land of the dead? greatest film ever?

[ipotts85]

land of the dead is great.

f*ck all the haters.

lotd 4ever bitchez.

[DjfunkmasterG]

land of the dead is great.

f*ck all the haters.

lotd 4ever bitchez.


WOW! What a great post. That's it I am convinced now. ipotts has crossed me over to the righteous side of the LAND camp. What was I thinking? A bold statement like that should convince everyone that LAND is the greatest film ever. All you haters need to bow down to this film and praise it for it is righteous.


Ok, Now back to reality!

F*CK all the haters huh? Well, I can't really say I have comment for that, but when you can really convince me on why this is the greatest film ever I would like to read your opinion. However, a statement like that doesn't convince me, what it really does is make me believe any turd Romero turns out will have a fanboy like yourself creaming in his pants. :D

[MinionZombie]

Hey! Everybody, look! There's a dead horse over there ... seriously, look, over there ... damn, that sh*t looks flogged to death.

:lol:

Can we ever call it a day on this thing, Dj and some hate it, me and some love it. *dusts hands*

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hey! Everybody, look! There's a dead horse over there ... seriously, look, over there ... damn, that sh*t looks flogged to death.

:lol:

Can we ever call it a day on this thing, Dj and some hate it, me and some love it. *dusts hands*

Threads like the initial post will have that horse beaten until it is just a red spot in the pasture. Sorry MZ, I saw the post and I just couldn't stop myself from replying to it. I tried not to hit 'POST REPLY' but something inside of me just said "DO IT". It's an impulse thing.... Kinda like ipotts pre-mature ejeculation problem I just don't have the mess to clean up afterwards.


j/k ipotts :p

[EvilNed]

This is the most unnecessary topic ever. Everybody already knows that Land of the Dead is great.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Everybody already knows that Land of the Dead is great.


Wrong choice of words.

it should be, Most people think LAND of the DEAD is great, while the rest considered it a bigger turd than Krush Groove.

[MinionZombie]

Indeed, most like/love it ... and some hate it.

I think we've all learnt something here today, can we finally bury this argument? It's been nearly a year since the flick first hit cinemas.

Next up we'll probably see an argument between people who love Clerks 2 and people who hate it. It's coming out July 21st now, been brought forward - now there's a rare thing...although that happened with Land...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Next up we'll probably see an argument between people who love Clerks 2 and people who hate it. It's coming out July 21st now, been brought forward - now there's a rare thing...although that happened with Land...

And lets look at what happened to Land when they bumped it up. :D


MZ, you know this hatchett will never be buried. As long as there is a LAND DVD around there will be the hate camp and the love camp. The problem is the HATE camp out numbers the love camp.

[MinionZombie]

Oh don't start Dj, we all know for a fact we'll never know which camp actually outweighs which, so let's all quit the bitching, it's boring now. Indeed, Land didn't rock at the box office because it was poorly placed, Universal are idiots, putting a Halloween season movie up against summer blockbusters like War of the Worlds? Utterly retarded, when it came to the UK it may have been the last-fudging-country to get it, but it was better placed and promptly did well, relatively speaking.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Oh don't start Dj, we all know for a fact we'll never know which camp actually outweighs which, so let's all quit the bitching, it's boring now. Indeed, Land didn't rock at the box office because it was poorly placed, Universal are idiots, putting a Halloween season movie up against summer blockbusters like War of the Worlds? Utterly retarded, when it came to the UK it may have been the last-fudging-country to get it, but it was better placed and promptly did well, relatively speaking.

You know when this argument will end?


When posts like the titled thread are no longer made. Quite a misleading post, here I thought YES another LAND debate and here it was someone setting up the casual reader into believing one thing while acheiving another.

[MinionZombie]

Or when the brains of one side all finally explode causing mass extinction for one side of the argument...

*glances at Dj*

Dude, stop trying to go all "Scanners" on us over here in the love camp, lol.

[Danny]

Oh don't start Dj, we all know for a fact we'll never know which camp actually outweighs which.

..uuu ,poll anyone, im watching land for the first time later today so ill post my thoughts, but yeah a poll should sort it oot. *folds arms and nods knowingly*.:cool:

[MinionZombie]

Well yeh hobnobviously, Dawn is also my favourite flick - not just of GAR's but of ALL films. It's just sooooooo good, it's ... it's ... *exhales sternly* (that's my classification for films that are just so good it's undescribable).

[Danny]

"hobnoviously" , im adding that to my vocabulary:lol:

[MinionZombie]

It was one of the "favourite phrases" from my days at Uni. Each time I did a new Uni Video (typically it was one per semester), I put a list of that semester's favourite phrases in the credits. "Hobnobviously" was one of them, the original that started the trend off? That was "b'ave".

[EvilNed]

Wrong choice of words.



Yes, I know, some are still in denial.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yes, I know, some are still in denial.

HA, thats a laugh! :lol:


I am not in Denial, I don't think the other haters are either. Maybe it is you who is in Denial?

[EvilNed]

There, there, no need to get bitey. We all respect your opinion, even if it happens to be wrong. :)

[ipotts85]

back on the old forums i had so many threads dedicated to trying to convince others that land really was an excellent dead film...

just give it fifteen years and it will be truly appreciated.

i mean really : how can you logically put day ahead of land? at the very least they are on the same level...day was so horribly overacted, with cookie cutter cliched characters...people seem to overlook how poorly recieved day was when it was first released...sadly, land has gotten the same reception.

as a romero film, it is exceptional - it takes the film series in a logical direction and attempts to widen the mythos while creating something new. maybe it attempted to do too much? at any rate it is a film i enjoy to watch, and in my opinion a good way to continue the living dead series...

[FleshMask]

Out of the whole series...

Night of the living dead was the best I had ever seen....

Loftd seemed more like an action flick, and less horror.

It was ok...

It wasn't ... well ... I was yawning through it.
but it wasn't as bad as the Dawn remake.

[AcesandEights]

i mean really : how can you logically put day ahead of land?

Well, I really like Land, but I do think Day trumps it in a few areas:

1) Make Up

2) Gore

3) Acting--Yeah, believe it or not, I said acting--if for no other reason than Howard Sherman.

4) A true sense of tension and isolation. I didn't like most of the characters in Day, but I was still rooting for just about every single one of 'em to make it out of there alive.

[dmbfanintn]

a bigger turd than Krush Groove.


:eek: :eek: OH NO YOU DIDN'T PLAY THE KRUSH GROOVE CARD :eek: :eek:

[ipotts85]

Well, I really like Land, but I do think Day trumps it in a few areas:

1) Make Up

2) Gore

3) Acting--Yeah, believe it or not, I said acting--if for no other reason than Howard Sherman.

4) A true sense of tension and isolation. I didn't like most of the characters in Day, but I was still rooting for just about every single one of 'em to make it out of there alive.

the make-up in land was better than day. it was more advanced. day had excellent effects - that is a no brainer - but land had day's effects, plus...

gore? remember the guy getting his hand ripped in two? or the scene in the ammunition room? with the zombie ripping out the guy's tongue?

land had better acting - it did. it had superior actors...and the actors had the advantage of better characters...bub was better than big daddy, but as a whole?

i'll give you the sense of tension - but only because land was much more like dawn, the same way day was more like night. i don't think that it is a detriment either way.

but for the people that sit here and blast land of the dead...take a closer look and really compere all of the films. the first three have the benefit of age and general acceptance...eventually land will get that too.

[DjfunkmasterG]

the make-up in land was better than day. it was more advanced. day had excellent effects - that is a no brainer - but land had day's effects, plus...

gore? remember the guy getting his hand ripped in two? or the scene in the ammunition room? with the zombie ripping out the guy's tongue?

land had better acting - it did. it had superior actors...and the actors had the advantage of better characters...bub was better than big daddy, but as a whole?

i'll give you the sense of tension - but only because land was much more like dawn, the same way day was more like night. i don't think that it is a detriment either way.

but for the people that sit here and blast land of the dead...take a closer look and really compere all of the films. the first three have the benefit of age and general acceptance...eventually land will get that too.

You can't really say the make-up in Land was better than Day because Tom Savini and Greg Nicotero worked together for years. You can't even compare the films based on make-up as their styles are completely different.

You think the gore in LAND was better.... Sorry, No way. The violence with the gore was much better in day. May I remind you about Rickles getting his forehead an eyelid peeled away while he was still screaming and kicking (alive) or having his fingers bitten off. How about Pvt. Taurus who had his head removed from his body while he was alive. Nothing in land compared to that. The closest scene was the zombie having the victim in a headlock and peeling his face off but it was shot wide instead of up close. Land was soft on gore compared to Day.

Land had better acting, I have no argument there!

Land had zero tension, The last Dead Film to have tension was DAWN of the DEAD, no dead film since DAWN 1978 has had tension.

People aren't blasting LOTD because of what you are talking about. I blast it because it was a turd. The movie was awful. Day of the Dead was far more entertaining than LOTD will ever be. LOTD's hardcore liberal agenda is part of the reason I dislike the film, and I am a democrat mind you. Land has many other flaws that I have repeated many times on these forums, and I am not going to do it again.

Plain and Simple - LAND is the WEAKEST film in the DEAD series.

[ipotts85]

like i said - just a victim of not being 15 years old. in a few years it will find it's home...

remember - people trashed day for having poor make up effects and blamed tom savini for it's failure!

and day had a 'liberal' agenda as well (who are you fox news?)- don't forget its harsh critique of reagan era government and military!

[MinionZombie]

Oh for fudge sake, it's all subjective it's all down to personal opinion. Can't we all shut up already? My brain is bleeding through my ears. Go and watch Dawn04 and leave us be with Land...

...by the way, guess what's currently in my DVD player? Dawn04 - no kidding, it's actually in there and I'm watching it again - my brain was in the mood for some brainless viewing ... as ironic as that sounds.

[EvilNed]

Plain and Simple - LAND is the WEAKEST film in the DEAD series.

Yes, you've clearly established your opinion by this time.

Personally, I don't like to rank films overall. I like Day of the Dead best, but I can't choose one over the others with the other films. There are some things I really like about Dawn, but some things I really like about Land. It's tough to beat the atmosphere in both films, even though Land is much harsher.

[erisi236]

and day had a 'liberal' agenda as well (who are you fox news?)- don't forget its harsh critique of Reagan era government and military!

heh, DJ and Fox News go together like Crosses and Vampires :lol:

Anyway, the political stuff was very far under the radar in Day compaired to Land, "We don't deal with terriorists" does that ring a bell? GAR even said that Kaufman = Rummy, I don't mind subtile pokes at the world in which we live in zombie flicks, but Lands stuff is in your face to a degree thats just annoying.

[ipotts85]

heh, DJ and Fox News go together like Crosses and Vampires :lol:

Anyway, the political stuff was very far under the radar in Day compaired to Land, "We don't deal with terriorists" does that ring a bell? GAR even said that Kaufman = Rummy, I don't mind subtile pokes at the world in which we live in zombie flicks, but Lands stuff is in your face to a degree thats just annoying.

one could say the same thing about night of the living dead stuffing the race issue in your face...and while i'll give you the fact that land is much less subtle, day's views are still obvious. each of the films really has a definate subtext running through them...all very much a 'liberal' agenda (if you want to call it that...)

night had the race issue, dawn had consumerism and the media, day had military and reagan era politics and land, of course, was a take on terrorism and a big business corporations...

hell, dawn even talks about abortion.

frankly, i'm surprised the conservatives on here can even stand to watch these films...they should all be burned immediately!


Oh for fudge sake, it's all subjective it's all down to personal opinion. Can't we all shut up already? My brain is bleeding through my ears. Go and watch Dawn04 and leave us be with Land...

...by the way, guess what's currently in my DVD player? Dawn04 - no kidding, it's actually in there and I'm watching it again - my brain was in the mood for some brainless viewing ... as ironic as that sounds.

if it is such a dead horse - why is there still a board dedicated to land of the dead?! considering that a forum is usually the place to espouse personal opinion, i would say that we can still all have our opinions and discuss them as long as this land board continues to exist...who votes to close it?

and dawn 04? dude, i was watching it two nights ago...weird...

[DjfunkmasterG]

at this time I am against closing the LAND board. Only because it gives me a forum to bitch and moan about LAND :D


heh, DJ and Fox News go together like Crosses and Vampires :lol:



See, this man knows me very very well. repz for you :D

[bassman]

at this time I am against closing the LAND board. Only because it gives me a forum to bitch and moan about LAND :D



This is why I (and a good number of others, I'm sure) would like the Dawn(04) board to still be around:p

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is why I (and a good number of others, I'm sure) would like the Dawn(04) board to still be around:p

Actually you could get rid of this board. There is not as many posts about LAND, plus with the new message board system posts about Land wouldn't really get lost like they did because everytime a post is replied to it rises to the top.

Also, Andy could put in the DEAD discussion board sub sections

DAWN 04
LAND
Other Zombie films

This way you could just keep it under the DEAD DISCUSSION banner instead of having one whole section.

[bassman]

Sounds good to me, I guess.

I was just kinda taking a stab at you because of all the "Land" hating.:D

Just joshing around, you know...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Sounds good to me, I guess.

I was just kinda taking a stab at you because of all the "Land" hating.:D

Just joshing around, you know...

Oh I know and I don't mind

[erisi236]

well, since this is the first time I've seen a post saying "we should get rid of this board" if it's anythign like the Dawn04 one it'll be 2008 before it goes :D

[Danny]

Actually you could get rid of this board. There is not as many posts about LAND, plus with the new message board system posts about Land wouldn't really get lost like they did because everytime a post is replied to it rises to the top.

Also, Andy could put in the DEAD discussion board sub sections

DAWN 04
LAND
Other Zombie films

This way you could just keep it under the DEAD DISCUSSION banner instead of having one whole section.

*nods and points silent bob style* thats a damn good idea.

[MinionZombie]

There's productive opinion chatter ... and then there's flogging a dead horse over ONE DAMN ISSUE. That's my point.

Also, this forum will probably be closed down at some point, I don't know anything official as it hasn't been discussed, but it'll probably go sometime once Land has been around for a tad longer I'd guess.

As for Yawn04, GAR's right, it starts off not too bad ... but I find as more characters come into it the worse it gets, sh*t, the longer it goes on the worse it gets. *haha, Jason just sliced a guy in two on Sci-Fi, noiiice*

That's my take, for f*ck sake let's not flog another horse over this minor comment, dang.

[erisi236]

As for Yawn04, GAR's right, it starts off not too bad ... but I find as more characters come into it the worse it gets, sh*t, the longer it goes on the worse it gets.


funny, thats exactly how I feel about Land :D

[MinionZombie]

*sigh*

One of these days I'll blow my head off ... oh wait I won't, we don't have guns in the UK ... well, criminals do, the good guys have sticks painted black. How hard are we? :D

[Danny]

well your watching big brother that should do the job.

[panic]

Land of the Dead is the weakest of the 4.

And I don't buy the whole argument that just like Day, everyone will love it in 10-15 years. In 10 years Big Daddy will still be retarded. Money having value in such a setting will still be retarded. Denis Hopper's death scene will still be retarded. Them letting Big Daddy and evolving zombie army live at the end after they trashed Fiddler's Green will still be retarded.

In short, the many things that make Land retarded will still be retarded.

[general tbag]

well, since this is the first time I've seen a post saying "we should get rid of this board" if it's anythign like the Dawn04 one it'll be 2008 before it goes :D


that pretty funny :)


let kick the horse some more, maybe it will come back to life.


i liked the one idea about a voice over of land, i think it wold of helped the overall appeal and yes stroy line, giving some back story for non zombie fans.


yea hate to say but i have watched land on my laptop at least 50 times since moving - only movie i have on it - and yea there are some good things, but the stinky crap that does exist outweighs those. how i would love to kick big daddy in the balls and tbag him to give him something to howl about.


also did anyone notice the zombies flinching when they chopped away the opening and a hanging zombies had scared then. that was pretty weak. fear isnt a zombie trait.

[ipotts85]

Land of the Dead is the weakest of the 4.

And I don't buy the whole argument that just like Day, everyone will love it in 10-15 years. In 10 years Big Daddy will still be retarded. Money having value in such a setting will still be retarded. Denis Hopper's death scene will still be retarded. Them letting Big Daddy and evolving zombie army live at the end after they trashed Fiddler's Green will still be retarded.

In short, the many things that make Land retarded will still be retarded.

and the drunken irish man, mad frankenstein doctor, black guy with undefinable accent and over the top, barely believable characters from day will still be retarded in another 10 years. why is it that everyone seems to overlook day's obvious flaws? the fact that it is remembered as a classic twenty years later only proves the point that a movie with obvious flaws and a rabidly dismal critical response (like day had) can still find its place...

[DjfunkmasterG]

back on the old forums i had so many threads dedicated to trying to convince others that land really was an excellent dead film...

just give it fifteen years and it will be truly appreciated.



You could give it 50 years and the everything everyone hates about the film will still be in the finished edit in whatever format is dominating the home video technology market in 2056. You can't polish a turd, you can't groom a turd. There is only one way to handle a turd. Throw it away. :D

[Svengoolie]

I find it funny how die-hard GAR fans are always saying "Day was hated when it first came out, but over time people came to love it and it finally got the recognition it deserved....".

Guys...the fact of the matter is: the only people who think that Day is a classic, or that it deserves recognition, is the die-hard fans themselves.

Outside of horror freaks, not many people even know it exists, and very few have seen it. And, most of those who have still think it's a turd.

It was a failed attempt at a cash in. GAR gutted a script that was near and dear to his heart (so much so that, twenty years later, the concept wound up in Land) and made it a vehicle for Savini SFX...hoping it could revitalize his own career--which was starting to stall after Knightriders bombed and Creepshow didn't do as well as hoped.

The only level on which Day succeeds is in the SFX department. Plain and simple. In that respect, it's a masterpiece and can still hold its own today...but on every other level it's substandard at best.

One interesting parallel that I find with the question of Day and Land's suspect quality is the fact that the die hard fans keep saying "give it another chance--watch it as many times as it takes till you finally like it." That's how I (for one) became a fan of Day--I watched it over and over again as a kid. Initially, I watched it for the SFX, and fast forwarded through all the bad acting and bull$****....and in time, I started to like the rest. I became FAMILIAR with it...but now, in retrospect, I think I confused the ideas of familiarity with quality. Even my good buddy Arcades057 admits that the more he watches Land, the more he "likes" it--but I don't think he's enjoying it more with every viewing...I suspect he's just becoming more familiar with it. And, like alot of GAR fans that don't like Land, he feels the need to watch it out of respect for the others...just like alot of fans of Dawn watched Day and gave it more chances than it really deserved.

In fifty years, I think the only people, if any, who'll be talking about Land will be the last few GAR fans still around....and it'll still be considered the weakest of the series.

[bassman]

I find it funny how die-hard GAR fans are always saying "Day was hated when it first came out, but over time people came to love it and it finally got the recognition it deserved....".

Guys...the fact of the matter is: the only people who think that Day is a classic, or that it deserves recognition, is the die-hard fans themselves.


First of all....It's not fact, it's opinion. You're entitled to your own and I respect that, but you shouldn't try to pass it as fact. It just doesn't work.

Secondly, it isn't only held in high regards in the Romero fan circle. I have seen several different instances where people outside of the "Dead Fanbase" have enjoyed "Day".

One being that I have showed it to nearly all of my buddies(none of which are fans, by the way) and not one of them said that it was a bad movie. There were a few bits and peices that they believed could have used some work(which I agreed), but it is nearly impossible to find a film without flaws.

Another being that if you check out some movie fan sites with member reviews and that sort of thing, you will find that even the non-Romero fans enjoyed the film and gave it a generally high rating.

And the third being the reviews of professional critics. There were quite a few negative reviews when the film was released, but if you search for reviews that are post-1980's, you will find that those non-Romero fans enjoyed the flick as well.

I know that none of this will change your mind and I don't intend for it to do so. Just showing that your opinion is not fact. It's just that: Opinion.

This all goes the same for "Land". OPINION. Why can't we all just accept that?

Besides, the world(and this website;) ) would be boring as hell if everyone thought the same(pay attention, MTV-ers:p ).

[Griff]

The Facts of The Matter:


There was a lot of anticipation for both DAY and LAND.

For some they did not conform to expectation.

Some of those people later came to appreciate those films.

Repeated viewings can help to diminish the influence of preconceptions.

Non-horror fans have been known to enjoy and appreciate these films.

Plain and simple, unlike Svengoolie's rambling, self-applicable theory*.

Hi Mum!


* which he could easily prove by rewatching DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM until he considers it a 'classic'.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Since we all keep beating the Dead Horse... might as well have something to show for it.


http://www.moviesonline.ca/forum/images/smilies/beatdeadhorse5.gif

[Danny]

well ive finally seen land of the dead, and though its not as good as night or dawn i definatly think its better than day and i enojyed it, too bad the bit in the script about zombie rats was dropped out, overall i liked it though, its not as good overall as the others but i liked the continuity it wasnt a typicla hollywood package of CONFLICT, CHALLLENGE ,JOURNEY, BATTLE, CONDITION WORSENS, LAST MINUTE HAPPY ENDING.




i guess this means i joined the ''yes'' camp.:D

[Guru ofthe Dead]

I agree with bassman311 and hellsing, Land is a good movie and in my opinion the best of the dead films that have came out in the past two or three years. Yes Resident Evil is good but it tried to stay true to the game. Now Day was a rush job and on a low budget, Land was Hollywood with some money and big named stars. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

[kar98k]

i dont think LOTD was the best, heres the order. romeros 'dead' films 1-4 (1 being best, 4 being worst)

1.Dawn of the Dead (best horror movie ever)
2.Night of the Living Dead
3.Land of the Dead
4.Day of the Dead (wtf??? cmon george, you can do better then that :bored: )

[Danny]

i agree with that order completely man.



day just felt like an epilogue of sorts than a stand a lone feature.

[Svengoolie]

More Facts of the Matter:


There was a lot of anticipation for both DAY and LAND.

For some they did not conform to expectation.


As usual, Griff...you fail to realize that the situation we're dealing with is much more complicated than that.

Day came out over twenty years ago...and for the majority of the fans today, the anticipation factor had nothing to do with the quality or popularity of that film. Hell, I'd lay five to one that probably half the people posting here weren't even born yet, or were not too far out of diapers, when Day came out...and if anything, Day is what helped them get into the genre in the first place.

As for Land, while the anticipation factor might very well come into play for some, it's not a deal breaker for most of the people bashing it. Most of the people bashing it are long term fans who have very specific gripes with the film (unlike the bj artists that blast Dawn 04 simply because it exists)...and it's those specific gripes that give their case more legitimacy over those who were simply let down in general.


Some of those people later came to appreciate those films.


Sure they did. No one is disputing that. But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality.


Repeated viewings can help to diminish the influence of preconceptions.

Not if there are no preconceptions in the first place.

Like I said--the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land, as has been seen in these very forums. People are attacking specific points about both films and challenging their quality overall...which goes far beyond simply feeling "let down".


Non-horror fans have been known to enjoy and appreciate these films.

They've also been known to think they're chunks of dog crap.


Plain and simple, unlike Svengoolie's rambling, self-applicable theory*.

The only thing plain and simple here is you, Griff.;)

[Griff]

I was just stating some FACTS, Svengoolie, because yours were all over the place like a mad woman's p*ss.

You have some legitimate points but presenting them as absolutes is a bit presumptious. For instance, I'd like to see you prove that "the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land".

Note the bold text? That's denoting where you've softened your argument slightly to seem less arrogant. Here's another example:

But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality.

Compare that to the unwavering confidence of:

"the fact of the matter is: the only people who think that Day is a classic, or that it deserves recognition, is the die-hard fans themselves."

and/or

"The only level on which Day succeeds is in the SFX department. Plain and simple."

Listen man, I'm just giving your sh*t because you were begging for it. I know what you're saying and you may be right in some cases ...but it doesn't mean you're right.

But anyway, back to this:

"But, I think that many came to "appreciate" Day (and now Land) simply because they became more familiar with them and not because of the film's quality.

Once again, I'd like to see you prove this by rewatching DAY OF THE DEAD 2: CONTAGIUM and telling us how many times it takes before you're in love with it.

Afterall, they say 'familiarity breeds contempt'. The only things that can overcome that is genuine affection or complacency ...and I'd hesitate to call anyone here merely 'complacent' when it comes to Romero's DEAD movies.

Rather, I think people are more inclined to embrace a film and its virtues once they get over their preconceptions of what those virtues should have been and are able to judge it solely on its own merits - not by how familiar they become with its vices.

Cheers.

[Svengoolie]

I was just stating some FACTS, Svengoolie, because yours were all over the place like a mad woman's p*ss.


No, Griff--unlike yourself, I actually have points with my post. You're just too plain and simple to comprehend what I was saying. As usual.


You have some legitimate points but presenting them as absolutes is a bit presumptious. For instance, I'd like to see you prove that "the anticipation/preconceptions factor has little or no bearing on the arguments of the people bashing Day or Land".

Note the bold text? That's denoting where you've softened your argument slightly to seem less arrogant.

Not at all. The "little or no bearing" is a legitimate point that simply shows that I understand that some people (a minority) were let down by the film simply because of the anticipation/preconceptions factor, but the vast majority of the people posting here aren't in that category at all--they all have legitimate, specific gripes with the film that they're able to cite individually.

As for the rest...it's just your usual bj artist crap. Instead of addressing the points being made, you're trying to attack the person making them--it's pretty much all you've ever been able to contribute to the forums.

Oh....and as for Contagium--why don't you follow your own advice? I know you've got a copy...;)

[bassman]

Instead of addressing the points being made, you're trying to attack the person making them--

.....You're just too plain and simple to comprehend what I was saying. As usual.



:rockbrow: hrmmm....

[Adrenochrome]

:rockbrow: hrmmm....
exactley......strong words coming from dcburny:D
This guy will never change and never learn. Why do people respond to any of his inane banter?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well, not that this helps in anyway, but most people think ROTLD 2 is garbage, but I enjoyed it and even popped in my Bootleg copy (it has the original score) last night. I watched the film twice last night and I still enjoy it. It is a campy film, with an extra helping of Velveeta, and I do consider it better than LOTD.

My opinion of the film is that it is nowhere as good as part 1, and for the most part it does stink, but at least it has entertainment value. I don't cringe when I re-watch the film like I do when I try to re-watch LOTD. I have been trying to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it just isn't happening.

I have a point in all this rambling somewhere.... Bear with me! :D

Basically LOTD has redeeming qualities for some viewers, and for others it is a pile of doggie poo-poo. The same can be said for ROTLD 1 or 2. Basically I have concluded the following and I probably will not really post much more on the subject of my hatred for LOTD.

I feel that those whom like LOTD feel a need to like it because of their loyalty and their love for Romero. I will accept that. What I refuse to accept is those who find the film without flaw or his greatest film ever. No offense but Bruiser is better than LOTD. I tend to be more accepting of the middle ground camp. Those whom admit the film is bad, but enjoy it or at least accept it into the series and do so with merits in their arguments. I also respect the hate camp (Which I am a proud member) because they like I see the film the way we see it. LOTD looks like a cheap cash-in to the surging zombie film revival. The film was rushed into production on the success of the DAWN remake, it was substandard on every level accept make-up and some minor acting roles. The plot and story were to outlandish to be acceptable in any medium.

Land exceeds my expectations on some levels. It showed me Romero could bring us something on a large scale production that looked good visually, and that he should have been chosen as director of RE: 1.(more credit should go to the DP, I am not a fan of soft focus and blue tint, but some of the camera work isn't oo bad. I prefer Romero's original DP-Mike Gornick- over the DP of LOTD though) It also showed me that Nicotero and company can hold their ground against Savini in the FX department... although Big Daddies make-up left a lot to be desired. George still has a knack for decent visuals.

Land killed my enthusiasm because of the poor casting choices. The obnoxious performances by Eugene Clark and John Leguizamo. The overall feel of the story and the outlandish plot devices (RANSOM during an apocalypse is the stupidest thing I have ever seen on a screen.) I am sure it could have been handled more effectively, but again the ball was dropped, and dropped hard. Annoying characters. Zombies too smart for their own good.


exactley......strong words coming from dcburny:D
This guy will never change and never learn. Why do people respond to any of his inane banter?

Don't take this offensively dude, but the same could be said for you. There are times you have gone overboard on the new forum and the old forum (more the old).

No one is perfect the man is stating an opinion. I don't agree with everyones opinions in regards to LOTD, but they still have an opinion.

BTW Adreno, your gif is still freaking me out! :D

[Adrenochrome]

Don't take this offensively dude, but the same could be said for you. There are times you have gone overboard on the new forum and the old forum (more the old).

No one is perfect the man is stating an opinion. I don't agree with everyones opinions in regards to LOTD, but they still have an opinion.

BTW Adreno, your gif is still freaking me out! :D
I'm not offended at all. Which makes me a little different from these others. They get MAD, almost frothingly mad!
I know I've gone overboard.....I have admitted it, I've apologized, unlike those here that go WAY more overboard than I. These "others" sit back and believe they've "gotten one over" on the rest of us.
My motto, "It's just the 'net" - A great way to remain sane!


peace,

Tom

[Griff]

Jeez, Svengoolie, I thought I was being rather diplomatic and forgiving, if a bit cheeky, considering what an obnoxious turd you were being.

You're trying to drag me into a tiresome cycle of retorts but I believe I made my points concise enough in my first post, along with some courteous elaboration in my follow up. I was pointing out holes in your argument, not trying to negate it entirely. Too bad you couldn't see that.

Once again you're caught softening your stance on your initial argument, the sure sign of an unsure man backpedalling to safety. You were pretty adament in your assertions the first time around. How things change.

I'm gonna go pick a fight with someone with conviction.

Cheers.