First Official Clip

[RJ_Sevin]

At last, here's our first real look (http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33365/first-official-clip-survival-dead) at George Romero's SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD, which will premiere this month at the Toronto International Film Fest. The Red (http://www.red.com/) camera footage looks much better than the previous (unfinished) leaked clip indicated, and it's interesting to see George shooting in what appears to be 2.35:1 again-- until now, he'd gone wide for only LAND OF THE DEAD.

George seems to be dipping his his toe into the Zombie Comedy (Zomedy? Zomby Comedie?) pool this time around, though I suspect this light moment is akin to the pie-fight in DAWN OF THE DEAD -- it's no doubt surrounded by all manner of drama, horror, and action. Speaking of DAWN: the second zombie in this clip looks as if he crawled right out of that classic flick.

Between this, [REC]2 and ZOMBIELAND, TIFF (http://www.tiff.net/default.aspx) is the place to be. In fact, if you call yourself a zombie fan and you don't attend, you suck.

*I suck.

[Moon Knight]

Oh man.... not a good clip at all for it being the first one.

[DjfunkmasterG]

That looks goofy and utterly bizarre.

[clanglee]

What? I thought that was great!! You guys are weird. . .

[Fecunditatis]

It's fun, because Romero has always been like this but somehow we seem to be blinded by our first viewing of the "classic" trilogy. Just imagine your first taste of "Day" had been a short clip of the "aunt Alisha" scene, or the moment when Dr. Logan leaves a couple of dead things with the lights out, so they learn to behave. And even more with "Dawn", particularly for us Europeans who first experienced the Argento cut (in which most of the slapstick, and the "Mickey Mouse" music, was removed). Imagine a first official clip with the pie fight, the dead stumbling in the escalator or the helicopter blades incident.

Really, way too much information nowadays. And pretty unrealistic expectations, based on unique experiences (watching "Day" as a 10-year-old, in my case) that cannot be replicated.

Now, this "Survival" clip looks good to me. The hook gag is interesting: it would have been easier (and obvious) going for the eye. It's just a fun little scene, probably a small aside before carrying on with the plot. I particularly like the look of the zombies.

Sincerely, even when the results do not work for me (as happened with "Diary"), I'm more interested in a new Romero movie than in almost anyone else's zombie film. At the very least, I know that he will be trying to do something new. For example: while "[Rec]" is infinitely more effective than "Diary" as a horror movie (in fact, I don't think "Diary" is a horror movie), from what I have read "[Rec] 2" has incorporated some key elements from "Diary".

[Ghost Of War]

I thought it was a great clip. I just hope the overall tone of the film isn't similar.

[livingdeadboy]

I think it looks great, I have my tickets to go see Survival next saturday night at "TIFF", so I'll post a review sometime on Sunday or Monday.

[MinionZombie]

Really enjoyed the clip, really looking forward to this flick, great to see a clip properly finished and not some early edit stuff.

Although I don't understand how the zombies gets up on the roof, as you see how the roof lies in the establishing crane shot ... even still, I love the idea of fishing for zombies.

Indeed, probably one of the lighter interludes to punctuate the rest of the movie's general air of doom, I'd guess.

[krakenslayer]

That was brilliant! I thought the humour was pitched just perfectly at the Dawn level of morbid slapstick. Only thing was the music - it has a great Danny Elfman-style "zing" to it for this light-hearted scene, but it seemd quite "lite" so it will be interesting to see how it fits the rest of the film, and how dark it will be.

From that clip - with the long tracking crane shot, cool zombie makeup, smart lighting, 2.35:1 and crisp cinematography - this seems like the most "cinematic"-looking Dead film so far.

[MinionZombie]

That was brilliant! I thought the humour was pitched just perfectly at the Dawn level of morbid slapstick. Only thing was the music - it has a great Danny Elfman-style "zing" to it for this light-hearted scene, but it seemd quite "lite" so it will be interesting to see how it fits the rest of the film, and how dark it will be.

From that clip - with the long tracking crane shot, cool zombie makeup, smart lighting, 2.35:1 and crisp cinematography - this seems like the most "cinematic"-looking Dead film so far.
Indeed, Sir - it looks bloody good, doesn't it?

Mind you, Land of the Dead looked bloody good too, it's just that Diary went all low-tech.

[AcesandEights]

I didn't mind it, so much. Kind of funny, though I do hope it's a scene designed for a specific reason and not one sampling of a bunch of 'zaniness' inherent to the final product.

[krakenslayer]

Indeed, Sir - it looks bloody good, doesn't it?

Mind you, Land of the Dead looked bloody good too, it's just that Diary went all low-tech.

Yeah. It does have that kind of slick dark look, same as the night scenes in Land. But somehow, this looks just as good or better, on (presumably) a fraction of the budget.

Actually, does anyone know what the budget for this actually is? It looks to be quite a lot more than Diary.

[Cruxdustrial]

I don't see how this clip is genius. As for the budget, no it is not a lot more than Diary. It is a very small budget, just as Diary was. Compared to the films made in the United States today, the budget is practically non-existant. The average budget for a well funded movie today is between 80 million and 400 million. Diary had a budget of 2 million, Day had a budget of 3.5 million, Land had a budget of 15 million. Survival of the dead has a budget of less than 5 million. Romero promised that he would never return to big budget films like Land again and all future movies he would make would have a considerably smaller budget than Land. It is fair and accurate to say that Survival of the Dead's budget is somewhere between Diary and Day's budget. So perhaps 3 million? 4 at the most.

[bassman]

The average budget for a well funded movie today is between 80 million and 400 million.

Where are you getting this information? According to IMDB the most expensive movie ever was the third Pirates film at 300 million. Although I think James Cameron's Avatar might be over that...

Anyway....the clip was okay...

[krakenslayer]

I don't see how this clip is genius. As for the budget, no it is not a lot more than Diary. It is a very small budget, just as Diary was. Compared to the films made in the United States today, the budget is practically non-existant. The average budget for a well funded movie today is between 80 million and 400 million. Diary had a budget of 2 million, Day had a budget of 3.5 million, Land had a budget of 15 million. Survival of the dead has a budget of less than 5 million. Romero promised that he would never return to big budget films like Land again and all future movies he would make would have a considerably smaller budget than Land. It is fair and accurate to say that Survival of the Dead's budget is somewhere between Diary and Day's budget. So perhaps 3 million? 4 at the most.

Eighty million to three hundred million is big for a sci-fi, fantasy/historical and/or intense action epic, but the vast majority of motion pictures come in at a lot less than that. The vast majority of present-day drama films come in at under about $40 million, with most of that going on big actors salaries. Period dramas don't usually cost much more. Comedies are usually pretty cheap, even ones with big casts full of well-known comedians, for example Anchorman cost about $28 million.

Horror films are usually the cheapest to make out of all the genres - the cheapest Saw movie (the first one) cost £1 million, the most expensive (whatever the last one was) cost £10 million. Hostel cost $4.5 million. The Friday 13th and Halloween remakes were considered expensive at $16 million and $20 million respectively.

So three-to-five million isn't terribly low budget for a horror film.

Personally, from what I've seen so far, Survival looks like it cost more than Day. For one, it has a larger cast with more experienced actors. Also, because Romero is WGA now (I don't think he was when he made Day), he has to use union actors, this is the reason they can't just get fans to work as zombies for free anymore. Secondly, just from that one scene, the film looks much more technical - actors playing zombies submerged underwater, that's difficult and time consuming to shoot for just that one shot. Also, see the moon reflecting on the sea through the trees? That's not the full moon, that's a high-powered tethered balloon light. And the tracking camera shot - that's on a crane, which means they had to hire one for the shoot along with a whole team of specialist crane dolly operators and camera operators. Neither Diary, Day, Night or Dawn had any crane shots (Land had a few I think). All of these things cost a surprising amount of money, which leads me to believe it's probably at least a five million budget (the upper end of your estimate).

[Cruxdustrial]

I really don't understand how the two of you misunderstood and misinterpreted me. I was specifically talking numbers and logistics, not offering an opinion. It should be acknowledged that well endowed and well funded movies start at at minimum 60 million USD. That does not mean that lower budget movies are terrible and higher ones are good. It does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the movie. Just numbers and logistics. Remember that CGI is EXTREMELY expensive. But why am I still talking, Believe what you want. I don't live to pursuade you of anything, I just wanted to offer additional information that you may not have considered or thought of, since ya know, we have two completely different modes of thought and thought processes. Humans can gain insight from each other by communicating our differences, you may have percieved something I did not percieve or vice versa. Blah.

[krakenslayer]

I really don't understand how the two of you misunderstood and misinterpreted me. I was specifically talking numbers and logistics, not offering an opinion. It should be acknowledged that well endowed and well funded movies start at at minimum 60 million USD. That does not mean that lower budget movies are terrible and higher ones are good. It does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the movie. Just numbers and logistics. Remember that CGI is EXTREMELY expensive. But why am I still talking, Believe what you want. I don't live to pursuade you of anything, I just wanted to offer additional information that you may not have considered or thought of, since ya know, we have two completely different modes of thought and thought processes. Humans can gain insight from each other by communicating our differences, you may have percieved something I did not percieve or vice versa. Blah.

Basically, I think the misunderstanding is over the term "well funded". Both myself and Bassman took that to mean "average" rather than "high end".

[Mr.G]

I'm always amazed at the low budget #'s of horror movies. Given the amount of FX to pull off a believable kill...I expect higher budgets. Also, every big blockbuster uses FX as the excuse why their budgets (Superman Returns) is so high...

Any insiders can explain it to me!

[bassman]

Both myself and Bassman took that to mean "average" rather than "high end".

Not me. I wasn't trying to get into the price debate. Just curious how he pulled 400 million out of thin air when the most expensive film has been 300 million.

Personally I couldn't give a damn how much Romero has to make a film. He's had low budget and considerably higher budget films and I've enjoyed them all. Some better than others of course, but the dude always makes a movie that's at least entertaining. Regardless of money.

[krakenslayer]

Not me. I wasn't trying to get into the price debate. Just curious how he pulled 400 million out of thin air when the most expensive film has been 300 million.

Personally I couldn't give a damn how much Romero has to make a film. He's had low budget and considerably higher budget films and I've enjoyed them all. Some better than others of course, but the dude always makes a movie that's at least entertaining. Regardless of money.

Sorry man, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. :)

[bassman]

Sorry man, I didn't mean to put words into your mouth. :)

Just don't let it happen again.:p

[EvilNed]

I'm always amazed at the low budget #'s of horror movies. Given the amount of FX to pull off a believable kill...I expect higher budgets. Also, every big blockbuster uses FX as the excuse why their budgets (Superman Returns) is so high...

Any insiders can explain it to me!

Actors and directors simply don't cost as much, because the people who star in horror films aren't as big names. A horrorfilm usually uses alot of simple locations (Cabin in the woods, for instance, compared to the crashing helicopter inside of which there is a kung-fu fight), and there's usually a smaller crew because the need for a special effects supervisor to be present at all times, with expensive equipment (talking about preparations for CGI in post here) is not always present.

Also, not as much money is pumped into digital effects and stuff like that, or complicated stunts. CGI isn't cheap, because often you've got 10 to 20 people working on the effects and they keep working on those effects for some months.

[DrSiN]

Sorry to bring this thread back on topic, though I agree, the $400 million mark seems a bit.. out his ass.. maybe with marketing but I digress.

The clip left me thinking "ah.. okaaaaaaaay". For the first official clip, whomever approved it should be fired. I do like the look, the make up and the feel to the clip. The content was bizarre but it's a zombie movie so I'll give it plenty of slack.

My biggest problem is believability. At the 30 second mark, they clearly show the shack and the side behind the fisherman is clearly an overhang that's 7-8 feet off of the ground. How does the zombie get up there? He doesn't reel it in, though that would be equally improbably. So was it just sleeping there waiting to strike?

Now before anyone drops the suspension of disbelief card on me, I point this out simply to say that if this pointless, poorly laid out scene is in the movie and not a cut DVD extra, I'm worried about the story. The pie scene in Dawn was equally silly, but a lot more believable. It so reminds me of reading Land's leaked script and the zombie rats! Oh the dread it brought!

Of course I'll see it the moment I can regardless :)

[Danny]

looks like a romero movie, so i'll enjoy it.

[darth los]

Sorry to bring this thread back on topic, though I agree, the $400 million mark seems a bit.. out his ass.. maybe with marketing but I digress.

The clip left me thinking "ah.. okaaaaaaaay". For the first official clip, whomever approved it should be fired. I do like the look, the make up and the feel to the clip. The content was bizarre but it's a zombie movie so I'll give it plenty of slack.

My biggest problem is believability. At the 30 second mark, they clearly show the shack and the side behind the fisherman is clearly an overhang that's 7-8 feet off of the ground. How does the zombie get up there? He doesn't reel it in, though that would be equally improbably. So was it just sleeping there waiting to strike?

Now before anyone drops the suspension of disbelief card on me, I point this out simply to say that if this pointless, poorly laid out scene is in the movie and not a cut DVD extra, I'm worried about the story. The pie scene in Dawn was equally silly, but a lot more believable. It so reminds me of reading Land's leaked script and the zombie rats! Oh the dread it brought!

Of course I'll see it the moment I can regardless :)



If you're looking for believability and continuity then GAr is definitely not the director for you. This is the same man who has zombies jogging in one scene (Hinzman, kids at the airport) and then moving ridiculously slow in another (hare Krishna). :confused:







:cool:

[bassman]

If you're looking for believability and continuity then GAr is definitely not the director for you.

I'll second this one. Romero's never been a perfect director. Look at the original trilogy and there are plenty of problems just like this one. They often just get over looked because they're part of the beloved trilogy, while the new films get it pointed out and put down repeatedly...

[Fecunditatis]

For better or worse, I'm afraid that's true. It's not just that the new ones aren't "so good", but that the classics weren't as good, either, at least in that respect. It seems like Romero always had other priorities and never worried very much about continuity.
The same thing can be said about great directors like Sam Fuller who once went as far as including in a film a shot where you could see the camera in a mirror, just because he thought it was the most intense take he had.

[darth los]

I'll second this one. Romero's never been a perfect director. Look at the original trilogy and there are plenty of problems just like this one. They often just get over looked because they're part of the beloved trilogy, while the new films get it pointed out and put down repeatedly...


No, I'm pretty sure the new films suck and the old ones rock! :p


They just happen to have the same thing in common: continuity errors.







:cool:

[kidgloves]

That clip cracked me up :lol:
Who cares if its old or new Romero?. Surely the quality of the film is the most important thing.
Loved the music as well.

[darth los]

Well, the old shit kicks ass and the new...well....not so much.






:cool:

[jded]

Well I liked it. Fishing for zombies man! You gotta love it. I saw no continuity errors. I'm sure the scene before this set up the tension in some way, and there is an explanation for the zombie showing up from behind.

[MinionZombie]

and there is an explanation for the zombie showing up from behind.#

Is there? :confused:

While it didn't bother me, I was befuddled as to "how did that get up there?"

[krakenslayer]

#

Is there? :confused:

While it didn't bother me, I was befuddled as to "how did that get up there?"

It's not a big deal - it's cartoonish but not outwith the realms of possibility. If you imagine the zombie is already trying unsuccessfully to scramble up to get him, and that, combined with the fisherman's almighty PULL on the line, was enough to allow the ghoul to hoist itself onto the roof.

[MinionZombie]

It's not a big deal - it's cartoonish but not outwith the realms of possibility. If you imagine the zombie is already trying unsuccessfully to scramble up to get him, and that, combined with the fisherman's almighty PULL on the line, was enough to allow the ghoul to hoist itself onto the roof.
I'd figured it was already up on the roof on it's own and was on its way to him, but it just got snagged mid-creep-up on the dude.

But how did he get up onto said roof?

Maybe a ladder I guess - because how did the dude get onto the roof otherwise? If so, mofo should have dragged the ladder up onto the roof with him and then lowered it when he was done - see, smart thinking - it gets you places. :D