Romero is unimportant now.

[Mikey]

I hate to say it, but the industry has passed Romero by. After view Zombieland last night and thinking it was quite entertaining and fresh, despite the use of fast zombies, it was relevant; George Romero is not relevant anymore and his films are hopelessly outdated and struggle to even say anything that would constitute a message. I dare say the last film that George made that was relevant was DAY of the DEAD, in 1985.

I still have some hope for SURVIVAL, but I think it is mostly based on a fondness of his films from 30 years ago.

Hang it up, George.

[octo7]

fuck relevant. i watch movies for entertainment not for their impact on culture or current popularity.

also are you a producer? why on earth would you refer to an 'industry' when speaking about a film?

[Zombo]

George is an older guy, with an older guy's sensibilities, so his films might not be as topical as a younger director's. But he's still the man who pretty much invented the Zombie genre, & if he still wants to make Zombie movies I'll certainly go to see 'em. :D

[capncnut]

What people don't understand is that Romero would give his left bollock to quit the zombie genre for a while and go make something different. The film company wont let him do it because they know there's more money with Romero's name on a zombie flick.

But yeah, I'll keep watching 'em regardless.

[Philly_SWAT]

I hate to say it, but the industry has passed Romero by. After view Zombieland last night and thinking it was quite entertaining and fresh, despite the use of fast zombies, it was relevant; George Romero is not relevant anymore and his films are hopelessly outdated and struggle to even say anything that would constitute a message. I dare say the last film that George made that was relevant was DAY of the DEAD, in 1985.

I still have some hope for SURVIVAL, but I think it is mostly based on a fondness of his films from 30 years ago.

Hang it up, George.

I hate to say it, but I think HPOTD has passed Mikey by. After view his post last night, I dont think Mikey's comments are relevant anymore on a site dedicated to George Romero. Hang it up, Mikey.

[Mike70]

I hate to say it, but I think HPOTD has passed Mikey by. After view his post last night, I dont think Mikey's comments are relevant anymore on a site dedicated to George Romero. Hang it up, Mikey.

i would at least like to hear some specific examples of why he thinks romero is irrelevant. for example, diary maybe a film that people don't care for but saying it's "irrelevant" doesn't make much sense, considering the film deals with a bunch of issues/themes with are very relevant to today. simply not liking something doesn't render it irrelevant.

[Bone Daddy]

As long as GAR is still sucking it in and blowing it out, he's relevant.

[kortick]

I think Mikey is entitled to beleive that Romeros
movies no longer hold any value to him, but
to say that Romero himself has nothing left
to offer as a filmaker or as a fore front director
in the zombie genre isnt up to him.

And odd to praise Day, when it was trashed
when it came out, and isnt even the script he
wanted to make.

Also the fact you refer to him as "Romero" and
not "GAR" tells me u are older or u read magazines
from when he was refered to as "Romero'. Its now
usual to refer to him as 'GAR'.

Did you ever stop to think what Romero would
be able to do with a budget like the one for Zombie Land?
Give him a $25 million dollar budget and see what he might do.

[octo7]

yeah i was thinking mikey would have been one of the many nay-sayers who thrashed Day when it was first released.

[Zombo]

As long as GAR is still sucking it in and blowing it out, he's relevant.

Hell yeah!! :D

[MoonSylver]

I hate to say it, but the industry has passed Romero by. After view Zombieland last night and thinking it was quite entertaining and fresh, despite the use of fast zombies, it was relevant;

???

I just got back from seeing it a few hours ago, & while I liked it, other than the pop culture references I would actually call it IRRELEVANT. It's light & fluffy, which is fine, as it's not really trying to be anything deeper. Comparing the two is definitely apples and oranges. GAR's last couple may have been flawed, but to conclude he's irrelevant compared to "Zombieland"? I just don't see it...:confused:

[Bone Daddy]

Hell yeah!! :D


Testify!

[strayrider]

I hate to say it, but the industry has passed Romero by.

Na. GAR has always bucked the system. His way or no way. He had to sit it out for a while, but he is back and just as relevant as ever.

:D

-stray-

[bassman]

I hate to say it, but the industry has passed Romero by.

I think he's cool with that considering that he's tried to distance himself from it....

[SymphonicX]

Depends on the importance you put on relevance....See it seems for years we all used to say how Dawn and Day and Night were relevant to their times, a socio-political commentary based on real life attitudes...

When Diary came out it was such an obvious realisation of this that it almost became moot - it beat us up with relevance!

It really depends on what you mean by relevant though? I'm not clear on that. Movies are entertainment after all and Diary taught most of us that a painfully obvious social commentary in the name of relevance can be a bad thing (if you don't like Diary that is!)

[octo7]

I loved Diary. i am hoping people might appreciate it more as the years go by. Some of the acting performances are a bit flawed but they do their best and there are some great sequences and good pacing right up to the end. I find the characters fairly likeable, especially the drunken English professor and the hot blonde texan :D.

The Mummy guy was impressive too when they finally get to his house and he is behaving a little bit strangely.

[DrSiN]

I don't think it's really a matter of George's relevance to the industry? If you can get the funding to make a movie, baby your relevant. The question is, has he lost the ability to craft a good zombie movie? Let's face it, Land and Diary are not really on par with the trinity are they. And make no mistake, I don't think Night/Dawn/Day were fantastic pieces of art, but they had solid stories and good characters. Land had neither and Diary was hurt by very weak performances and pacing issues.

I'm withholding judgment on Survival. Personally, I think George has just gotten to the point in his Career where he will make what he wants and make it his way. We started seeing that with Land, and it continued with Diary so I don't expect anything different from Survival. And more power to him. I wish I could get 5 million to make a zombie movie so, screw it, he deserves to make whatever he wants.

But like with another George, when you get 100% of what you want, we (the viewers) tend to get a messy dinner.

[Yojimbo]

So someone sees a movie based on a premise that George A Romero, AKA GAR, Romero, etc. created, and it it their opinion that GAR is no longer relevant.

Forgive the cliche, but opinions are like assholes, and some more than others.

[Mike70]

the title of this thread has changed. the word irrelevant has been replaced by unimportant. unimportant measured against what? film makers in general? how in the hell can say someone consider a horror legend is unimportant? when your work has the staying power and influence that romero's has had (i refused to use GAR) there is no way that you can be rendered "unimportant."

[AcesandEights]

I think this could actually be a fun conversation to have, as I see there are some relevant points to be made on both sides of the argument. That said, my immediate and final reaction is that Clang hits it on the head.

Anyway, this is a fansite for GAR's dead films and we all have our scared cows, but challenging ourselves to back up our opinions can make for good debate. This is what gets people who are new who we don't know that well talking, and forces old pros like Philly_Swat to emerge from their semi-retirement (miss ya, Philly).

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think Mikey is entitled to beleive that Romeros
movies no longer hold any value to him, but
to say that Romero himself has nothing left
to offer as a filmaker or as a fore front director
in the zombie genre isnt up to him.

And odd to praise Day, when it was trashed
when it came out, and isnt even the script he
wanted to make.

Also the fact you refer to him as "Romero" and
not "GAR" tells me u are older or u read magazines
from when he was refered to as "Romero'. Its now
usual to refer to him as 'GAR'.

Did you ever stop to think what Romero would
be able to do with a budget like the one for Zombie Land?
Give him a $25 million dollar budget and see what he might do.

Not to rain on anyones parade here, and we all know how Much I hate LAND, but Romero had a budget. $18,000,000 for LAND and that was the best he could do with it. Zombie Land only had an extra $5,000,000 and had a much better apocalyptic feel.

In all actuality the setting for ZOmbieland, in terms of post zombie uprising, is how LAND should have been done but instead it relied on using a flawed premise with a terrible idea of super smart zombies.

So giving Romero $25mm is a waste actually.

Do I think he is unimportant? No, I will still enjoy a Romero zombie film, except LAND, but my hopes for Survival are very low. The bashing its getting from critics is just telling me this is probably going to suck. I hoped it wouldn't, but the fact he is using these goofballs with bad Irish and Scottish accents is getting annoying as well as using a Wild West style theme.

The industry has passed him by. People do need that stylistic action. The scene with Woody trapped in the prize shop shooitng up zombies is a perfect example of the type of shit people want to see.

The gore isn't about the gore anymore, it is the violence behind the gore. Which is something i have said sine making Deadlands 1. I don't need to do a bloodbath I just need a reaction from the audience in the few scenes that have some zombies eating their victims.

Zombieland played this up to great levels. Making sure you get the HELL YEAH or OH FUCK effect with every kill (Zombie or human) If ROmero followed that I think he wouldbe way more successful, but he continues to grasp at a concept that hasn't worked since the mid 80's which is why he will never be able to appeal to wider audience.

[Trencher]

You are wrong.
Georg Romero is still relevant and important to the genre and cinema as a whole. Just because you like brain dead action Michael Bay flicks it does not mean that Romeros voice or movies have been devalued the slightest. If you were right Romero would have been pushed aside by the return of the living dead and return of the living dead 2 movies long ago. What pure horror movies with slow zombies have been better than diary? Sure Land was not up to his usual greatness but his movies are only pulled down by his weakness for listing to others. The the silly zombie fight with the bikers in dawn?: Improvised. Big Daddys makeup and overacting? The actor. I seen in in documentaries and I seen it in interviews: And they all say that Romero lets the actors create their own role and gives them tons of freedom. This has led to a couple of dud preformances but also to some of the most iconic and powerfull preformances in horror movie history.
Saying that the genre has passed him by puts you in the same category as the people who liked the day of the dead remake as far I am concerned.

[DubiousComforts]

The scene with Woody trapped in the prize shop shooitng up zombies is a perfect example of the type of shit people want to see.

Zombieland played this up to great levels. Making sure you get the HELL YEAH or OH FUCK effect with every kill (Zombie or human)
This is exactly why I have zero interest in movies like Zombieland.

Romero's living dead films have always been about the violence behind the gore, even if gore was put in there for explotative purposes. The original trilogy films starting with NIGHT depicted common locations being easily transformed into fortresses, and everyday items like a tire iron, a table leg or a cement trowel being brandished as horrific weapons. The film emphasized the brutal violence lurking in everyday life, which is why those films crossed boundaries like none that had come before them.

The reason this discussion even occurs now is simply because audiences no longer agree with Romero's politics, which have remained consistent throughout his career. In the 70s-80s, Romero's films (including the accompanying gore) were typically a means for younger people to shake a fist at the establishment. Today, audiences are complacent popcorn-eaters that equate any questioning of authority or established norms with being a freak.

This topic itself is outdated and irrelevant because the entertainment industry has all but consumed most independent production and distribution. It's akin to rock and pop music, which used to be about rebellion against parents and authority figures. Now it's about being famous, about being a rockstar. When was the last time a band or musician was considered even remotely "rebellious"?

[darth los]

I think Mikey is entitled to beleive that Romeros
movies no longer hold any value to him, but
to say that Romero himself has nothing left
to offer as a filmaker or as a fore front director
in the zombie genre isnt up to him.

And odd to praise Day, when it was trashed
when it came out, and isnt even the script he
wanted to make.

Also the fact you refer to him as "Romero" and
not "GAR" tells me u are older or u read magazines
from when he was refered to as "Romero'. Its now
usual to refer to him as 'GAR'.

Did you ever stop to think what Romero would
be able to do with a budget like the one for Zombie Land?
Give him a $25 million dollar budget and see what he might do.

For GAr to get that 25 million he would have to bend over for it and that was something he was never willing to do.

There's something to be said for that. The man is alot of things but he's not a sell out.




i would at least like to hear some specific examples of why he thinks romero is irrelevant. for example, diary maybe a film that people don't care for but saying it's "irrelevant" doesn't make much sense, considering the film deals with a bunch of issues/themes with are very relevant to today. simply not liking something doesn't render it irrelevant.



Perhaps he meant irrelavent in terms of Box office Gross. If not I disagree with him 100%. As was already stated, the man basically invented the zombie. Is mary Shelley irrelavent? Is Bram Stoker irrelavent?

The fact that he's even talking about him makes him relavent. As was stated on these boards not too long ago, this is the man that made NOTLD and DOTD. To this day this works have never been surpassed within the genre.

That alone makes him relavent.



:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is exactly why I have zero interest in movies like Zombieland.

Romero's living dead films have always been about the violence behind the gore, even if gore was put in there for explotative purposes. The original trilogy films starting with NIGHT depicted common locations being easily transformed into fortresses, and everyday items like a tire iron, a table leg or a cement trowel being brandished as horrific weapons. The film emphasized the brutal violence lurking in everyday life, which is why those films crossed boundaries like none that had come before them.

The reason this discussion even occurs now is simply because audiences no longer agree with Romero's politics, which have remained consistent throughout his career. In the 70s-80s, Romero's films (including the accompanying gore) were typically a means for younger people to shake a fist at the establishment. Today, audiences are complacent popcorn-eaters that equate any questioning of authority or established norms with being a freak.

This topic itself is outdated and irrelevant because the entertainment industry has all but consumed most independent production and distribution. It's akin to rock and pop music, which used to be about rebellion against parents and authority figures. Now it's about being famous, about being a rockstar. When was the last time a band or musician was considered even remotely "rebellious"?

I disagree with your assessment. Audiences are from being easily led and agreed upon automatons as you suggest. There is more of a FUCK THE MAN Mentality today then there was back in the 80's, 70's or whatever.

What I am saying is people want to be entertained at the movies, and Romeros flicks have become sort of lackluster as of late when it comes to entertainment value.

He sticks to the basic traditions of filmmaking, whereas people want a little more flash in their flicks today.

Nothing in Zombieland is super over the top, in fact the use of other weapons besides guns are used at great lengths, however it was done with a comedic and action flare to help build up the intensity of the moment.

Romero hasn't had any intensity in his films since Day of the Dead. Land was just gore for the sake of gore and the zombie attacks had absolutely no build up to them whatsoever. Gone are the days of the zombies encircling their victims, pretty much cutting off escape routes like he did with Rickles kill scene in Day.


With ZL there was the build up we were used to seeing in Romero type films, but since the film plays on the more action comedy side they did it with an action style flare not seen in the films of old, which people like to see. Everyone wants an edge of your seat moment, and ZL had this during the Woody shoot out scene, something Romero hasn't had in either Land or Diary, but he used to have lots of in Dawn and Day. Weird how he abandon those basic filmmaking fundementals.

I am not saying ZL will become the new standard of zombie films, but the action side of the filmmaking process has become the standard and needs to be utilized in every film with an action plot, scene or story line. If your film contains action of any type you should try to adhere to these principles simply because it is good filmmaking.

[DubiousComforts]

The man is alot of things but he's not a sell out.
Ha, there's someone over at axlish's NOLTD68 (http://axlish.proboards.com/index.cgi) message board that would vehemently disagree with this statement. :D

[Neil]

George is an older guy, with an older guy's sensibilities, so his films might not be as topical as a younger director's. But he's still the man who pretty much invented the Zombie genre, & if he still wants to make Zombie movies I'll certainly go to see 'em. :D

Walks up to zombo and gives him a big hug :)

Agreed... He's given me more nightmares than any other director, so at the very least I owe him the loyalty of watching anything new he brings out...

[DubiousComforts]

There is more of a FUCK THE MAN Mentality today then there was back in the 80's, 70's or whatever.
I disagree about 1,000,000,000% and you need look no further than here or most any other message board for proof.

[AcesandEights]

I disagree about 1,000,000,000% and you need look no further than here or most any other message board for proof.

:rolleyes:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I disagree about 1,000,000,000% and you need look no further than here or most any other message board for proof.


Don't know where you visit but I see tons of people on this board with a FUCK the established order mentality. You must be looking at the wrong topics DC.

Hell a majority of the members here are very much rebels in terms of anything that has to do with following orders.

[DubiousComforts]

Don't know where you visit but I see tons of people on this board with a FUCK the established order mentality. You must be looking at the wrong topics DC.

Hell a majority of the members here are very much rebels in terms of anything that has to do with following orders.
For starters, you must have missed the entire "popcorn movie" debate. Of course, people will always claim to be "independent," but in reality they're eager to jump on the first bandwagon of whomever will spoon-feed them with exactly what they want to hear. But by all means point out a few examples of the rebellious mentality that is alleged to be prevalent here.

I mean, come on... as far as the horror genre in concerned, Tom Savini used to symbolize what it meant to fart at the establishment. Now it's Rob Zombie or Eli Roth, all the while movies like Let The Right One In need be defended against claims of being "too boring." If a film like Martin were to be released today by an unknown director, it would be wholly laughed at.

[DjfunkmasterG]

For starters, you must have missed the entire "popcorn movie" debate. Of course, people will always claim to be "independent," but in reality they're eager to jump on the first bandwagon of whomever will spoon-feed them with exactly what they want to hear. But by all means point out a few examples of the rebellious mentality that is alleged to be prevalent here.

I mean, come on... as far as the horror genre in concerned, Tom Savini used to symbolize what it meant to fart at the establishment. Now it's Rob Zombie or Eli Roth, all the while movies like Let The Right One In need be defended against claims of being "too boring." If a film like Martin were to be released today by an unknown director, it would be wholly laughed at.

I don't miss Popcorn movie debates. I even admit ZL is a popcorn flick, but it is a decent popcorn flick. I don't go into every zombie film wanting the next DAWN of the DEAD because frankly every director puts his or her spin on the genre and if anyone ever happens to catch the magic that is DAWN I would be surprised.

As far as against the established order... MZ, THXLEO, MYSELF, BASSMAN, Quite a few people here are against it and those I can name for starters.

In regards to if films like Martin would withstand todays audiences... It could maybe, if the correct techniques were done. FIlmmaking technology has changed so much today as did the market place so the films would have to be tweaked, but yes a film like Martin with a competent director at the helm could be done and could work to great lengths.

The biggest problem is more of todays films have been too highly Michael Bay'd up, and the mainstream audience has accepted it as the norm, in most cases, however, films outside of that norm have thrived and done very well.

I understand you're a Romero purists and we could go back and forth for hours on what is and what isn't happening in cinema today, but there is a fundamental order needed for filmmaking today and if you don't meet that criteria or order you will be swept out the door with the rest of the garbage. Its just fact, Romero as hard as he tries is lucky to still be making movies. Guys like Tobe Hooper and some other Genre names have turned in shit product left and right, and I see Romero is trying to adapt the new style into his own way of dong things.

One of the things that caught my eye in Survival, from the clips I have watched was the crane shot during the fishing scene. Romero was never huge into cranes and dollies and now he is using them because he knows they are an effective technique and give the films a more visual appeal. However, the storylines he uses do become quite absurd.

Romero can be anti establishment all he wants, but in the end its what puts dinner on your table, he knows this and we know this, saying he isn't going to bow to the man is total BS because of that was the case he wouldn't have churned out 3 zombie films in 4 years.

Don't take my comments as knocking him in anyway. My only gripe with Uncle George is LAND. Otherwise I am quite content with his zombie film series, including Diary. However, zombie films have changed drastically and audiences have changed with them and there are certain expectation that have to be met.

Land is a classic of example of full out failure on every level. The plot, the setting, the overall theme doesn't fit the title of the film whatsoever. Here we are in a zombie infested wasteland and all we see is an abandon housing development and town of maybe what 1000 people fallen to the zombies. The only giant set piece was the city streets within the safe zone. When you have a film with a title like Land of the Dead I expect to see a vast amount of the world fallen victim to the zombie apocalypse.

I was cool with the raids, but not with smart zombies. I was very un happy with the introduction of currency into the mix because no back story on how the restablishment of commerce worked within the zombie infested world.

Could the money beused outside of the safe zones in other safe zones? Questions never answered that should have been and quite frankly the film needed more zombies. I didn't get the feeling of the end of the world that the title suggests.

Also, George is also going off the deep end with his own commentaries within his projects. It is ok to have a social message in their, but when it is beaten over your head as much as it was in Land it gets old fast.

I still love the mans work, in fact I recently watched Creepshow the other night and thoroughly enjoyed it. Dawn, Day and night get regular viewings because I am a fan, but I am also of fan of being entertained and brought into the story which he can do effectively most of the time.

Films like ZL are just great fun popcorn flicks that A entertain me and B just happen to be set in a genre I like. Ironically I am not a zombie comedy fan, and was skeptical about ZL but I dug it for what it was, an action comedy, and with action films I expect a degree of action to take place.

[krakenslayer]

Could the money beused outside of the safe zones in other safe zones?

Veering off topic here, but just to pick up on this one tiny thread, while leaving the rest of the knot as it is...

I was always under the impression, from my first viewing of Land onwards, that Cholo didn't want the money just because he wanted to spend it. He wanted to hit Kaufman in the one place he knew would really hurt him - his wallet. I don't know if the currency could be used at Cleveland or any of the other outposts, but that wasn't why he wanted it. He wanted it primarily because he felt that Kaufman owed him, and because he knew that taking Kaufman's money would utterly FUCK the old man over, and take away a lot of his power within the Green. Basically a kind of "if I can't have it, no one can" outlook. It was actually a good plan of combined revenge/rebellion, but spoiled by the fact that he was holding innocent civilians hostage as insurance.

[octo7]

Yeah i respected the hell out of Cholo TBH in a world like that he was doing what he could to survive rather than messing around with pussy morality and dreams of escaping up north :D then again i was on Rhodes' side too in Day. Cooper even turned out to be right in Night. always listen to the asshole in a zombie situation.

[capncnut]

I was always under the impression, from my first viewing of Land onwards, that Cholo didn't want the money just because he wanted to spend it. He wanted to hit Kaufman in the one place he knew would really hurt him - his wallet. I don't know if the currency could be used at Cleveland or any of the other outposts, but that wasn't why he wanted it. He wanted it primarily because he felt that Kaufman owed him, and because he knew that taking Kaufman's money would utterly FUCK the old man over, and take away a lot of his power away from him within the Green. Basically a kind of "if I can't have it, no one can" outlook. It was actually a good plan of combined revenge/rebellion, but spoiled by the fact that he was holding innocent civilians hostage as insurance.
Finally, someone who got it.

[Skippy911sc]

I would compare GAR with Lucas.

In the old days they were Gods...then they released a few more movies that made me, personally, cringe. I did lose some of the respect I had for both of them. My kids love the new SW movies and tv shows so I guess it is just playing to a new audience...as, I guess, Land, Diary and I fear, Survival. I think in my view one could use the term unimportant because his, GAR, movies don't even get the distribution they need to be more relevant. I have stated before that I think GARs movie look amateurish in this day of digital media and I hate saying this because I hold his older movie in such high regard. That being said I will rent (because it will not be played near me) survival and criticize it as only a video release could be criticized.

[bassman]

I would compare GAR with Lucas.


I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't compare Romero to Lucas because Romero has common sense and knows that you can't fix whats not broken.:p

[darth los]

I see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't compare Romero to Lucas because Romero has common sense and knows that you can't fix whats not broken.:p



Could you Imagine GAr going back and putting cgi in Notld and Dawn!?!


If he's going to do something with the old films he'd better get a move on because Rubenstein is alread trying to remake dawn and then there's always Russo lurking in the shadows as well.


If someone is going to fuck the old films up I'd rather it be GAr.



:cool:

[krakenslayer]

Could you Imagine GAr going back and putting cgi in Notld and Dawn!?!


If he's going to do something with the old films he'd better get a move on because Rubenstein is alread trying to remake dawn and then there's always Russo lurking in the shadows as well.


If someone is going to fuck the old films up I'd rather it be GAr.



:cool:

LOL! True.

Maybe Rubenstein and Russo will eventually team up to bring us Dawn of the Dead 35th Anniversary Edition with 50% of the original footage slashed out, two bungling comic-relief security guards (played by Cheech and Chong) badly spliced into the movie, twenty five minutes of extra pie-fights, and a new ending involving Peter and Fran in the helicopter discovering a huge hole in the ground through which hell is literally overflowing and Peter closes it using one of his granddaddy's old voodoo spells, thus saving the world. He then gets a medal from the president and suddenly Roger and Steven show up, now cured of zombieism/death thanks to Peter's voodoo spell, and all four of them shout "YEAH!" and jump into the air for a big group high-five, captured in a freeze-frame and the movie ends. :D

[sandrock74]

If Romero ever tried to go back and redo his movies, ala Lucas, we'd have debates like "Peter shot first" and "Did Rhodes escape the Sarlacc". ugh

[Skippy911sc]

Does GAR own the right to those movies still? If he does then good for him for not trying the Lucas Technique. If he doesn't then...he may have tried if he did.

[krakenslayer]

Does GAR own the right to those movies still? If he does then good for him for not trying the Lucas Technique. If he doesn't then...he may have tried if he did.

Romero owns no rights to anything, apparently. Not even the classic Dead series (hence one of the reasons there were never any returning characters between films).

[octo7]

i guess being a nice guy has its donwsides. he probably wasn't pushy enough

[MoonSylver]

i guess being a nice guy has its donwsides. he probably wasn't pushy enough

Great artists are not often great businessmen.

[DubiousComforts]

Romero owns no rights to anything, apparently. Not even the classic Dead series (hence one of the reasons there were never any returning characters between films).
Romero owns nothing pertaining to DAWN or DAY. Apparently nobody owns anything pertaining to NIGHT, so he could bring back whichever characters he wants.

[clanglee]

That said, my immediate and final reaction is that Clang hits it on the head.
.

Wait. . . what did I hit on the head? :confused: I think this is my first post in this thread. . . Or are you just giving me your support in advance? Glad to hear it, cause I was sure that I was the only one here that enjoys raping baby seals with rusty farm equipment. . . .:p

[MoonSylver]

Wait. . . what did I hit on the head? :confused: I think this is my first post in this thread. . . Or are you just giving me your support in advance? Glad to hear it, cause I was sure that I was the only one here that enjoys raping baby seals with rusty farm equipment. . . .:p

He's agreeing with the post you made....FROM THE FUUUUTURRRRE!!!!

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2540/3994129679_d1ea067938.jpg

[darth los]

LOL! True.

Maybe Rubenstein and Russo will eventually team up to bring us Dawn of the Dead 35th Anniversary Edition with 50% of the original footage slashed out, two bungling comic-relief security guards (played by Cheech and Chong) badly spliced into the movie, twenty five minutes of extra pie-fights, and a new ending involving Peter and Fran in the helicopter discovering a huge hole in the ground through which hell is literally overflowing and Peter closes it using one of his granddaddy's old voodoo spells, thus saving the world. He then gets a medal from the president and suddenly Roger and Steven show up, now cured of zombieism/death thanks to Peter's voodoo spell, and all four of them shout "YEAH!" and jump into the air for a big group high-five, captured in a freeze-frame and the movie ends. :D


If Romero ever tried to go back and redo his movies, ala Lucas, we'd have debates like "Peter shot first" and "Did Rhodes escape the Sarlacc". ugh



Sorry, i just got back to this thread today and boy am I glad I did. This is the funniest shit I've read all day. :lol:


Thnx it's been a rough one.


But yeah, I don't believe Gar owns the rights to any of the dead films. He pretty much had to give them up in order to get funding for them. How do you think Rubenstein got his grubby little hands on the rights? That man doesn't have a creative bone in his body. But I do have to say that for a while ( don't know if this is still true or how much) but he used to break GAr off a portion of the royalties he used to get just because. No matter what you say about the man that's really cool because he really didn't have to do that.

Another thing, Imo, GAr has always done the unexpected with his films. Every time he comes out with a new dead film he has the fan base saying, WTF!?!


When he made Night it was totally ground breaking, no one expected that. When he made Dawn people expected something akin to night and what they got was a technicolor amusement park ride which GAr readily admits is not even scary. When he made Day everyone wanted another dawn. When Land came out I'm not sure what everyone expected but it sure wasn't that. Diary, again, was something totally unexpected and the next offering well...who knows but i think yiou get my point. There's really no predicting what the next film will be like but boy is it fun bitching about it huh peeps !!. :D



:cool:

[Bone Daddy]

To dismiss GAR as irrelevant because pop culture dictates a more frenzied, Michael Bay-Platinum Dune approach to film-making is unacceptable.

I agree, perhaps some of his Dead films are a bit heavy-handed with the social and or political over-tones, but, I for one, enjoy some substance sprinkled about the film going confectionery concoction that I'm about intake.

I liked land of the Dead. in fact, I enjoy it more each time I view it. Diary, the jury is still out on that one. I have to view it another time.

[Epidemic79]

fuck relevant. i watch movies for entertainment not for their impact on culture or current popularity.

(THANK YOU!)

I watch movies only because I want to see them! Not because its trendy,not because everyone says I should. Because its subject matter/franchise or director/writers work appeals to me.

I dont give a shit about inner meanings,expressions of the time,or hidden political messages. The last thing I want to be thinking about when I go to enjoy the movies is Politics! But anyways...

As for our beloved KING GEORGE,he is still relevant living,dead or undead! He may not have invented the zombie flick,but he undeniably Forged the genre with his own bare hands! Using only an anvil,a hammer,a lock of his hair and a pack of cigarettes he built an empire ontop of a strip of 8mm film (that he never copyrighted)-lol!

And alot of people luv to hate and diss on Land & Diary,but accept it or not,GEORGEUS REX himself Wrote and Directed them both. And that makes them Canon,part of the accepted Romero Universe!

What Im seeing the last 5 years or so now is what happened to the Star Trek franchise. Were we went from very little material to watch and love back in the day,to having an overload today,and now people are bitching about what they dont like or hate. For a long time there was just the holy dead trilogy,and that was it. And for 20 odd years we waited. Then the ressurection occured. Problem is nowadays a new zombie flick comes out almost every month.Granted 95% of these Brand X straight to DVD turds suck bad! But the occasional diamond slips thru.

But my point here is Not to bitch,but that I actually appreciate having George back in the zombie saddle,even if Im not falling in love with his new stuff like I did NIGHT.But hell,if he wants to keep pumping em out,he can do it. Why,because he is who he is!

And his name on anything will still sell tickets and dvds!

-HAIL TO THE KING!!!-

[acealive1]

the fact that they are still making big budget zombie films across the world is proof ol' george will be relevant and important FOREVER

[Wyldwraith]

Yes,
In all likelihood, Romero will be able to get some investor somewhere to fund his endeavors on name recognition alone until he no longer cares to make movies.

More's the pity, that.

Maybe what he really needs is for the money men to get all up in his shit, and be like "This isn't Experiment-A-Zombie. We're trying to make a profit here. Deliver something that will get us that profit or find funding elsewhere"

Dunno. Depressed today because I've been thinking about GAR's depressingly bad announced premises for his next flicks. If he had to sequel/branch out, why couldn't it be something interesting like Riley and Co. headed to Canada or wherever?