Horse riding Zed's

[ryansson]

Just managed to see SOTD and all in all I wasn't too impressed, it passed the time but did little else for me, but will give it another view and see if it improves.

One thing am slightly confused with is GAR's inconsistency, we know his views on running Zeds, which am in full agreement with, but then how is one supposed to have the dexterity and suppleness to ride a horse?

Apologies if this has already been covered on the boards.

[bassman]

I would've been able to accept it a whole lot better if she was kind of flopping around, barely staying on the horse. But then she jumped the fence and I was like "NUH UH GIRLFRIEND" *snap snap snap*.

Seriously though.....it was strange and a bit distracting, but Romero's dead have always been doing funny things. Guns, Hockey, Money, Weapons, etc. It's just that most of those are a bit more acceptable.

The bad physical CGI gags are what got on my nerves the most...

[ryansson]

That and the fact that the dead looked pretty unconvincing therefore less scary disappointed me and yes am not a fan of cgi so the guttural impact of the kills was so much reduced

[darth los]

I'll be the first to say it.

The horse idea...really dumb. Keep it up Gar, your on a roll. Atleast I still have the trilogy to go back to.

No i haven't seen survival but that's 3 swings and misses since 05'.

The dude has apparently lost it.

That is all.

:cool:

[Danny]

weve seen one reload, cock and fire a gun because they were a military man in his previous life, we saw one zombie, a lifelong horserider just sitting on a horse and vaguely remembering to keep balance and thats it.

I see no more problem with that than bub saying "hello aunt alicia" on a phone.

had it been normal zombies magically knowing how to ride one, then yeah, id have a problem, but the way it was done its fine.

[bassman]

weve seen one reload, cock and fire a gun because they were a military man in his previous life, we saw one zombie, a lifelong horserider just sitting on a horse and vaguely remembering to keep balance and thats it.


True. She was a rider in life, so I guess she's got the advantage in death. But on the other hand, would you believe a life-long trapeze artist could be reanimated and start putting on a show?:p

[ryansson]

Am sorry but it just doesn't wash with me, GAR once said that zeds couldn't run as 'their ankles would snap', so surely a deady taking all the pressure the body is under during horse riding would fall like a sack of spuds. The zed starting the car was much more plausible as it's a fairly simplistic action, bit like pushing a shopping trolley or pushing a cassette player button

[clanglee]

weve seen one reload, .

???:rockbrow:???

When was that?

[ryansson]

As I recall Bub accidentally cocked a gun before pointing it at Rhodes, again a simple action triggering a past memory, but allot of difference between this type of thing and keeping balance and composure on a fast galloping horse

[Rancid Carcass]

I could be wrong but I was under the impression that Muldoon had chained her to the horse as part of his attempt to get her to take a bite out of it. At the moment I've only seen the film once so I'll need to see it again to confirm it one way or the other, but that's how it came across to me, first time anyway.

[Ghost Of War]

weve seen one reload, cock and fire a gun because they were a military man in his previous life, we saw one zombie, a lifelong horserider just sitting on a horse and vaguely remembering to keep balance and thats it.

I see no more problem with that than bub saying "hello aunt alicia" on a phone.

had it been normal zombies magically knowing how to ride one, then yeah, id have a problem, but the way it was done its fine.

Exactly. It's GAR's film, he can do what he likes. People don't have to like it.

I didn't like Big Daddy, but that was mainly because of the actor, not what the character did in the film. I thought his actions were perfectly fine, but the actor sucked a fat one.

IMO, Bub "speaking" is more far fetched than a zombie on a horse. But Bub works, and I think the jockey zed works for this film. For all we know she died on the horse, the horse knew it was her so didn't throw her off, and the first time she was off it was as we see in the film. It's not as if she reanimated and managed to climb onto the horse, I think that would be entering Day '08 territory.

[ryansson]

I don't recall her being chained to it and if she was it would take more than a lasso to pull her off. I just think it's a bit much of GAR to ask us to suspend our disbelief to see a world full of the shuffling disorientated husks that are the walking dead in previous films then to say 'oh btw here's one that can ride a horse', it's kinda like having Jaws that flies for me

[Danny]

I don't recall her being chained to it and if she was it would take more than a lasso to pull her off. I just think it's a bit much of GAR to ask us to suspend our disbelief to see a world full of the shuffling disorientated husks that are the walking dead in previous films then to say 'oh btw here's one that can ride a horse', it's kinda like having Jaws that flies for me

Suspend what belief?!?

IT'S A ZOMBIE MOVIE.


we've seen this with every romero film in the last decade "it's not proper zombies" "they dont act natural" "a REAL zombie wouldnt be able to do that"

how on earth would anybody know? regardless of how you try and put it in a box zombie horror will always wall into the science fiction, or at least fantasy genre since we are talking about the dead rising from the grave to eat there living victims.
It's impossible, yet with every film george is making them "less zombie-like" than the last.

-and this is the man who practically invented zombies.

Honestly this is nostalgia and nothing more. its like when a musician experiments with a new style on his new album and then fans who proclaim "there the TRUE FANS who where there in the beginning when it was great" throw shit fits because they are trying something new.

There are two solutions here.


1:You are holding his new work to films he made ALMOST HALF A CENTURY AGO. people change, styles need to evolve lest they stagnate. You are desperate to hold onto some ideal of what you held dear in your earlier life but this is george's career as an artist behind the camera and he made those flicks a long fucking time ago. In fact Night was made over two of my life-times ago. The man has to change what he does wether you like it or not.
Sure you can look at the dodgy framerates, swallows egg blue make-up and terrible acting from extras and proclaim its devine magnificence, more power to you. But when you hold the origionals in such a high regard you will never accept that he has 'changed the rules' for how zombies move or act regardless of the fact that he has full creative freedom and reason to do so.
The original 3 are classics, but they were done with a long time ago. George has moved on, so has his monsters, and so should his die hard fans.

Then theres the, i'm sure, more unpopular idea-

2: It's not made with you in mind. Survival for example is a 2010 film, a horror movie for the 21st century. Much as i hate to conjure his vile essence by using his true name im gonna have to namedrop george lucas here. I loved the original trilogy as a kid, because those are classic kids movies like romeros originals are classic teen movies. The new trilogy? i hated it, i was 12 or something when phantom menace came out, just as i was growing cynical and paranoid like i am today:lol:
Gradually i grew to hate these films, what they represented, HOW they were represented. This wasnt MY star wars, end of.
But you know what?
My younger cousins eyes were like silver fucking dollars when anakins flying through the blockade ships in the starfighter. Both of them love the new films, because the effects are in there time, the actors are still making films, and there are tons of memorabilia for them to collect.
They were now the current generation for what came to be known as "the new star wars trilogy". and they were competent enough, sure episode 1's story is kind of janky but this is lucas were talking about.

I just couldnt accept it because it wasnt the same as the movies i grew up with. mediclorians? podracing? it was changing the rules!

But at the end of the day they were Lucas' rules to alter on his whims and the final movie left tons of people happy because by then they accepted this was the star wars they had now. This is the dead movies romero's putting out now. its like Nick said "you got pittsburg romero, and toronto romero". The mans changed, hes grown old. Hell, the worlds changed.

-and much as i disliked the acting, diary was as relevant on our media crutches as dawn was on our then pro consumerist nature.

But at the end of the day ZOMBIES DO NOT EXIST. Romero changed them from Voodoo slaves, now he's changing them again. he's not making them sparkle in the sun, or play basketball or take on dracula. He is merely tweaking HIS formula a bit.

and no matter how much people tell other people what his creations can and cannot do. step back. take a breath. Ask yourself who's telling this story?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Horse gag was stupid, retarded, and just ughhh i can't even come up with words on how bad it was... its just bad.

[SymphonicX]

weve seen one reload, cock and fire a gun because they were a military man in his previous life, we saw one zombie, a lifelong horserider just sitting on a horse and vaguely remembering to keep balance and thats it.

I see no more problem with that than bub saying "hello aunt alicia" on a phone.

had it been normal zombies magically knowing how to ride one, then yeah, id have a problem, but the way it was done its fine.

Here's my theory on their sudden progression:
I reckon the small island mentality and the fact that Muldoon was already trying to train the zombies brought about a faster recognition from the zeds, it would make sense that without help from the humans they slowly and very basically relive their past lives before they died - but with human intervention such as Logan or Muldoon's idea of serving them up slices of their old lives brought on a change quicker.....hence the girl on the horse.

I thought some of the shots of her on the horse were excellent, some of them a bit creepy - it could have been creepier definitely but I thought it was a nice touch, like the island is so insular that the zeds are very very similar to their alive counterparts...

I didn't really like the "twin" idea though....thought that was a cheap move...

[ryansson]

I hear ya hellsing but I didn't say suspend belief I said suspend disbelief. Of course zombies don't exist ffs but in the time of watching the movie which we are paying our hard earned money to, we are being asked by GAR to believe they do, it's called captivating your audience and because he has done it so well in the past he has created a fan base that have certain expectations from his films, one of which is maybe sticking to the rules that he himself has for years adhered to, of course they can be tweaked and I'm not saying the zeds shouldn't develop in some way but there are some things that just don't make sense in the confines of this world GAR has created, imaginary or no.

This is not a nostalgic gripe I have, it's a request for consistency or else why not have running zeds, hell why not have em cruising in a caddy moshing to NIN?:clown:

[Danny]

I hear ya hellsing but I didn't say suspend belief I said suspend disbelief. Of course zombies don't exist ffs but in the time of watching the movie which we are paying our hard earned money to, we are being asked by GAR to believe they do, it's called captivating your audience and because he has done it so well in the past he has created a fan base that have certain expectations from his films, one of which is maybe sticking to the rules that he himself has for years adhered to, of course they can be tweaked and I'm not saying the zeds shouldn't develop in some way but there are some things that just don't make sense in the confines of this world GAR has created, imaginary or no.

This is not a nostalgic gripe I have, it's a request for consistency or else why not have running zeds, hell why not have em cruising in a caddy moshing to NIN?:clown:

But Diary was the start of a whole new continuity, diary and survival are as unrelated to his first 4 films as dc is to marvel. In a different universe, with a different horde of zombies he's completely free to deviate from the rules of a different universe of movies.

[ryansson]

That's funny i could have sworn it was in the same kinda realm, where did GAR say it's new zeds/rules?

[bassman]

To me....the thing about the newer films being a different universe is just Romero's way of saying "I know the first three are considered classics, so I don't want to step on their toes while playing around with these new ones".

If you look at it, there's not too much that is different between the dead and their "rules" in the original trilogy to now. Yeah, we all know that he kinda started over with the timeline in Diary, but what is all that different about the event and the dead?

[DjfunkmasterG]

To me....the thing about the newer films being a different universe is just Romero's way of saying "I know the first three are considered classics, so I don't want to step on their toes while playing around with these new ones".

If you look at it, there's not too much that is different between the dead and their "rules" in the original trilogy to now. Yeah, we all know that he kinda started over with the timeline in Diary, but what is all that different about the event and the dead?

The movies have no tension... no realism, well except for Diary, i felt that had more realism than LAND and SURVIVAL.

[bassman]

The movies have no tension... no realism, well except for Diary, i felt that had more realism than LAND and SURVIVAL.

No, no, no. What I'm saying is that this whole "different universe" excuse is just to seperate the originals from these new guys. As in the zombies and their actions are still basically the same. The phenomenon is VERY similar, so it's hard to see it as a different universe.

I'm not talking about the filmmaking aspects, but that these zombies are being supposedly of a different origin, have different traits, etc. I personally think they're very similar...

[Danny]

That's funny i could have sworn it was in the same kinda realm, where did GAR say it's new zeds/rules?

It was george's biggest thing to pimp about diary during its production?:rockbrow:

modern media this, new, separate franchise that?

[AcesandEights]

Spoilers right in the subject line now?

:moon:

[Danny]

Spoilers right in the subject line now?

:moon:

The movies been out at LEAST 4 days now, MOVE.ON.BRAH.

[clanglee]

The movies have no tension... no realism, well except for Diary, i felt that had more realism than LAND and SURVIVAL.

Well yeah, but in Land the attempt at realism made the effort seem schlocky and silly in many palces. In Survival. . . schlocky and silly seemed to be the aim. . so it didn't come off as bad to me.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------


The movies been out at LEAST 4 days now, MOVE.ON.BRAH.

Only over the pond Hells. . . . . officially anyways.

[ryansson]

Well apologies to anyone whose viewing pleasure might have been tainted, but this thread could be a bluff and George really hasn't come up with a god awful idea like horse riding zombs.

I actually liked the feel of the film compared to Land, the latter being too glitzy and lacking that intimacy that can IMHO produce a choking claustrophobia in previous. If George openly said from diary onwards he was turning his idea of Zombies on it's head, then I must have missed it and surely could be forgiven in thinking he was just adding to his films with previous mythology still standing.

[kona843]

I didnt like it, Romero has some really stupid ideas.

With each film i find it more difficult to relate to a cast of harderned survivors. Whats even worse is that Romero is humanizing the zombies, in my opinion learning zombies completely takes away any of the films eerie mood that i enjoyed with night of the living dead and dawn of the dead.

Some people may try to justify the zombie horse rider jumping the fence, i think if it really worked it wouldnt need to be justified. I saw it and thought it was one of the most idiotic things id ever seen, after lighting a cigarette off of a CGI flaming zombie.

[darth los]

I didnt like it, Romero has some really stupid ideas.

With each film i find it more difficult to relate to a cast of harderned survivors. Whats even worse is that Romero is humanizing the zombies, in my opinion learning zombies completely takes away any of the films eerie mood that i enjoyed with night of the living dead and dawn of the dead.

Some people may try to justify the zombie horse rider jumping the fence, i think if it really worked it wouldnt need to be justified. I saw it and thought it was one of the most idiotic things id ever seen, after lighting a cigarette off of a CGI flaming zombie.


More than that, it seems like with every succesive installment the luster gets shined off his legend. The situation has indeed gone from the sublime to the rediculous.

:cool:

[shootemindehead]

More than that, it seems like with every succesive installment the luster gets shined off his legend. The situation has indeed gone from the sublime to the rediculous.

:cool:

Have to agree Darth.

There are just too many bad ideas in 'Survival of the Dead', all of which have been mentioned. The horse riding zombie being the most grinding. That was just idotic and what's more ot added absolutely NOTHING to the show and it would have taken nothing away if it hadn't been shot at all.

It's just not a very good film. It doesn't come together at all.

The basic premise is fine, the guys going to an island bit, but it falls flat on its face continuously, from there on in. It's badly written, badly acted, the set pieces don't make any sense at all and peoples actions are totally unbelievable.

I haven't felt right since watching it. I need my 'Day of the Dead' fix to put things right again.

One thing's for sure, I'm not going to con myself like I did with 'Diary of the Dead'.

The film is just shit, end of.

I can only hope that George sees the error of his ways and goes back to continuing his original series.

[Danny]

I didnt like it, Romero has some really stupid ideas.

With each film i find it more difficult to relate to a cast of harderned survivors. Whats even worse is that Romero is humanizing the zombies, in my opinion learning zombies completely takes away any of the films eerie mood that i enjoyed with night of the living dead and dawn of the dead.

Some people may try to justify the zombie horse rider jumping the fence, i think if it really worked it wouldnt need to be justified. I saw it and thought it was one of the most idiotic things id ever seen, after lighting a cigarette off of a CGI flaming zombie.

I think the trouble is georges films, particularly the earlier ones, appealed to certain peoples "survival plan fantasies" and there more isolationist disposition. But they never really where hardened, or truly surviving. thats the point.
Now the kind of folks who watch rambo whilst massaging there rifles, gently, oh- ever so gently, may see the appeal in a film where the survivors are all 'soldiers fo fortune' and need for nothing and have had the perfect situation planned (just like them) and they act it out without a hitch.

But thats not a horror movie. thats not even a movie.

Romeros films began with the zombies not as the true enemy, but as a new take on the natural disaster, the force of nature and in night the farm house was the port in the storm.
It was the story of the breakdown of people devided by class and culture in a confined, claustrophobic setting that was under constant assault.

However as they have gone on romero has moved society and technology with the times. look at land. by then we had gone from empty farmhouse, to full shopping mal, to high tech military bunker meant to survive bombs to a rising tower because the society george lived in had changed.
WE changed the rules for george, just compare night and diary. by the similar premise they go two different ways because we are just not the same culture as back then. we are almost alien in some respects.
So if we change. if we are more afraid and alert for unseen foes than ever we can only ever extenuate our own faults which passes the role of the "survivor" to the zombies. Rileys team arent "surviving" in land, there living. they are the force of nature that sweeps into the zombies home town. in a breeze of tyres and bullets the maim and pillage and eventually someone is forced to rise to the alpha male position and say "this current balance will not stand!".
It was ben in night, big daddy in land as the two most stark contrasts.

People expect romero to make the same cookie cutter film forever where the "survivors" are the guys with the guns. but thats not the point, that was never the point. the survivors are the ones without control, it was taken from them and they want it back. only difference between humans and zombies is our isolationist nature against there singular drive for a common goal without dissent.
Basically you can rag on the learning zombies being too random to fit with the survivors but are the two families really the "good guys" of the piece? i dont think so. They could have lasted, could have survived, but they were too blind to see past there feud which all there dead family members got caught up in. they had literally no choice, they were walking corpses, bound in chains, treated like cattle or target practice by a vastly superior enemy. does that make them the good guys? not at all. but they were the one who had to adapt you see?, because the islanders could not. In the storm something had to break, the wave or the shore. this time it was the wave that broke. like the people in night they couldnt directly take on there enemy so the zombies had to adapt. much like improvising with tvs and gas pumps with the survivors in the original.

im going off tangentially here, a lot. but just because george has altered his perspective, and therefore ours, does not mean he is making it worse. Hes just making another movie, not the same movie.

[darth los]

Have to agree Darth.

There are just too many bad ideas in 'Survival of the Dead', all of which have been mentioned. The horse riding zombie being the most grinding. That was just idotic and what's more ot added absolutely NOTHING to the show and it would have taken nothing away if it hadn't been shot at all.

It's just not a very good film. It doesn't come together at all.

The basic premise is fine, the guys going to an island bit, but it falls flat on its face continuously, from there on in. It's badly written, badly acted, the set pieces don't make any sense at all and peoples actions are totally unbelievable.

I haven't felt right since watching it. I need my 'Day of the Dead' fix to put things right again.

One thing's for sure, I'm not going to con myself like I did with 'Diary of the Dead'.

The film is just shit, end of.

I can only hope that George sees the error of his ways and goes back to continuing his original series.


I haven't even seen this film yet however, reading this thread has made me seriously question whether i want to. Not because i don't want to sit through another shitty film but because i don't want my opinion of gar's work to diminish any further.

What was once genius has turned into a man whose films the syfy channell wouldn't even touch.

:cool:

[shootemindehead]

Crap!

Sorry Darth. I thought you'd seen it. :eek:

[darth los]

Crap!

Sorry Darth. I thought you'd seen it. :eek:

No, but i was well aware that there would be spoilers in this thread when i came in. No worries. :)

:cool:

[kona843]

I dissagree that Romero ever needed to change the progression of the zombies, survivors or the timeline to keep a fresh concept for a film. If the fiction section on this site has proved anything, its that there are countless different people and environments in which to keep the Zombie survival concept fresh.

I think what bothers me most is that his recent films make me start to question if the subtleties shown in Night of the Living Dead were even deliberate. I mean... If Romero fans rate him for putting so many hidden messages and clever emotional concepts in NOTLD, then why is it that they dont question that Romero then progressed to produce such an un-flowing and inconsistent film as Diary of the Dead? ... or put a zombie on a Horse!? I mean, even saying that in my head, if i was writing a script i wouldnt even think to entertain the idea, let alone put it on paper.

Besides, before i even began to read into Night of the Living Dead, i enjoyed it because it was a good Zombie flick, it wasnt cheesy or tongue in cheek. I think Romero has definately lost his touch, thats if he even had it to begin with.

[darth los]

let alone put it on paper.


Let alone put it on film. :hurl:


Perhaps Gar doesn't have it in him to make a good zombie flick anymore. Maybe he just keeps churning them out because that's pretty much the only thing investors will back him for.


If he had been a beter business man that wouldn't be a problem.

:cool:

[bassman]

Maybe he just keeps churning them out because that's pretty much the only thing investors will back him for.


That's not a maybe. That's a fact. He's said it before in several interviews. It's sad too because I would love to see some of his other ideas.

[darth los]

That's not a maybe. That's a fact. He's said it before in several interviews. It's sad too because I would love to see some of his other ideas.

Then it is ironic that the same thing that has made him the godfather of the genre has also severely hamstrung him.

:cool:

[Danny]

Then it is ironic that the same thing that has made him the godfather of the genre has also severely hamstrung him.

:cool:

Everytime he gets out they pull him back in.

[darth los]

Everytime he gets out they pull him back in.


Lol. That's exactly what it's like.


Gar: Hey, i got this great idea about a family stuck in a hurricane who take refuge in an abandoned house only to find that...

Investor: Click

Gar: Hello?

:cool:

[Legion2213]

Honestly, if Zack Snyder had used horse riding zombies, the outrage, indignation and sheer scorn from some folks here would've been something to behold! :D

I'm afraid Survival will have to be dropping considerably in price before I buy it.

[Yojimbo]

Everytime he gets out they pull him back in.

Well done, hellsing!

[clanglee]

.

I think what bothers me most is that his recent films make me start to question if the subtleties shown in Night of the Living Dead were even deliberate.

I don't think they were. I think that George has allowed his fan's overanalysis of his films to effect his style. He found out that everyone hypes him as the great subtext lord of film. . so he figures subtext is what they want. . .so we get Diary. . .where subtext ceases to be subtext and becomes . . . well. . . text. He added so much "meaning" to the film that it was blatant and obvious. I think that's kinda why I like survival. . .it is a return to simple plot and character. Silly as it is. . at least you can watch the damn film without being preached to.

[darth los]

Honestly, if Zack Snyder had used horse riding zombies, the outrage, indignation and sheer scorn from some folks here would've been something to behold! :D



That's definitely something that should be in a sig. No truer words have been written on these boards, which is why an honest intellectual discussion comparing Dawn 04' to LOTD as well as others is a waste of time.

It's like preaching healthcare reform in Utah. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[LouCipherr]

Honestly, if Zack Snyder had used horse riding zombies, the outrage, indignation and sheer scorn from some folks here would've been something to behold!

No truer words have ever been spoken. :lol: :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

No truer words have ever been spoken. :lol: :D

Fucking A


George does something completely stupid and outlandish he gets a pass, but remake his Dawn and change a few things and you're sent to burn in hell for eternity

[Trin]

I don't think they were. I think that George has allowed his fan's overanalysis of his films to effect his style. He found out that everyone hypes him as the great subtext lord of film. . so he figures subtext is what they want. . .so we get Diary. . .where subtext ceases to be subtext and becomes . . . well. . . text. He added so much "meaning" to the film that it was blatant and obvious.
You're exactly on target there. Enough fans and critics applauded his subtext that he started making it intentional. And at that point it stopped working because it was no longer a reflection of the times, but a fabrication of the times. It was forced, and that just doesn't work. And for years in interviews he denied that the original movies were purposefully filled with subtext. But eventually it became the only thing that made his movies stand out, so now it's all about what he was trying to say all along. I hate hearing the revisionist history.

[Eyebiter]

Was the horse supposed to be alive or zombified?

[darth los]

You're exactly on target there. Enough fans and critics applauded his subtext that he started making it intentional. And at that point it stopped working because it was no longer a reflection of the times, but a fabrication of the times. It was forced, and that just doesn't work. And for years in interviews he denied that the original movies were purposefully filled with subtext. But eventually it became the only thing that made his movies stand out, so now it's all about what he was trying to say all along. I hate hearing the revisionist history.

I remember that as well. He never played up the subtext angle until people started jocking him for it. When he saw that it was the main reason he was condidered a "genius" he did a pee wee herman.


"I meant to do that."

http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2008/9/13/633569431234455250-imeanttodothat.jpg

:cool:

[bassman]

I agree that he's taken the subtext a bit too far in recent years, but I definitely don't think it was unintentional at the start. Maybe it was slightly unintentional in Night, but he knew what he was doing with the mall in Dawn. Several scenes and shots make it obvious, imo.

I find it kinda funny that Day is my favorite and it could possibly be the entry with the least subtext...

[clanglee]

I find it kinda funny that Day is my favorite and it could possibly be the entry with the least subtext...

It's mine too. . .and for the same reason I think. . .it's the best example of how good his movies can be without all the message bullshit. Granted there are messages in Day, but they are not obvious or even important. The main message is really my favorite zombie movie basic plot standby. . . . ."people can't get along" good, straightfoward, and easy to portray.

[Trin]

I agree that he's taken the subtext a bit too far in recent years, but I definitely don't think it was unintentional at the start. Maybe it was slightly unintentional in Night, but he knew what he was doing with the mall in Dawn. Several scenes and shots make it obvious, imo.
I think it started as Romero having a keen insight into people - the ability to be that "reflection of the times" he's been talking about for decades. He nails the characters and tells their story and it rings true. It resonates with the people in the audience because they could see themselves acting just that way.

That's not the same as making a statement about society, although the lines can be blurry between the two.

Dawn is the best example where the reflection of the times and the statement about society come close. In Dawn Romero depicted people as enticed by consumer goods, drawn to the mall for the stuff. That's an accurate relfection of the times. Back in the day that was interpreted as "people like stuff - yeah, you got that right." When asked if he was making a commentary on society he always answered the question the same way... He'd wave his hand and say, "You're reading too much into it."


I find it kinda funny that Day is my favorite and it could possibly be the entry with the least subtext...What I've always found funny is how people who are on the subtext bandwagon try to assign subtext to Day. Proof people can find subtext in anything if they look hard enough. It just isn't there. But on the heels of Dawn it had the subtext people scratching their heads. Personally, I think that confusion contributed as much as anything to the intial poor reactions to Day. But it was a good reflection of the times with the short-sighted nature of the people, the paranoia, the spiraling downwards. It's my favorite too.

The best evidence that he was NOT doing it intentionally back in the day is looking at what he's done when we know he's doing it intentionally.

lol - sorry about the rant. But that's my version of history and I'm probably thinking about sticking to it!!

[clanglee]

I think it started as Romero having a keen insight into people - the ability to be that "reflection of the times" he's been talking about for decades. He nails the characters and tells their story and it rings true. It resonates with the people in the audience because they could see themselves acting just that way.

That's not the same as making a statement about society, although the lines can be blurry between the two.

Dawn is the best example where the reflection of the times and the statement about society come close. In Dawn Romero depicted people as enticed by consumer goods, drawn to the mall for the stuff. That's an accurate relfection of the times. Back in the day that was interpreted as "people like stuff - yeah, you got that right." When asked if he was making a commentary on society he always answered the question the same way... He'd wave his hand and say, "You're reading too much into it."

What I've always found funny is how people who are on the subtext bandwagon try to assign subtext to Day. Proof people can find subtext in anything if they look hard enough. It just isn't there. But on the heels of Dawn it had the subtext people scratching their heads. Personally, I think that confusion contributed as much as anything to the intial poor reactions to Day. But it was a good reflection of the times with the short-sighted nature of the people, the paranoia, the spiraling downwards. It's my favorite too.

The best evidence that he was NOT doing it intentionally back in the day is looking at what he's done when we know he's doing it intentionally.

lol - sorry about the rant. But that's my version of history and I'm probably thinking about sticking to it!!

From your lips to God's ears my friend. Once again, you have said it better than I ever could. If I ever get filthy rich, I'm hiring you to be my PR guy

[bassman]

The best evidence that he was NOT doing it intentionally back in the day is looking at what he's done when we know he's doing it intentionally.


Well....yes and no. He was getting pats on the back for his subtext after both Night and Dawn, yet he turned out Day aftwards. So maybe he just knew how to handle it better back then and now he's slipping into insanity with old age?:p

There's no denying that it's become really heavy in the last few flicks, but he knew about his subtext "fame" while making at least 2 of the 3 original flicks yet they weren't as heavy....

[Trin]

Well....yes and no. He was getting pats on the back for his subtext after both Night and Dawn, yet he turned out Day aftwards. So maybe he just knew how to handle it better back then and now he's slipping into insanity with old age?:p

There's no denying that it's become really heavy in the last few flicks, but he knew about his subtext "fame" while making at least 2 of the 3 original flicks yet they weren't as heavy....I don't recall the pats on the back after Night, but I didn't really start paying attention until after Dawn. And after Dawn he wrote the Day script... which if you take the script he's got quite a bit of oddity in there. I'm not sure if it's subtext or not. It's definitely trying to point out something about ... something. :rockbrow:

Given how many GAR fans love Day maybe all his scripts should get a last minute shredding during filming. :lol: