If you had Romero's ear?

[Debbieangel]

Ok, If GAR would want us armchair zombie movie critics to help him make one of his movies what would you tell him in 1 or 2 paragraphs?
Exactly how would you do GAR's zombie movie including the characters, location, guns etc..? Now have at it describe as much you want to as to how you would do it?

[EvilNed]

I'd probably make him do something random. Like have him do an epic and dramatic underdog-story about a nazi-basketball team in Mexico who have to win THE tournament against all odds in order to hold off the invading mongolian hordes.

[Marie]

If I had Romero's ear..... I'd keep it in a jar of presertive....:lol:

No, really I think a crossover might be interesting, Like how the charecters in KnightRiders reacted to the rising of the dead.

M_

[capncnut]

I would like to see him go back to the original saga and continue where Land left off. Not with the same characters but set around the same time. I liked the progression with the zombies and thought it was a cool direction to take, even though Big Daddy blew balls.

I'd want it to be a little bit more brighter and 'actiony', while still retaining serious threat. Less characters too.

[Wyldwraith]

Hmm,
I'm in the camp of wanting a linear progression-based movie set after Land. I will even utter the blasphemy and say that I wouldn't mind seeing what happened to Riley's crew & Dead Reckoning as they headed for Canada.

If I didn't go that route I'd like to see a social-commentary-free offering. Based around a group of friends who react in a relatively intelligent manner to the dead rising, and who decide to do something, ANYTHING besides holing up somewhere and slowly losing a battle of attrition with the ever-renewed waves of the living dead.

Oddly enough, I thought that RE: Extinction had a decent opening premise. An armed convoy, traveling from place to place as they try to scavenge the necessities and stay a step ahead of the dead gathering. (It was all the Umbrella stuff that wrecked that movie, heh)

Bottom line though: I'd like to see GAR try to make a movie that doesn't involve simply using the undead as a vehicle to jam repetitions of the current social comment down the audience's throats'. It would serve everyone's interests if he concentrated on plot, characterization and piecing together the story instead.

[Debbieangel]

If I had Romero's ear: no pun intended lol
First off I would get him to come back to the Pittsburgh area to make his zombie films.
I would probably do a combination of Night and people on the road, that way from all the discussions I have seen would be played out. Is it safer to stay put or go on the road.
The characters I would delve more into their personalities like he did in Night and have less characters to follow. Unless there were the expendable ones that always get killed off. Example: Star Trek each week if u saw someone in a red uniform you knew they were expendable and were gonna die.
Only I wouldnt quite make obvious.
I also would put a nice spin to the movie and I would not make the ending so dismal and hopeless.
The confrontations in the movie well, of course you have to have that or you wouldnt be a good movie, but I would have the people get along better near the end of the movie working together and make the zombies the biggest threat and not each other.
It sounds idealic but that is what I would do if I had GAR's ear.

[MagicMoonMonkey]

I would like Romero to do a NotLD - UK set during the same time as the original, and in black and white. Failing that, a Romero dead flick set in todays UK

I would also like to see Romero and Savini do a proper remake of Dawn much in the same vain as Night 90.

I would also like to ask Romero if there exists an alternate death scene for Kauffman that sits better than the Cholo/Kauffman explosion poo that was played out before my disbelieving eyes. I really wanted him to have a brutal death in the carpark in the same isolated manner the Torrez and Rickles experienced in Day of the Dead. Land was just too 'main character friendly' for my liking. Too many 'good guys' survived.

[shootemindehead]

I would definitely implore him to continue his original saga. The "Diary of the Dead" sideline is pointless IMO. They don't have to be epics or grand in scale.

I would also tell him to keep the equipment to a 1980's standard, so no mobile phones, Laptops, modern Army helmets or Steyr machine guns, thank you very much. Walkie Talkies, M-16's, Uzis, Huey's etc will do fine and electronic equipment should be sorta crap, because it hasn't been maintained or even developed.

While I liked "land of the Dead", one of the things that annoyed the crap out of me, was the modern looking equipment used by the characters. I nearly choked every time Kauffmann and Reilly talked to each other on the mobiles. :rolleyes:

[AcesandEights]

I would encourage him to get involved in lobbying in some fashion for the serialized, cable production of the Walking Dead. You figure he could lend weight to the project by his name alone and possibly try and get a producer credit and possibly direct some of, if not a chunk of, the episodes. Also, by hooking up with an established product with an already...solid...storyline, he could possibly sidestep some of the problems he's had with his more recent outings.

Plus, doing so would free him up to do other, varied projects, should he actually want to at this point, while still maintaining one foot firmly in the genre he's famous for.

[rightwing401]

I would ask him to explore an avenue that he never really focused on in any of his living dead films, focus on who the zombies once were. Maybe some survivors finding memoirs, letters, or photos of people the zombies used to be that they just killed. After all, they were living people at some time, each with their own dreams and who had people that loved them.

I truly believe what Barbra said in night 90'. "They're us. We're them and they're us."

Translation. We're the monsters, and they're the victims.

[Thorn]

That is a great question Debbie, thank you for putting it out there.

Hmmm.

I would let him know about this site and the fiction section. Show him the people he has inspired. He may well be aware of it, or sites like it but it would be nice to give it a plug.

After that as far as movies go I would love to see him return to the original series of films much like the rest of you have said, and I would like to see him continue the storyline. I personally would not mind seeing him continue with where he left off with Riley and Dead Reckoning. That is a story I would like to see in more detail. While I know this breaks from tradition, if he opts not to do it I have always thought a wagon train idea bearing similarities and parallels to the old TV Western would work very well in a "dead world".

So you have your convey as he's been mentioned here, they move from place to place trying to stay in front of the perusing horde. Along the way meeting strangers, saving them from their own little battles where they are fortified or on the run. The cast would have to be much smaller than Land, but larger than Dawn. You would be gaining and losing people however so you could keep the numbers steady. In the end perhaps they decide to settle down and fortify and this "reaching out" for "home" and "normalcy" would be the end of them as in their wake not only did they kick up dust along the trail they also stirred up a massive army of the undead ending in a fierce action sequence that is in direct contrast to the rest of the film which is dotted with action but mainly focuses on character development telling the story of the survivors in flashback, as well as the "real time". Of course in the end it will appear as if the survivors stand off the undead, after suffering major losses. But just when it appears over the main character who moves to high ground to survey the scene sees a sea of undead swarming down onto the survivors of the last stand.

I LOVE the idea of seeing more about some of the dead. Maybe in flashback, maybe because one of the survivors is obsessed with learning their stories and rifles through their pockets for personal effects. I am not sure how best to pull this off but it is a great idea.

[J0hnnyReb]

I would tell him to stop trying to make a point with every film he makes now ad just try to make a scary movie, ya know, get back to the basics.

[Wooley]

As others have said, stop trying to beat us about the head with some current social commentary. It's irritating when it's done well, and just sucks when done poorly. I don't pay to see movies so I can listen to you preach at me.

I'd like to see a zombie version of Alas Babylon, a '50s novel set in a small Florida town after a East-West nuclear exchange and how the town copes with a loss of commerce, infrastructure, and a break down in law and order.

I'd like to see intelligent characters too, and a military adviser whose input is used-seriously, what the f is up with spewing full auto from the hip when you know only an aimed shot to the head will bring them down? You know damn well ammo doesn't grow on trees by this point in the game, homeslice.

A little bounding overwatch, some slicing the pie while clearing rooms and some fireteam or squad tactics would make a much more enjoyable movie, I think, along with some realistic fortifications-that electric fence in Land sucked balls, and not having anyway to monitor what was going on topside was lame in Day-how do you know if they've pushed over the fence? When you go topside and find a few hundred deaders wandering around? Fail.

A glimpse into how people are surviving beyond looting stores and boarding up windows would be good too-victory gardens, citizen's militias operating with the remnants of the armed forces and law enforcement, like South African Boers at the turn of the century, lines of trenches around the town, stuff like that.

[krakenslayer]

I would tell him to stop trying to make a point with every film he makes now ad just try to make a scary movie, ya know, get back to the basics.


As others have said, stop trying to beat us about the head with some current social commentary. It's irritating when it's done well, and just sucks when done poorly. I don't pay to see movies so I can listen to you preach at me.

Yeah, what we all want to see is another mindless zombie gutfest, right? :rolleyes:

To be fair, people on here who complain about social commentary have picked the wrong director to like. His films are not about the painstaking representation of real life outcomes, they're cinematic comic books with an agenda. That's just what he does, that's his trademark! If that changed, the films wouldn't be Romero.

If you don't like social commentary, you should be following Zach Snyder instead of Romero.

[Edison Carter]

I would put it on the necklace with the
rest of them :hyper:
Seriously,good question though
he should make a post dawn pre day prequel.
More shtf less pansy commentary,make it well lit
with ordinary camera work.
No shaky cam,or handy cam,....linger on the characters and scenery lovingly.
No 1,000 + editing cuts for every half hour
on film.
Do it from a military perspective focusing on the decision not to nuke all the big cities and its
inevitable consequences.
The breakdown in command and control between
gov't troops.
The slow creeping isolation as less and less reports
make it back to hq.
The retreat from all the major metropolitan areas.
Begging pleading civilians.
And finally the dispersal of the special science
cum military units,...as DC or the Camp David
secondary government base falls or goes out in with a bang ala the imagery of WWZ "battle of yonkers"
of a merciless unthinkable ghoulish grey hammer.

[MoonSylver]

To be fair, people on here who complain about social commentary have picked the wrong director to like. His films are not about the painstaking representation of real life outcomes, they're cinematic comic books with an agenda. That's just what he does, that's his trademark! If that changed, the films wouldn't be Romero.

If you don't like social commentary, you should be following Zach Snyder instead of Romero.

To play devil's advocate, though, I'm not sure if people are really complaining about social commentary insomuch as social commentary DONE WELL. As I've said before, the message was much more "in your face" in Land (the whole movie was pretty much thinly veiled metaphor) & Diary, the movie WAS the message, which was kind of the point, but still handled with the subtlety of a brick over the head. (And I LIKE both films mind you!)

Others have taken me to task for claiming the original 3 were subtler in their message, but it's a claim I stand by. The messages were woven in there, they might have even been blatant, but they didn't overshadow/obscure the whole movie. I've never heard one person complain "Man, Dawn was SO preachy. It kept going ON & On about consumerism!"

I think there's room for both in there, but there's no need to belabor the point. Slip the message in there in a few scenes, a few lines here & there, & those who are going to "get it" will, & those obtuse enough to miss it will still enjoy the story.

[J0hnnyReb]

Yeah, what we all want to see is another mindless zombie gutfest, right? :rolleyes:

To be fair, people on here who complain about social commentary have picked the wrong director to like. His films are not about the painstaking representation of real life outcomes, they're cinematic comic books with an agenda. That's just what he does, that's his trademark! If that changed, the films wouldn't be Romero.

If you don't like social commentary, you should be following Zach Snyder instead of Romero.
Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead.

[bassman]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead.

That depends on who you ask.

I've never enjoyed the mindless zombie films really. Never been a huge fan of the gore either. The first thing that attracted me to Romero's films was when I saw Day at an early age and realized that the zombies did nothing wrong. It was all the people.

Yeah, the effects are cool in a try to figure it out sort of way, but the commentary has always been what's attracted me to Romero's films. You could argue that Land and Diary are heavy with the commentaries and in some areas I would agree with you, but on the other hand Night, Dawn, and Day can be just as heavy.

Romero's never really made a straight forward, mindless horror film. Except for maybe Creepshow, but that's meant to be a romp.

[krakenslayer]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead.

Fine, if that's your opinion you are welcome to it. But there are plenty of mindless trashy zombie flicks out there to satisfy your whatever your particular zombie fetish is.

There is, however, only one Romero, and social commentary is such a major and integral feature of his movies that saying you don't like movies with political messages is pretty much the same thing as saying you don't like GAR.

[Edison Carter]

Bring back some siege and people/things going
as Rog put it "apeshit".
That seems to be what has been missing the
last few films.
Rich people in Land throwing brie and popping
champagne corks at the zombies invading
fiddle-faddle green is not cutting it.
I believe Diary was completely lacking a
siege of any type.

[MoonSylver]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't have enough rolleyes emotacons for this...

I love pure gorefests & mindless zombie flicks as much as the next guy, but c'mon...


http://mikejoneslive.com/resources/_wsb_441x354_NiggaPlease.png

[Mike70]

I'd like to see a zombie version of Alas Babylon, a '50s novel set in a small Florida town after a East-West nuclear exchange and how the town copes with a loss of commerce, infrastructure, and a break down in law and order.

now that would be cool. hell, i'd take a straight up film version of Alas, Babylon without zombies. that is a novel that has several interesting themes interwoven throughout that could be explored and need not turn into mind numbing, pseudo-philosophical social "commentary."

[J0hnnyReb]

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I don't have enough rolleyes emotacons for this...

I love pure gorefests & mindless zombie flicks as much as the next guy, but c'mon...


http://mikejoneslive.com/resources/_wsb_441x354_NiggaPlease.png

Roll your eyes all you want. Romeros last 2 film were really substandard quality. He used to set out to make cool scary movies with little behind the scene meanings, now he just has his battering ram of commentary with some weak story sewn around it. Period. He jumped the shark and its really too bad because I grew up on night, dawn, and day and his other works like creepshow and martin. And he always sought out to make the film good 1st THEN put commentary into it.

[Wyldwraith]

Said it before and will say it again,
If the plot/story, pacing and characterization (as well as action scene choreography) isn't well done then it doesn't matter what message the director wants to convey, because the movie is garbage and no one cares.

Night, Dawn and Day all had social commentary, and while I believe by the time Day came about he was beginning to emphasize it too heavily the movies are still good, so anything else is a bonus or at the very least a negligible minus.

The problem comes in when GAR delivers CRAP like Diary, and THEN beats us over the head with social commentary. The viewer is already irritated by the substandard nature of the primary elements of the film, and the preachiness pushes them past distaste and on into disgust.

The "back to basics" school of thought is really GAR's only chance as a vendor of survival horror/zombie flicks. Land was considered so-so by many, and Diary was a fiscal disaster. I don't believe the point can be intelligently argued that if GAR doesn't deliver the goods this time that anyone is going to be willing to hand him money to have another go at it.

GAR wants to talk about the evils of consumerism? Then maybe he should understand the principles of what he's railing against. If a movie sucks, it doesn't sell tickets and DVDs, and lots of people in suits become very unhappy with the director who pitched their investments down the proverbial toilet.

I'm also a strong believer that the no-win scenario is a dead horse. If 99.9% of major survival horror films end in the death of all the protagonists then how is the viewer supposed to root for them throughout the movie? Land is the ONLY zombie flick with a significant budget that I can remember being made in the last five years where more than three protagonists made it out alive. With the admitted exception of the RE sequels everyone seem to hate.

The Man Vs Whatever is a basic plot device. If you KNOW without even glimpsing the opening credits that the characters lose that struggle then it loses all horror under the weight of tons of tired nihlist repetition.

Yes, a zombie apocalypse should be a bloody and lethal environment for the characters. Yes, lots of people should die. Yet if there's no hope, and you KNOW there's no hope simply because it's a zombie movie, then what's the point? It would be like writing an episode of Star Trek and peopling it entirely with Redshirts. What's the motivation to care about individuals that you are certain no matter what they do or don't do are all going to perish?

Dawn was great on a first viewing because of the suspense. The characters were constantly on the edge of disaster, and you had no idea which one was going to finally push the envelope a hair too far and pitch over into the abyss. Even when I watch that movie after a couple hundred times through I STILL feel some of that. Know it sounds crazy, but even though logically I know how it turns out, the emotional part of me can still go to the edge of my seat during their mad dash to secure the mall to wonder whose gonna get it and who'll make it.

Zombie movies recently don't do that to me. The trend has become so overwhelming that all I can salvage suspense-wise is wondering in what order and exactly how each character will die.

Is that really much compared to what Dawn offered us? Honestly?

Hell, even Dawn '04 coulda been better if they'd just left the boat journey as an uncertain venture due to a necessary risk. No, they had to squeeze all-out disaster in during the end credits.

I ask you: Is that all you really want from your zombie films? The certain knowledge the protagonists are doomed, and just watching to observe the exact details of how that doom manifests?

Me...I want what Dawn had. Risk, uncertainty, boldness, hopes dashed and hopes realized.

[Debbieangel]

Said it before and will say it again,
If the plot/story, pacing and characterization (as well as action scene choreography) isn't well done then it doesn't matter what message the director wants to convey, because the movie is garbage and no one cares.

Night, Dawn and Day all had social commentary, and while I believe by the time Day came about he was beginning to emphasize it too heavily the movies are still good, so anything else is a bonus or at the very least a negligible minus.

The problem comes in when GAR delivers CRAP like Diary, and THEN beats us over the head with social commentary. The viewer is already irritated by the substandard nature of the primary elements of the film, and the preachiness pushes them past distaste and on into disgust.

The "back to basics" school of thought is really GAR's only chance as a vendor of survival horror/zombie flicks. Land was considered so-so by many, and Diary was a fiscal disaster. I don't believe the point can be intelligently argued that if GAR doesn't deliver the goods this time that anyone is going to be willing to hand him money to have another go at it.

GAR wants to talk about the evils of consumerism? Then maybe he should understand the principles of what he's railing against. If a movie sucks, it doesn't sell tickets and DVDs, and lots of people in suits become very unhappy with the director who pitched their investments down the proverbial toilet.

I'm also a strong believer that the no-win scenario is a dead horse. If 99.9% of major survival horror films end in the death of all the protagonists then how is the viewer supposed to root for them throughout the movie? Land is the ONLY zombie flick with a significant budget that I can remember being made in the last five years where more than three protagonists made it out alive. With the admitted exception of the RE sequels everyone seem to hate.

The Man Vs Whatever is a basic plot device. If you KNOW without even glimpsing the opening credits that the characters lose that struggle then it loses all horror under the weight of tons of tired nihlist repetition.

Yes, a zombie apocalypse should be a bloody and lethal environment for the characters. Yes, lots of people should die. Yet if there's no hope, and you KNOW there's no hope simply because it's a zombie movie, then what's the point? It would be like writing an episode of Star Trek and peopling it entirely with Redshirts. What's the motivation to care about individuals that you are certain no matter what they do or don't do are all going to perish?

Dawn was great on a first viewing because of the suspense. The characters were constantly on the edge of disaster, and you had no idea which one was going to finally push the envelope a hair too far and pitch over into the abyss. Even when I watch that movie after a couple hundred times through I STILL feel some of that. Know it sounds crazy, but even though logically I know how it turns out, the emotional part of me can still go to the edge of my seat during their mad dash to secure the mall to wonder whose gonna get it and who'll make it.

Zombie movies recently don't do that to me. The trend has become so overwhelming that all I can salvage suspense-wise is wondering in what order and exactly how each character will die.

Is that really much compared to what Dawn offered us? Honestly?

Hell, even Dawn '04 coulda been better if they'd just left the boat journey as an uncertain venture due to a necessary risk. No, they had to squeeze all-out disaster in during the end credits.

I ask you: Is that all you really want from your zombie films? The certain knowledge the protagonists are doomed, and just watching to observe the exact details of how that doom manifests?

Me...I want what Dawn had. Risk, uncertainty, boldness, hopes dashed and hopes realized.

I wanted to put that in a quote because I could not have said any way shape or form better!!
I love to see the suspense and how they will get out of the situation, you know the 'edge of your seat' drama that scares the crap out of you that you are totally forgetting to breathe. Then when the scare is over you take a big cleansing breath and a sigh of relief. Ii like those scares!
It's not necessarily the gore that I like which I do but its how they attack and when and not knowing.
Also, I want to really get to know the characters and not be sure of who will get killed. Maybe get snipits of their lives before the zombies and I do mean snipits. I like a lot of zombie action in zombie movies and a lot of zombies. They all don't have to have a bunch of gore dripping off of them either to scare me.

[MoonSylver]

Roll your eyes all you want.

Thanks, I will!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :lol::p:D


Romeros last 2 film were really substandard quality. He used to set out to make cool scary movies with little behind the scene meanings, now he just has his battering ram of commentary with some weak story sewn around it. Period. He jumped the shark and its really too bad because I grew up on night, dawn, and day and his other works like creepshow and martin. And he always sought out to make the film good 1st THEN put commentary into it.

See, that's where I more or less agree with you!

I do think the Land & Diary are the weakest of the series, & have always felt they were flawed.But to say that the mindless gore flicks are better or call them "garbage" is a bit harsh IMO. THAT'S the point I object to.

They were made by someone who's still passionate about making movies, who's at least trying to make them about something, make them mean something. Even if he has lost his way a bit.

I still think they stand well above most of the crap out there in the genre (& I'm a guy who LIKES bad movies!). Most of them have ZERO story, bad direction, weak acting & are made by folks who DON'T care, have NOTHING to say & are in it for a quick buck. Thus their movies aren't really about anything either & have nothing to say. Their just cheap blood & gore for it's own sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all! But it's really apples and oranges.

[J0hnnyReb]

Thanks, I will!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :lol::p:D



See, that's where I more or less agree with you!

I do think the Land & Diary are the weakest of the series, & have always felt they were flawed.But to say that the mindless gore flicks are better or call them "garbage" is a bit harsh IMO. THAT'S the point I object to.

They were made by someone who's still passionate about making movies, who's at least trying to make them about something, make them mean something. Even if he has lost his way a bit.

I still think they stand well above most of the crap out there in the genre (& I'm a guy who LIKES bad movies!). Most of them have ZERO story, bad direction, weak acting & are made by folks who DON'T care, have NOTHING to say & are in it for a quick buck. Thus their movies aren't really about anything either & have nothing to say. Their just cheap blood & gore for it's own sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all! But it's really apples and oranges.

I'm sorry I don't give quality points to a bad film just because I like the maker. Land and Diary were crap. Dawn 04, was much better than either although not as good as the original dawn and day and night were.

Romero needs to get back to basics and learn how to make a good scary movie again or hang it up and stop lessening the greatness of his legacy which are all the movies he made before Land and possibly Bruiser.

[MoonSylver]

I'm sorry I don't give quality points to a bad film just because I like the maker.

Nor do I. My "like" or "dislike" of the film maker isn't the point. But as I said, I still think they're decent films, warts & all.


Land and Diary were crap. Dawn 04, was much better than either although not as good as the original dawn and day and night were.

Aaaannnnnd ya lost me again! Dawn '04?...forgettable characters, almost no story. Vapid. Shallow. An 1 1/2 hour MTV video w/ "zombies" in it. Wishes it could be 28 Days Later when it grows up. Nah...it's a decent enough action flick, but I still like Land & Diary better.

[triste realtà]

the zombies did nothing wrong. It was all the people.

Yeah those fucked up people should have stopped shouting and started eating each other. On the other hand, you know it would all have been alright if Rhodes and his men just pulled a Miguel in the first place.:shifty:

Romero's never really made a straight forward, mindless horror film. Except for maybe Creepshow, but that's meant to be a romp.

Creepshow is the best. Story eats it. It's all about setting, music and acting in that order.

[J0hnnyReb]

Aaaannnnnd ya lost me again! Dawn '04?...forgettable characters, almost no story. Vapid. Shallow. An 1 1/2 hour MTV video w/ "zombies" in it. Wishes it could be 28 Days Later when it grows up. Nah...it's a decent enough action flick, but I still like Land & Diary better.

Id take a 90 minute MTV video with zombies over a crapfest like Land which put me to sleep due to all the boring dialog hammering home on how evil rich people are over and over again. At least the 90 minute MTV video satisfies my want for a good movie with lots of blood, scares, action and fun.

[MoonSylver]

garbage


crapfest

Hyperbole is fun!


At least the 90 minute MTV video satisfies my want for a good movie with lots of blood, scares, action and fun.

I understand completely now. To each their own then.:|

[J0hnnyReb]

Hyperbole is fun!



I understand completely now. To each their own then.:|

I know you ant fathom that a GAR fan would have the audacity to stray from the collective group think, but that wasn't hyperbole.

[MoonSylver]

I know you ant fathom that a GAR fan would have the audacity to stray from the collective group think

That's cute. But yes, I can fathom it. I don't need the "group" to think for me. I simply like what I like, for reasons which I've already given. You didn't. Believe it our not, I believe folk are entitled to have differences of opinion, even if I don't agree with them.:|

[strayrider]

I'd like to see GAR get back to basics. Good, action packed story, character driven, with some melodrama, and the usual background social commentary.

Visually he might go back to using the same type of cameras, sound equipment, and lighting he used in Dawn to give it a retro, 70s drive-in feel. Use library music.

Ditch the CGI SPFX and go back to the latex rubber, squibs, and stage make-up and blood.

Editing wise he ought to return to the montages and quick cuts that gave films like Crazies, Dawn, and Knightriders that unique Romero feel.

And ... stop giving the supporting characters crazy, comic book nicknames.

Just my thoughts ...

:D

-stray-

[ProfessorChaos]

^

all that, plus NO REANIMATED ANIMALS.

someone needs to give the dude a good smack based on what i've seen/heard so far of this new "? of the Dead"....and while we're on the subject, how about a proper title, instead of "another GAR....of the Dead" film. come to think of it, i'd probably tell ol' george to just quit while he's ahead.

[strayrider]

^

all that, plus NO REANIMATED ANIMALS.

someone needs to give the dude a good smack based on what i've seen/heard so far of this new "? of the Dead"....and while we're on the subject, how about a proper title, instead of "another GAR....of the Dead" film. come to think of it, i'd probably tell ol' george to just quit while he's ahead.

Yeah, really.

Don't tell anyone I "said" this but, I think Dawn of the Dead was the high water mark of his career. He just ain't gonna top it.

:D

-stray-

[Wyldwraith]

I wanted to put that in a quote because I could not have said any way shape or form better!!
I love to see the suspense and how they will get out of the situation, you know the 'edge of your seat' drama that scares the crap out of you that you are totally forgetting to breathe. Then when the scare is over you take a big cleansing breath and a sigh of relief. Ii like those scares!
It's not necessarily the gore that I like which I do but its how they attack and when and not knowing.
Also, I want to really get to know the characters and not be sure of who will get killed. Maybe get snippets of their lives before the zombies and I do mean snippets. I like a lot of zombie action in zombie movies and a lot of zombies. They all don't have to have a bunch of gore dripping off of them either to scare me.

Thanks Debbieangel :)

It's really nice to know that there are others who are looking for/hoping for the same sort of return to the solid classic principles that made GAR's first three movies great that I am.

I mean, maybe I jumped on the whole social commentary issue too harshly. I read something that one of the posters who posted after the two of us said, about the fact that at least GAR is trying to give his films meaning, and that resonated with me.

However, it's still the most valid point to emphasize that if a director doesn't give us a movie we enjoy, then NOTHING else matters. I DO hate the Uwe Bolls of the horror movie world. Just churning out gorefests with stories as weak as a bad porn flick. I hate those. Don't even get me started on the evils of the House of the Dead trilogy. (Although to be fair when extremely bored in the early morning hours I do have to admit I find the original one semi-watchable)

I'm not a fan of mindless gorefests. Sorry if I gave anyone that impression. I thought emphasizing a desire for good story, characterization, pacing and action choreography would've demonstrated that, but perhaps not enough to some folks. My apologies :) Neither am I an enemy of a director making a message they want to convey part of the film. No, what I object to is the film being turned into nothing more than a thin veneer of a vehicle for the message.

That's not precisely true though. I'm not a big fan of the concept that zombies are the victims and humans are somehow the bad guys. While a zombie certainly can VICTIMIZE a person, if that person becomes a zombie they aren't a victim anymore, they're a remorseless eating machine that's a deadly threat to humans.

I think that's part of what causes a certain camp of people to take issue with Land. Land is arguably the most zombie-sympathetic of GAR's films. To the point of having the main character equate them with the disenfranchised lower class of Fiddler's Green "They're just looking for a home" my ass. Those zombies came to Fiddler's Green to exact a bloody brutal revenge and indiscriminately prey on any person with a pulse. I consider Riley a traitor to humanity for not blowing Big Daddy and his educated lieutenants straight to hell when he had them in their sights.

If GAR wants to get into social themes I'd love to see someone who lost their entire family to Big Daddy and his crew catch up with Riley, driven by a desire for revenge against the man who could've saved them, but chose to side with the dead against his own species. THAT'S interesting social dynamics.

It can be accurately said however that GAR does seem to be trending towards not seeing the zombies as monsters. He seems to be turning them from representatives of into the complete personification/incarnation of the social ills he rails against. To me that's a bridge too far from what makes a good survival horror film. Zombies = Bad Guys, Survivors= Maybe Bad Guys, Maybe Good Guys.

I wonder sometimes if GAR even CARES what any of us think about his movies. Or if he's fallen into the trap that's snared many a successful author and director in the Stephen King Pit of Ego. Does he believe that the enormous success of his original trilogy means anything he directs automatically equals cinematic gold, and anyone who disagrees is an unenlightened philistine who doesn't perceive the majesty of his Great Message? I really wonder about that sometimes.

I mean, reading interviews he's done he seems like a very intelligent man. SURELY he can't believe that Diary is of equal or greater quality than say, Dawn?

Or is it much more basic? Has the rainmaker finally seeded his last cloud, and is the ground staying dry regardless of how hard he tries to recapture the past magic?

If that's the case I feel truly bad for the guy. Sometimes when I watch Land I get the feeling that GAR is hunting for that elusive One More Hit to cap off his career. Anyone else feel that way?

Just my .02

[strayrider]

If GAR wants to get into social themes I'd love to see someone who lost their entire family to Big Daddy and his crew catch up with Riley, driven by a desire for revenge against the man who could've saved them, but chose to side with the dead against his own species. THAT'S interesting social dynamics.

Notice how Riley has no problem blowing zombies away when it's own tail on the line.


Sometimes when I watch Land I get the feeling that GAR is hunting for that elusive One More Hit to cap off his career. Anyone else feel that way?

Yeah, I agree. With the way his last two Dead films have panned out, I don't think he's on the right track.

I dunno, maybe this new film will be the one to "knock our sock off" ... maybe ... I'm still of the opinion that Dawn was his pinnacle.

It's kind of sad (for me at any rate) because I've gone from ROMERO! to ... romero ...

:(

-stray-

[Debbieangel]

Not because I am from PA but, it seems to me since he left Pittsburgh filming his movies they arent grass roots like they used to be...I know I know I am beating a dead horse!
I really think living here was his how can I put it? Pa is his muse, his link to his creativity in his movies.
Since he left his movies are so totally different. Not that I dont like his movies, I do.
I am just saying maybe a change of venue is what he needs to get back to movies like his triology.

[Thorn]

I agree Debbie, and to add to that I think he bought into his own hype in a sense. Now before I am crucified you all know me, I am a fan of the work. I love the films. I love any good zombie film, but Mr. Romero is king. The issue is this, I do not believe and find this to be supported by his own words in interviews and commentaries that his original idea was horror films as a vessel for a larger message.

His initial idea was to create horror films. He said himself that the casting of Ben was a fluke, that the part was written for a white man. But that Duane Jones was the best actor out of all of his friends and associates so he got the role.

So many of us applauded him for casting a black man in the role, and for writing him as such a strong character. Writing in scenes where he strikes a white woman or dominates a "deceitful and treacherous" white man. Thing is, all of that was accidental.

He did not start off down the road to write movies with a message, he set off down the road to make movies. That is what he needs to do again, if he focuses too much on the message he is going to sacrifice so many other elements KEY to a successful production and that is where his failings are.

I do not hate Land. I know it was not perfect but I do not hate it. I did dislike diary a great deal, largely because the production values were so low and the volume of the message drowned out everything the movie had to offer by the way of character development and plot points.

Just my own thoughts and opinions.

[Wyldwraith]

I agree Debbie, and to add to that I think he bought into his own hype in a sense. Now before I am crucified you all know me, I am a fan of the work. I love the films. I love any good zombie film, but Mr. Romero is king. The issue is this, I do not believe and find this to be supported by his own words in interviews and commentaries that his original idea was horror films as a vessel for a larger message.

His initial idea was to create horror films. He said himself that the casting of Ben was a fluke, that the part was written for a white man. But that Duane Jones was the best actor out of all of his friends and associates so he got the role.

So many of us applauded him for casting a black man in the role, and for writing him as such a strong character. Writing in scenes where he strikes a white woman or dominates a "deceitful and treacherous" white man. Thing is, all of that was accidental.

He did not start off down the road to write movies with a message, he set off down the road to make movies. That is what he needs to do again, if he focuses too much on the message he is going to sacrifice so many other elements KEY to a successful production and that is where his failings are.

I do not hate Land. I know it was not perfect but I do not hate it. I did dislike diary a great deal, largely because the production values were so low and the volume of the message drowned out everything the movie had to offer by the way of character development and plot points.

Just my own thoughts and opinions.

Again I find that great minds think alike :)

One of the interviews that someone posted recently, with GAR talking about himself not being a good choice to judge horror films because he doesn't feel like his movies are horror films was very telling. He then went on to contradict himself, and say that he knows when all is said and done that what people see from him is a zombie movie, so he can add in whatever message he likes. (The context of the interview made it sound like he felt he could squeeze that message in however he liked, and that he wasn't terribly concerned about the affect on the story.)

It's that sort of thinking that led to the disastrous hyper-clusterfuck that is Diary. Someone close to the man who cares about him really, REALLY needs to try to get through to GAR, because it would be a shame if he was remembered as a director who began his career with a brilliant trilogy that pioneered a genre, and then ended his career with a string of crapfests extraordinaire.

I'm very up in the air as to whether this new movie that's set in between the Night and Dawn periods is a good idea. Things that have come to light in the interim have revealed just how much of Night's success depended on elements of random chance combining favorably. Lightning may not strike twice for our beloved GAR. Hope it does, but it's a major risk to go with this particular era of the epidemic....

Just my .02

[strayrider]

Lightning may not strike twice for our beloved GAR.

Already did. Night 68 and Dawn. Both defining films for their respective time frames (in the horror genre, at least).

The question is, will lightning strike thrice? GAR is running out of time (literally, due to his age) and chances.

I've got my fingers crossed.

:D

-stray-

[ProfessorChaos]

i'd have to say that lightning did strike thrice for ol' George with Day.

but his lightning-strikes are over, i'm beginning to suspect. neither of his last two dead films are even in the same league as any film of the original trilogy. and this new one doesn't look very promising.

[strayrider]

i'd have to say that lightning did strike thrice for ol' George with Day.

but his lightning-strikes are over, i'm beginning to suspect. neither of his last two dead films are even in the same league as any film of the original trilogy. and this new one doesn't look very promising.

Don't get me wrong, I love all three films of the original trilogy, it is just that Day did not have the box office appeal, or success of the other two. Day was the beginning of his downturn, IMHO.

I also think he should have stuck with Laurel for a few more years. He would've at least had a good shot at directing The Stand mini-series.

:D

-stray-

[Debbieangel]

If I had GAR's ear well first I would give it back so he could hear me...hahaha!
I am hoping that he has been on this site or other zombie sites and has listened to what his fans have to say about his latest films.
I keep thinking the teaser trailer we got to see was just a rough cut and it is going to be even better,really the teaser trailer doesnt look that bad to me. imo
I am hoping he has gone back and is going to give us a good scare with some surprises and gore, that will "knock our socks off" this time.

[shootemindehead]

I have to disagree (but that's ok :D ). I think "Day of the Dead" is the zenith of his career. He'll never produce a film like it again, nor will anyone else.

I really believe there never has been and never will be a film like "Day of the Dead" again. Few directors would be willing to take the chance on producing such a relentlessly grim and genuinely terrifying film...and such a darkly atmospheric film will almost inevitably mean relatively poor box office.

A lot of people tend to rate "Dawn of the Dead" over "Day of the Dead", but I am at a loss why, to be honest. I think the 1985 film is a far superior production in every way. Of course, "Dawn of the Dead" is a great film, but it isn't nearly as horrific as it's successor, nor does it stand up as well to the ravages of time. Even when it came it out originally, it sort of looked a bit dated and the foul up with Savini's blood mixture did untold damage to the film's ability to shock. Savini, of course, was still learning the tricks of the trade though. But when he used Dick Smith's formula for the blood in "Day of the Dead", it went to a whole new level.

It's unfortunate that Romero and Savini have never had the ability to go back and remake/update "Dawn of the Dead", I'd really love to see that. A shot for shot update of the 1978 film, with better zombies/actors/bigger budget. However, the possibility that Romero would use such a project as a full on "message movie" may prove too strong and could perhaps ruin the project, like it did with "Diary of the Dead". The main reason people are tuning into zombie movies, is to see zombies.

I think THORN has it correct, that Romero didn't set out to make "message movies", but instead decided to make a straight horror film in 1968 and chose the living dead, because the were cheap to make up. I think the "message" thing came to Romero from other sources, rather than himself to be honest, but he subsequently made it his own. The consumerist message thing in "Dawn of the Dead", I'd say was more of a side issue, with the main issue behind setting the story in the mall, was because it was a cheap location to shoot in. Of course, there are probably different opinions on that. But when I see reviewers try to tell me that "Dawn of the Dead" was some kind if über side swipe at American consumer society, that just happened to have zombies in it, or that "Night of the Living Dead" was an allegory for the war in Vietnam...I have to laugh.

[Yojimbo]

I also think he should have stuck with Laurel for a few more years. He would've at least had a good shot at directing The Stand mini-series.

:D

-stray-
Not sure about that, though. I get the impression that there is some serious bad blood between GAR and Richard Rubenstein to the point where GAR all but refuses to work with him, so The Stand having been a Rubenstein property kind of makes me think that Romero wouldn't have considered it.

On a side note: I wonder what the fallout was between GAR and that prick Rubenstein. Perhaps our resident scholar, Dubious, might be able to share this with us?



Of course, "Dawn of the Dead" is a great film, but it isn't nearly as horrific as it's successor, nor does it stand up as well to the ravages of time. Even when it came it out originally, it sort of looked a bit dated and the foul up with Savini's blood mixture did untold damage to the film's ability to shock. Savini, of course, was still learning the tricks of the trade though. But when he used Dick Smith's formula for the blood in "Day of the Dead", it went to a whole new level.



Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day.

Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day.

[darth los]

Not sure about that, though. I get the impression that there is some serious bad blood between GAR and Richard Rubenstein to the point where GAR all but refuses to work with him, so The Stand having been a Rubenstein property kind of makes me think that Romero wouldn't have considered it.

On a side note: I wonder what the fallout was between GAR and that prick Rubenstein. Perhaps our resident scholar, Dubious, might be able to share this with us?



Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day.

Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day.



Why does Rubenstein get such a bad rap from us? Well I know whybut let's not forget that without him Dawn would not have gotten made. Someone had to secure funding for the project. So he wanted rights to the film in exchange. What's wrong with that. He was being a (gasp) :stunned: good business man, imagine that. GAR should try it sometime. If he was a better one he would have an empire to rival Lucas'.

Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo.





:cool:

[Yojimbo]

Why does Rubenstein get such a bad rap from us? Well I know whybut let's not forget that without him Dawn would not have gotten made. Someone had to secure funding for the project. So he wanted rights to the film in exchange. What's wrong with that. He was being a (gasp) :stunned: good business man, imagine that. GAR should try it sometime. If he was a better one he would have an empire to rival Lucas'.

Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo.





:cool:


You make a good point, Darth, and perhaps Rubenstein does not deserve all of the hatred that we focus on him, though a contemptible prick he does seem to be.

I agree that we should at least acknowledge Rubenstein as important to the process that put together DOTD.

So, know all ye who have the ears to hear, and the will to care, Yojimbo acknowledges that Rubenstein had a pivitol role in bringing GAR's nightmarish vision of hell on earth that was DOTD to the screen in 1978. Yojimbo proclaims that it is entirely possible that without Rubenstiein that DOTD may have never had been made at all.

(But this doesn't mean that Yojimbo likes Rubenstein!)

I think that the reverse can be said too, in that without GAR, Rubenstein might be a total zero right now. I know for sure it can certainly be said about Russo, that dweeb!

[ProfessorChaos]

ProfessorChaos has noticed Yojimbo referring to himself in the third person, and ProfessorChaos wonders "Does Yojimbo think that he too, is 'too cool for school' like ProfessorChaos?";)

[Yojimbo]

ProfessorChaos has noticed Yojimbo referring to himself in the third person, and ProfessorChaos wonders "Does Yojimbo think that he too, is 'too cool for school' like ProfessorChaos?";)
Yojimbo AND ProfessorChaos are both way, way 'too cool for school' for sure.

[shootemindehead]

Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day.

Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day.

I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time. But I can imagine that 1930's audiences found the Karloff monster somewhat shocking. However, that was the 30's, "Day of the Dead" came just barely 7 years after "Dawn of the Dead" and the difference in the tone of the two films is startling. I can imagine easily some people thinking that the gut pulling in "Dawn of the Dead" was perhaps a little disgusting, but in a fun way and I've seen people react to it like that today as well, with smiles on their faces. The slapstick moments kill the atmosphere to a large degree, the awful pie fight scene and the utterly ridiculous blood presure test scene, to name but two, go a long way to wrecking the tension.

But when I show the same people "Day of the Dead", there are no smiles or laughs from anybody, especially in the final 20 minutes of that film. I remember when I first saw it back in '85 or '86 and my legs literally went weak and from then on, I was addicted. It really was one of the few "life changing" movie moments I've ever had. I have never seen a film like it, before or since.

As someone else around here said, if there's a zombie movie you need to show as definitive of the genre...it's "Day of the Dead"...by a long shot.

It's just a shame that Romero never re-captured the magic that that film had.

[DubiousComforts]

Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo.
Trust me, you really have no idea... but if in fact someone, someday writes the book that they've been promising (threatening) to write, then perhaps you will. :D

Meanwhile, what would I tell Romero if I had his ear? Whatever you do, don't listen to your fanbase!

[Yojimbo]

Meanwhile, what would I tell Romero if I had his ear? Whatever you do, don't listen to your fanbase!

Wiser words of wisdom have yet to be posted on this thread!:lol::lol:

[krakenslayer]

If I had Romero's ear... I'd take it to a convention and get it signed, then sell it to an obsessive Japanese fan for mucho profit! :lol:

[darth los]

Wiser words of wisdom have yet to be posted on this thread!:lol::lol:

Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck.

Sure george, keep ignoring the rabid fanbase that has supported your work for all these years. Seems to be working really well for ya.

It's not that he should implement everything some freak at a horror convention tells him but he should know what we're thinking.

It's like the President. Do we really think that he makes every hairbrained idea one of his staffers suggest policy? Hell no !!! But every wise man will atleast listen to what people have to say.





:cool:




:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck.
The question posed was "what would I tell Romero if I had his ear?"

Honesty can sure be a bitch.

[MoonSylver]

I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time. But I can imagine that 1930's audiences found the Karloff monster somewhat shocking.

Even as late as the mid-70's audiences weren't as jaded as they are today. Movies like Death Wish or Jaws for example had huge public reactions. The Exorcist? People were flipping-right-the-fuck-out over that movie. Throwing up, fainting, you name it.

It's a shame as a culture it takes so much more to shock or scare us now. I would LOVE for a movie to come out that provoked those kinds of reactions today.

[Yojimbo]

Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck.

Sure george, keep ignoring the rabid fanbase that has supported your work for all these years. Seems to be working really well for ya.

It's not that he should implement everything some freak at a horror convention tells him but he should know what we're thinking.

It's like the President. Do we really think that he makes every hairbrained idea one of his staffers suggest policy? Hell no !!! But every wise man will atleast listen to what people have to say.





:cool:




:cool:
See, this is one of those places where I agree to disagree with you, brother. I did not find the last few of Romero's ghoul flicks to have sucked. Surely, I enjoyed DOTD much more, but Land and then Diary were not bad films as far as I am concerned, but certainly were not his best work in any way.

But I don't think that GAR totally is unaware of what the fans think about his work, and I also think that GAR cares about what his fanbase thinks about his work. Actually, I get the impression that he cares a great deal about his loyal following, however, I think his level of caring does not extend to work shopping his art in front of focus groups so that he can cater to the whims and fancies of the consumer base.

Where I do agree with you without question is your statement that "every wise man will at least listen to what people have to say." GARs statement to the fans at the DIARY screening here in Los Angeles, where he stated that LAND was his "Thunderdome" leads me to believe that he is indeed listening to what the fans thought.


Even as late as the mid-70's audiences weren't as jaded as they are today. Movies like Death Wish or Jaws for example had huge public reactions. The Exorcist? People were flipping-right-the-fuck-out over that movie. Throwing up, fainting, you name it.

It's a shame as a culture it takes so much more to shock or scare us now. I would LOVE for a movie to come out that provoked those kinds of reactions today.

Right on Moon! Once again in agreement with you.


I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time.

Shootem, I respect your opinion and don't mean to dispute you, but I personally saw a woman at a DIARY screening here in Los Angeles who forced her date to leave the screening because it was making her physically ill. I saw another couple storm out in disgust during the acid head bit.

And once, during a screening of "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" back in the day the girl I was dating at that time made ME leave the theater because a sequence involving decaying sides of beef combined with nudity nearly made her chuck. Needless to say, our relationship was doomed and ended soon after that date.

But you have a point about this claim being overused by marketing types to the level where it becomes hard to believe.

[MoonSylver]

But I don't think that GAR totally is unaware of what the fans think about his work, and I also think that GAR cares about what his fanbase thinks about his work. Actually, I get the impression that he cares a great deal about his loyal following, however, I think his level of caring does not extend to work shopping his art in front of focus groups so that he can cater to the whims and fancies of the consumer base.

Bingo. This leads me to another point. In another post somewheres GAR was accused of "falling for his own hype" in regards to the "message". The idea being the "message" in Night was really almost pure accident, in "Dawn" almost as much so, etc.

I don't think he's "fallen for his own hype" per se...I DO think maybe he's gotten it a bit back-asswards in terms of how he marries story & message. IN "Dawn" for example, he was shown around the mall & the idea for the story was born. As the story evolved all of these other elements were added in. I think that's the right way to go. He didn't look at the mall & go "Ah ha! What a perfect opportunity to comment on consumerism!" the story came FIRST, THEN the other elements came in. In the last couple of efforts it seems like "I have this message, now...how can I hang a story around it...":confused:

[strayrider]

Shootem, I respect your opinion and don't mean to dispute you, but I personally saw a woman at a DIARY screening here in Los Angeles who forced her date to leave the screening because it was making her physically ill. I saw another couple storm out in disgust during the acid head bit.

LOL! I remember when I saw Dawn during its initial run, right after the exploding head scene, a collective gasp/moan/groan went up from the audience and a number of people got up and left. Guess they couldn't handle the "rocket ride" (and they hadn't seen anything yet). LOL!

:D

-stray-

[DubiousComforts]

Even as late as the mid-70's audiences weren't as jaded as they are today. Movies like Death Wish or Jaws for example had huge public reactions. The Exorcist? People were flipping-right-the-fuck-out over that movie.
It would also help to mention that all those films are well-crafted motion pictures that didn't suck ass in the least. Have you watched the assault scene in DEATH WISH recently? 35 years later, it still packs a wallop.

[shootemindehead]

Right on Moon! Once again in agreement with you.



Shootem, I respect your opinion and don't mean to dispute you, but I personally saw a woman at a DIARY screening here in Los Angeles who forced her date to leave the screening because it was making her physically ill. I saw another couple storm out in disgust during the acid head bit.

And once, during a screening of "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" back in the day the girl I was dating at that time made ME leave the theater because a sequence involving decaying sides of beef combined with nudity nearly made her chuck. Needless to say, our relationship was doomed and ended soon after that date.

But you have a point about this claim being overused by marketing types to the level where it becomes hard to believe.

Nah, it's ok if you guys disagree. That's fine. It's always good to hear other sides. Perhaps American audiences react differently. In Ireland, people are too mean to walk out of film half way through :D . They'll stay and get their money's worth even if it's rubbish.

Maybe that girl at the "Diary of the Dead" was just sick of Geroge's "message" and and had enough...'cos I really cannot remember too many gore scenes to be sick about. :lol: Just kidding...I don't mind "Diary of the Dead" at all...in fact I bought the DVD.

Maybe audience reaction in the States is different. I have to say, when I saw "Ronin" in New York, people cheered at certain points! You would NEVER. EVER get such a reaction to a film like that in Ireland.

It's not beyond my imagination to think that some people would find "Dawn of the Dead" too horrific to view for a number of reasons, but George himself said he didn't find the film horrific, but more comic. "Day of the Dead" is another kettle of fish altogether. But you're correct, producers do use the "puking cliche" far too often to promote what are usually rather tame films...in my opinion at least.

[Yojimbo]

Nah, it's ok if you guys disagree. That's fine. It's always good to hear other sides. Perhaps American audiences react differently. In Ireland, people are too mean to walk out of film half way through :D . They'll stay and get their money's worth even if it's rubbish.

Maybe that girl at the "Diary of the Dead" was just sick of Geroge's "message" and and had enough...'cos I really cannot remember too many gore scenes to be sick about. :lol: Just kidding...I don't mind "Diary of the Dead" at all...in fact I bought the DVD.

Maybe audience reaction in the States is different. I have to say, when I saw "Ronin" in New York, people cheered at certain points! You would NEVER. EVER get such a reaction to a film like that in Ireland.

It's not beyond my imagination to think that some people would find "Dawn of the Dead" too horrific to view for a number of reasons, but George himself said he didn't find the film horrific, but more comic. "Day of the Dead" is another kettle of fish altogether. But you're correct, producers do use the "puking cliche" far too often to promote what are usually rather tame films...in my opinion at least.

Shootem, you are probably right about the differences between audiences in Ireland and USA. Every Ireland native I have ever met across the board has admittedly been a lot tougher than the average American, so it would stand to reason that you Irish would laugh at scenes which would otherwise make the average American audience-goer vomit in disgust.

Plus, I wonder if culturally an American on a date is more likely to cater to his date's demand to walk out of a theater for whatever reason? Maybe an Irish dude would have the nuts to say "You go ahead an leave, I'm staying to see the rest of the show" Not saying this is the way it is, mind you, just a thought.


On a side note, back in my college days I once got into a fight with an Irishman, broke his nose and he shrugged it off like it was nothing at all and he managed to continue the fight long enough to give me a black eye before do gooders pulled us apart. A day or so later we shook hands and eventually became good friends. Your average American wouldn't have reacted in this manner - a broken nose would probably have ended the fight right there, and I don't know that many Americans would be willing to forget about the fight so quickly.

[Wyldwraith]

I don't think he's "fallen for his own hype" per se...I DO think maybe he's gotten it a bit back-asswards in terms of how he marries story & message. IN "Dawn" for example, he was shown around the mall & the idea for the story was born. As the story evolved all of these other elements were added in. I think that's the right way to go. He didn't look at the mall & go "Ah ha! What a perfect opportunity to comment on consumerism!" the story came FIRST, THEN the other elements came in. In the last couple of efforts it seems like "I have this message, now...how can I hang a story around it...":confused:

EXACTLY,
This is the exact point I've been making. You articulated the point about how he's starting with message and then bending and twisting a story around it to fit. I feel that as long as he continues with this methodology GAR will be unable to create a better than so-so flick.

Incidentally, when I made the comment about whether or not lightning would strike twice for GAR I wasn't talking about whether or not he'd had other successful zombie movies. He did, three of them. What I meant to do was question whether or not he would get the lucky chance-driven factors that combined favorably in NotLD to happen again. Dawn and Day are both GREAT movies, but they're great because of how they were made. Not because of lucky elements. (Like GAR originally choosing a white guy to play Ben in Night, and then ending up with that great Ben/Cooper conflict with racial tensions overlying the conflict due to his substitution of an African-American actor into the role. GAR himself admits that the racial tension angle was NOT a planned feature. It simply came together, and allowed GAR to play to one of his biggest strengths. Ie: Running with an unplanned concept and/or creative device that emerged in the course of shooting unexpectedly). Dawn and Day (as great and awesome as they are) don't have these kinds of "luck" in them.

Also, I think it would be foolish for a director who is operating inside of a VERY narrow creative niche which appeals to a cult following to disregard the feedback of their fanbase. I'm not talking about letting them horn in on his creative process directly. I'm talking about staying aware of what sorts of plot devices the fans loved, and which ones they detested. The relative strength of emphasis placed on the message he wants to marry to the story etc. These are the sorts of things where he would do well to study what the fans felt did or didn't work in his past creative offerings.

In other words: If GAR knows that a majority of fans felt that the message overshadowed the story in his last two offerings wouldn't it be foolish to do the exact same thing message-wise in his current project?

My big fear is that GAR is going to deliver another bomb, and then rather than try again to get it right he'll spend his remaining span as a director doing something without zombies. I really feel it'd be a major tragedy if that were to happen. Especially since it's so avoidable.

Just my .02

[shootemindehead]

Shootem, you are probably right about the differences between audiences in Ireland and USA. Every Ireland native I have ever met across the board has admittedly been a lot tougher than the average American, so it would stand to reason that you Irish would laugh at scenes which would otherwise make the average American audience-goer vomit in disgust.

Plus, I wonder if culturally an American on a date is more likely to cater to his date's demand to walk out of a theater for whatever reason? Maybe an Irish dude would have the nuts to say "You go ahead an leave, I'm staying to see the rest of the show" Not saying this is the way it is, mind you, just a thought.


On a side note, back in my college days I once got into a fight with an Irishman, broke his nose and he shrugged it off like it was nothing at all and he managed to continue the fight long enough to give me a black eye before do gooders pulled us apart. A day or so later we shook hands and eventually became good friends. Your average American wouldn't have reacted in this manner - a broken nose would probably have ended the fight right there, and I don't know that many Americans would be willing to forget about the fight so quickly.

Well, I don't know about Irish people being tougher (regardng films anyway), I think we are just more hesitant to complain in a public manner. Although we certainly do that in private (down the pub! :lol: ). I, myself, have sat through some awful dross in my time and only once came close to walking out of the cinema (but not to ask for my money back). That was "U-571". A godawful travesty of a film, if I ever saw one. Come to think of it, I nearly walked out of "Pearl Harbor" too. I'm ashamed to admit I was there in the first place! :D

On the whole, I think American audiences get involved in movies much better than we do in Ireland (or Europe), hence the clapping at the end of films and cheering during the show. But if it's not to their taste, they'll be quick to register that. Which is a good thing IMO.

[Yojimbo]

Well, I don't know about Irish people being tougher (regardng films anyway), I think we are just more hesitant to complain in a public manner. Although we certainly do that in private (down the pub! :lol: ). I, myself, have sat through some awful dross in my time and only once came close to walking out of the cinema (but not to ask for my money back). That was "U-571". A godawful travesty of a film, if I ever saw one. Come to think of it, I nearly walked out of "Pearl Harbor" too. I'm ashamed to admit I was there in the first place! :D

On the whole, I think American audiences get involved in movies much better than we do in Ireland (or Europe), hence the clapping at the end of films and cheering during the show. But if it's not to their taste, they'll be quick to register that. Which is a good thing IMO.

Right on, brother. Pearl Harbor nearly made me vomit!