Seriously Fed Up

[ShadowMan]

I am seriously fed up waiting for this new...Of The Dead flick. I am a huge Romero fan, but there comes a point when I feel that waiting for (and this is the worst part) a new "unnamed" Romero film starts to take its toll. What have we got so far? An preview in the form of an unfinished trailer and maybe a couple pics. I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it. In my opinion it's a bad sign anyway that he hasn't released an official title for it yet. Grrrrrrrr!!!

Sorry...didn't mean to go all spastic on ya. ;)

[bassman]

Good things come to those who wait.;)

And besides....It's an independent film. So I would imagine it takes a bit longer to finish/release. Unlike a large Hollywood flick.

[Skippy911sc]

I felt this way with Diary...it would not be shown in my area so I had to wait for Video...then I wished it did not come out on video. ;)

[DjfunkmasterG]

From what I have seen in the trailer and pics doesn't look like much worth waiting for to be honest.

However, at the indie level you run out of money quick and have to do things based on the $$$$ in your wallet. The funny thing is though, before the internet, none of us cared how long a GAR dead film took to get released, now, in the day and age of, ASAP, we all calmor for it like it should have been finished and released the week after principal photography finished.

[Danny]

think of the time between night and dawn, its a romero flick, it'll be worth the wait.

[blind2d]

Amen, hell.

[AcesandEights]

The longer one waits between Romero zombie projects, the better the quality of the project.


































Land being the exception that proves the rule, of course. :)

[capncnut]

Sorry...didn't mean to go all spastic on ya. ;)
I think it's safe to assume this flick probably wont be out until 2010 so I'm sure we'll have a few more spazzing out before then. No worries, Shadow. ;)

[Cody]

Theres a big difference from the 6 year wait for Day to come out after Dawn. This difference is Romero started a movie and has been seriously slacking on it. I really don't have high hopes for this film, all the movies Romero has been cranking out lately really dont tickle my fancy.

[MinionZombie]

Cheeky bugger, Aces. :p

I was thinking about this flick yesterday actually as I poured over the Diary DVD extra features again yesterday as I lounged around in my bed, sweating buckets due to the humidity.

What's going on with "of the Dead" ... some blog stuff would be nice, some pics, a bit of video ... you know, something.

Mind you, it is indie, and they have their own schedules, and you always have to wait longer for them. Hopefully this one will blow Diary out of the water - a flick which I got enjoyment out of, but which I was fairly disappointed with (I much preferred Land to Diary), so hopefully "of the Dead" will turn out, after all this, to be spiffing.

[darth los]

Theres a big difference from the 6 year wait for Day to come out after Dawn. This difference is Romero started a movie and has been seriously slacking on it. I really don't have high hopes for this film, all the movies Romero has been cranking out lately really dont tickle my fancy.



No, the difference is, in the case of day, that we waited years for a movie that DIDN'T suck. (Cough....Land....cough....cough)








:cool:

[krakenslayer]

No, the difference is, in the case of day, that we waited years for a movie that DIDN'T suck. (Cough....Land....cough....cough)

:cool:

I think you're forgetting just how much Day of the Dead was considered a huge letdown after Dawn. Even if you go back to the late 1990s, on this very forum, Day was widely scorned by people saying it was slow, poorly acted, lacked action, had unsympathetic characters, a confusing ending and was generally considered the most boring movie Romero ever made. Back then, I was one of the few who defended the film. Now everyone loves it. The tide of opinion changed with Day, I think it will with Land too one day.

[darth los]

I think you're forgetting just how much Day of the Dead was considered a huge letdown after Dawn. Even if you go back to the late 1990s, on this very forum, Day was widely scorned by people saying it was slow, poorly acted, lacked action, had unsympathetic characters, a confusing ending and was generally considered the most boring movie Romero ever made. Back then, I was one of the few who defended the film. Now everyone loves it. The tide of opinion changed with Day, I think it will with Land too one day.

Perhaps the tide hasn't changed but the people who didn't like the film either don't post anymore or aren't as vocal about it. Lotd is not Dotd by any stretch of the imagination and no amount of time is going to make it fit in with the trilogy.



I don't know who these people you speak of are but day of the dead is probably the best film of the trilogy. It appeals to a much larger demographic as well because unlike the other two it's not dated or campy.


Whatever your opinion is though I doubt anyony will come forward and argue against the statement that Day has some of the best gore effects ever captured on film. I mean it puts a film that was made 20 years after it (LOTD) to shame. Nuff said.







:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece. I like Day of the Dead, and yeah the acting could use some work, but it is a horror film, how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN.

Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence.

[darth los]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece. I like Day of the Dead, and yeah the acting could use some work, but it is a horror film, how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN.

Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence.



I respect your opinion since you actually do this shit for a living and I don't but imo day has way better acting than either dawn or night. I actually believe what I'm whatching in Day. With Dawn that was never the case.

Don't get me wrong Dawn is a better film if only for it's effect on pop culture and the classic satire in it but i said it before and I'll say it again. If you had a group of buds over that you wanted to show a zombie flick to and impress them as not to turn the off to it right away, which film would you show them. It has to be day for me. That right there says alot.






:cool:

[krakenslayer]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece. I like Day of the Dead, and yeah the acting could use some work, but it is a horror film, how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN.

Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence.

I'm not saying it is/was my opinion, but it was one of the thing people used to always bitch about in regards Day. Also people didn't think Day fitted in with the established series as it stood before then. Same thing with Land. I think the biggest issue with Land is that in the previous movies you can take or leave the social commentary, whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work.

I enjoy satire though, so it actually doesn't bother me.

[bassman]

how many horror films, can you count on one hand, that had good acting... other than DAWN.

Good acting and horror film are never usually mentioned in the same sentence.


The Exorcist, Alien, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, The Thing, The Fly,..... To name a few. And I would have to disagree with Dawn having good acting. It's horrible, imo. But I still love it.:p

YEAH! Trucks!:lol:

[blind2d]

Hey, I really believed it when he said that! Don't forget Evil Dead. Bruce Campbell is amazing.

[Trin]

It's true that Day was not well received initially and eventually overcame the negative sentiment. But I don't believe it required time to do it. I think it took exposure and discussion and viewings by the fans. People had to watch it a few times. Let it sink in. Back when Day was released it might take years before a movie could get that kind of exposure.

By 1985 standards Land has had an enormous amount of discussion and exposure. If it were going to overcome the negative sentiment it would've done it by now. Day didn't take that many years to become accepted. Land has had plenty of time.

@Kraken - "whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work." <--- That is an excellent point!!

@bassman - good list of movies there. Good acting in them all.

My personal opinion is that the acting in all the Dead movies has been fine. I've never been distracted or put off by the acting. They always seemed like real people to me. Even Diary when sometimes they took horrendously questionable actions.

I don't know - I can't help being excited that a new Romero Dead movie is on the horizon, even if my feeling is that it'll be crap. I'll still watch it. Buy the DVD. Gripe about it. Take it too seriously. Enjoy it, hopefully...

[ShadowMan]

I really try to view all of the films with an open mind and take them as they are because that's what George thought best in putting it on film. If it's good enough for the maker, then I suppose it's good enough for me. I do have opinions, nonetheless.

What I have truely missed in the newer films (Land, Diary) is the feeling of entrapment and the almost suffocating hopelessness as felt by the living existing in a dead world where at every turn there is the possibilty of an encounter with death itself. That whole foreboding feeling is what made Dawn and Day both really adrenalin pumping movies for me. I have to say, I do prefer Day as the best movie in the initial trilogy. Maybe it was because they were living and working in close proximity to the dead (inside the undergriound complex). I also appreaciate the in-depth study Romero gave to the dead through the character of the doctor and his specimen. For me, this was the ultimate form of "creepy" even though in the end, it provided us with little answers while continuing the whole mystery set forth by Romero of just why the dead have reanimated.

I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying! If I were living in a place like Fiddler's Green surrounded by the dead, there is NO frickin' way I would feel anywhere close to "safe" nor could I even live a semblance of any ordinary life. I guess I just feel many of the characters in the film were too easily distracted and not "on guard" as I fell someone should be. Maybe I'm just really depressing. :skull:

[MoonSylver]

Same thing with Land. I think the biggest issue with Land is that in the previous movies you can take or leave the social commentary, whereas in Land you have to buy into the commentary or the movie doesn't work.

Really? While I've been a mildly vocal critic of the fact that the "message" are pretty central to the last 2 dead films, I can just set back & let them "wash over me" so to speak & I think they work just fine (Land more so of the 2.)

As long as you can accept the premise that they have a city, use money, it has value etc ( & don't question it too much...) it plays out pretty well as an action/post apocalyptic move set against a dead background.

That could just be me though....:shifty:

[Fecunditatis]

I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying!

Do you remember that Romero originally intended to do "The Masque of the Red Death" for "Two Evil Eyes"? Well, that's "Land of the Dead".

[clanglee]

Do you remember that Romero originally intended to do "The Masque of the Red Death" for "Two Evil Eyes"? Well, that's "Land of the Dead".

You know, as big a Poe fan as I am, I never made that connection? That's pretty intuitive. I'll have to give it another look see.

[DubiousComforts]

COmpared to LAND, DAY is a masterpiece.
Aren't these just "popcorn flicks"? If so, LAND is a much better popcorn flick than DAY 'cause it's got more guns in it.

[bassman]

:lol:

Stuck on the popcorn...

[DubiousComforts]

:lol:

Stuck on the popcorn...
You again! :p

[EvilNed]

I agree. Day feels like a more complete film than Dawn. Suspension of disbelief becomes much easier in Day, and it's a more interesting conflict (at least for me) than in Dawn.

[Trin]

I wish this aspect had been explored more in Land, but NO. Not only did we not see an extension of the study of the dead, but the atmospheric, smothering, paranoid feeling wasn't present either. What were these people doing in this walled-off city? Partying! If I were living in a place like Fiddler's Green surrounded by the dead, there is NO frickin' way I would feel anywhere close to "safe" nor could I even live a semblance of any ordinary life. I guess I just feel many of the characters in the film were too easily distracted and not "on guard" as I fell someone should be. Maybe I'm just really depressing. :skull:
I think Land would've been far better had there simply been hordes of zombies surrounding the place. That would've greatly heightened the tension within the city as well as explained why people felt trapped there. Throw in a little "low on ammo, low on water, low on gasoline" discussion and the whole landscape of their plight changes.

Then let Cholo threaten to shoot the rockets at the walls, not the Green, letting hundreds of thousands of zombies pour in. That would've scared Kaufman shitless.

As it was I just couldn't buy that these people really had a problem. There weren't enough zombies outside the protected area to keep 5 guys with baseball bats busy. For Christ's sake, Mouse spent upwards of an hour sitting on the pier with headphones on. These people just had no worries. You want to go to Canada? Well wtf is stopping you?? Get a couple people to peel off from a scavenger raid with you and never look back.

I also agree that Day had the best character study and zombie study. That movie just rocked from an atmosphere and situation perspective.

[bassman]

These people just had no worries.


Exactly! It was meant to be that way.

[clanglee]

This thread is very dangerously close to becomming a Land argument.

Caution!!

[DubiousComforts]

This thread is very dangerously close to becomming a Land argument.
What's there to argue about? LAND is a good popcorn flick.

[AcesandEights]

Cheeky bugger, Aces. :p

That's not to say I dislike Land. Land was decent, but not great and suffered from a few (possibly lovable) warts.

[clanglee]

What's there to argue about? LAND is a good popcorn flick.

If you want to look at Land like that then. . yeah. . it does become more enjoyable. :D

[EvilNed]

After reading the new interview here on this site I'm actually pretty amped about this new film! I'm looking forward too it a hell of a lot more. Sure, John Harrison would have been nice. But still... It's filmed on Red One for one, and that's got me interested. I love that camera. Had the oppertunity to work beside one not too long ago. Man, what a beast...

[Trin]

Exactly! It was meant to be that way.
It was meant to appear that they were ignoring their worries, not that their situation didn't warrant worries.


What's there to argue about? LAND is a good popcorn flick.
Agreed. Cheap popcorn. Don't waste the expensive stuff :moon:

[bassman]

It was meant to appear that they were ignoring their worries, not that their situation didn't warrant worries.




Yeah....they should have worries, but the movie is about them ignoring it. So what's the problem, again?:rockbrow:

[EvilNed]

Yeah....they should have worries, but the movie is about them ignoring it. So what's the problem, again?:rockbrow:

You just spelled out a conflict in your post. Is it that hard to grasp what it's about? :p

[bassman]

You just spelled out a conflict in your post. Is it that hard to grasp what it's about? :p

Conflict?

Who's on first?

:shifty:

[Trin]

Maybe Riley should've said, "Isn't that what we're doing? Just pretending to have worries?" :lol:

[EvilNed]

Maybe Riley should've said, "Isn't that what we're doing? Just pretending to have worries?" :lol:

Lol. Now there'd be a film I'd wanna see. A sci-fi film about a dystopian-wannabe society...

[DubiousComforts]

Agreed. Cheap popcorn. Don't waste the expensive stuff :moon:
I said "good" not "cheap."

Ironically, the stuff being passed off as popcorn at multiplexes is neither "cheap" nor "good."

[MinionZombie]

I said "good" not "cheap."

Ironically, the stuff being passed off as popcorn at multiplexes is neither "cheap" nor "good."
I know - terrible, isn't it? :hurl:

[Trin]

I said "good" not "cheap."

Ironically, the stuff being passed off as popcorn at multiplexes is neither "cheap" nor "good."
Yes, I added cheap. Meaning I think it's a good flick for cheap popcorn.

Land is a decent movie to while away 93 minutes. Well, maybe 70 - there are a good 23 I just can't watch. Ala Mouse in headphones at the docks. Or Rambo Slack. Or "call me Motown". Big Daddy empathizing. Okay, maybe there's more than 23 minutes of unwatchable.

But there are a really stunning 30 or so minutes of just taking in the atmosphere and creepy factor. Seeing the outside world. Seeing the deserted parts of the protected area. Seeing Dead Reckoning lay waste. Watching the group scavenge Union Town. The fireworks. I could watch certain sections again and again and again.

[bassman]

Land is a decent movie to while away 93 minutes. Well, maybe 70 - there are a good 23 I just can't watch. Ala Mouse in headphones at the docks. Or Rambo Slack. Or "call me Motown". Big Daddy empathizing. Okay, maybe there's more than 23 minutes of unwatchable.



I wouldn't call them unwatchable. I understand that you don't like those scenes, but there are many similar scenes in the earlier films that I think we all tend to look over...

[EvilNed]

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NiD3xui_zM

It's kinda sad really. :p

[bassman]

Good example. Hell....most of Dawn is a regular cheese fest, but we all overlook it...

[darth los]

Oh god, let's not start this again. And please don't compare Big Daddy to Bub. Two different ballparks.

Bub was at what I would call an acceptable/believable level of intelligence. Big daddy was waaaaaaaay over the top and that yelp he let's out is god awful. He's probably what makes 70+ minutes of the movie unwatchable for aces. :lol:








:cool:

[bassman]

You're the one that mentioned BD/Bub.

But now that you have....they're similar!:p

I seriously think so, even though others don't. I think the characters were VERY similar, actually. Unfortunately one of the actors wasn't as good as the other.:moon:

[darth los]

You're the one that mentioned BD/Bub.

But now that you have....they're similar!:p

I seriously think so, even though others don't. I think the characters were VERY similar, actually. Unfortunately one of the actors wasn't as good as the other.:moon:


Sherman was definitely the gold standard.

And as to that clip, imo, we overlook dawn's cheesiness because the story, plot, character development and satire are all stellar. The same can't be said for LOTD or many other films for that matter.








:cool:

[MinionZombie]

Odd, I've never ever considered Dawn to be at all cheesy in any way or shape.

In fact I watched it twice last week while I was laid up in bed recovering from my operation. It's still a fantastic film, with a great story, great characters, memorable gore and zombies, a superb setting, and a behind the scenes atmosphere that is both inspiring and interesting in its own right, as well as helping to further illustrate how groovy Dawn of the Dead really is.

...

Speaking of Land, I saw a few clips a few months back (haven't seen it in a while), and there were a few lines or moments that did make me go "oooh..." a bit (with a pensive face). I'd have changed them to something else, or tweaked them slightly or whatever, but despite the "hmmm" moments I suddenly found myself looking at that time, I still dig the movie and I'll hold it dear in my memory as the first GAR flick I got to see in the cinema - and it was a GAR zed flick too.

Plus the movie gets too hard a rap from some folks I reckon, but I've already spoken at length about that.

[Trin]

I wouldn't call them unwatchable. I understand that you don't like those scenes, but there are many similar scenes in the earlier films that I think we all tend to look over...
I agree and disagree. Unwatchable is a bit harsh, I agree. I was more tongue in cheek than serious on that. And my list of scenes that I really consider unwatchable is shorter than what I posted above. Probably only a couple.

It's true that the other movies have areas that are boring or cheesy or not as entertaining, and I might skip to the high points if I'm limited on time, but Land is the only movie of the group (Diary included) where particular scenes detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie to the extent I'll hit fast forward.

For me Day is the most consistently entertaining start to finish. I just like the whole thing. With Dawn I get depressed around the time the biker gang shows up and I turn it off usually. But none of the scenes really bother me. I don't watch Night often enough to have a pattern since I don't have a copy - I only watch it when it comes on TV and then I take what I get.

Bub and BD do have some surface similarities. They are both operating well above the standard zombie boundaries for behavior. But the backstory and (duck and cover people...) evolution of their characters is so different I don't think they can be compared. With Bub his ascension above the standard zombie is very well scaled and explainable. You see how he went from standard zombie to extraordinary zombie and it's plausible. With BD it is unexplained and over the top. In that sense they're very different.

[EvilNed]

I seriously think so, even though others don't. I think the characters were VERY similar, actually. Unfortunately one of the actors wasn't as good as the other.:moon:

Actually, I'm pretty sure Big Daddy's howling wasn't an improvisation from the actors part, but rather a direction from George. I don't MIND Big Daddy's howling, but he did become a bit too "human" for me. I would probably have preferred him without it. But I really like the actor playing Big Daddy. I think he does a good job with what limitations he were given.

Now, the Big Daddy character himself? IMO, he was written to "nice" and also too talkative. Both errors of GAR, mind you, not the actor.

[darth los]

II don't watch Night often enough to have a pattern since I don't have a copy - I only watch it when it comes on TV and then I take what I get.


Okay.... WTF!?!



Somebody donate a copy to this man, STAT !! This is totally unacceptable.

Shit, I'll mail you one dude. Just let me know.



Wouldn't it be a mean trick though if I sent you the 30th anny edition !! :lol: :moon:







:cool:

[Trin]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Big Daddy's howling wasn't an improvisation from the actors part, but rather a direction from George. I don't MIND Big Daddy's howling, but he did become a bit too "human" for me. I would probably have preferred him without it. But I really like the actor playing Big Daddy. I think he does a good job with what limitations he were given.

Now, the Big Daddy character himself? IMO, he was written to "nice" and also too talkative. Both errors of GAR, mind you, not the actor.I strongly agree with that. The actor didn't ruin BD for me - the part was ruined in the writing.

Hey, does anyone know if "... of the Dead" has a (for lack of a better term) super zombie in it? The Bub or BD of the timeframe? Do we even know the timeframe for Blank?

[EvilNed]

I think Blank is going to be set in about the same timeframe after the outbreak as Dawn was. Because Diary was right at the outbreak, like Night, and then this one will be like Dawn, at least timeframewise.

So, three weeks?

[bassman]

True, Clark may not be the one at fault for Big Daddy's howling, but I always assumed he wasn't too good at his craft because he can't even keep the same zombie shuffle.:p

[darth los]

I think Blank is going to be set in about the same timeframe after the outbreak as Dawn was. Because Diary was right at the outbreak, like Night, and then this one will be like Dawn, at least timeframewise.

So, three weeks?



If the theory you have is correct then I can't wait to see the next installment set in the same time frame as DAy.


Or have we already seen that with LAND?

[EvilNed]

If the theory you have is correct then I can't wait to see the next installment set in the same time frame as DAy.


Or have we already seen that with LAND?

No, I don't Land is included in this "new" series, or whatever we should call it. Land is roughly 3 years into it. Day, we don't know, but I always viewed it Day as sort of the "dark ages" of humanity afterwards. All the food is gone, and people haven't quite gotten the hang of this survivor business just yet. So yes, I'm with ya. I'm looking forward to the next one after this one!

I think Romero said that he'll just keep making these films until he retires, because they apparently make money. I don't mind.

[MoonSylver]

You're the one that mentioned BD/Bub.

But now that you have....they're similar!:p

I seriously think so, even though others don't. I think the characters were VERY similar, actually. Unfortunately one of the actors wasn't as good as the other.:moon:

Second. The character as written didn't bother me, the on screen portrayal did. I'm not sure if the direction is to blame or the actor, but I suspect the later (unless someone has info otherwise...?), but I think someone like a Howard Sherman could have taken the character as written & translated it a la Bub & it could have been great.

[EvilNed]

If it's the moaning you're talking about, then that's certainly the directors fault.

[darth los]

No, I don't Land is included in this "new" series, or whatever we should call it. Land is roughly 3 years into it. Day, we don't know, but I always viewed it Day as sort of the "dark ages" of humanity afterwards. All the food is gone, and people haven't quite gotten the hang of this survivor business just yet. So yes, I'm with ya. I'm looking forward to the next one after this one!

I think Romero said that he'll just keep making these films until he retires, because they apparently make money. I don't mind.


GAr is alot like Michael Jackson in the respect that the general public really doesn't appreciate him and probably will only realize the full impact he had on the genre (which he invented by the way and yes i realize that there were voodoo "zombies' before that) when he's gone and it's a shame too because there's really no one like himand it's very unlikely there will ever be another. :(









:cool:

[Trin]

Somebody donate a copy to this man, STAT !! This is totally unacceptable.

Shit, I'll mail you one dude. Just let me know.

The movie is only 40 years old. It still seems premature to buy a copy. I'm waiting for the final digitally remastered super-sparkly spoon in the ass director's cut colorized version to come out on next-gen blu-ray 3d holographic.


Wouldn't it be a mean trick though if I sent you the 30th anny edition !!Dang, that would be funny. I'd laugh all the way to the gun store. :eek: :p

I'd like to see a thread to politely discuss the Bub vs. Big Daddy compare/contrast topic. Not a Land bash thread. Or an "intelligent zombie ruined my zombie masterpiece" thread. But just some discussion over how they were similar/different, whether they were facets of the same phenomenon or really different creatures, behaviors, evolution, justification, etc. I'd start a thread for it but I cannot decide whether we could have that and it remain constructive.

[darth los]

The movie is only 40 years old. It still seems premature to buy a copy. I'm waiting for the final digitally remastered super-sparkly spoon in the ass director's cut colorized version to come out on next-gen blu-ray 3d holographic.

Dang, that would be funny. I'd laugh all the way to the gun store. :eek: :p

I'd like to see a thread to politely discuss the Bub vs. Big Daddy compare/contrast topic. Not a Land bash thread. Or an "intelligent zombie ruined my zombie masterpiece" thread. But just some discussion over how they were similar/different, whether they were facets of the same phenomenon or really different creatures, behaviors, evolution, justification, etc. I'd start a thread for it but I cannot decide whether we could have that and it remain constructive.



I'd love to participate in a thread like that. I'd like to see where it leads.....

As a matter of fact that final paragraph you wrote could be cut and pasted into a dead discussion thread. We're just waiting on you. :)


You also throw a poll in there for good measure.








:cool:

[clanglee]

GAr is alot like Michael Jackson in the respect that the general public really doesn't appreciate him and probably will only realize the full impact he had on the genre (which he invented by the way and yes i realize that there were voodoo "zombies' before that) when he's gone and it's a shame too because there's really no one like himand it's very unlikely there will ever be another. :(

:


Meh. .I don't know about this comparison Darth. They are both pretty darn recognised for thier contributions to the world. Especially MJ. GAR just doesn't have quite the fame and quite the craziness.


spoon in the ass .

:lol::lol: awwwww, is that an homage trin? ;)

[darth los]

Meh. .I don't know about this comparison Darth. They are both pretty darn recognised for thier contributions to the world. Especially MJ. GAR just doesn't have quite the fame and quite the craziness.




Perhaps I didn't articulate it well but what I was trying to get at was that
People are recognized for all type of things. But the history of things isn't written in the moment but years hence when we are removed from the time period and can evaluate things as a whole. Also, this usually occurs after people die.

Look at heath Ledger. We all knew he was a fine actor but we didn't "appreciate" him until he was gone. Same with Michael and I predict it will be the same with GAr.

We bust GAr's balls alot, especially his more recent works but wait until he kicks it and I'll wager that not a bad word will be uttered about him around here and we'll "appreciate" even the works which we don't like very much today.


And even not liking something doesn't mean you can't "appreciate" it. I can't stand kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics but I appreciate the fact that he's a hall of fame caliber player.






:cool:

[Trin]

Especially MJ. GAR just doesn't have quite the fame and quite the craziness.Little known fact - GAR is actually African Canadian - the Canadian equivalent of black. Like MJ he lightened himself through the years. Of course, GAR did it first but everyone gives MJ credit for it - just like the zombies...


:lol::lol: awwwww, is that an homage trin? ;)Speak to the brown spoon...

[MikePizzoff]

No, the difference is, in the case of day, that we waited years for a movie that DIDN'T suck. (Cough....Land....cough....cough)


(sneeze... Diary... sneeze/fart)

[SRP76]

A little late getting here, but this caught my attention:


Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NiD3xui_zM

It's kinda sad really. :p

That's not unwatchable at all. Unlistenable (is that a word...?), yes, but nothing wrong with what's going on in the scene.

Something else that we never talk about, but is displayed in that clip: a lot of the extras kind of got the shit beat out of them. Count up how many get slammed into walls, punched in the face, and whatnot during that movie. Several of them took some abuse.