're dead, doomed to repeat the same life patterns,
like a recording burnt into the matter of time.Like humans,
they will have rare abnormalities and also the odd genious here and there,
so for me, not including this minority would almost be 'against the rules'.

Riley Denbo, is my favourite protagonist of the series. He is the
first male lead that I can really relate to, and the only character who
really has other peoples best interest at heart,without being
melo-dramatic about it; a renowned leader, who is cynical,
yet optimistic.
He also has a certain cheesy, iconic look about him that I dig (in a straight way).:confused:.....:shifty:
He's also the only character I can really relate to, or want to aspire to
(with the exception of Ken).

We have too many selfish,Big Brother style non-entities in horror films
these days, and when they ALL tend to die at the end, we don't give a shit.
I just love the way GAR let's you see Riley's vision - his dim-witted,
but loyal side-kick will quizzically blurt out what he's seeing, and Riley
will say a couple of cynical lines that ring true, and also reveal his intentions.

As for Cholo, i've met my fair share of greedy, egotistical 'social climbers'
like him in my time. Believe me, they're out there.
He's lived his life being money orientated, and obviously thinks that it's
the answer to everything.
Nobodyknows whether there are other towns/cities like Fiddlers, where money is still important.
Like all poor area's they're in a catch 22. There is illness spreading throughout the commune
(Kaughmans son) that needs to be treated,i.e they need money and medical care to survive,
but they are well protected where they are. I believe the term 'between a rock & a hard place'
is what I'm getting to.

What surprises me is that Land is quite a critical and commercial
success grossing the second largest amount of money after Dawn.
For a change, it was the critics who appreciated these clever
satirical subtleties instead of the fans.

Again, I still think (some) fan's are afraid to admit to themselves that
they actually like it, but what it comes down to is; you like what you
like,and you can't lie to yourself.I think eventually it with stand in line
where it rightly belongs.







For that reason I am looking forward to WWZ, I enjoyed the book and feel they have a lot to work with. Thats not to say they won't totally hollywood this one up. ;)

Info on the adaption from Wikipidia:
A film adaptation is in development, following a bidding war between Brad Pitt and Leonardo Di Caprio's production companies, with the rights being obtained by Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment and the screenplay being written by Babylon 5 and Rising Stars creator J. Michael Straczynski.[20] In an interview Straczynski said it was a challenge to create a main character out of a book that reads as a UN Report on the zombie wars, but he says his solution was create the guy who wrote that report and follow his process.[21] Marc Forster signed on to direct on November 13, 2008. The director described the film as reminiscent of 1970s conspiracy thrillers like All the President's Men.[22] Straczynski, however, says the movie is more like The Bourne Identity and commented that the film will have a large international scope while keeping the film as political as the book was. Straczynski also said that they hope to begin production by the start of 2009. [23]

When asked if he would have anything to do with the movie, Brooks stated that he had "zero control", but admitted that he would love to see Brad Pitt:annoyed: have a role in the movie[1] and thought Straczynski was a great choice to write the script.[24][25] In an interview with Fangoria, Brooks said, "I can’t give it away, but Straczynski found a way to tie it all together. The last draft I read was amazing."[26]

All I can say to that is (whelp!...)...

[bassman]

I've been through this kind of conversation too many times just to give my opinions all over again, but I just have to ask.....Big Boss?:rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

I've been through this kind of conversation too many times just to give my opinions all over again, but I just have to ask.....Big Boss?:rockbrow:
And who is "Bob"? :p

Clearly you're meaning Big Daddy and Bub.

[ItsJustaScratch]

I've been through this kind of conversation too many times just to give my opinions all over again, but I just have to ask.....Big Boss?:rockbrow:

Ok, so his name doesn't fight his case very well:o, however...

We had running kiddi zombies in Dawn, eledged car driving zombies
in Day and jogging brick throwers in Night,

But who gives a toss about that?:rockbrow:

Out of circumstance or instinct, some zombies are going to
remember and retain more info than others.

If a man such as GAR has the talent and creativity to
create the franchise, he's not going to stop there.
Something else is going to be thrown into the arc
of storyline at some point, we can't expect him to
remain completley static like the remakes. :bored:

[Andy]

ItsJustaScratch, i like you, i can see now your a good member, i get your enthusiasm for GAR and his work already and i love it.

BUT you will never convince me land is anything above shitty, in my opinion it is one of the worse Z movies around.. i rank it lower than zombie lake, children of the dead or ZFE2, i would happilly sit through a marathon of those movies before i try and sit through land again.

Without a doubt it is GAR's worse movie, by far, i mean big daddy? i know he is supposed to be a extension of bub's character but like i said in my first post, bub only became what he did through dr logans mentoring, i will not beleive that a single zombie (and no others) will become smarter than this out in the wild, by itself, with no mentoring they do not learn. they are dead matter incapable of learning.. if zombies could learn, when you shoot one the rest of them would stop walking towards you, it dosnt happen.

I Always put the idea of big daddy down to either a bad drug trip or seniality on GAR's part.. if that was the only problem with the movie i could just about overlook it.. but there's the problems with the plot.. i cant watch it without thinking my inteligence is being insulted.

Like you said my friend, you like what you like and im not trying to change your opinion, but accept my opinion, i will NEVER like land and i will never rate it higher than dogshit.

[ItsJustaScratch]

And who is "Bob"? :p

Clearly you're meaning Bid Daddy and Bub.

Bub: Sorry wasn't sure, haven't seen it for a while.:(

As for Big Boss, I think i've been play too much Metal
Gear Solid 4:lol:.

Clearly you're meaning [B]Bid Daddy
He's not a rapper is he?:p

[Thorn]

Yeah I have been through this conversation a lot, and I will not go into my opinions over again to spare people having to read them.

I do say welcome to the forums, and thank you for providing an intelligent and well thought out post.

I will address just one topic that many seem to have trouble with. That is the use of money. I have said before there are a few reasons it would remain relevant.

1- Old habits die hard. If you are used to something, it takes a while for it to wear off. Right now Diamonds hold a lot of value because they are rare. If we all the sudden found a diamond in the ground (or source of them) so large that there were enough diamonds for every man woman and child to have 18 of them. They would cease to have value... some people would retain them. Some out of sentimental value, others because old habits die hard.

2- The already mentioned fact that you could be holding onto hope that there are other fortified areas that like the Green ALSO trade in cash money.

3- LASTLY and this is the big one for me anyway. Money has value because those in charge say it does. It is that easy. Have you ever seen the movie Instinct? Cuba Gooding Jr and Anthony Hopkins, in my opinion it is one of the most under appreciated films of all time. It was well written, meaningful, deep, clever, and it delved into the minds of men. I love it and watch it often. It stirs a number of emotions within me.

That said and this is a bit of a spoiler, in the movie in the prison psych ward they have a system where ONE inmate is allowed to go outside for a brief period everyday. Just one. The way this person earns the right is by "chance" the guards "randomly" distribute playing guards, and the patient/inmate with the Ace gets to go outside.

The ace therefore has "value".

The strong take the ace from the weak, because it has value. It is just a card but it represents something, it gets you something, it means something. For whatever reason you want the ACE. You want it because you are told it is worth something.

Is Cholo crazy? maybe. Maybe there is another commune where cash is traded, or maybe not. Maybe he will find another nut job who values cash and will swap him that for supplies. Who knows.

At the end of the day cash is valuable JUST because the guys in charge say it is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128278/

[archivesofthede]

Bring on ...Of The Dead I say!

Thoughts?....:shifty:


Exactly! Let's see it!

[ItsJustaScratch]

ItsJustaScratch, i like you, i can see now your a good member, i get your enthusiasm for GAR and his work already and i love it.

BUT you will never convince me land is anything above shitty, in my opinion it is one of the worse Z movies around.. i rank it lower than zombie lake, children of the dead or ZFE2, i would happilly sit through a marathon of those movies before i try and sit through land again.

Without a doubt it is GAR's worse movie, by far, i mean big daddy? i know he is supposed to be a extension of bub's character but like i said in my first post, bub only became what he did through dr logans mentoring, i will not beleive that a single zombie (and no others) will become smarter than this out in the wild, by itself, with no mentoring they do not learn. they are dead matter incapable of learning.. if zombies could learn, when you shoot one the rest of them would stop walking towards you, it dosnt happen.

I Always put the idea of big daddy down to either a bad drug trip or seniality on GAR's part.. if that was the only problem with the movie i could just about overlook it.. but there's the problems with the plot.. i cant watch it without thinking my inteligence is being insulted.

Like you said my friend, you like what you like and im not trying to change your opinion, but accept my opinion, i will NEVER like land and i will never rate it higher than dogshit.


Thanks for your compliment's Andy and I appreciate that it's a love/hate film.

To be honest I don't thinke GAR's going to descend down evolution avenue much more, if at all. I think it would be justafiable (if it only involves a small change) if it became an important cog that allowed GAR to wrap up and conclude the franchise before (and heaven forbid) he takes his last heli ride to that great shopping mall in the sky.
I guess I'm just sick of all this scathing rescentment from average Joe's across the net, it just get's my defensive back up..

I just hope ...Of The Dead does the business, and deflates the current bad vibes surrounding the teaser.


Yeah I have been through this conversation a lot, and I will not go into my opinions over again to spare people having to read them.

I do say welcome to the forums, and thank you for providing an intelligent and well thought out post.

I will address just one topic that many seem to have trouble with. That is the use of money. I have said before there are a few reasons it would remain relevant.

1- Old habits die hard. If you are used to something, it takes a while for it to wear off. Right now Diamonds hold a lot of value because they are rare. If we all the sudden found a diamond in the ground (or source of them) so large that there were enough diamonds for every man woman and child to have 18 of them. They would cease to have value... some people would retain them. Some out of sentimental value, others because old habits die hard.

2- The already mentioned fact that you could be holding onto hope that there are other fortified areas that like the Green ALSO trade in cash money.

3- LASTLY and this is the big one for me anyway. Money has value because those in charge say it does. It is that easy. Have you ever seen the movie Instinct? Cuba Gooding Jr and Anthony Hopkins, in my opinion it is one of the most under appreciated films of all time. It was well written, meaningful, deep, clever, and it delved into the minds of men. I love it and watch it often. It stirs a number of emotions within me.

That said and this is a bit of a spoiler, in the movie in the prison psych ward they have a system where ONE inmate is allowed to go outside for a brief period everyday. Just one. The way this person earns the right is by "chance" the guards "randomly" distribute playing guards, and the patient/inmate with the Ace gets to go outside.

The ace therefore has "value".

The strong take the ace from the weak, because it has value. It is just a card but it represents something, it gets you something, it means something. For whatever reason you want the ACE. You want it because you are told it is worth something.

Is Cholo crazy? maybe. Maybe there is another commune where cash is traded, or maybe not. Maybe he will find another nut job who values cash and will swap him that for supplies. Who knows.

At the end of the day cash is valuable JUST because the guys in charge say it is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128278/

Great comparison, great film. I was somewhat moved by it too.
"Why do you run in the rain, when you get wet anyway".

Thanks to all for the warm welcome.

[MinionZombie]

We had running kiddi zombies in Dawn, eledged car driving zombies
in Day and jogging brick throwers in Night

Night - bunch of people who haven't made a feature film before out there making movies ... a bunch of people who'd never think they'll make a sequel to this film, who never think about setting up a consistent ghoul from the get-go until a sequel comes along and the idea of rules and consistency really come into play.

Jogging - nope - that's definitely not jogging. It's an almost entirely down-slope/hill staggering gait. Lean forward and loosen up your legs on a downward slope and you'll end up with a similar movement.

Rocks - they smash out the lights of the truck, almost without throwing it, but somehow I don't think the actor doing the deed would want to actually be holding the rock when the glass smashed, who wants their hand all sliced up?

Also, with the Bill Hinzman zombie busting the window on the car, it wasn't thrown, it was a bludgeon-like tool, it only fell out of his hand and into the car after the window broke - also, being a zombie it's weak. A human would break the window first go most likely - as well as throw it.

Dawn - Tom Savini's nephew(s) and/or niece(s) - two children with no intention to act, who are just there to have fun on a low budget movie that uncle Tom is working on. Most kids don't take direction very well at all, and more likely than not, there weren't many parents willing to sign their kids up to be done up as zombies who get massacred by an M16.

Day - not seen, purely an image someone speaks of - the key word being "try", it was trying to drive. That could be as little as somebody being in their car with a bite they'd wrapped up, and they keeled over in their car - possibly at night or dawn when there's nobody really around - the person awakes as a zombie and the car is engaged to drive, so it goes about trying to do so.

As seen in Dawn, the zombies remember things in their past lives - as does Bub in Day with several items. They understand some things as far as recognition, but they don't understand these things in terms of their purpose - by the time we get Day, some are capable of learning more or indeed being trained.

Land was a natural progression from this point, and I denounce Andy's bitchy gum-flapping against it. :D

[ItsJustaScratch]

Night - bunch of people who haven't made a feature film before out there making movies ... a bunch of people who'd never think they'll make a sequel to this film, who never think about setting up a consistent ghoul from the get-go until a sequel comes along and the idea of rules and consistency really come into play.

Jogging - nope - that's definitely not jogging. It's an almost entirely down-slope/hill staggering gait. Lean forward and loosen up your legs on a downward slope and you'll end up with a similar movement.

Rocks - they smash out the lights of the truck, almost without throwing it, but somehow I don't think the actor doing the deed would want to actually be holding the rock when the glass smashed, who wants their hand all sliced up?

Also, with the Bill Hinzman zombie busting the window on the car, it wasn't thrown, it was a bludgeon-like tool, it only fell out of his hand and into the car after the window broke - also, being a zombie it's weak. A human would break the window first go most likely - as well as throw it.

Dawn - Tom Savini's nephew(s) and/or niece(s) - two children with no intention to act, who are just there to have fun on a low budget movie that uncle Tom is working on. Most kids don't take direction very well at all, and more likely than not, there weren't many parents willing to sign their kids up to be done up as zombies who get massacred by an M16.

Day - not seen, purely an image someone speaks of - the key word being "try", it was trying to drive. That could be as little as somebody being in their car with a bite they'd wrapped up, and they keeled over in their car - possibly at night or dawn when there's nobody really around - the person awakes as a zombie and the car is engaged to drive, so it goes about trying to do so.

As seen in Dawn, the zombies remember things in their past lives - as does Bub in Day with several items. They understand some things as far as recognition, but they don't understand these things in terms of their purpose - by the time we get Day, some are capable of learning more or indeed being trained.

Land was a natural progression from this point, and I denounce Andy's bitchy gum-flapping against it. :D

Well, most of it sounds plausible I Suppose.

Andys obviously a very passionate GAR follower, and boy I know what it feels like to have something ruined that i've put my heart into, so I don't blame him for being bitter.

The question that remains is, has George already got an ending in mind? it's all leading towards something.

[AcesandEights]

it's all leading towards something.

Another paycheck? ;)

[Mike70]

Another paycheck? ;)

:lol:

he hasn't been around long enough to know not to feed you lines like that.

[ItsJustaScratch]

:lol:

he hasn't been around long enough to know not to feed you lines like that.

Won't be lead into that wall.. again:annoyed:

You've just been biding your time haven't you:lol:

[clanglee]

Night - bunch of people who haven't made a feature film before out there making movies ... a bunch of people who'd never think they'll make a sequel to this film, who never think about setting up a consistent ghoul from the get-go until a sequel comes along and the idea of rules and consistency really come into play.

Jogging - nope - that's definitely not jogging. It's an almost entirely down-slope/hill staggering gait. Lean forward and loosen up your legs on a downward slope and you'll end up with a similar movement.

Rocks - they smash out the lights of the truck, almost without throwing it, but somehow I don't think the actor doing the deed would want to actually be holding the rock when the glass smashed, who wants their hand all sliced up?

Also, with the Bill Hinzman zombie busting the window on the car, it wasn't thrown, it was a bludgeon-like tool, it only fell out of his hand and into the car after the window broke - also, being a zombie it's weak. A human would break the window first go most likely - as well as throw it.

Dawn - Tom Savini's nephew(s) and/or niece(s) - two children with no intention to act, who are just there to have fun on a low budget movie that uncle Tom is working on. Most kids don't take direction very well at all, and more likely than not, there weren't many parents willing to sign their kids up to be done up as zombies who get massacred by an M16.

Day - not seen, purely an image someone speaks of - the key word being "try", it was trying to drive. That could be as little as somebody being in their car with a bite they'd wrapped up, and they keeled over in their car - possibly at night or dawn when there's nobody really around - the person awakes as a zombie and the car is engaged to drive, so it goes about trying to do so.

As seen in Dawn, the zombies remember things in their past lives - as does Bub in Day with several items. They understand some things as far as recognition, but they don't understand these things in terms of their purpose - by the time we get Day, some are capable of learning more or indeed being trained.

Land was a natural progression from this point, and I denounce Andy's bitchy gum-flapping against it. :D

But you just presented an argument AGAINST the "evolution" of zombies. Make up yer mind!! :p

[joeharley666]

biggest pile of crap George ever put on film.

TOTAL CHEESE FEAST, when big daddy has revenge on his mind, he walks out of the parking garage then returns moments later with a molotov cocktail and blows Dennis Hopper to bits. Even funnier is when he takes the gas pump and sticks it through the windshield. Come on......talk about pure hollywood crap!!!

Not trying to pick on anyone here, but if you enjoyed those scenes, you must have been born post 1990

[ItsJustaScratch]

But you just presented an argument AGAINST the "evolution" of zombies. Make up yer mind!! :p

I see a Land Lubber in my midst.:D


biggest pile of crap George ever put on film.

TOTAL CHEESE FEAST, when big daddy has revenge on his mind, he walks out of the parking garage then returns moments later with a molotov cocktail and blows Dennis Hopper to bits. Even funnier is when he takes the gas pump and sticks it through the windshield. Come on......talk about pure hollywood crap!!!

Not trying to pick on anyone here, but if you enjoyed those scenes, you must have been born post 1990

Hmmm...It's almost like Flyboy remembering his way from the lift mezzanine level, to the correct winged corridor, then encouraging other zombies to smash their way through the boarded up wall, and then proceed to lead the zombies up the 1st floor stare well to the loft/storage compartment (because he remembered) IN DAWN!!!...erm, 1978 was it?

Much more exerting than putting tissue in a bottle and lighting it.

[RickGrimes]

Hi Everyone.

Long time listener, first time caller.
I'm one of those people who likes Land more each time he sees it so I thought I would chime.
I remember hearing Romero say in a few different interviews that he originally took a lot of inspiration in developing Night of the Living Dead from Richard Matheson's I Am Legend. He liked the idea of an old society dying off as a new one grew and developed. So as they were making Night he thought of it as the first night that this new society emerged. He was going to start with a few people in a small farm house attacked by a few random ghouls and then the final chapter would return to that same farm house where the last normal people on earth were under siege by the now intelligent new society. I remember reading this probably 10 years before Land came out. I sort of thought that had always been his plan. Does anyone else remember reading something like this? If not I'll have to find it and post a link.

[MoonSylver]

Hi Everyone.

Long time listener, first time caller.
I'm one of those people who likes Land more each time he sees it so I thought I would chime.
I remember hearing Romero say in a few different interviews that he originally took a lot of inspiration in developing Night of the Living Dead from Richard Matheson's I Am Legend. He liked the idea of an old society dying off as a new one grew and developed. So as they were making Night he thought of it as the first night that this new society emerged. He was going to start with a few people in a small farm house attacked by a few random ghouls and then the final chapter would return to that same farm house where the last normal people on earth were under siege by the now intelligent new society. I remember reading this probably 10 years before Land came out. I sort of thought that had always been his plan. Does anyone else remember reading something like this? If not I'll have to find it and post a link.

Welcome aboard Rick. Yep, you pretty much nailed it. That's why I wasn't TOO surprised by the direction Land went in that regard. It's the direction he's been leaning in at least since Dawn. I've heard the original script for "Day" leaned more in that direction as well. (Hmmm...Big Daddy's zombie army...zombie army in original Day script...Plus there was a whole elite vs underprivileged angle IIRC...did we see echoes of the script he carried a torch for for so long? Hmmm...)

[sandrock74]

BUT you will never convince me land is anything above shitty, in my opinion it is one of the worse Z movies around.. i rank it lower than zombie lake, children of the dead or ZFE2, i would happilly sit through a marathon of those movies before i try and sit through land again.


Whoa, dude! No freakin' way that ANYTHING is as bad than Children of the Dead! I will definitely call out anyone who tries to say that crapfest is better than anything else!
ick

[Mike70]

BUT you will never convince me land is anything above shitty, in my opinion it is one of the worse Z movies around.. i rank it lower than zombie lake, children of the dead or ZFE2, i would happilly sit through a marathon of those movies before i try and sit through land again.

andrew, is this hyperbole or a cry for help?

come now man, like it or hate it, land is a proper movie with production values, some decent characters and acting in it. it has great special effects and quite a bit of relevant things to say about how the haves manipulate the have-nots into doing the dirty work and taking all the chances while they (the haves) sit on their asses and reap the rewards.

the three movies you mentioned, however, are ineptly made pieces of cinematic dogshit that are poorly put together, poorly directed, have atrocious acting and crap special effects.

i like land, though it isn't anywhere near being my favorite zombie film nor even close to being one of romero's best. i realize that from day one it has been a lightning rod of contention on the board but to say it is worse than zombie lake or children of the dead just sounds a bit ridiculous. granted movie likes and dislikes are a matter of taste but come on man, this seems to go too far.


Hi Everyone.

Long time listener, first time caller.
I'm one of those people who likes Land more each time he sees it so I thought I would chime.

first off - welcome to you.

i am in the camp that believes that as time goes by land will be appreciated more. it is a movie that i do find myself liking a bit more every time i watch it. i particularly like what it has to say abbout economic disparity in a society. will it ever achieve the status of dawn or day or night 68? most likely not but i do strongly feel that as time passes it will be a more appreciated film.

[clanglee]

I see a Land Lubber in my midst.:D


.

Ummmm. . no man. . no. . (shakes head sadly and walks out of the room)

[Andy]

Whoa, dude! No freakin' way that ANYTHING is as bad than Children of the Dead! I will definitely call out anyone who tries to say that crapfest is better than anything else!
ick


the three movies you mentioned, however, are ineptly made pieces of cinematic dogshit that are poorly put together, poorly directed, have atrocious acting and crap special effects.

i like land, though it isn't anywhere near being my favorite zombie film nor even close to being one of romero's best. i realize that from day one it has been a lightning rod of contention on the board but to say it is worse than zombie lake or children of the dead just sounds a bit ridiculous. granted movie likes and dislikes are a matter of taste but come on man, this seems to go too far.

Zombie Lake and children of the living dead are 2 craptactular movies from no hope directors, lets be honest, they were never really expected to fly high where they? can anyone here remember getting excited by the idea of children of the living dead?

Land on the other hand, this is GAR.. the man who practically invented the modern zombie sub-genre.. this is the same creative god who gave us night, dawn and day.. this has to be good!

then you go see it and.. what? has GAR gone senial or on drugs or something? i mean seriously.. its the disapointment factor that really kills land for me, i was expecting another dawn, i got big daddy :barf:


come now man, like it or hate it, land is a proper movie with production values, some decent characters and acting in it. it has great special effects and quite a bit of relevant things to say about how the haves manipulate the have-nots into doing the dirty work and taking all the chances while they (the haves) sit on their asses and reap the rewards.

Are we talking about the same movie? land is a absolutly atrocious excuse of a movie, i spit at its production values, it has pathetic unbeleivable characters and ive seen better acting at a primary school nativity. The effects arnt bad, probally the only thing about this movie i cant bad mouth if cgi is your thing :rolleyes: and it has nothing relevant to say, its a senial old man trying to recapture his former glory and failing spectacularly.

Now despite what i just said i wanna make it clear that i still hold respect for GAR, the original dead trilogy are the holy trinity of movies and will never be topped.. which is why i was so mentally scared by land and why i rank it as my personal worse movie ever. diary is a stinker too, its not as bad as land, but its by no means good.. i think GAR is now just showing us with each passing movie that he really needs to retire.

[ItsJustaScratch]

[QUOTE=Andy;173991]


and it has nothing relevant to .

QUOTE]

Now that I definately dispute...

It has everything to do with modern times.

Fireworks - Shock & awe tactics.

The rockets from Dead reckoning - collateral damage & friendly fire.

Crossing the river - immigration.

The Zombies in the cage - The increasing vulgarity of modern entertainment to get ratings up.

As for the cheesy acting/style, thats the look and always has been. That's the first thing I appreciated about it. Look at Left 4 Dead, the characters style is straight out of GAR's closet, because they know it's the correct attire and overall look for the genre. It's what we've come to expect.

[MinionZombie]

But you just presented an argument AGAINST the "evolution" of zombies. Make up yer mind!! :p
Actually I didn't - make up your mind. :D

I was talking about the reality of making these movies, and then spoke about the natural evolution.

Learn to read, yeah? :p:clown::p:D:lol: j/k

[ItsJustaScratch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by clanglee
But you just presented an argument AGAINST the "evolution" of zombies. Make up yer mind!!

Actually I didn't - make up your mind.

We're starting to edge extremely close to paradox territory here.


Hi Everyone.

Long time listener, first time caller.
I'm one of those people who likes Land more each time he sees it so I thought I would chime.
I remember hearing Romero say in a few different interviews that he originally took a lot of inspiration in developing Night of the Living Dead from Richard Matheson's I Am Legend. He liked the idea of an old society dying off as a new one grew and developed. So as they were making Night he thought of it as the first night that this new society emerged. He was going to start with a few people in a small farm house attacked by a few random ghouls and then the final chapter would return to that same farm house where the last normal people on earth were under siege by the now intelligent new society. I remember reading this probably 10 years before Land came out. I sort of thought that had always been his plan. Does anyone else remember reading something like this? If not I'll have to find it and post a link.

Rick, from one 'freshy' to another, welcome and thanks for the informative read.

After watching the teaser, i've kind of been wondering whether GAR's going to lay off the evolution, and expand on the introspective route; humanity taking a serious look at itself, and starting again, starting a new society as if the industrial revolution never happened. After all, whats the safest haven you can think of. Looking back at Dawn, the obvious message at the end was we can't just be content with all things materialistic. In the end the group left what they had thought would be the perfect place for protection and sustainability, but realised that they needed was human interaction, exploration, change; everything that the outside world could potentially offer - kind of along the same lines as Fight Clubs "Dont buy shit you don't need". So is GAR taking us to the next step with Island/... and showing us what the complete opposite of Dawn is. A small society that offers little in the way of consumerable items, but instead builds on the fundamental basics of what we need - relationships, food, water, work and trade....Basically Walnut Grove with a bit of wild west thrown in?...and erm zombies.


Andy - Feel for you bro, sounds like you've got a bad case of the Ridley Scott's.


Ummmm. . no man. . no. . (shakes head sadly and walks out of the room)

Through a 2-way door I think..;)

[bassman]

Sounds like Andy's got a case of the "I want the same film over again" disease.

And I notice you mentioned several time that it's Romero's. "The God" as you called him. Act as if he didn't direct Land and then tell us it's as bad as Children, etc. No way....

Making the film in your mind for 20 or so years and having incredibly high expectations is pretty much setting yourself up for the big let down.

I still say that Land is like the new Day. In following years it will gain more and more of a following. It was mainly disliked at the beginning because everyone wanted something that's just like Night, Dawn, or Day. Which is crazy considering all of the original films are very different from one another...

[ItsJustaScratch]

Sounds like Andy's got a case of the "I want the same film over again" disease.

And I notice you mentioned several time that it's Romero's. "The God" as you called him. Act as if he didn't direct Land and then tell us it's as bad as Children, etc. No way....

Making the film in your mind for 20 or so years and having incredibly high expectations is pretty much setting yourself up for the big let down.

I still say that Land is like the new Day. In following years it will gain more and more of a following. It was mainly disliked at the beginning because everyone wanted something that's just like Night, Dawn, or Day. Which is crazy considering all of the original films are very different from one another...

Absolutely,

Also imagine he'd made the films the other way round, like Lucas - talk about going back to basics...time to >>>move on...preferably with much less emphasis on evolution.

I can go along with it thus far, but we don't want to end up with smokers, boomers and the sodding T-Virus.

Island/... Looks as if we can have the best of both world's in terms of environments - expansive landscape's with small, claustiphobic western style building's and households.

I'm that desparate for this film to come out, that my hand actually wavered over Resident Evil Extinction, but luckily I caught a glimpse of my own reflection doing so.

[Thorn]

Whoa, dude! No freakin' way that ANYTHING is as bad than Children of the Dead! I will definitely call out anyone who tries to say that crapfest is better than anything else!
ick

Children shouldn't play with dead things.

While I like it, it is HORRIBLY. Bad make up, bad acting (and I mean HORRIBLE) the gay mystic guy makes me physically sick and giggly at the same time. Costumes? PLEASE!

Forced and contrived settings? Impossible plot points coming to fruition? Zombie rights of resurrection?Yeah...

Other than the sound work on this film... no no that was really REALLY bad too.

All it did offer was people holed up in a house being attacked by zombies. (which is why I own a copy...)

[MoonSylver]

Whoa, dude! No freakin' way that ANYTHING is as bad than Children of the Dead! I will definitely call out anyone who tries to say that crapfest is better than anything else!
ick

Word.


andrew, is this hyperbole or a cry for help?

The former. With some histrionics thrown in for good measure.


Making the film in your mind for 20 or so years and having incredibly high expectations is pretty much setting yourself up for the big let down.

Bingo. I went into Land w/ zero expectations, & I SURE didn't go into it expecting GAR's "ZOMBIE MAGNUM OPUS". I knew it was going to be "just another GAR dead flick" (& I mean that in a GOOD way), but not "THE" GAR dead flick. Just because it had been 20 years in between did not mean there was going to be some grand finale or something. Just another chapter.


Children shouldn't play with dead things.

While I like it, it is HORRIBLY. Bad make up, bad acting (and I mean HORRIBLE) the gay mystic guy makes me physically sick and giggly at the same time. Costumes? PLEASE!

Forced and contrived settings? Impossible plot points coming to fruition? Zombie rights of resurrection?Yeah...

Other than the sound work on this film... no no that was really REALLY bad too.

All it did offer was people holed up in a house being attacked by zombies. (which is why I own a copy...)

Not even close to the worst. It's low budget & all sure, but there are LOTS worse than CSPWDT. COTLD for sure. Zombie Lake. Garden of the Dead. Zombiez. I could go on & on.

Plus I can forgive a bit because it was basically a first time, independent, neo-amateur effort AND because it holds a special place in zombie movie-dom. It's one of only a couple of zombie movies (along w/ the excellent "Let Sleeping Corpses Lie" that were made POST Night but PRE Dawn, which is when the zombie movie craze REALLY kicked off, so I think that makes it fairly significant as well.

Much love for CSPWDT.;)

[DubiousComforts]

Children shouldn't play with dead things.

While I like it, it is HORRIBLY. Bad make up, bad acting (and I mean HORRIBLE) the gay mystic guy makes me physically sick and giggly at the same time. Costumes? PLEASE!
You're full of it. :p This make-up was downright spectacular for the mid-70s:

http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/zombieintree.jpg

http://kindertrauma.com/images/movies/eyebig.jpg

http://kindertrauma.com/images/movies/mouthbig.jpg

https://www.ezydvd.com.au/g/i/p/780973.jpg

In fact, that guy's nasty mug in the last photo is the reason that I first watched NOLD to begin with (a photo from CSPWDT in Famous Monsters had been miscaptioned as being from NOLD).

There is nothing wrong with Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things other than a very poor, "humorous" advertising campaign and the obvious attempt to cash-in on NOLD.

In fact, Sam Raimi obviously combined CSPWDT with the earlier Equinox and came up with Evil Dead.

[Andy]

Sounds like Andy's got a case of the "I want the same film over again" disease.


Andy - Feel for you bro, sounds like you've got a bad case of the Ridley Scott's.

I Aint got a case of anything, read this and pay attention.

I HATE LAND. IN MY OPINION IT IS THE WORSE MOVIE EVER HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES AT ALL.

i aint trying to change anyone elses opinion, so stop trying to change mine or tryin to say im missing something or have some kind of disease becuase i hate this film and just accept it.

[ItsJustaScratch]

I Aint got a case of anything, read this and pay attention.

I HATE LAND. IN MY OPINION IT IS THE WORSE MOVIE EVER HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES AT ALL.

i aint trying to change anyone elses opinion, so stop trying to change mine or tryin to say im missing something or have some kind of disease becuase i hate this film and just accept it.

No offense intended Andy:eek: -What I mean't was that from your perspective you don't like to see your franchise snowball like Aliens did (doing a Ridley Scott). I respect your opinion and opposite point of view; also learn't some new swear words in the process.:evil:
Maybe we should just keep (Movie/Forum Member) bashing to a minimum:cool:. otherwise it just becomes youtube:rant:
We're all entitled to our own after all.

[bassman]

I Aint got a case of anything, read this and pay attention.

I HATE LAND. IN MY OPINION IT IS THE WORSE MOVIE EVER HAS NO REDEEMING FEATURES AT ALL.

i aint trying to change anyone elses opinion, so stop trying to change mine or tryin to say im missing something or have some kind of disease becuase i hate this film and just accept it.

Whoa, chill out there homie. sheesh...

[Trin]

I maintain that Land may one day attain the same stature as Day - but also that by and large mainstream media thinks of Day as a failure, and most GAR fans are lukewarm on it. Land can get to that level, sure.

I'd also point out that Land has had plenty of time to get there and hasn't. It didn't take Day this long for the GAR fans to accept, and Day didn't have the quick to media advantage that Land has had.

I love any use of the original Day script to display GAR's intentions or genius. The onlly thing the original Day script is evidence of is how insane our beloved Dead series could've become. Honestly, it's a freakin ridiculous read. The number of just insane plot points in there makes me wonder how we ever ended up with the Day we got.

[ItsJustaScratch]

I maintain that Land may one day attain the same stature as Day - but also that by and large mainstream media thinks of Day as a failure, and most GAR fans are lukewarm on it. Land can get to that level, sure.

I'd also point out that Land has had plenty of time to get there and hasn't. It didn't take Day this long for the GAR fans to accept, and Day didn't have the quick to media advantage that Land has had.

I love any use of the original Day script to display GAR's intentions or genius. The onlly thing the original Day script is evidence of is how insane our beloved Dead series could've become. Honestly, it's a freakin ridiculous read. The number of just insane plot points in there makes me wonder how we ever ended up with the Day we got.

Can't really make an assessment on how long it took for Day, but most people nowadays tend make decision's on (instant)face value instead of looking for hidden layers. It is the Playstation Generation, and this may sound harsh, but now we have a huge bar raised as far as visuals are concerned, and 'most' younger members won't appreciate the intrical depths of a story-telling master from the 60's. Slightly going off course here, but it really snaps me when I hear a teenager chatting about a great game, with below-par graphics and saying that sux. Me being almost 30, recall's the days of the Commodore 64 and how far technology has come throughout a Loooong time, whilst the younger generation are born with that silver spoon in their mouths. So is it any wonder why a large percentage of us look at Land and scoff, that sucks. I'd take the authentic/antique style of Land over 'perfume on a pig' Dawn 04 any day of the week. Saying that, I have to admit it was quite entertaining, but nothing more than a faded photo-copy.

[clanglee]

I love any use of the original Day script to display GAR's intentions or genius. The onlly thing the original Day script is evidence of is how insane our beloved Dead series could've become. Honestly, it's a freakin ridiculous read. The number of just insane plot points in there makes me wonder how we ever ended up with the Day we got.

Yeah the Day original script can be pretty ridiculous. But a LOT of that spilled over into Land. Many of the same concepts and plots. And even the "feel" and the "meaning" of the movie.

I didn't hate Land. But I was let down when I saw it. And it wasn't because of expectations because I honestly didn't know what to expect. I was excited when the movie began. At first I was like "Huh?. . ok no big deal" with each minute I became more "ummm. . what? seriously?" and by the end of the movie I was like "Oh what the fuck!!" I left rather disappointed. I've seen it a few time since and it HAS gotten better with furthwer viewings. . as long as I don't think. As soon as I start to think about the movie all the bullshit plot points ruin the movie for me all over again.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Yeah the Day original script can be pretty ridiculous. But a LOT of that spilled over into Land. Many of the same concepts and plots. And even the "feel" and the "meaning" of the movie.

I didn't hate Land. But I was let down when I saw it. And it wasn't because of expectations because I honestly didn't know what to expect. I was excited when the movie began. At first I was like "Huh?. . ok no big deal" with each minute I became more "ummm. . what? seriously?" and by the end of the movie I was like "Oh what the fuck!!" I left rather disappointed. I've seen it a few time since and it HAS gotten better with furthwer viewings. . as long as I don't think. As soon as I start to think about the movie all the bullshit plot points ruin the movie for me all over again.

I haven't read the (Why Land Is Shit) thread yet, so again, please specify what you perceive the be the major flaws in the plot that haven't been explained away, intelligently and logically about money, plot strategy and the behaviour of characters. All I ask is, the next time you watch it, compare the events within the scenes with what's going on elsewhere in the world. Not since Dawn, has George spoken a truer word.

[MinionZombie]

There's also a thread for Land Loving too, but they both are essentially the same, as nobody would stick exclusively to one or the other (e.g. lovers in the love thread, haters in the hate thread). It all just became a rammy in both cases.

Anyway, I find it interesting with the Day original script being mentioned - because so many times I have heard people say "god I wish that movie was made" (don't read "had been made", more "in addition to") - because indeed elements from that script are in Land - and I'm sure there are Land haters who loved the Day original script. :sneaky:

I've only read the original script of Day once, and it was quite good - but that said, I'm more than happy with the actual filmed version of Day - it's the first of GAR's flicks (generally, and in terms of zombies) that I'd ever seen, and I loved it - and still do.

At the time it came out, it definitely didn't do well because people wanted Dawn all over again - but you know what, Day was awesome, and Bub is the best zombie ever on screen.

Land - I loved it from the off, although last time I watched a clip of it I did find a handful of small niggles - but this was probably because I was writing my own zombie epic at the time to get it on paper, so was in the mindset of "what do I want to see, what haven't I seen, what do I want to see more of, what do I want to re-address" and so on.

Land will definitely grow into the other films more and more over time - especially with the rather controversial response to Diary, which is the new "new kid on the block" - and then we have "of the Dead" coming along.

Methinks it'll go down better than Diary in general ... I liked Diary, but I wasn't popping a boner for it really. I've seen it three times so far, and I do have the excellent double disc DVD.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Anyway, I find it interesting with the Day original script being mentioned - (generally, and in terms of zombies) that I'd ever seen, and I loved it - and still do.

At the time it came out, it definitely didn't do well because people wanted Dawn all over again - but you know what, Day was awesome, and Bub is the best zombie ever on screen.

Land - I loved it from the off, although last time I watched a clip of it I did find a handful of small niggles - but this was probably because I was writing my own zombie epic at the time to get it on paper, so was in the mindset of "what do I want to see, what haven't I seen, what do I want to see more of, what do I want to re-address" and so on.

Land will definitely grow into the other films more and more over time - especially with the rather controversial response to Diary, which is the new "new kid on the block" - and then we have "of the Dead" coming along.

Methinks it'll go down better than Diary in general ... I liked Diary, but I wasn't popping a boner for it really. I've seen it three times so far, and I do have the excellent double disc DVD.

Perfect post to get us back on track and I completely agree. Day was the first Gar film I saw back in 92, which just blew my sock's off, delving into the storline with a fresh mind. It was probably also the first film that made me laterally think myself out of the situation with a pounding fear in my heart.
If any of you have seen Cube? then you'll agree it's a traditional story-telling horror film. It just goes to proove that you can successfully capture a little bit of brilliance buy making the audience visualize the outside world without having to actually show it. Maybe thats why fans are so stuck on the originals; because now we're in a position budget and special effects wise to create the outside world, which can never align with everybody's vision they had in mind during 20 years; just like reading a good book that makes you paint the backdrop in your mind, and then watching the movie years later starring Tom Hanks.

[clanglee]

I haven't read the (Why Land Is Shit) thread yet, so again, please specify what you perceive the be the major flaws in the plot that haven't been explained away, intelligently and logically about money, plot strategy and the behaviour of characters. All I ask is, the next time you watch it, compare the events within the scenes with what's going on elsewhere in the world. Not since Dawn, has George spoken a truer word.

No man. . I'm frankly quite tired of the argument. Read the thread I meantioned and you will see what us "haters" didn't like about the movie. There are frankly to many flaws to mention. I will say this. . I believe you are looking for meaning in the movie. .which is fine and dandy. I prefer to look at the story. . which sucked.:p


Maybe thats why fans are so stuck on the originals; because now we're in a position budget and special effects wise to create the outside world, which can never align with everybody's vision they had in mind during 20 years; just like reading a good book that makes you paint the backdrop in your mind, and then watching the movie years later starring Tom Hanks.

Interesting point here tho

[ItsJustaScratch]

No man. . I'm frankly quite tired of the argument. Read the thread I meantioned and you will see what us "haters" didn't like about the movie. There are frankly to many flaws to mention. I will say this. . I believe you are looking for meaning in the movie. .which is fine and dandy. I prefer to look at the story. . which sucked.:p



Interesting point here tho
What part exactly from the amazing first trilogy is so special, do you mean politically or story-wise? cos story-wise Night is guy locking himself up with a chick & dying, Dawn is some swat/media dudes locking themselves up and extracting/dying, Day is some military/medical dudes, locking themselves up, but testing the zombies, AND....extracting/dying to an island..so I ask, politics aside, which bit in particular of the Land story is so bad, which doesn't involve dying/locking yourself up and legging it when you get bored or in the shit??

[clanglee]

Land was set up as a political rant. The entire story was bent that was to show GAR's "messages" By that token, he bit off way more than he could chew. The storyline suffered in plausability because he spent the entire time trying to forth his message. If you want examples. . do some research and se my and many other people's MANY previous posts about this same dead-as-a-horse's-flayed-ass subject.

In his previous 3 movies the stories were indeed simple yes. That allowed him to work on character growth and plausable plot points. Very rarely in any of the first three movies did I ever have a "oh come on!!" moment.

Anyways. . whatever. . you loved the movie. . good for you. Hope that works out for ya.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Land was set up as a political rant. The entire story was bent that was to show GAR's "messages" By that token, he bit off way more than he could chew. The storyline suffered in plausability because he spent the entire time trying to forth his message. If you want examples. . do some research and se my and many other people's MANY previous posts about this same dead-as-a-horse's-flayed-ass subject.

In his previous 3 movies the stories were indeed simple yes. That allowed him to work on character growth and plausable plot points. Very rarely in any of the first three movies did I ever have a "oh come on!!" moment.

Anyways. . whatever. . you loved the movie. . good for you. Hope that works out for ya.

WHAT.. is.. YOUR personal 'oh , come on' , or story line issue that was worse than the first three films, oh come on moments, in your own words..please..

[Mikey]

I genuinely liked the creepiness of NIGHT, DAWN, and DAY because the music was unique. Though I enjoyed LAND (except for Big Daddy screaming and having two chicks on camera smooching -- side note: I love chicks kissing and could watch all day, but it felt like George just threw that in and it was goofy), the music was way too much studio.

Has anyone heard who is doing the music for ...of the dead? I hope it's an independent band or something alike that.

[archivesofthede]

I maintain that Land may one day attain the same stature as Day - but also that by and large mainstream media thinks of Day as a failure, and most GAR fans are lukewarm on it. Land can get to that level, sure.

I'd also point out that Land has had plenty of time to get there and hasn't. It didn't take Day this long for the GAR fans to accept, and Day didn't have the quick to media advantage that Land has had.

I love any use of the original Day script to display GAR's intentions or genius. The onlly thing the original Day script is evidence of is how insane our beloved Dead series could've become. Honestly, it's a freakin ridiculous read. The number of just insane plot points in there makes me wonder how we ever ended up with the Day we got.



I agree with you friend. :)

[clanglee]

WHAT.. is.. YOUR personal 'oh , come on' , or story line issue that was worse than the first three films, oh come on moments, in your own words..please..

Nope. . I'm tired of the conversation frankly.

Oh and this thread needs to be moved by the by. It has nothing to do with the untitled project. It's just another Land love/hate thread.

[RickGrimes]

Land is definitely rife with political satire and it's certainly not shy about being heavy handed but Night and Day were pretty clear in their time too. When Night came out the country was just getting into Vietnam and the film was a grisly war footage-esque display of young people being senselessly murdered. It wasn't until much later that people started looking at that film as anything more then trash it hit to close to home to be liked. To a lesser degree the same can be said of Day brutally representing the nihilistic attitude of a nation coming out of the 70s and enduring the cold war. I think Dawn's popularity had a lot to do with it just being a lighter fun romp and commenting a commercialist phenomena that hadn't even hit it's stride yet. And once again we have GAR making Land and having it blatantly commenting on the times and seeming redundant and/or ridiculous about it but I can't help wondering what the first generation to know grow up thinking of 9/11 and Bush as something in a history book will think of the film. I'm curious what you guys think about it in that respect. Basically taking the movie out of it's era of context and looking at it.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Nope. . I'm tired of the conversation frankly.

Oh and this thread needs to be moved by the by. It has nothing to do with the untitled project. It's just another Land love/hate thread.

Your right Clanglee. Both sides of the fence have already been fought well, and we'd just be re-treading old ground, so I'll try and refrain from sidetracking into Land Loving too much, and save the rammy stuff for the appropriate thread.


Land is definitely rife with political satire and it's certainly not shy about being heavy handed but Night and Day were pretty clear in their time too. When Night came out the country was just getting into Vietnam and the film was a grisly war footage-esque display of young people being senselessly murdered. It wasn't until much later that people started looking at that film as anything more then trash it hit to close to home to be liked. To a lesser degree the same can be said of Day brutally representing the nihilistic attitude of a nation coming out of the 70s and enduring the cold war. I think Dawn's popularity had a lot to do with it just being a lighter fun romp and commenting a commercialist phenomena that hadn't even hit it's stride yet. And once again we have GAR making Land and having it blatantly commenting on the times and seeming redundant and/or ridiculous about it but I can't help wondering what the first generation to know grow up thinking of 9/11 and Bush as something in a history book will think of the film. I'm curious what you guys think about it in that respect. Basically taking the movie out of it's era of context and looking at it.

That's got me thinking.

It would still be enjoyable, but wouldn't be nearly as potent. Maybe it would be like Dawn 04 without the shiney, flashy things that make the general public drool, and to some extent I think they do look at Land in that way; stripped of it's personality because their CG craving minds aren't programmed to look any further. Not their fault neccessarily, but possibly just a result of visual expectation from years of heavily CG laden botox. I have even witnessed this from the occasional GAR fan, which is both unusual, and saddening.

...Of The Dead's main theme is focused on tribalism. I wonder what current political aspect will be most predominant? Looks like this film is the microcosm of the storys future world. Once again, without the rules of goverment guidence and order, the world is descending back to it's primal instinct's, much like the info you supplied on GAR's outlook. I do hope it takes a swipe at that twat Mugabe at somepoint.:mad:

[MoonSylver]

Land is definitely rife with political satire and it's certainly not shy about being heavy handed but Night and Day were pretty clear in their time too. When Night came out the country was just getting into Vietnam and the film was a grisly war footage-esque display of young people being senselessly murdered. It wasn't until much later that people started looking at that film as anything more then trash it hit to close to home to be liked. To a lesser degree the same can be said of Day brutally representing the nihilistic attitude of a nation coming out of the 70s and enduring the cold war. I think Dawn's popularity had a lot to do with it just being a lighter fun romp and commenting a commercialist phenomena that hadn't even hit it's stride yet. And once again we have GAR making Land and having it blatantly commenting on the times and seeming redundant and/or ridiculous about it but I can't help wondering what the first generation to know grow up thinking of 9/11 and Bush as something in a history book will think of the film. I'm curious what you guys think about it in that respect. Basically taking the movie out of it's era of context and looking at it.

Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films.

The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall.

Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part.

So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers...:p

[RickGrimes]

Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films.

The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall.

Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part.

So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers...:p

But that's what I'm thinking. I agree that both Land and Diary especially are hard to seperate from their theme but imagine you had a 15 year old kid watching them 30 years from now. They are going to be far enough removed from the socio/political/economic climate of today that they'll probably just see a fun zombie movie. Day was the only one of the original 3 movies that was made during my lifetime and I saw it 10 years after it came out. When I watched it along with Night and Dawn I was young enough that most of the historical context of the films were lost on me. I've learned more about them and looked deeper in subsequent viewings but I took it at face value that first time. I'm wondering what Land and to a lesser extant Diary are going to feel like to future generations that view them as old movies.

[MoonSylver]

But that's what I'm thinking. I agree that both Land and Diary especially are hard to seperate from their theme but imagine you had a 15 year old kid watching them 30 years from now. They are going to be far enough removed from the socio/political/economic climate of today that they'll probably just see a fun zombie movie. Day was the only one of the original 3 movies that was made during my lifetime and I saw it 10 years after it came out. When I watched it along with Night and Dawn I was young enough that most of the historical context of the films were lost on me. I've learned more about them and looked deeper in subsequent viewings but I took it at face value that first time. I'm wondering what Land and to a lesser extant Diary are going to feel like to future generations that view them as old movies.

Ah...I see where you're going. Hmmm....I have a feeling you could be right w/ Land. Diary I'm not sure as the message is SO central to the film. as I said, the message IS the film in that one. BUT, I think the message would play out just as well regardless of time period as it's pretty well spelled out & not necessarily dependent on the socio-political forces of it's time.

It's hard to say right now as they're so fresh & still feel "in-context". But I think you're onto something there.

[clanglee]

Land & Diary both are much harder films to separate from their message/era/context, because they're so blatant about it, which has one of my few (small) complaints about both films.

The original movies were fairly subtle with their message. It was subtext. Dawn was probably the most overt. The theme of consumerism was pretty central to taking of, dissatisfaction with, & losing of, the mall.

Land, and particularly Diary, put the message MUCH more front & center. Heck in Diary the message IS the movie for the most part.

So, for the earlier movies I think it's easier to accept them as pure entertainment without even being aware there IS a message. With the latter two, it's pretty hard to miss with the amount of emphasis placed on it. Maybe GAR figures subtlety is lost on the younger generations of movie goers...:p


That's what I am hoping George means by this new movie being more like Dawn. I am hoping that he going light on the message and letting the story stand on it's own. Then those that CHOOSE to look for the subtext of the movie can be free to do so. But at it's heart a good movie must be a good movie first. Informative and thought provoking second. Otherwise it will turn people off like Land and Diary did.

[DubiousComforts]

The original movies were fairly subtle with their message.
Absolutely, positively not true.

Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding!

No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext."

[clanglee]

Absolutely, positively not true.

Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding!

No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext."

Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message.

[DubiousComforts]

Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message.
The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. We were first exposed to the early Romero movies as kids. Now we look at the latest ones more critically as fans. Ask a few 11-year olds if they felt clobbered by the message in LAND, if you can find any here that have seen it.

[clanglee]

The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. We were first exposed to the early Romero movies as kids. Now we look at the latest ones more critically as fans. Ask a few 11-year olds if they felt clobbered by the message in LAND, if you can find any here that have seen it.

No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety.

[MoonSylver]

Absolutely, positively not true.

Don't recall the original advertising for DAWN? "We have spawned our own savagery. Soon, it will consume us all. It is a horrible, hauntingly accurate vision of the mindless excesses of a society gone mad." Say what? I was 11 years old and just wanted to some heads exploding!

No overt message in NIGHT? Just watch the documentary Come Walk In My Shoes, particularly the news footage, and then try explaining it away as "subtext."

The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY subtle. I never saw the ad for Dawn, nor the documentary before I saw the MOVIES. And I can tell you the first time I saw them when I was younger I saw them as almost pure entertainment without being aware of any agenda. I knew they were a little deeper than a standard horror flick, but it took repeated viewings, maturity, & reflection to "get" what was there.

Land to a certain extent, & Diary in particular, it's up front & in your face in a way that I contend that it still never was in the older films. You'd have to sleep through the whole movie to miss it in Diary.


Sigh. . Point being. . back then GAR could tell a story without browbeating anyone about his message.

Bingo.


The point being that anyone who doesn't see the very obvious message is simply looking back at those films through rose-colored glasses. And as I said, the message in those movies didn't come to me 'till later. At the time of the first viewings, they were just cool films.

Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie.:rolleyes:


No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety.

Agreed. I do think that the commentary was planned, at least in Dawn & Day for sure, but it was the complement to the story, not the central focus. Now it's vice versa.

[ItsJustaScratch]

The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY


Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie.:rolleyes:




No disrespect, but some people listen to the lyrics, others just bop along to the song.

[clanglee]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . .

[ItsJustaScratch]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . .

Which has an intro (Night), verse (Dawn), bridge (Day), chorus (Land), Middle 8 (.../Island) and an END (?).

Albeit with small steps. Every good song has interesting chord changes.

[DubiousComforts]

The emphasis should have been on the FAIRLY subtle. I never saw the ad for Dawn, nor the documentary before I saw the MOVIES. And I can tell you the first time I saw them when I was younger I saw them as almost pure entertainment without being aware of any agenda.
That is exactly my point. All of us that first viewed these films at a younger age only saw the entertainment value. That still doesn't prove the message wasn't extremely obvious, only that we didn't see it.

I didn't have any politics when I was 10-12 years old. Now it's all about politics. You have very little chance to see these films without the opinion pool being tainted by all the semi-illiterate posturing on sites like Ain't It Cool Snooze.

Wait a minute... isn't that exactly what DIARY was about? Amazing that such an obvious, overbearing message need any further explanation. :D


Disagree. I've shown all 3 movies to friends & family & none of them really walked away from it with any comment on the "message". To them, it was just a zombie movie.:rolleyes:
Which proves nothing unless you're willing to accept that the reverse is true, as well. I've shown LAND and DIARY to family and friends including my wife. To her, DIARY is just a horror film with a message that wasn't overbearing in any way. To be honest, she was probably more pleased at not having experienced any of the motion sickness that was induced by Cloverfield or The Blair Witch Project.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Wait a minute... isn't that exactly what DIARY was about? Amazing that such an obvious, overbearing message need any further explanation. :D

.

Ok, so that's pretty much case closed as far a Diarys concerned. Couldn't have said it better myself.:)

[clanglee]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind if you think that the message in Dawn is as blatant and repeated as it is in Diary. I can watch Dawn today and just get a nice fun ride. If I choose to focus on the hidden (or not so hidden according to you) meaning I can, but with Diary. . it is impossible to watch without feeling preched to. I'm sorry Dub, but yet again I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Mike70]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . .

so, we're talking about gene roddenberry now?

[blind2d]

Hidden meanings are pointless. Hence, I am a maniac.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Hidden meanings are pointless. Hence, I am a maniac.

I'd say you're more of a loose cannon.:cool:

Just a bit of info further to Rick's contribution. Hate to say this, but maybe some of the bitching towards GAR will help him avoid a total future de-railment...read the red text. Info courtesy of Wiki.


It was strongly indicated that Romero would direct the first Resident Evil film. He initially declined, stating in an interview, "I don't wanna make another film with zombies in it, and I couldn't make a movie based on something that ain't mine",[citation needed] although in later years he reconsidered and wrote a script for the first movie. While many were impressed with the script (which garnered positive reviews), it was eventually rejected in favor of Paul W.S. Anderson's far less faithful treatment.

Universal Studios produced and released a remake of Dawn of the Dead in 2004, with which Romero was not involved. Later that year, Romero kicked off the DC Comics title Toe Tags with a six-issue miniseries titled The Death of Death. Based on an unused script that Romero had previously written as a sequel to his "Dead Trilogy", the comic miniseries concerns Damien, an intelligent zombie who remembers his former life, struggling to find his identity as he battles armies of both the living and the dead. Typical of a Romero zombie tale,:confused: the miniseries includes ample supply of both gore and social commentary (dealing particularly here with corporate greed and terrorism - ideas he would also explore in his next film in the series, Land of the Dead). Romero has stated that the miniseries is set in the same kind of world as his "Dead" films, but featured other locales besides Pittsburgh, where the majority of his films take place.[7]

Let's just hope, he's rejected this foolishness from the series storyline.:stunned:

[DubiousComforts]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind if you think that the message in Dawn is as blatant and repeated as it is in Diary. I can watch Dawn today and just get a nice fun ride. If I choose to focus on the hidden (or not so hidden according to you) meaning I can, but with Diary. . it is impossible to watch without feeling preched to. I'm sorry Dub, but yet again I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Nowhere did I argue that the message in DAWN is as "blatant" as DIARY, only that it is very far from being "fairly subtle." And I am quite able to disagree without calling you obstinant (sic) or blind.

[bassman]

I would have to agree with dub on this. Although Land and Diary are both more heavy handed with the commentary, Dawn and Day weren't exactly light with it. In fact....it's right there in the front....

[ItsJustaScratch]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind .


I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please).


Doesn't cost a penny;)

[RickGrimes]

i actually have Toe Tags and every time I have tried to sit down and read it I have to stop around the time that zombie Gengis Khan shows up talking about leading a zombie army. It feels more like John A Russo then Romero to me. :(.
ItJustaScratch, I think feedback has definitely changed Romero's decisions regarding the next film he makes. Originally he was saying that Land was supposed to have a sequel about them being out on the road with Dead Reckoning but after the movie came out a few months later that idea had been canned. I know in interviews he said that it was working with a large studio and having them all over him all the time about his choices that made him decide to go indy again. But even so maybe it was fan reaction to Big Daddy that made him decide not to further that story or look at a few years later in zombie history. Maybe that's why he decided on a reboot. I wonder if he's commented on that somewhere already.

[clanglee]

Nowhere did I argue that the message in DAWN is as "blatant" as DIARY, only that it is very far from being "fairly subtle." And I am quite able to disagree without calling you obstinant (sic) or blind.

Agreed. . and sorry. I was in a pissy mood last night. And this topic always sets me off a bit. I appologize Dub.


I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please).


Doesn't cost a penny;)

You!!!!! Shut it!!!


;):p

[ItsJustaScratch]

You!!!!! Shut it!!!


;):p

That goes so well with your avatar pic:lol::lol:

[DubiousComforts]

Agreed. . and sorry. I was in a pissy mood last night. And this topic always sets me off a bit. I appologize Dub.
It's cool, no harm done. I enjoy these discussions, which typically have been civil, and I'd just like to keep it that way. ;)


I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please).
Yeah, shut it, YOU! This is all your fault! :D

[ProfessorChaos]

been watching diary again this evening, and a theory dawned on me that might explain some of the "meh" attitudes towards land and diary of the dead.

both films have their merits, and both have their faults. i can watch either of them, but neither film really impresses me all that much, and i think i finally realized why this evening. neither captures any of the feelings of isolation and dread the original trilogy, and this is largely in part due to an overabundance of disposable characters.

night of the living dead focused on seven people trapped inside a farmhouse, the majority of dawn of the dead concerns the four mall refugees and their plight, and day of the dead's underground military installation has only about a dozen survivors. while there are some additional characters in a couple of the films (posse from the end of night, tv studio employees in dawn), they are mainly used for back-story and plot advancement/resolution.

land of the dead had tons characters that took up significant story/screen time that could be placed in the "who gives a flying fuck?!?!" category (not just big daddy, i'm talking about the dude with the sick kid, the fucking midget, cholo's butt buddy, the skater kid). i realize that studio involvement could be to blame for some of these characters, but still, there's too many of 'em. i imagine i'd appreciate land more if there wasn't a super-city filled with lesbos, midgets, strippers, car mechanics, a board of directors, and a limo driver. a small outpost with a much smaller band of survivors would be a more engaging experience...and then if big daddy was also left out, it'd be pretty close to perfect.:moon:

diary isn't quite as guilty of this offense, but there are plenty of characters (both large roles, such as elliot, and small roles like the militant black panthers, or whoever the fuck those guys were, and the amish mute) whom i think the film would be better of without.

this "...... of the dead" looks like it's gonna be rife with fucking moronic empty characters who are more like walking stereotypes and cliches than survivors, and there's gonna be little to no bonding/sympathizing/relating/whatever-you-wanna-call-it with the main characters, and no moments of isolation, dread, hopelessness, and whatnot from the first three films.

i'd also have to agree that the "social commentary" shit is getting laid on pretty thick in the last couple of films. diary was better film, imo, than land, but damn, i got sick of that fucking running commentary throughout...and the super-shitty acting by some of the cast.

...and if i'd just add this to my previous rant, but it's almost its own separate point, so:

isn't that one guy (armory dude from land, can't remember his name, cuz he was yet another unimportant character, and the leader of the national guard gang who rob the students in diary) supposed to be reprising his role from one of those two films? if i've heard correctly, he's gonna be the dude from diary, which as i've said, holds up and robs a bunch of kids when he and his buddies are out joyriding in with stolen government gear...and i believe he may be a main character, from the look of the "trailer" or whatever video that was.

so our next film for GAR is gonna have an incredibly unlikeable sleazy dude hanging out on a cattle-raising island with a bunch of time-traveling cowboys and shit? cool....:confused:

[DjfunkmasterG]

LAND:

Land is a definate grower, many people turn their nose up at this film,
mostly because of it's hammy 80-90's (escape from New York) feel; but isn't that all part of the GAR charm? I also believe that most people were lead by the nose by initial reviews


Please don't put LAND of the DEAD and Escape From NY in the same sentence. You kill the credibility of Escape from NY by doing that. Land can't hold a candle to that film.

Land just sucked. I have seen Sci-Fi originals that were more interesting than LAND of the DEAD.

Diary was better than LAND, low budget, done very guerrilla style, reminded me of NIGHT. Land was a sloppy mess that had no clear direction or point.

[Mike70]

Land just sucked. I have seen Sci-Fi originals that were more interesting than LAND of the DEAD.


ouch. now that is a low blow.

after all of these posts just what faith are we talking about?

[clanglee]

been watching diary again this evening, and a theory dawned on me that might explain some of the "meh" attitudes towards land and diary of the dead.

both films have their merits, and both have their faults. i can watch either of them, but neither film really impresses me all that much, and i think i finally realized why this evening. neither captures any of the feelings of isolation and dread the original trilogy, and this is largely in part due to an overabundance of disposable characters.

night of the living dead focused on seven people trapped inside a farmhouse, the majority of dawn of the dead concerns the four mall refugees and their plight, and day of the dead's underground military installation has only about a dozen survivors. while there are some additional characters in a couple of the films (posse from the end of night, tv studio employees in dawn), they are mainly used for back-story and plot advancement/resolution.

land of the dead had tons characters that took up significant story/screen time that could be placed in the "who gives a flying fuck?!?!" category (not just big daddy, i'm talking about the dude with the sick kid, the fucking midget, cholo's butt buddy, the skater kid). i realize that studio involvement could be to blame for some of these characters, but still, there's too many of 'em. i imagine i'd appreciate land more if there wasn't a super-city filled with lesbos, midgets, strippers, car mechanics, a board of directors, and a limo driver. a small outpost with a much smaller band of survivors would be a more engaging experience...and then if big daddy was also left out, it'd be pretty close to perfect.:moon:

diary isn't quite as guilty of this offense, but there are plenty of characters (both large roles, such as elliot, and small roles like the militant black panthers, or whoever the fuck those guys were, and the amish mute) whom i think the film would be better of without.

this "...... of the dead" looks like it's gonna be rife with fucking moronic empty characters who are more like walking stereotypes and cliches than survivors, and there's gonna be little to no bonding/sympathizing/relating/whatever-you-wanna-call-it with the main characters, and no moments of isolation, dread, hopelessness, and whatnot from the first three films.

i'd also have to agree that the "social commentary" shit is getting laid on pretty thick in the last couple of films. diary was better film, imo, than land, but damn, i got sick of that fucking running commentary throughout...and the super-shitty acting by some of the cast.

...and if i'd just add this to my previous rant, but it's almost its own separate point, so:

isn't that one guy (armory dude from land, can't remember his name, cuz he was yet another unimportant character, and the leader of the national guard gang who rob the students in diary) supposed to be reprising his role from one of those two films? if i've heard correctly, he's gonna be the dude from diary, which as i've said, holds up and robs a bunch of kids when he and his buddies are out joyriding in with stolen government gear...and i believe he may be a main character, from the look of the "trailer" or whatever video that was.

so our next film for GAR is gonna have an incredibly unlikeable sleazy dude hanging out on a cattle-raising island with a bunch of time-traveling cowboys and shit? cool....:confused:

Very very true. Land's huge ammount of non fleshed out characters with stupid nicknames was one of the big problems I had with the movie. Plus it's difficult to stay centered with that big of a cast.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Yeah, shut it, YOU! This is all your fault! :D

*Hears Obi 1's voice in head* Climb the ladder Scratch.. climb the ladder....


Very very true. Land's huge ammount of non fleshed out characters with stupid nicknames was one of the big problems I had with the movie. Plus it's difficult to stay centered with that big of a cast.

At somepoint the story had to flesh out into highly populated areas. This is a first for the series, now I couldn't actually go back to the first three without knowing the extent of the bigger social predicaments that are happening elsewhere. We would still be very much in the dark at film No 4. I waited a long time to see beyond the rather linear confines of a house, mall and military compound. As for the questionable establishments within Lands 'Pittsburgh'the area is now deprived; go into most deprived area's and you will see skanky bars/clubs,garages, prozies and maybe the odd midget on occasion.I too feel like there weren't enough (boxed in by zombie) moments, but for me the pay-off with the addition of scope was better for me. My favourite scenes being the mercenarys scavenger raids, kind of like Dawn but with more firepower. We had a tiny taste for the outside world at the beginning of Dawn and Day. With the sprawling CG landscapes of films such as I am Legend, GAR was right to move up and future proof Land to some extent. Now as for the characters. I don't think it was GAR's intention to have dozens of well thought out, oscar worthy roles in mind, as it's just not his style. The main chracter's are my favourite of the series, and the surrounding background characters maybe 2D, but the're presented in a way that defrenciates them from the rest of the crowd. If your concerned about 'cheese' please rewatch Dawn an Day, purest stilton.
Oh and the action music for Dawn...I can only describe as 'Phantom Of The Hammond Organ'..it's cheese, it's GAR, BUT I love it!

Nicotine Crocket, the leading man in Island/... it seems like he's the colonel/hero of the National Guard that's lost his way ..(or Faith:p) in humanity. Think Robert Downey Jnr's Iron Man. I think it'll be an interesting twist, as we have a lead that would rather kill than find a cure. Maybe GAR's sticking to the theme of 'gods curse' (judging by natural death zombies), with the positive change of civilization eventually (suggestively) lifting it and being the cure??


i actually have Toe Tags and every time I have tried to sit down and read it I have to stop around the time that zombie Gengis Khan shows up talking about leading a zombie army. It feels more like John A Russo then Romero to me. :(.
ItJustaScratch, I think feedback has definitely changed Romero's decisions regarding the next film he makes. Originally he was saying that Land was supposed to have a sequel about them being out on the road with Dead Reckoning but after the movie came out a few months later that idea had been canned. I know in interviews he said that it was working with a large studio and having them all over him all the time about his choices that made him decide to go indy again. But even so maybe it was fan reaction to Big Daddy that made him decide not to further that story or look at a few years later in zombie history. Maybe that's why he decided on a reboot. I wonder if he's commented on that somewhere already.

Thanks for the info, I really hope that's true.

I've tried looking for various different interviews to get to the bottom of this, to no avail. Mind you, he's probably busy organizing a shed load of editing/post processing after some of fan's reaction to the teaser.:hyper:

[Trin]

Land was set up as a political rant. The entire story was bent that was to show GAR's "messages" By that token, he bit off way more than he could chew. The storyline suffered in plausability because he spent the entire time trying to forth his message. If you want examples. . do some research and se my and many other people's MANY previous posts about this same dead-as-a-horse's-flayed-ass subject.

In his previous 3 movies the stories were indeed simple yes. That allowed him to work on character growth and plausable plot points. Very rarely in any of the first three movies did I ever have a "oh come on!!" moment.

Anyways. . whatever. . you loved the movie. . good for you. Hope that works out for ya.


No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety.
Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points.

These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!!

Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points.

These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!!

Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time.

And they'll also completely miss the fact that this is a post 9/11 film, where the characters have taken a different form. All the characters in the originals, are weak, flawed individuals; (apart from the Irish and Jamaican guy from Day) i.e braking down eventually,dead or contemplating suicide when the chips are down. Land produced more head-strong, veteran survivors, albeit with little time to elaborate on back-story. It's points like these,that make Land a subtle gem, that is ignorantly considered to be over laden with commentary, when other areas have never been considered.
As an ex-student of media and contextual studies, I relish Land for the understood/underdog of the genre it is.

[clanglee]

. Land produced more head-strong, veteran survivors, albeit with little time to elaborate on back-story. .

Who are almost wiped out to a man. Real veteran survivors. 3 years into a zombie epidmic and they are soft and uncareful. :rolleyes:


And they'll also completely miss the fact that this is a post 9/11 film, where the characters have taken a different form. All the characters in the originals, are weak, flawed individuals; (apart from the Irish and Jamaican guy from Day) .

Everyone is flawed. EVERYONE!! That's part of GAR's early genius is that he shows that if only we could work together we would be fine. . but we can't. .so we are SOL. And I argue against the point that they are weak. The core characters in the first two movies, and expecially Dawn and Day are anything but weak. They are survivors doing the best they can in the situation they are in. To say that the characters in Land are stronger than the character's in Dawn is just . . . well. . .silly. The lack of depth in Land's character's aside. . . How do you justify this statement? How are Land's characters any less flawed?


Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points.

These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!!

Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time.

Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now.:D

[ItsJustaScratch]

Who are almost wiped out to a man. Real veteran survivors. 3 years into a zombie epidmic and they are soft and uncareful. :rolleyes:



Everyone is flawed. EVERYONE!! That's part of GAR's early genius is that he shows that if only we could work together we would be fine. . but we can't. .so we are SOL. And I argue against the point that they are weak. The core characters in the first two movies, and expecially Dawn and Day are anything but weak. They are survivors doing the best they can in the situation they are in. To say that the characters in Land are stronger than the character's in Dawn is just . . . well. . .silly. The lack of depth in Land's character's aside. . . How do you justify this statement? How are Land's characters any less flawed?



Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now.:D

Yeh, it's all about the teamwork, but the individuals themselves react very differently when under stress. With Dawn, Roger flips out, get's munched, the woman (her name escapes me) flips out throughout, Flyboy? well, nuff said - Peter brakes-down over the mounting pressure and comes very close to dropping himself. In Day, The female lead character keeps composed throughout and losses it at the end; the Irish and jamaican guys have a calm outlook of the situation (the liquor probably helped) from start to finish. As for land, like the Englishman in Diary, Riley & co seem to keep a greater degree of stoic when in danger, getting each others backs and so forth. I do admit however, that the Dead Reckoning at their disposal probably helps calm the nerves somewhat. I can't really comment on Night too much, because I haven't seen it for about a decade.


Who are almost wiped out to a man.







If you mean 'buy just one man' and Kaughman? Mr A Hitler springs to mind.
Anyway, I'm talking about being faced with a zombie related dilemma; not being caught in the open in a strategic battle. Have I undertood you correctly on this?:confused:










Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now.:D

*Got my eyes on you hand gesture*:shifty:

[RickGrimes]

I have to say ItsJustaScratch that weak and strong aren't really accurate ways of describing the characters. In Dawn we were dealing with people who were still coming to terms with the zombie epidemic at their doors as well as a growing sense of isolation as their numbers dwindled. In Day we were again dealing with the earlier days of the zombie epidemic and extreme isolation in a aggressively antagonistic setting. In Land the whole dicotomy is trading saftey for freedom. The main Land cast have gotten use to the epidemic and they are never confronted with the problem of being the only ones left. At worst they might have 20 people left (which isn't ever the case). Furthermore in both Dawn and Day the characters are watching close friends die around them where as in Land the only main characters that die are Cholo, Kaufman, and the bull fighter guy. Or rather those are the only characters with some actual screen time that die and none of them die in the presense of friends. No one in Land really loses someone. If you put Riley, Charlie, and Slack in a small room after everyone else has been killed with a few cans of food and a couple clips of ammo and then have one of them bitten and slowly die then I guarantee that they won't be looking nearly so 'strong'.
And just for the record in Ben in the original Night is pretty damn hardcore :D

[Trin]

If you look at the protagonist characters in light of their flaws I think the first 3 movies stand up better than Land. Yes, the characters had flaws but they fit well with the characters. Flyboy was not good with guns and almost caused some serious harm. But he was a pilot. And he got better as the movie went on. It made sense. It enhanced and defined the plot and how the characters grew and grew together. Ditto for John & Sarah in Day. John was not helpful and not invested in their plight. Sarah was too heavily invested. They both met in the middle toward the end and grew together. As Rick says, Ben was hardcore. Just a great character. And the Land crew never dealt with the isolation feeling or the feeling that they were the last humans alive.

Riley was just messed up. I loved Riley btw. But he was the kinda good guy who cleary wanted to do good things but lacked whatever backbone it took to actually DO good things. He had the "essential supplies" in his grasp every night and yet he allowed Kaufman to rule the protected areas like a slum lord. At the end when change was evident he took the only hope for a better Green and drove off in it. That's just character flaw for the sake of message, not plot. (One note - Riley did have hardship in his past when his brother died. We get the sense he experienced that.)

Land was the worst from the perspective of using what you've got. For being tried and true survivors they just squandered their situation. I know, I know. They were ignoring the problem. But geesh - give anyone on this board Dead Reckoning and a protected city and 1 zombie per square mile and we'd be living like kings.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Yes, the characters had flaws but they fit well with the characters.
Riley was just messed up. I loved Riley btw. But he was the kinda good guy who cleary wanted to do good things but lacked whatever backbone it took to actually DO good things.

Land was the worst from the perspective of using what you've got. For being tried and true survivors they just squandered their situation. I know, I know. They were ignoring the problem. But geesh - give anyone on this board Dead Reckoning and a protected city and 1 zombie per square mile and we'd be living like kings.

I never disputed that the character variation didn't add, or in some instances make the movie's; I was just stating that they were more fragile minded than in Land.

Riley DID have the backbone, and was very successful at helping the poor
and needy; he's a man of peace, that' why he wouldn't fire rockets into Fiddlers Green at any point (especially as it's full of civvies). That's why he's so renowned, he's like their Robin Hood. Again, his main priority up until that point was looking after people. I like the little gestures, like keeping the communes leaders sick son in mind when on a raid and retuning with medicine for him. Look how distraught he is when Cholo doesn't keep a firm leash on his men, and get's one killed. There are no other characters like him in the series, apart perhaps for the lead female in Day. As likable as they are, put the cast of Dawn and Day into Lands environment and they would probably fade a bit into the background like everyone else. I think the only 'good guy' who could be considered to be ingnoring the problem is Asia's prozzie chick, although you could also argue that she was just trying to survive.

[Trin]

I never disputed that the character variation didn't add, or in some instances make the movie's; I was just stating that they were more fragile minded than in Land.

Riley DID have the backbone, and was very successful at helping the poor
and needy; he's a man of peace, that' why he wouldn't fire rockets into Fiddlers Green at any point (especially as it's full of civvies). That's why he's so renowned, he's like their Robin Hood. Again, his main priority up until that point was looking after people. I like the little gestures, like keeping the communes leaders sick son in mind when on a raid and retuning with medicine for him. Look how distraught he is when Cholo doesn't keep a firm leash on his men, and get's one killed. There are no other characters like him in the series, apart perhaps for the lead female in Day. As likable as they are, put the cast of Dawn and Day into Lands environment and they would probably fade a bit into the background like everyone else. I think the only 'good guy' who could be considered to be ingnoring the problem is Asia's prozzie chick, although you could also argue that she was just trying to survive.Riley has every attribute you credit him with. That's why I liked his character. He was the stoic guy with a heart of gold.

But there is an indisputable truth to his character - he was in charge of Dead Reckoning, had guns coming out his wazzoo, had access to food and fuel, and had the loyalty of everyone around him. Why the heck was this guy portrayed as impotent to instigate real change? Why was he limited to handing out one bottle of pills to the sick? Riley could've evicted Kaufman in a heartbeat and distributed all the food, guns, and medicine to the people. The fact that he wouldn't is a symptom of his character's inherent weakness. He was content to run away to Canada and leave the people with no defenses and no way to scavenge for food.

Mulligan had more backbone. Cholo had more backbone. Ben *definitely* had more backbone. Peter shot his friend in the face when he came back and then finished the defenses. He had more backbone. Fran flew the chopper off the mall and away after her lover and father of her child died minutes earlier. She had more backbone.

[Mikey]

I did like the film, where as I really did NOT like Diary. Though I think the basic premise of Diary was decent (I hated the first person camera, though), but I still felt the screenplay was weak and the characters ever worse -- save for Texas Blonde Chick. She had some decent character work, whatever it was. Everyone else just grimmaced and looked in the camera. Big Daddy from Land was nothing new, i.e. Bub, but he lacked empathy imho.

I'm just hoping the script is stronger in "..." and must we have some yo-yo with an accent in the films? John's accent from Day does not hold up. I do like the idea of riding horses...

[ItsJustaScratch]

Riley has every attribute you credit him with. That's why I liked his character. He was the stoic guy with a heart of gold.

But there is an indisputable truth to his character - he was in charge of Dead Reckoning, had guns coming out his wazzoo, had access to food and fuel, and had the loyalty of everyone around him. Why the heck was this guy portrayed as impotent to instigate real change? Why was he limited to handing out one bottle of pills to the sick? Riley could've evicted Kaufman in a heartbeat and distributed all the food, guns, and medicine to the people. The fact that he wouldn't is a symptom of his character's inherent weakness. He was content to run away to Canada and leave the people with no defenses and no way to scavenge for food.

Mulligan had more backbone. Cholo had more backbone. Ben *definitely* had more backbone. Peter shot his friend in the face when he came back and then finished the defenses. He had more backbone. Fran flew the chopper off the mall and away after her lover and father of her child died minutes earlier. She had more backbone.

It all depends on which angle your coming from. Rileys seen what too much confidence or back-bone can do (Cholo) and the majority of the power/money seeking mercenarys in tow.It's half-wits like Cholo that made Riley want to leave in the first place, as they have lost the plot and he doesn't trust them, or deemed them to be proficient enough to safely complete a raid. When Riley put's the Reckoning in to be serviced, only to have it stolen, he knows what damage it could do in the wrong hands (Cholo) which makes him more eiger to leave. He releases that stealth, tact and hearts and minds are the answer, not firepower and glory (another nod at the war). There is another factor that stands between Riley and Kaufman (plus bodyguards...or ahem, bodyguard) and that is the remnants of the national guard, who generally shoot first, and ask questions (or rob you) later. Retirement itself suggests that Riley was doing that job for a long time, and he, like Peter, had to head-job a fellow member who'd been let loose under the inept command of Cholo. It would take a (fit)army in good health, to push through to the Green at the very least and I doubt he'd want to see any more blood spilt. The happy ending goes to proove, he was right to bide his time instead of charging in guns blazing.

[Trin]

A fit army in good health? Come on Scratch - a small pack of zombies made it into the Green and killed everyone there. I'm pretty sure Riley and Mulligan with a slingshot could've made it into the Green.

And the happy ending??? Most everyone in the Green died!! The zombies ate tons of people!! Well, except for the ones that died by being blown to bits with a rocket. Oh, and the guy Kaufman executed.

And how many people will die trying to resume the food scavenging without Dead Reckoning or any of the seasoned scavengers or any of the remaining military?

Riley surely could've overthrown Kaufman with less loss of life. Riley right f**ked them.

To get back to the original point, I think the characters in Land were equally as tough as those in the other movies, albeit in different ways. The Land characters had become more desensitized to the environment and they'd become more selfish in their desires. They were certainly devoid of the emotion and turmoil that caused Peter to have his moment of weakness at the end of Dawn. However, I could easily see Peter and Fran becoming like those in Land after the same amount of time.

I see some strong parallels between Riley and John from Day. Both were doing what was necessary to maintain their place in the society, and little more. They'd mentally checked out. Both would rise to the challenge if lives were actually on the line, but they would do nothing proactive to better people's lives. Both talked of taking what they could and moving someplace away from the problem. Both turned out to be heroes in the end.

[ItsJustaScratch]

A fit army in good health? Come on Scratch - a small pack of zombies made it into the Green and killed everyone there. I'm pretty sure Riley and Mulligan with a slingshot could've made it into the Green.

And the happy ending??? Most everyone in the Green died!! The zombies ate tons of people!! Well, except for the ones that died by being blown to bits with a rocket. Oh, and the guy Kaufman executed.

And how many people will die trying to resume the food scavenging without Dead Reckoning or any of the seasoned scavengers or any of the remaining military?

Riley surely could've overthrown Kaufman with less loss of life. Riley right f**ked them.

To get back to the original point, I think the characters in Land were equally as tough as those in the other movies, albeit in different ways. The Land characters had become more desensitized to the environment and they'd become more selfish in their desires. They were certainly devoid of the emotion and turmoil that caused Peter to have his moment of weakness at the end of Dawn. However, I could easily see Peter and Fran becoming like those in Land after the same amount of time.

I see some strong parallels between Riley and John from Day. Both were doing what was necessary to maintain their place in the society, and little more. They'd mentally checked out. Both would rise to the challenge if lives were actually on the line, but they would do nothing proactive to better people's lives. Both talked of taking what they could and moving someplace away from the problem. Both turned out to be heroes in the end.

I agree with some points and dissagree with others.

Dissagree: I had a feeling ayou might mention the N/Guard push-overs, but I was too lazy to go into it. Any type of soldier's from any regiment can be ambushed and killed, providing it's well thought out. The guards', bored with the mundane trudge, let their guard down. The area in the perimeter which the zombies broke through, was located around the training ground's and not exactly the best choke point in which to funnel zombie's. Contrary to what I said above, sometimes brute force in number's are all that's required to overwhelm a poorly (in this case, very poorly) defended out-post. I suppose, the fact this is implied and open to too much interpretation, is a short coming for the film itself.

Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no..

Dissagree: The end, regardless of collateral, symbolized peace in the middle east. Once more, it's assumed that ALL the zombies in the surrounding area followed Big Daddy into to Fiddlers, and resumed some kind of distant, peacful memory. A Larger % of civvies escaped in the second influx. The Reckoning, fired the last, redundant firework's in celebration - All you would need to complete this picture, is for John Candy to come back to life and everyone dance in the street.

...The Dead Reck team are blantantly gonna sort the situation out, once that bridge is back down again;)

AGREE: Now, it being the main argument... I agree on your point of Riley having enough..possibly giving up the goat and wanting to leave for greener pastures. That was the crux of this debate, and like SOME of the other/best characters, there is a teeny... tiny *clears throat* flaw..
So I bow to your better argument. :moon:

[Trin]

Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no..I suppose I agree that Peter and Fran would not have ended up like the Land characters. Peter and Fran were probably WAAAY better off by that point in time, cause they were just that good!!! ;) :D


AGREE: Now, it being the main argument... I agree on your point of Riley having enough..possibly giving up the goat and wanting to leave for greener pastures. That was the crux of this debate, and like SOME of the other/best characters, there is a teeny... tiny *clears throat* flaw..
So I bow to your better argument. :moon:Why would characters without flaws be better? It wouldn't make a better movie. People have flaws. Good characters work within their flaws, learn to overcome them, grow from their mistakes. Good plot relies on some conflict. Look at Night. Without Ben's struggle with Harry Cooper the main elements of the plot would be lost.

[clanglee]

Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no..

:

What?

[ItsJustaScratch]

What?

Peter ..hmmm..yes:)... Fran/2D cutout/blonde...tough brake...:|..:dead:

[Trin]

I thought Fran was a good character and probably second to Peter in being rock solid in the group. She was definitely tough. She was the one who brought the least skills to the table yet worked with what she had the best. It was her idea to learn to fly the chopper. It was her urging that caused them to make preparations to leave the mall and move on. She was an emotional ground to them. She helped keep flyboy level headed.

If we are going to contend that Land had a happy ending because Riley and company lived and further contend that that proves their toughness, then inarguably Fran was just as tough. She lived through much worse odds than Riley with far fewer resources and was just as alive at the end.

If you want to bash someone look at Roger. He was trained for combat. He got killed while doing what he was trained to do being overconfident and stupid. Fran lived through being left alone with no weapons against a zombie. Roger got bitten while armed to the teeth with a pair of trucks at his disposal. Lame.

[ItsJustaScratch]

I thought Fran was a good character and probably second to Peter in being rock solid in the group. She was definitely tough. She was the one who brought the least skills to the table yet worked with what she had the best. It was her idea to learn to fly the chopper. It was her urging that caused them to make preparations to leave the mall and move on. She was an emotional ground to them. She helped keep flyboy level headed.

If we are going to contend that Land had a happy ending because Riley and company lived and further contend that that proves their toughness, then inarguably Fran was just as tough. She lived through much worse odds than Riley with far fewer resources and was just as alive at the end.

If you want to bash someone look at Roger. He was trained for combat. He got killed while doing what he was trained to do being overconfident and stupid. Fran lived through being left alone with no weapons against a zombie. Roger got bitten while armed to the teeth with a pair of trucks at his disposal. Lame.

I completely agree with your view on Roger first and foremost. At the age I was when I first watched this film, I naturally assumed that Roger was the main protagonist; being white, with a schoolboy sort of charm, I automatically assumed he was the 'main guy' with Peter being the secondary 'brawny' character. Like Deliverance, you typically go for the most main-stream kind of hero character to lead the group to victory only to discover that they lose their footing along the way in GAR titles. This was one of the thing's I loved about Dawn the most, although GAR's pattern of Black hero character wore thin after Night & Dawn. When it came to Fran, although she kept the Flymeister in check, it seemed to be more motherly instinct than personal initiative; after all, what kind of father figure did Flyboy cut?

Just as a little side-step from the current discussion...

I came across something maybe GAR had pondered when he had thought up Big Daddy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00h6sbt/What_Darwin_Didnt_Know/

It goes along the same lines as Planet Of The Apes; where instead of evolution (natural selection) you have a brief 'missing link' (mutation) that becomes it's own specie. Although I don't want this to become part of the GAR story line, I wonder if he was thinking upon the same lines when he created it?

[fartpants]

Gar always had strong females in his films

[clanglee]

well. . usually. . . .


http://www.best-horror-movies.com/images/night-of-the-living-dead-barbara.jpg

[blind2d]

What about Barbra's...... hair? It was strong, right? ...I'm a fool.

[krisvds]

One can only hope the new film will have stronger characters than Diary did. Apart from the professor ("mornings and mirrors, I despise them") who was so over the top it became really entertaining, there were mostly forgettable characters in that film. I really liked Riley, Charlie and Slack in Land. Stereotypes perhaps, but classic Romero heroes in my mind. Criminally underrated film that. I'd be more than happy if 'Island...' (or whatever) had some of those larger than life characters in it instead of these 'realistic' tweens.
BTW, when I read about the new island setting I couldn't help but think of the original Day script and it's opening scenes? Here's hoping George recycles some of those. That would be awesome.

[darth los]

BTW, when I read about the new island setting I couldn't help but think of the original Day script and it's opening scenes? Here's hoping George recycles some of those. That would be awesome.


IMO, from land on that's all he's been trying to do to the point of forcing it. Perhaps it's why these films don't seem quite right.




:cool:

[bassman]

IMO, from land on that's all he's been trying to do to the point of forcing it. Perhaps it's why these films don't seem quite right.



You think he recycled scenes from the original Day script and put them into Diary? How so?

[sammylou]

One can only hope the new film will have stronger characters than Diary did.

I agree. The characters in Diary were rather boring and definitely forgettable, with the exception of the crazy Amish man Sam and that Professor, who was so out of place it was sort of ridiculous. The characters in the other flicks, even Land, were memorable and you actually cared what happened to them, whether it be someone like Rhodes who you really hoped would die or someone like Peter who you cheer for.

[Mr.G]

The crazy Amish guy was great. I was hoping he would survive.