George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead [Archive]

krakenslayer

21-Jul-2009, 05:42 PM

or or or they could have called it Survival of the Deadest, that would be funny.

Basically though, it is a bit of a clunky title - I think the one-syllable titles work best. I think Life of the Dead would have worked - we're dealing with people who treat them in some way like they are still normal living people, also we have humans trying to make a new future for themselves, trying to carry on with the knowledge that the plague is something they will have to contend with for the rest of their lives...

"Survival" I can deal with, though, it could be worse. At least it has a clever contradiction and several interpretations... it's just a bit of a mouthful, really.

Trin

21-Jul-2009, 06:05 PM

I'm glad they stuck with an "of the Dead" title. Call me nostalgic.

Survival is fine. It's a tad long, but not a mouthful of greek salad.

Given the western theme it could've been "Frontier of the Dead."

krakenslayer

21-Jul-2009, 06:11 PM

So... will this be The One?

MinionZombie

21-Jul-2009, 06:18 PM

"Frontier of the Dead."

Or "Dead Frontier".

darth los

21-Jul-2009, 06:22 PM

Given the western theme it could've been "Frontier of the Dead."

Dude that's the best title I've heard for this thing yet! But considering the tin ear GAr is exhibiting regarding the fans wishes for the direction of the franchise, don't hold your breath.

:cool:

Monrozombi

21-Jul-2009, 07:11 PM

as used as I was getting to "Blank of the Dead" Im digging Survival of the Dead...I'll be there in Sept!

darth los

21-Jul-2009, 07:52 PM

as used as I was getting to "Blank of the Dead" Im digging Survival of the Dead...I'll be there in Sept!

I don't think there's anyone here who feels differently. We all nitpick GAr yet we're the first in line when he has a new offering. Sign me up too!! :hyper:

:cool:

axlish

21-Jul-2009, 10:00 PM

Survival of the Dead is a shitty name. :|

ProfessorChaos

21-Jul-2009, 10:39 PM

Survival of the Dead is a shitty name. :|

my thoughts exactly...

clanglee

21-Jul-2009, 11:05 PM

Wow, not a fan of the name at all really. . . . Is this confirmed anywhere else aside from this particular site? Oh well. Don't think I'll be making it to Toronto any time soon.

ProfessorChaos

21-Jul-2009, 11:11 PM

the more i think about it, the shittier the name sounds....i'm kind of negative at times, but that title is worse than anything i'd imagined...

Monrozombi

22-Jul-2009, 12:44 AM

wow, someone please help me understand the negativity over the name? We're getting a new Romero zombie film remember?

axlish

22-Jul-2009, 01:16 AM

Danny

22-Jul-2009, 01:28 AM

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1248152373927s.jpg

of the dead was better.

Monrozombi

22-Jul-2009, 03:15 AM

...of the Dead would have been much better. Survival of the Dead, it sounds like a generic video game title. I'm not all that into the last two Romero zombie films. I wish to god he'd do something else.

Did you like Bruiser? Dark Half? Monkey Shines? Two Evil Eyes?

When I talk to people at conventions about Romero, I hear they're so excited for a new zombie film and can't wait for it. But when he strays from it, I hear people say, why isn't he doing more zombie films? I know he does want to branch off but I think he's being pigeon-holed in today's film industry, he's known for zombies and will draw a bigger crowd for the film.

thxleo

22-Jul-2009, 03:17 AM

I'm not all that into the last two Romero zombie films. I wish to god he'd do something else.

He wants to do other projects more than anyone knows.
Frankly, I don't care what the new movie is called as long as it is a quality film. :)

CooperWasRight

22-Jul-2009, 03:30 AM

wow, someone please help me understand the negativity over the name? We're getting a new Romero zombie film remember?

People like to piss and moan.

axlish

22-Jul-2009, 03:39 AM

Did you like Bruiser? Dark Half? Monkey Shines? Two Evil Eyes?

When I talk to people at conventions about Romero, I hear they're so excited for a new zombie film and can't wait for it. But when he strays from it, I hear people say, why isn't he doing more zombie films? I know he does want to branch off but I think he's being pigeon-holed in today's film industry, he's known for zombies and will draw a bigger crowd for the film.

I like Monkey Shines and Two Evil Eyes. I also like Creepshow, Martin, and Knightriders a lot. I don't think Diary drew that big of an audience. I understand why he is doing them though. It isn't like folks are lining up to produce a romantic comedy for him.

He wants to do other projects more than anyone knows.
Frankly, I don't care what the new movie is called as long as it is a quality film. :)

I agree with that. No one will be happier than me (well, except for you maybe) if the movie turns out to be badass and epic.

Monrozombi

22-Jul-2009, 03:45 AM

Diary got a bum wrap from the Weinsteins from the start, it just didn't get the push it should have. Hell Universal did a better job compared to the Weinsteins...

Danny

22-Jul-2009, 04:17 AM

People like to piss and moan.

internet dude, but its a romero flick, i know his last two got a bad rep, but ive seen way worse movies than land or dary and im entertained every time i watch them so i dont doubt i'll dig this, but still, theres gonna be bitching regardless.

Neil

22-Jul-2009, 09:38 AM

http://www.fangoria.com/home/news/9-film-news/3318-george-a-romeros-survival-of-the-dead.html

MinionZombie

22-Jul-2009, 12:08 PM

http://www.fangoria.com/home/news/9-film-news/3318-george-a-romeros-survival-of-the-dead.html
Nice to get a full synopsis - sounds cool to me, I'm much more excited by this than I was with Diary - the idea of people living 'normal' lives with their undead loved ones chained up in their houses is a kick ass idea in itself. Hopefully GAR explores that one nicely, I imagine it could be quite a cool idea to see on screen.

Having gotten used to "...of the Dead" as the working title, I actually kinda like that now - it's a little cheeky in a way, considering all the previous films being "[something] of the Dead", but it's also a little bit thoughtful in a way, and a little bit quirky.

To me, "Survival of the Dead" sounds clunky, it's a mouthful, it's not snappy like Night-through-Land (Diary is a smidge clunky/iffy) ... and it sounds a bit, I duno, like a ropey flick a few mates made in their basement with ketchup for blood.

Maybe it'll grow on me, but I think it's iffy and a bit clunky, and it's made me like "...of the Dead" even more.

Properly looking forward to this flick though, I'll most certainly be there to see it in the cinema like I have been for Land and Diary.

Danny

22-Jul-2009, 12:17 PM

Properly looking forward to this flick though, I'll most certainly be there to see it in the cinema like I have been for Land and Diary.

i missed both, so im not fucking missing this.

bassman

22-Jul-2009, 12:49 PM

the idea of people living 'normal' lives with their undead loved ones chained up in their houses is a kick ass idea in itself.

Inspiration?

http://gamesnet.vo.llnwd.net/o1/faction/inline/66153-2.jpg

:p

Trin

22-Jul-2009, 03:00 PM

He wants to do other projects more than anyone knows.
I want to do something other than my job too. Like GAR, I do what people will pay me to do. I suspect he has a better chance of breaking out of his mold than I do. So while I do empathize... waaaaaaa...

I'm meh about the name. I don't see too many better ones offered up. I can't think of anything greatly better.

I'd take crappy name + great movie. That'd be a win.

Griff

22-Jul-2009, 03:08 PM

AcesandEights

22-Jul-2009, 03:52 PM

People like to piss and moan.

Too true.

Diary got a bum wrap from the Weinsteins from the start, it just didn't get the push it should have.

Dunno, but saying it didn't do well because of the Weinsteins doesn't address the idea that many hold that it was a poorly done film, which is at the core of the problem, in my opinion.

As far as the name for the new film (again, if this is it), well it could be better, but it could be a hell of a lot worse and is not all that bad to begin with.

Does anyone else get a distinct DAY vibe from this? This is Romero writing last-minute, stream-of-conscious style - just like the final DAY revision. No pretenses, no gimmicks... just story. If this doesn't turn out to be the best of the new trilogy, I'll eat my hat.

I hope you're right, Griff. I do get a very hopeful vibe from the project, so we'll see. :)

darth los

22-Jul-2009, 04:59 PM

Dunno, but saying it didn't do well because of the Weinsteins doesn't address the idea that many hold that it was a poorly done film, which is at the core of the problem, in my opinion.

Imo, the film was incoherent and had many unescesary scenes in addition to the same things being repeated over and over. The line "if it didn't happen on camera then it's like it didn't happen", for example. I swear if i would've heard that line one more time I would have went apeshit!

Somewhere along the way his dead films stop becoming great films (regardless of genre Imo, GAr's dead films can stand with anything) and started becoming the type of thing you see regularly on the sci fi channel. And after all the back and forth we have on the subject no one has been able to pinpoint why.

:cool:

clanglee

22-Jul-2009, 08:23 PM

Does anyone else get a distinct DAY vibe from this? This is Romero writing last-minute, stream-of-conscious style - just like the final DAY revision. No pretenses, no gimmicks... just story. If this doesn't turn out to be the best of the new trilogy, I'll eat my hat.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_omHtaR2NT7Q/SZxN_PgjA3I/AAAAAAAAAyY/w3ECeHdGjPo/s400/aliens-ripley2.jpg

"I hope you're right, I really do."

Trin

22-Jul-2009, 08:30 PM

Somewhere along the way his dead films stop becoming great films (regardless of genre Imo, GAr's dead films can stand with anything) and started becoming the type of thing you see regularly on the sci fi channel. And after all the back and forth we have on the subject no one has been able to pinpoint why.
Wonders how all those worms fit in that tiny little can.

We all have our opinions. Mine is that GAR stopped telling stories and started telling commentaries. It used to be that the commentary was a reflection of the times as displayed by the characters and situation. Now the commentary is a lens filter coloring everything we see on screen. GAR goes back to crafting great characters and plausible situations and letting the commentary flow naturally and GAR movies become great again. Simple.

ShadowMan

23-Jul-2009, 12:59 AM

Finally, a title. Gotta say, I don't like it. Island of the Dead just seems like a no-brainer (no pun intended).

thxleo

23-Jul-2009, 04:14 AM

I get the feeling that George would probably like to title it Enough of the Dead

capncnut

23-Jul-2009, 04:45 AM

Not really bothered what it's called as long as it's good. There are a lot worse titles out there.

I get the feeling that George would probably like to title it Enough of the Dead
And that would be fine with me. The big boys ought to give George a break and let him direct what he wants to, I would hate to see the man's talents relegated to a par zombie flick every two years.

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 12:09 PM

And that would be fine with me. The big boys ought to give George a break and let him direct what he wants to, I would hate to see the man's talents relegated to a par zombie flick every two years.

Unfortunately it looks like he's got himself stuck with that same job discription.

I've been saying for a very long time that I would LOVE to see a non-dead Romero film, but it looks like that window had been closed.:(

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 02:59 PM

I get the feeling that George would probably like to title it Enough of the Dead
Forgive the naive question - I'm about a billion miles outside of the film making industry - but what's holding him back? I mean Land was not a stellar success but still he got to make Diary. Diary blew chunks and still he got to make Survival. If the man writes a killer script/screenplay (a non-Dead one) wouldn't the people he's working with now at least read it?

thxleo

23-Jul-2009, 03:36 PM

Forgive the naive question - I'm about a billion miles outside of the film making industry - but what's holding him back? I mean Land was not a stellar success but still he got to make Diary. Diary blew chunks and still he got to make Survival. If the man writes a killer script/screenplay (a non-Dead one) wouldn't the people he's working with now at least read it?

His name is George Romero and investors see him as a horror name and horror will sell. Getting something non-horror made has become nearly impossible for him because they don't want to take any risks. Romero does not make "commercial" films, he never has. He's not going to sit down and write Transformers or Austin Powers. On top of that, frankly, there is a snobbish mindset that alot of actors have regarding working with a name like Romero. It surprised me when Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo worked on Land of the Dead. John Amplas has told me about how snobbish people in the Pittsburgh acting community have been to him because he was in the "Dead" movies. I told George that we, the fans, want to see him do something other than a new zombie film. Trust me when I tell you this, he wants the same. It's just not that easy.

Spider

23-Jul-2009, 04:16 PM

I'm not in love with the title & think it's kind of bland but I still cannot wait to see this.

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 04:25 PM

His name is George Romero and investors see him as a horror name and horror will sell. Getting something non-horror made has become nearly impossible for him because they don't want to take any risks. Romero does not make "commercial" films, he never has.
Does GAR want to do non-horror or non-Dead? I can see the argument that he's not a proven commodity for non-horror. But I'd think he'd get some love for non-Dead horror at least. Which might lead to other ventures.

I can also understand them not wanting to take risks. He is non-commercial, which I can see in investors eyes can translate to non-profitable. I'm sure in the eyes of investors if they wanted to contribute to the arts they'd give to an art gallery. They want to make money.

Playing devil's advocate a bit, isn't Survival a risk given Diary's reception? I'm just curious why they wouldn't see his current Dead movie-making efforts as just as risky as a new venture. Moreso since the franchise has kinda run its course and then some.

I do trust you when you say it's not that easy. I'm not trying to imply it is. If it were we'd see him making other things. I'm just trying to get my mind arond the details of why. I appreciate your insight!!

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 04:31 PM

Playing devil's advocate a bit, isn't Survival a risk given Diary's reception? I'm just curious why they wouldn't see his current Dead movie-making efforts as just as risky as a new venture. Moreso since the franchise has kinda run its course and then some.

I don't have the sources at hand right now, but I once saw an interview in which Grunwald said that Diary did very well and made back quite a profit.

As for something non-horror that Romero has mentioned.....he's said before that he would love to make a Tarzan picture and a comedy.

capncnut

23-Jul-2009, 04:41 PM

I don't have the sources at hand right now, but I once saw an interview in which Grunwald said that Diary did very well and made back quite a profit.
Horror films will always scrape in the buckage, that's why they keep making all those shitty Saw sequels.

darth los

23-Jul-2009, 05:23 PM

Horror films will always scrape in the buckage, that's why they keep making all those shitty Saw sequels.

I thought I was the only one who felt that way!! God those movies are awful. The first one was good. The franchise goes into a tailspin after that. Among other things it just got too convoluted.

:cool:

Yojimbo

23-Jul-2009, 05:25 PM

I had read that Diary was made for approx 2 million, and made an instant profit when Weinstein purchased the distribution rights for 2.5. Worldwide gross box office (according to IMDB and other online sources - for what they are worth) is reported at $5,188,755.00, which brings a net profit of 3,688,775 not including DVD sales.

DVD sales figures - again if you believe the web - have been reported to be $4,563,262 as of June 2008.

All this seems to indicate that DIARY was quite profitable for the investors, especially given the limited distribution and advertising for this independent film.

darth los

23-Jul-2009, 05:40 PM

Say what you will about diary but I'll watch that film over land any day of the week.

Imo, diary is closer to what GAr does than land was. Diary just FEELS more like a GAr film to me.

:cool:

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 06:06 PM

Okay, so if I'm reading this right it was the profitability of Diary that is keeping GAR restricted to further Dead movies. That is, they will only throw movies at him that they know he'll be profitable on, which at this point is Dead movies.

Did Diary do better than Land? I'd guess as percent return on investment it was worse, but overall profit it was better. But I'm just guessing.

Sorry to disagree with you darth, but Diary actually improved my opinion of Land. It gave me something worse to compare by.

Maybe "Tarzan of the Dead" set in a jungle?? He could walk around moaning, "Jaaainnnss... Jaaaaiiinnsssss..."

MinionZombie

23-Jul-2009, 07:23 PM

Horror films will always scrape in the buckage, that's why they keep making all those shitty Saw sequels.
lol, innit just...

Saw a clip from SAW 6 today ... ugh ... so fed up with them making them. I love the first one, the second is meh, the third is good ... then 4 and 5 were dreadful crap, and 6 will be the same ... oh and yeah, SAW 7 is in the making right now. :eek:

I've heard they're gonna try and go for NINE of the fuckers. :eek:

...

GAR wants to keep making movies - the problem is, the only movies he can really seem to get off the ground are zed flicks - he's the zombie maestro, but the money men don't see anything else in him (which is a damn shame, and unjust).

I would love to see GAR get to make another kind of flick (especially a comedy), but likewise I will always be there to see a GAR zombie flick if that's all he ever gets to make from now on (although that would be a huge shame, and not a good idea either).

I had hoped he would make his zombie comedy idea which was essentially one zombie getting into all manner of Wyle E. Coyote type situations - which, to me at least, sounds frigging great!!!

krakenslayer

23-Jul-2009, 07:54 PM

List of Concerns

1) That the poor weather and troubled production may have robbed the film of its most impressive scenarios and situations (as hinted at in THX's interview with GAR)

2) That there won't be enough zombies. One issue with Diary was that there were never more than five or six ghouls on screen at any one time. The trailer for this looks more promising, but some things that Romero has said have given me a little cause for concern (see above)

3) That it will be too short and have an abrupt ending. Low budget and rushed production schedule usually = low running time. Land and Diary both ended just as the plot was picking up a real head of steam, I'm hoping this won't be the same

4) That there will be too much talk and too many pointless characters we don't care about, doing things that don't make sense. Diary suffered from the talkage and Land (and to a lesser extent Day) had too little character development spread over too many characters

5) That the majority of the film will be set on Plum Island where the only zombies are kept under lock and key and don't escape until ten minutes before the end of the film (a la Day)

List of Hopes

1) That we will get to see some of the zombie-infested mainland before we head off to the island

2) That the main character is a Snake Plissken-style badass with depth, and that the island folk are at least interesting and act in ways that, at least within their own crazy logic, make sense

3) That the zombies will be, at least in some scenes, scary again. And also do lots of eating, and get killed in various interesting (but not silly) ways

4) That the zombies are at least a presence throughout the film

5) That there is plenty of action

6) That the wet, dark weather conditions under which it was shot helps lend the film a cool gloomy atmosphere

7) That it feels like a Romero zombie movie

darth los

23-Jul-2009, 08:25 PM

Sorry to disagree with you darth, but Diary actually improved my opinion of Land. It gave me something worse to compare by.

Disagreements are great. The problem comes in when people want to disparage others for liking things that they just don't get.

For the record I've watched land like twicw the whole way through. I just can't do it man.

:cool:

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 09:09 PM

Didn't know if this had been posted. Cool pictures...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16812

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 09:15 PM

Disagreements are great. The problem comes in when people want to disparage others for liking things that they just don't get.
I hate disagreements and I just don't get them and I think it is a severe character flaw that you like them. ;) :p :lol::lol::lol:

@kraken - nice list of hopes/fears. Remind me to thrash you with the rubber hose for some of those anti-Day observations!!

I find it really disheartening that a few days of bad weather could mar the Dead series. You know that if the movie sucks we'll be bantering about what the weather cost this movie for months, and then years later no one will remember the trials the movie went through as they bash it to pieces. Just sad.

Monrozombi

24-Jul-2009, 12:45 AM

Didn't know if this had been posted. Cool pictures...

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/16812

Dont' I look good on the right side of that picture????? ;-)

hehehe

shootemindehead

24-Jul-2009, 11:17 AM

darth los

24-Jul-2009, 01:50 PM

@Krakenslayer...

Yep, having people do stupid things is a no-no. That's one of the things that buggered 'Diary of the Dead' for me. Stupid actions destroy credibility. Although, people DO do stupid things all the time (except me). There's a limit to what you can find credible on the screen.

'Diary of the Dead' & 'Day of the Dead' may have been talky. But the difference was that the talking in 'Day of the Dead' was genuinely interesting and helped form the threatening atmosphere of the film. Whereas, the talking in 'Diary of the Dead' was the same old inane "message" being forced through and it became tedious after the first reel.

Of course it destroy's credibility. That and bad acting.

I love dawn 04' but one thing that dampened the enjoyment of the film for me were bonehead/inexplicable move. That girl going after the dog. Can you say WTF!?!

Another is them saying,o.k. screw the saftey of the mall let's make a break for it and if we don't make it , oh well. Again, can you say WTF!?!

Speak for yourself dude , I'm not leaving thins mall no matter how much an asshole steve was. :lol:

:cool:

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2009, 02:06 PM

'Diary of the Dead' & 'Day of the Dead' may have been talky. But the difference was that the talking in 'Day of the Dead' was genuinely interesting and helped form the threatening atmosphere of the film. Whereas, the talking in 'Diary of the Dead' was the same old inane "message" being forced through and it became tedious after the first reel.

Amen to that, sir! A well crafted story with engrossing characters will do a lot more to sell a message and get people thinking than furnishing them with a hollow story whose whole point seems to be repetitively bonking the audience on the head with said 'message', which is the unfortunate thing that happened in Diary.

darth los

24-Jul-2009, 03:16 PM

Amen to that, sir! A well crafted story with engrossing characters will do a lot more to sell a message and get people thinking than furnishing them with a hollow story whose whole point seems to be repetitively bonking the audience on the head with said 'message', which is the unfortunate thing that happened in Diary.

Is that to say that DIDN'T happen with land?

:cool:

Trin

24-Jul-2009, 05:11 PM

I don't think Land's message was in the same category of head bonking as Diary's. Land put forth a situation that relied on the message to be plausible, and at the time I thought that was a message bonking. Diary had a narrator describe the message, then had the characters talk about the message in dialogue, then it used their actions to show you the message. And it did that sequence repeatedly. Rocky couldn't take that kind of pounding.

AcesandEights

24-Jul-2009, 05:14 PM

Is that to say that DIDN'T happen with land?

It did, but for me it was to a lesser extent. Yes, I rolled my eyes and cringed a bit at the heavy-handedness of it all in Land, but I think a stronger story, which was realized in a less silly manner than Diary, helped mitigate the effect, for me anyway.

bassman

24-Jul-2009, 05:28 PM

Neil

24-Jul-2009, 05:38 PM

I agree that Diary was a bit over the top with the message.....but so were the films in the original trilogy. Look at Dawn. The message slaps you in the face, kicks you in the balls, and then beats you with a hammer....

TBH I recon all the stuff about Dawn and consumerism was unintentional. Romero got the shopping mall purely by accident... For example is there/was ther one mention of this intention at the time?

shootemindehead

24-Jul-2009, 06:21 PM

krakenslayer

24-Jul-2009, 06:32 PM

Neil's correct here.

All of the "message" bollocks about 'Dawn of the Dead' came after the fact. In addition, I don't think it does belt the viewer over the head. I consider it rather subtle and can be utterly ignored, if the viewer wishes it.

The "message" in 'Diary of the Dead' is on the screen the whole time though. It's impossible to ignore.

Nah, according to Romero, the idea came to him as he watched shopper strolling placidly through the mall "just like zombies". Then - BAM - he decided this would be a great basis for a sequel to Night.

The original script the consumerist message was much more obvious - the mall was literally the domain of the zombies who wandered it like shoppers 24 hours a day. A male and female character lived a hunter-gatherer existence in the air ducts, making raids on the zombies' mall to gather food and supplies. Later, it becomes home to another kind of consumerism when the army move in an start using it as a warehouse to store crates of human flesh, intended as food for use in training and domesticating the undead for use as zombie soldiers (i.e. placating the restless crowds with consumerist goodies, geddit?). He seemed to tone down the message when he rewrote the script.

But yeah, I think the message in Dawn is more skillfully executed - the message is portrayed through the actions of characters and the setting, whereas in Diary it's pretty much hammered home over and over again in dialogue. I still enjoyed it, but it wasn't Dawn.

MinionZombie

24-Jul-2009, 06:34 PM

I don't agree, I would say that surely the consumerism message was there from the off.

GAR got a tour around the new mall owned by friends/acquaintances of his - he saw the potential from a zombie survival point of view.

But then look at the film itself, and indeed the script, you've got Roger and Peter going absolutely nuts as soon as they get into JCPenney's - they start looting the place - they whoop and holler and joke about getting the "important stuff first" (chocolate, lighter fluid, watches :p).

Fran even says "you're hypnotised by this place, all of you!" - clearly referencing the fact that the consumer in at least the three blokes is having at least a solid impact on their reasoning for staying there (from her view at least).

The message is implanted within the script, to say it was just 'tacked on after the fact' doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever when you just watch the flick.

You step into a new fangled thing called a "mall", and you see all this shopping under one roof all at your fingertips - what else are you going to start thinking about? Consumerism is what. No doubt with such a lifestyle being new on the block, there must have been news items about such things, and general talk on the street - an air of change in the world of shopping.

'The message was just tacked on after the fact' makes no sense therefore.

bassman

24-Jul-2009, 07:47 PM

There's quite a bit of dialogue that shows romero had the idea of the consumerism commentary when he was writing the script.

Monrozombi

24-Jul-2009, 08:22 PM

TBH I recon all the stuff about Dawn and consumerism was unintentional. Romero got the shopping mall purely by accident... For example is there/was ther one mention of this intention at the time?

I wouldn't say intentional as much as I would say it was more underlying. George always has had messages in his films. From the more overt "Diary" to the more covert "monkey Shines?"

He got the idea for the message after seeing and realizing he could do the sequel to Night in the mall but I agree that his messages in his last 2 films have come to the surface.

Would his change in going from underlying to in your face have to do with the fact that from 93-99 he did one film Bruiser and got hired and fired from numerous high class projects. And then was given money only for zombie films since?

MinionZombie

25-Jul-2009, 10:01 AM

There's quite a bit of dialogue that shows romero had the idea of the consumerism commentary when he was writing the script.
Exactly.

Just because a bunch of movie fans and critics started waxing lyrical about Dawn's message after it was released and have constantly asked him about it in interviews etc, doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that he wasn't deliberately putting that message in.

It's like how Night was a reaction to vietnam specifically - although in that case, he himself has said that the civil rights issue was never really his intention when writing the script, he just thought they were "being hip" to have a black guy and never make an issue of it - but interestingly he said that Duane Jones did say they should make an issue of it, and that GAR now wishes he had done (this was in one of the Diary of the Dead 2-disc DVD extra features).

It's like with Knightriders - the message about indie VS corporate, and selling out, was all there from the start, and is integral to the script - just like Dawn.

Just like Day as well - specifically "just giving up" - the whole mid-80s America vibe. His work after Day became less about messages though I think ... Bruiser might have a little bit of a message, but only a small one ... it wasn't until Land that he really got back to his messages, I feel (after he'd done Day in the mid-80s, I mean).

shootemindehead

25-Jul-2009, 04:42 PM

Ok, perhaps "All of the "message" bollocks about 'Dawn of the Dead' came after the fact" was a bit off, but I certainly don't think that the "message" in 'Dawn of the Dead' takes over (and in some ways, ruins) the experience in the same fashion that it does in 'Diary of the Dead'. In addition, I don't think there would have been many who would have got the "message" either, at least not on first viewing. I think many people would have thought that it was a rather logical place to go in such a crisis.

The dialogue regarding "...the place" is rather subtle. The dialogue in 'Diary of the Dead' becomes excruciating. I still enjoyed 'Diary of the Dead' too, but I find repeat viewings tougher and tougher. Whereas, I could sit down to 'dawn of the Dead' any time.

I still think all the "message" stuff (bollocks :D ) in 'Dawn of the Dead' is way over rated by some people though.

Either way, I really hope he does away with the "message" (or at least tones it down considerably) with '...of the Dead'. If it's as "overt" as it was in 'Diary of the Dead', then I think I'll be tuning out of this re-boot of Romero's zombie apocalypse.

I was never really satisfied with the re-boot idea, in the first place, though.

:rockbrow:

Griff

25-Jul-2009, 05:04 PM

The message in LAND was delivered with a sense of humour. Romero even referred to some of the lines that allude to terrorism and whatnot as "cheesy".

DIARY, on the otherhand, is pure browbeating. Of course, it makes sense from the point of view that a pretentious university student put it together as a substitute for their final film project but still...

I understand that was something manufactured in post production. Romero probably felt it was required to provide a stronger narrative thru-line or something. For all we know, the film might not work at all without it.

Fan edit, anyone?

Trin

25-Jul-2009, 05:13 PM

I don't believe that Dawn had a pre-conceived consumerism message. GAR denied it in several interviews as the critics applauded him for it.

What Dawn had was a keen observation of human nature. Namely, the idea that if you had a shopping mall all to yourselves and no one was watching what would you do? You'd run around and take all the great stuff, that's what. It's a really simple concept and makes complete sense. It translates well to action and behavior and plot. The characters also acted appropriately within the bounds of this concept. They took relatively low risks to satisfy this lust for things.

Land tried to sell us that money is more important than survival and that people will ignore obvious problems to the point of extinction. It's an interesting perspective taken way further than is practical. It just doesn't play out. Because while *some* people might do that a whole society won't. And thus the setup, characters, and events were based on a faulty observation of human nature. And while the movie didn't beat us to death with it, it was an undercurrent of the whole movie since everything relied on it.

Diary just beat us to death with a horribly flawed observation of human nature. No one holds a camera and films a hot chick being murdered because catching stuff on film is so goddam important.

thxleo

25-Jul-2009, 05:59 PM

I don't believe that Dawn had a pre-conceived consumerism message. GAR denied it in several interviews as the critics applauded him for it.

In the book the The Zombies that ate Pittsburgh, author Paul Gagne has an excerpt from Romero's shooting script for Dawn of the Dead and it reads as follows...
"Stores of every type offer gaudy displays of consumer items - at either end of the concourse like the main altars at each end of a cathedral, stand the mammoth two story department stores, great symbols of a consumer society. The images are all too familiar, but in their present state they appear as an archeological discovery revealing the gods and customs of a civilzation now gone."
Romero most definitely had a pre-conceived consumerism message with Dawn of the Dead. I don't understand why this is suddenly being debated?

MinionZombie

25-Jul-2009, 06:02 PM

In the book the The Zombies that ate Pittsburgh, author Paul Gagne has an excerpt from Romero's shooting script for Dawn of the Dead and it reads as follows...
"Stores of every type offer gaudy displays of consumer items - at either end of the concourse like the main altars at each end of a cathedral, stand the mammoth two story department stores, great symbols of a consumer society. The images are all too familiar, but in their present state they appear as an archeological discovery revealing the gods and customs of a civilzation now gone."
Romero most definitely had a pre-conceived consumerism message with Dawn of the Dead. I don't understand why this is suddenly being debated?
Damn straight.

DubiousComforts

25-Jul-2009, 11:51 PM

Romero most definitely had a pre-conceived consumerism message with Dawn of the Dead. I don't understand why this is suddenly being debated?
It's being debated because people would prefer it if Romero simply made DAWN over and over and over. That film has been placed on an unbelievably-high pedestal to where it couldn't possibly have an overt socio-political message like LAND or (gasp) DIARY.

Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad."

Of course, many people were disappointed when the film was released because they couldn't understand why the creator of NIGHT of the LIVING DEAD (a tough act to follow) would manipulate the previously dark concept to further some message... (read the letter in the first or second issue of Fangoria that laments the portrayal of the dead as "buffoons.")
Now DAWN has become Romero's impossibly tough act to follow.

krakenslayer

26-Jul-2009, 09:19 AM

The thing is, I think a lot of people just take Dawn at face-value, with their brains switched off. They see people wandering through the mall taking whatever they want and think "cool!", while totally ignoring the characters' gradual emotional collapse and all the other bad things that happen because of their greed. In other words - they see the movie and take from it the exact opposite message to what Romero intended.

Mike70

26-Jul-2009, 03:40 PM

Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad."

along that line, here is an article written by stephen harper from the university of glasgow about dawn, malls, zombies and consumerism.

it is a relatively lengthy read but is well worth the time.

http://www.americanpopularculture.com/journal/articles/fall_2002/harper.htm

Cinerary

27-Jul-2009, 10:01 PM

http://allisonkilkenny.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/brains.jpg

Monrozombi

27-Jul-2009, 10:49 PM

It's being debated because people would prefer it if Romero simply made DAWN over and over and over. That film has been placed on an unbelievably-high pedestal to where it couldn't possibly have an overt socio-political message like LAND or (gasp) DIARY.

Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad."

Of course, many people were disappointed when the film was released because they couldn't understand why the creator of NIGHT of the LIVING DEAD (a tough act to follow) would manipulate the previously dark concept to further some message... (read the letter in the first or second issue of Fangoria that laments the portrayal of the dead as "buffoons.")
Now DAWN has become Romero's impossibly tough act to follow.

Not only has DAWN been placed on an incredibly high pedestool but so has Romero himself. Everything he's done after Day of the Dead people have had problems with for one reason or another. Romero has changed his style of filmmaking as well as the type of films he wants to make. People want the same George they've been watching for 20 years and alot of people don't realize that George has changed how and what he puts into his films to reflect the society we live in today.

bassman

28-Jul-2009, 12:14 PM

http://allisonkilkenny.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/brains.jpg

Brains? For a Romero zombie??

Get out. That's it. Just get out of here....

:p

darth los

28-Jul-2009, 04:48 PM

Not only has DAWN been placed on an incredibly high pedestool but so has Romero himself. Everything he's done after Day of the Dead people have had problems with for one reason or another. Romero has changed his style of filmmaking as well as the type of films he wants to make. People want the same George they've been watching for 20 years and alot of people don't realize that George has changed how and what he puts into his films to reflect the society we live in today.

That's fine and Dandy. As has been previously posted it's his franchise and he can do what he wants with it but it doesn't mean that we have to eat shit and like it.

I love his older work and it's why I revere him so. But if he's going to change what made me feel that way about him that how can I be expected to feel the same?

There are many people who disagree with the direction of the franchise and are not fanboys to the level of even if he comes out with less than quality work they'll still say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I am not one of those people. Make good films and I'll like it. Making crap while the whole time telling us how cool it is and if we don't like it we just don't "get" it is very condescending and very uncalled for.

:cool:

DubiousComforts

28-Jul-2009, 05:55 PM

Make good films and I'll like it. Making crap while the whole time telling us how cool it is and if we don't like it we just don't "get" it is very condescending and very uncalled for.
Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations.

The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices.

darth los

28-Jul-2009, 06:25 PM

Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations.

The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices.

I agree wholeheartedly that there should be enough room for both choices.

But even you, although very articulately, are guilty of making the same type of comment that I'm talking about. I see it as crap, you don't, And as you said there's room for both. Why is it that you feel I'm not capable of grasping material and still determining that it sucks. Why is it that I lose all credibility?

You love it yet you don't see me bashing you saying, "dude you actually like this crap"? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, you just don't get it". That's condescending.

We can both listen to a song and agree it's country yet I'd probably not dig it and you'd be like don't you get it dude? Yes it's just not something I'm into.

It sort of reminds me of the republican party purging people from it's own ranks because they don't follow the party line to a tee. Same thing with me. I love GAr yet i don't follow his party line to a tee. Sue me.

I'm not going to lie about liking something just because it has GAr's name on it. Crap probably was a little strong. Allow me to rephrase: It's crap to me.

With that said Just because I liked Michael Jackson's music in the 80's doesn't mean I have to like his latest offerings. He changed his style and I no longer could relate to it. Same thing with GAr's films. I used to dig them but it might as well be a different guy making them.

:cool:

MinionZombie

28-Jul-2009, 06:36 PM

Brains? For a Romero zombie??

Get out. That's it. Just get out of here....

:p
Surely it should read "I can has Aunt Alicia?" :D

AcesandEights

28-Jul-2009, 06:38 PM

darth los

28-Jul-2009, 07:07 PM

Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations.

The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices.

Another example that I forgot about earlier is that of being a sports fan. I love Lebron James, he's the best player in the world. Yet he throws in a stinker ever so often and I'm gonna call him on it. Not that I don't dig him or that he's a bad player. He just played a bad game. Happens to greats all the time and GAr is one of them.

:cool:

Well, ultimately Romero should be making the sorts of films he wants to, but as it stands now, I’m starting to get the feeling he's reconciled himself to pounding out cheap work, like Diary, as though he were some penny-a-word pulp writer from the 30s.

He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in. Otherwise, why put out films in this genre? He certainly didn't expand any horizons with Diary and though an argument could be made for Land (and I have made it in the past), sometimes Romero seems as though he's just treading on his name alone and putting out tepid little movies to pay bills and keep active. Hey, if that’s his hobby or retirement plan, far be it from me to give him a hard time about it, but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us.

Now, I’m not saying Romero need to listen to his fans, but he should hear them, and--frankly--do the sorts of films he wants to and stop using people who have supported his endeavors in the past as an excuse for the poor work he’s churned out, of late.

That I can Live with.

:cool:

shootemindehead

29-Jul-2009, 10:32 AM

Well, ultimately Romero should be making the sorts of films he wants to, but as it stands now, I’m starting to get the feeling he's reconciled himself to pounding out cheap work, like Diary, as though he were some penny-a-word pulp writer from the 30s.

He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in. Otherwise, why put out films in this genre? He certainly didn't expand any horizons with Diary and though an argument could be made for Land (and I have made it in the past), sometimes Romero seems as though he's just treading on his name alone and putting out tepid little movies to pay bills and keep active. Hey, if that’s his hobby or retirement plan, far be it from me to give him a hard time about it, but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us.

Now, I’m not saying Romero need to listen to his fans, but he should hear them, and--frankly--do the sorts of films he wants to and stop using people who have supported his endeavors in the past as an excuse for the poor work he’s churned out, of late.

I began to seriously question Romero's direction with the idea to "re-boot" the living dead genre with 'Diary of the Dead'. When I heard it first, I just thought it was a bad move. Unlike some, I thought 'Land of the Dead' was pretty good. It's not up to the standard of the rest of the quadrilogy, but as a chapter in his original take on the zombie apocalypse it suited me fine and whetted my appetite for more.

Unfortunately, I think that we've seen the last of the original series, as Romero seems to have scrapped that in favor of the this "re-boot" business. It's understandable to a degree, as such films are far cheaper to produce. Cheaper anyway, than continuing his original take on matters, where events have reached years after the first out break and just the scale alone requires a bigger budget than 'Diary of the Dead' or 'Survival of the Dead'.

I kind of enjoyed 'Diary of the Dead' when I first saw it, though I felt that the lack of zombies on screen was a particular shortcoming and the "message" is waaaay overcooked (as has been previously discussed), but subsequent viewings just show it up to be a weak film in general.

Hopefully, the next chapter in this "re-boot" will be more on the money, but I can't help but feel that Romero's best "dead" work is far behind him. I'll still pony up the shillings and go see it (assuming it even gets a cinema release in Ireland) and I'll probably still buy the DVD no matter how good/bad it is. I don't think it'll be as bad as 'Diary of the Dead' was, but I ain't hoping for a 'Day of the Dead'.

DjfunkmasterG

30-Jul-2009, 01:13 AM

The title sounds retarded... Just call it ... Of the Dead

Danny

30-Jul-2009, 01:27 AM

The title sounds retarded... Just call it ... Of the Dead

see, i figured, given the plot it was a play on the old adage about not speaking "ill of the dead" when a recent family members died and there spirits not left the home yet.

totally should have stuck with it anyway.

capncnut

30-Jul-2009, 04:14 AM

I think a return to origins is in order:

Isle of the Living Dead

Or how about a true reboot:

Dead Shores
Coast Of The Dead
Deadly Sands

LOL!!!

Or god forbid:

Diary Of The Dead II

All of which are better than ...Of The Dead IMO.

SymphonicX

30-Jul-2009, 10:29 AM

I thought ....of the dead - was an amazingly clever title - Didn't george say in Lee Kar's interview that the studios choose the name?

darth los

30-Jul-2009, 04:45 PM

Dead Shores
Coast Of The Dead
Deadly Sands

Those sound like 3 new campaigns for Left 4 Dead !

:cool:

acealive1

31-Jul-2009, 02:36 AM

romero is returning to form after that diary weirdness.

darth los

31-Jul-2009, 01:16 PM

romero is returning to form after that diary weirdness.

First off, dude where the hell have YOU been!?!

Welcome back. :thumbsup:

Well, I don't know about that seeing as all we have to go on is a ridiculous name and a shitty trailer. But I hold out hope that it'll be good. In any case you know i'll be there on day 1. (sounds like a campaign slogan doesn't it? :lol:)

I would love for GAr to have one more masterpiece. If for nothing more than to put a new generation on to him. These kids today don't even know who GAr is. They do recognize some of his work though.

I'm picturing a Carlos Santana type resurgence back in 99'-2000. When he came out with that album it made alot of people curious about his previous work and that enjoyed a resurgence as well.

That's exactly what happened to me when I first heard Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen when watching wayne's World. "I was like who the hell are these guys." It made me listen to their other songs and today i lkie them very much. I would like to see the same happen for GAr.

:cool:

Monrozombi

31-Jul-2009, 05:32 PM

Well, I don't know about that seeing as all we have to go on is a ridiculous name and a shitty trailer.

That trailer shouldn't have been released by Voltage it was all pre-editing, color and sound correcting. but hey it was something and I'll take what I can get.

And once again, what does it matter what its called. I mean shouldn't we be upset that every movie after NOTLD doesn't have the word Living in it? That means every film afterwards doesn't fit in his "title scheme."

Yojimbo

31-Jul-2009, 06:21 PM

And once again, what does it matter what its called. I mean shouldn't we be upset that every movie after NOTLD doesn't have the word Living in it? That means every film afterwards doesn't fit in his "title scheme."

While I agree that it does not matter what it is called, having "living" in the title was the work of Walter Reade Organization, not GAR who's original title was "Night of the Flesheaters" after he changed it from "Night of the Anubis"

acealive1

31-Jul-2009, 11:28 PM

First off, dude where the hell have YOU been!?!

Welcome back. :thumbsup:

Well, I don't know about that seeing as all we have to go on is a ridiculous name and a shitty trailer. But I hold out hope that it'll be good. In any case you know i'll be there on day 1. (sounds like a campaign slogan doesn't it? :lol:)

I would love for GAr to have one more masterpiece. If for nothing more than to put a new generation on to him. These kids today don't even know who GAr is. They do recognize some of his work though.

I'm picturing a Carlos Santana type resurgence back in 99'-2000. When he came out with that album it made alot of people curious about his previous work and that enjoyed a resurgence as well.

That's exactly what happened to me when I first heard Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen when watching wayne's World. "I was like who the hell are these guys." It made me listen to their other songs and today i lkie them very much. I would like to see the same happen for GAr.

:cool:

oh ya know, been around :D

i truly hope he's experiencing a resurgence in popularity because it should have already happened by now. i still will never understand how they give a remake of his films a bigger budget than a new movie he'd film of the same genre

darth los

01-Aug-2009, 04:14 PM

That trailer shouldn't have been released by Voltage it was all pre-editing, color and sound correcting. but hey it was something and I'll take what I can get.

And once again, what does it matter what its called. I mean shouldn't we be upset that every movie after NOTLD doesn't have the word Living in it? That means every film afterwards doesn't fit in his "title scheme."

oh ya know, been around :D

i truly hope he's experiencing a resurgence in popularity because it should have already happened by now. i still will never understand how they give a remake of his films a bigger budget than a new movie he'd film of the same genre

I'm fairly certain that he could get that type of deal from a studio this second if he wanted to but he just won't play ball with them.

One of the little discussed aspects of GAr's career is all the films he either turned down or , for one reson or another, didn't follow through on.

If he did his portfolio would probably be twice as big.

:cool:

acealive1

01-Aug-2009, 06:52 PM

bassman

01-Aug-2009, 09:29 PM

I'm fairly certain that he could get that type of deal from a studio this second if he wanted to but he just won't play ball with them.

One of the little discussed aspects of GAr's career is all the films he either turned down or , for one reson or another, didn't follow through on.

If he did his portfolio would probably be twice as big.

Personally....I'm proud of the man for sticking to his guns and not bowing down to "the man". For the most part he's always made the film that he wanted to make and that's something that very few directors can claim.

Wyldwraith

01-Aug-2009, 11:59 PM

Umm,
How would GAR even write a non-zombie movie? He's become so extreme with sacrificing plot depth to make room for social commentary (which is easier in gore-splash horror) that I just can't see that behavior panning out in any other drama.

Oh, and I'm going to go ahead and nip the resulting knee-jerk comment in the bud. If you're one of those who DOESN'T think GAR has been bludgeoning us with overdone poorly disguised caricatures of social commentary for the last 2 movies, keep it to yourself.

I mean, I feel for ANY artist that finds themselves typecast in any way. My sympathy is somewhat lessened for Romero because his own decisions had a lot to do with it happening, but it's still there. Whoever said that producers aren't going to put big money behind a guy whose only significant success (so far as the mainstream is concerned) have been zombie flicks hit the nail on the head. We don't have to like that, but we do have to accept it :(

Now, I'm just hoping he didn't make all the mistakes of Land (gigantic plotholes that destroy the suspension of disbelief that these weird island community members could never have survived this long being so reckless with "live" zombies, aka piss-poor in-plot security depictions) + Diary's (gimmicky, scenes that aim for shocking/jarring and just end up coming off weird and a bit sad)

The original Day is my least favorite of the original trilogy, but if he could even make one more movie that rose to even Day's level that would be wonderful for so many reasons, including turning a younger generation on to his work like a previous poster described. I get a bad feeling when I find he's making an entire movie based on the weird behavior of the people in the apartment building at the beginning of Dawn, but hope it's much less gimmicky in practice than it appears atm.

EvilNed

02-Aug-2009, 12:48 AM

Oh, and I'm going to go ahead and nip the resulting knee-jerk comment in the bud. If you're one of those who DOESN'T think GAR has been bludgeoning us with overdone poorly disguised caricatures of social commentary for the last 2 movies, keep it to yourself.

Why? Are those kind of opinions not accepted here, or do you suffer from a rare disease which causes you to blow up and explode should someone mention it? :rolleyes:

Wyldwraith

02-Aug-2009, 04:19 PM

Not really,
Just didn't see any productivity in it becoming a debate about whether GAR is or isn't sacrificing plot depth & quality in favor of his embedded social commentary.

I mean, Survival COULD be good, but the synopsis scenario has a telltale indicator odor that GAR *might* go too far with the social commentary. Chaining zombies in houses as parodies of their former lives is interesting in a macabre way, but take the screenshot of the guy getting chewed on by a female zombie inside a house that's wearing lengthy chains on her arms...

Why would someone go INSIDE? Not even the need for cover from automatic weapons fire could induce me to enter a house I KNEW contained one or more zombies. I worry that GAR may fall back on a shared delusion amongst the pro-zombie islanders...such as "Oh, my undead mother would never hurt me ::chomp::"

In the end though it's another Of the Dead movie. Even a bad one is better than nothing (unless it's as bad or worse than Diary).

bassman

03-Aug-2009, 12:25 PM

Just didn't see any productivity in it becoming a debate....

Isn't that what this place is for?:rockbrow::confused:

AcesandEights

03-Aug-2009, 01:37 PM

Isn't that what this place is for?:rockbrow::confused:

Unproductive debates? It's our specialty:D

darth los

03-Aug-2009, 03:14 PM

But seriously, If anyone can't tolerate the opinions of of others on this forum, perhaps THEY should leave.

If there's something you don't agree with fine, then make it known. It's your right.

But if someone is making a point, civilly, I don't really see what the problem is.

Many people think that just because they believe soemthing fervently that makes it a fact. I'm here to tell you that it ain't so.

:cool:

bassman

03-Aug-2009, 04:04 PM

Many people think that just because they believe soemthing fervently that makes it a fact. I'm here to tell you that it ain't so.

Soooo.....it's your opinion that it ain't so. Does that make it fact?:p

Thank you everyone, thank you. I'll be here all week and remember that the 9 o'clock show is totally different from the 3 o'clock.:cool:

darth los

03-Aug-2009, 04:42 PM

Soooo.....it's your opinion that it ain't so. Does that make it fact?

That however is one of the few Universal truths in life. No one knows everything and no one has a monopoly on the truth. And beware of anyone who says that they do.

So yeah, that is a fact.

:cool:

bassman

03-Aug-2009, 04:47 PM

I was just pulling your chain, darth.;)

So yeah....Survival of the Dead. News would be nice...

AcesandEights

03-Aug-2009, 04:52 PM

So yeah....Survival of the Dead. News would be nice...

Definitely. So, has there been an official confirmation that this is the title?

krakenslayer

03-Aug-2009, 05:07 PM

Yeah, a completed trailer would be nice, since the post-production is obviously finished - or nearly finished - now.

Wyldwraith

03-Aug-2009, 06:32 PM

Wasn't a big deal,
I'm just used to the knee-jerk reaction by some when you happen to bring up GAR's unfortunate addiction to prioritizing social commentary over plot. A lot of times when you make such a statement in support of a separate idea (which the main debate concerns) things get derailed into a separate debate about the commentary/plot issue.

Now, that's fine. Like you said, everyone is ABSOLUTELY entitled to their own opinion. My saying "keep it to yourself" was in no wise an attempt to abridge anyone's freedom to express any opinion they wish. I could have phrased it better I admit, since what I was trying to convey was my disinterest/unwillingness to participate in such a side debate again.

Freedom of expression is one of the few freedoms no one has come up with a way to screw up yet, and I cherish it.

Just thought I'd explain my statement.

thxleo

03-Aug-2009, 07:14 PM

Definitely. So, has there been an official confirmation that this is the title?

Good lord yes. Here is a link to the Toronto Int. Film Festival site...
http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/georgearomerosofthed
Google is a wonderful thing, you know? :p

bassman

03-Aug-2009, 08:12 PM

Good lord yes. Here is a link to the Toronto Int. Film Festival site...
http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/films/georgearomerosofthed
Google is a wonderful thing, you know? :p

I'm not sure about Aces, but I don't know if I would call this official. Most likely this IS what the film is called, but it being listed as such on a schedule for a festival isn't exactly an official announcement...

krakenslayer

03-Aug-2009, 08:40 PM

I'm not sure about Aces, but I don't know if I would call this official. Most likely this IS what the film is called, but it being listed as such on a schedule for a festival isn't exactly an official announcement...

We know, at least, that it's the title it will be playing under at TIFF. No guarantee that this will be the definitive name though.

Take Dawn for example, it had about 15 different titles around the world. Even here in the UK, it was intially released as Zombies, with Dawn of the Dead as a subtitle (although over the years we've gradually fallen into like with the US on the title), wheras in several European countries it was called Zombi, and numerous other titles (including the amusing Dutch title: In de greep van de zombies). :D

Given the back-and-forth over the title for this one, I can see it potentially being given different names in different territories, perhaps even showing under the ...of the Dead in some areas.

zombiekiller

04-Aug-2009, 03:58 AM

Bit of an iffy title, I think...:rockbrow:

does anyone know if it's going straight to video( which would be ok) or going to theaters(which would be better).

thxleo

04-Aug-2009, 04:33 AM

I'm not sure about Aces, but I don't know if I would call this official. Most likely this IS what the film is called, but it being listed as such on a schedule for a festival isn't exactly an official announcement...

Do you guys think TIFF just made that title up?
What exactly are you looking for as for an "official announcement"?

capncnut

04-Aug-2009, 06:52 AM

Do you guys think TIFF just made that title up?
What exactly are you looking for as for an "official announcement"?
Agreed, Lee. This is quite a silly debate actually.

I got that beat.

9ZlBUglE6Hc

bassman

04-Aug-2009, 12:25 PM

Do you guys think TIFF just made that title up?

Some sites are still reporting that it's Diary of the Dead 2, so anything's possible....

What exactly are you looking for as for an "official announcement"?

Usually with genre films like this there is some sort of official press release sent out. That's how I've seen it several times in the past, anyway.

Not trying to argue....just saying that it's possible the name could be wrong or change.

darth los

04-Aug-2009, 01:20 PM

I was just pulling your chain, darth.;)

So yeah....Survival of the Dead. News would be nice...

Sorry if I came off that way. You know we're cool. I'm just at work so i don't have the time I would like in order to be tactfull. lol

Wasn't a big deal,
I'm just used to the knee-jerk reaction by some when you happen to bring up GAR's unfortunate addiction to prioritizing social commentary over plot. A lot of times when you make such a statement in support of a separate idea (which the main debate concerns) things get derailed into a separate debate about the commentary/plot issue.

Now, that's fine. Like you said, everyone is ABSOLUTELY entitled to their own opinion. My saying "keep it to yourself" was in no wise an attempt to abridge anyone's freedom to express any opinion they wish. I could have phrased it better I admit, since what I was trying to convey was my disinterest/unwillingness to participate in such a side debate again.

Freedom of expression is one of the few freedoms no one has come up with a way to screw up yet, and I cherish it.

Just thought I'd explain my statement.

That is much appreciated since you actually didn't have to explain yourself. I apologize if anything was taken badly.

Truce. :D

:cool:

AcesandEights

04-Aug-2009, 01:34 PM

I'm not sure about Aces, but I don't know if I would call this official. Most likely this IS what the film is called, but it being listed as such on a schedule for a festival isn't exactly an official announcement...

That's exactly where I was coming from on the topic. I had seen the earlier link, but--to be honest--just given it a glance and wasn't sure how in depth a case there was for this being a definite.

Trin

07-Aug-2009, 04:53 PM

He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in.

...but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us.These are some fantastic points AcesandEights!!

Umm,
How would GAR even write a non-zombie movie? He's become so extreme with sacrificing plot depth to make room for social commentary (which is easier in gore-splash horror) that I just can't see that behavior panning out in any other drama.

Now, I'm just hoping he didn't make all the mistakes of Land... + Diary ...

I get a bad feeling when I find he's making an entire movie based on the weird behavior of the people in the apartment building at the beginning of Dawn, but hope it's much less gimmicky in practice than it appears atm.
This was just a great post all-around Wyldwraith. I've only quoted the parts that I think bear repeating the most, but the entire post really was outstanding.

I mean, Survival COULD be good, but the synopsis scenario has a telltale indicator odor that GAR *might* go too far with the social commentary. Chaining zombies in houses as parodies of their former lives is interesting in a macabre way, but take the screenshot of the guy getting chewed on by a female zombie inside a house that's wearing lengthy chains on her arms...
This definitely has the telltale stink of commentary over sanity.

In the end though it's another Of the Dead movie. Even a bad one is better than nothing (unless it's as bad or worse than Diary).
This is a point I agree with 99%. The 1% is that I'd still take a "Dead" movie even if it were worse than Diary.

Thorn

07-Aug-2009, 08:09 PM

Not really a fan of the title though I can see it having more than one meaning and thus having a nice fit for the film. In my mind there were better options a number of which we had provided here on this very site.

/shrug

a good title does not equate to a good movie and vice versa so I will remain cautiously optimistic that the film itself will not disappoint.

Cinerary

09-Aug-2009, 09:22 PM

I hope my reaction to this movie will be similar to this:

http://i43.tinypic.com/20rqueo.jpg

bassman

09-Aug-2009, 09:23 PM

For some reason that gif reminds me of Tar Man and that *shudders*....movie...

ProfessorChaos

09-Aug-2009, 11:51 PM

no, your reaction would be better if it looked like this:
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/Julia_roberts.gif (http://www.threadbombing.com/details.php?image_id=3952)

RJ_Sevin

10-Aug-2009, 02:21 PM

darth los

10-Aug-2009, 05:20 PM

"Playing devil's advocate a bit, isn't Survival a risk given Diary's reception? I'm just curious why they wouldn't see his current Dead movie-making efforts as just as risky as a new venture."

Thanks to foreign sales, DIARY was already in the black before it sold to a US distributor. I think they're following the same model with SURVIVAL, which proved to be pretty risk free. Its reception among some viewers doesn't matter: it was a profitable venture, and SURVIVAL likely will be too.

It's late in the game for him but maybe the old man has finally figured this business out.

With all the great work he has done and got raped for i would just like to see him make some money before he kicks it.

:cool:

EvilNed

10-Aug-2009, 05:26 PM

I'm glad he's doing limited releases and direct-to-DVDs. Somehow, it fits his style. :)

darth los

10-Aug-2009, 05:34 PM

I'm glad he's doing limited releases and direct-to-DVDs. Somehow, it fits his style. :)

I agree and I bet ya dollars to doghnuts so is he. It's common knowledge that he's always preferred to work outside of studio influence. Also, I bet HE'S glad the he made it to live in an era where he really doesn't need a big studio to do what he loves and therefor has all the creative freedom he could ever want.

:cool:

CooperWasRight

13-Aug-2009, 10:15 PM

Here is a new sneak peak http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=61912877

darth los

14-Aug-2009, 01:31 PM

Here is a new sneak peak http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=61912877

Good find dude!! :thumbsup:

Atleast it's SOMETHING to wet our collective whistles.

:cool:

Fecunditatis

14-Aug-2009, 02:40 PM

Interesting how they keep using music by Carpenter ("They Live" and "Escape from New York", in this instance). It seems they are really aiming for a western feel with this film. Promising.

MinionZombie

14-Aug-2009, 04:45 PM

Here is a new sneak peak http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=61912877

Good find dude!! :thumbsup:

Atleast it's SOMETHING to wet our collective whistles.

:cool:

Indeed - excellent find - really enjoyed it, and it's great to finally get to see some footage. Now we just need a proper, final trailer, title and all (:sneaky::p), and then - obviously - the movie released, and we're all set.

I'm definitely more amped for this movie now than I have been in recent months what with the info drought, but I was more interested in this flick after the first announcement than I was with Diary, I have to say.

bassman

14-Aug-2009, 04:48 PM

...I was more interested in this flick after the first announcement than I was with Diary, I have to say.

Same here. Probably because Romero's going back to "normal" filmmaking instead of the first person perspective. Although something tells me that there will still be first person video within the film...

thxleo

14-Aug-2009, 05:06 PM

Same here. Probably because Romero's going back to "normal" filmmaking instead of the first person perspective. Although something tells me that there will still be first person video within the film...

I wonder where you might have heard that? Oh yeah, that was in the interview I conducted with Romero...

"As I say there's a little bit of subjective camera in the beginning and if I do this collection - if I wind up doing a couple more of these I would start it that way, just in deference to Diary. I sort of like that connection. The opening shot is Alan Van Sprang on a subjective camera. NOW, that's the way it's playing. The problem is all this shit can change within the next few weeks. We saved all of that to use now, so that we can go thru the film and see if there was any other places where we could use a little bit of narration or throw them in to help the story, same thing we did with Diary. We did all the narration after everything else was done, so that you could watch the movie and say well this is a little unclear, maybe we can bring in a shot of that to explain it. It's a trick, it's a device, but it works pretty well. It helps you glue it all together."