Where's the Zombie narrative going?

[ummmbrains]

Radiation and genetic experiments have been the main causes for flesh eating zombies to occur. But with Romero suggesting a cure at the end of Survival, (with the woman eating horse meat) what does this mean for the progression of zombies? Zombie animals like we have seen in I am Legend?....

[Drew_OTD]

the fact that Romero didnt show what happened to the horse is pretty cool... leaves it open for his next one (fingers crossed).
wasn't sure about the girl riding the horse though... but the rest of it worked for me.
i dont know about zombie animals though... it would mean a whole new direction for the series, and possibly the end of the zombie apocalypse a la Romero.
also, for whatever reason Romero's dead become undead, get up and eat the living then to on and infect/poison/partially devour/WHATEVER animals, i think Romero may have to finally yeild a proper reason for why dead people come back to life.
and im not sure he's prepared to give up his secrets yet...

[ummmbrains]

you think he has it all planned out then?
He leaves such massive amounts of time between making each film! What i mean is that that he must use all that time to think of where the narrative is going (or making other films), i dont think he knew how it was going to end before he started. I like to think he is just enjoying the ride, and seeing what he can eat his way through next.

[Drew_OTD]

absolutley.
the past 50 years have seen Romero's apocalypse going from a small town in Pittsburgh, to the entire world being out numbered 400,000 to 1.
but now he's brought in this idea of salvation, the idea that people are looking for a 'cure'.
so maybe he has planned everything, but his last 3 films were done within 5 years, and now that he's reverted to doing low budget cinema again, who knows... maybe he's saving up some pennies for a grand finale.

septology, octology of the dead..?

[ummmbrains]

I hope he doesn't do a big budget final film, as it will loose what i love about his work in the first place. The low budget look, and he gets to command the narrative, no studios behind him making the movie they want.

The small communities vs zombies could go on for as long as he wants. a different group of survivors, with different situations and people.
Will this make the genre stale though? The same film is being made again and again?

I like the direction Zombieland and Shawn of the dead have taken. But is that for Romero?

[Danny]

it all depends on the times its made really, thats always the governing influence when someone's writing a sci-fi or horror piece. Look at cold war paranoia era films like invasion of the body snatchers or night of the living dead. It was all about the fear and paranoia of the people you knew around you, your neighbors and local officials regardless, turning out to be some unknown enemy right in your backyard. Jump to the turn of the century and the biggest fear of peoples minds were terrorist attacks and pandemics based on the big bird and swine flu outbreaks of the time. Therefore it was no surprise horror films in a similar vein took a turn on the more viral fear at the forefront of peoples minds with films like 28 days later and the dawn of the dead remake. It was no longer about something foreign invading and controlling people but something that could make anyone a threat, even yourself, as this mirco organism or viral bacteria spread with no control. it just existed to make the world burn till it itself burnt out, as it were.

Nowadays id say the biggest fears worldwide are mostly climate based, earthquakes, tsunamis ect or lack of personal freedoms and over surveillance or cyber crime and general lack of control. At first glance neither seem relevant, but then i dont think romero made night back in the day with a "once your bitten your infected" idea in mind either so who knows?

[Kaos]

Thread moved.

[bassman]

Radiation and genetic experiments have been the main causes for flesh eating zombies to occur.

They have? In Romero's films? Radiation from the Venus Probe is a theory in Night(and JUST a theory, imo - not the direct cause), but other than that he's never tried to explain it.

Romero's original trilogy had the right idea. It's more scary when you don't know what brings them back from the dead. Zombie horses or animals? I don't care for all that. As long as he doesn't go George Lucas on us and digitally install the horse riding zombie through random shots of the originals, i'm basically ignoring Diary and Survival.

[undead_dan]

I find the lack of full answers somewhat more interesting to the films he has made though, and take films like NOTLD for their initial simple value. I don't need answers to be scared, and the simplicity is something that I like about his work, narrative over OTT Hollywood flair.

I must admit I am unsure where his work will go, but there will definitely always be an audience for what he creates, and I believe he will be still able to attract a newer fresher audience every time.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The mystique is what has been a great thing about Romero's films... the original 3. This clown business he's done with LAND and SURVIVAL is atrocious to say the least, and by clown business I mean smart zombies like Big Daddy and Horse Riding Zombie.

I for one would be really bummed if he explained the origins of the zombie apocalypse, in fact the best explanation he has given us is probably from Day of the Dead when John says "We're being punished by the creator. He has visited a curse on us. So we might get a look at... what hell was like."

This to me made the whole zombie apocalypse in the original 3 films scarier than anything I could have ever dreamed up and to me that is more than suffice for an explanation on the origins.

[bassman]

, in fact the best explanation he has given us is probably from Day of the Dead when John says "We're being punished by the creator. He has visited a curse on us. So we might get a look at... what hell was like."


If you accept this explanation, why not Peter's voodoo explanation? They're both the same. Just religion filling in the gaps where there is no answer.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think maybe because I like the way John delivered the explanation.

[Drew_OTD]

religion has always been key... in a time when the dead roam the earth, people would be torn into two groups.
those who turn to god for the answers, salvation and preservation.
and people who have seen enough films to know exactly what to do.

there is even a passage in the bible that says the dead will rise upon judgement day.

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable
. . . (King James Version, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

so maybe John's reasoning... was infact Romero's reasoning.

[DjfunkmasterG]

religion has always been key... in a time when the dead roam the earth, people would be torn into two groups.
those who turn to god for the answers, salvation and preservation.
and people who have seen enough films to know exactly what to do.

there is even a passage in the bible that says the dead will rise upon judgement day.

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable
. . . (King James Version, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52)

so maybe John's reasoning... was infact Romero's reasoning.

Great explanation Drew, and you pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject. :D

[ummmbrains]

I like how this leaves all humanity eternally doomed, and that all survivors will eventually become the horde, or do you see hope? I dont!

[Drew_OTD]

well, for there to be zombies, we have to die first.
and seeing as the bastards dont eat for nourishment...



i dont see hope.
if it happens, we as a species are fucked.
gotta get me a samurai sword.... otherwise :dead:

[ummmbrains]

yer samurai sword is good, if i am going out i want to have a go in a armoured combine harvester... chew up some zombie fuckers first!:p

[soulsyfn]

Radiation and genetic experiments have been the main causes for flesh eating zombies to occur. But with Romero suggesting a cure at the end of Survival, (with the woman eating horse meat) what does this mean for the progression of zombies? Zombie animals like we have seen in I am Legend?....

Dude for real!? Why not put in a "Spoiler" tag on this I havent seen the movie yet (as I think is the case for most people)... Did you just give away a major element of a movie that even hasnt been distributed yet?

[Drew_OTD]

course it's been distributed.
how have i got my own copy and seen it loads already..?
you're not looking in the right places my man.
amazon that shit or something.

[bassman]

course it's been distributed.
.

Not in the US. You guys in the UK have it, but it's not yet released on R1. So soulsyfn has a point. We should be more careful with spoilers

[darth los]

Well, he's new so cut him some slack, but yeah Most of us haven't seen it.


But as for the o.p. I have been turned off with the direction of GAr's series since land. The "smart" zombie thing just seems too ridiculous and far fetched.

The thing is you would consider bub a "smart" zombie but it was portrayed masterfully.

But big daddy was just too over the top. I can buy that one anomoly out of millions can occur but for an entire race to suddenly "evolve" when they should be deteriorating is just stupid. That's the stop where i got off.

So you have to infer that it is the failing of the director not the idea.

:cool:

[Drew_OTD]

sorry chaps, we didnt know.
i always thought it was the other way round, you guys got films before us!

and im definatly with you on the whole 'big daddy' thing.
i mean, the bits in dawn and day when they talk about instinct, thats fine... i even go with the 'residual instinct' thing.
but zombies with guns... absolutley not.
Land is the worst one out of the series for me.
i loved diary, and for those yet to see it, give survival a chance, its entertaining as fuck to say the least, some great deaths.

sorry about the spoiler though, its still worth a watch for all the stuff we didnt spoil!

[ummmbrains]

Yer sorry about that guys, like drew didn't realise that we in the UK actually got it first.
Keep zombies the way they should b dam it, guns without a doubt a big no no... wanna see them munch their way through everyone.

[BillyRay]

but zombies with guns... absolutley not.


Oh, really?

http://www2.gol.com/users/noman/images/charac/dead25.jpg

(Was anybody else as disappointed as me during their first viewing of Dawn that Rifle Zombie doesn't blow his own head off?)

[bassman]

Funny you should mention it. I actually thought that was going to happen the first time I saw Dawn.:lol:

[darth los]

sorry chaps, we didnt know.
i always thought it was the other way round, you guys got films before us!

and im definatly with you on the whole 'big daddy' thing.
i mean, the bits in dawn and day when they talk about instinct, thats fine... i even go with the 'residual instinct' thing.
but zombies with guns... absolutley not.
Land is the worst one out of the series for me.
i loved diary, and for those yet to see it, give survival a chance, its entertaining as fuck to say the least, some great deaths.

sorry about the spoiler though, its still worth a watch for all the stuff we didnt spoil!


Yer sorry about that guys, like drew didn't realise that we in the UK actually got it first.
Keep zombies the way they should b dam it, guns without a doubt a big no no... wanna see them munch their way through everyone.

That's the thing though. Bub had a gun and may i say he was bad ass with it. As I said it's just the way it was done.

The whole Big Daddy evolution thing was ill concieved, imo, and it's portrayal on film was even worse.

I hear alot of hate for dawn 04' based upon the "raptor llike" screches the ghouls make but isn't the over the top yelling big daddy delivers worse or atleast as bad/annoying?





Oh, really?

http://www2.gol.com/users/noman/images/charac/dead25.jpg

(Was anybody else as disappointed as me during their first viewing of Dawn that Rifle Zombie doesn't blow his own head off?)


Yeah but he didn't walk around guns blazing like hewas wild bill. It is interesting though how in 3 consecutive films he portrayed ghouls with guns (I think we just coined a new title of a magazine :lol:) and they way they used them seemed to evolve as well.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

You'd think Peter would've just nudged the zed's trigger finger on his way to the helicopter. He was in full-blown action hero mode at that point, with theme music and everything.

Maybe there was a sense of respect there - after all, how difficult is it for a zombie to climb a ladder while holding a rifle? Pretty darn difficult.

[bassman]

I hear alot of hate for dawn 04' based upon the "raptor llike" screches the ghouls make but isn't the over the top yelling big daddy delivers worse or atleast as bad/annoying?


I believe the difference is that Big Daddy makes normal sounds, while the raptor racers create a sound that is virtually impossible with human vocal chords.

But yes....both were annoying. I don't like BD's but I can stand it a bit more because it's more natural.

[darth los]

You'd think Peter would've just nudged the zed's trigger finger on his way to the helicopter. He was in full-blown action hero mode at that point, with theme music and everything.

Maybe there was a sense of respect there - after all, how difficult is it for a zombie to climb a ladder while holding a rifle? Pretty darn difficult.

I think he was more wierded out by it than anything. Did ya see the look on his face?

He was like : " This jive turkey is crazy, I'm splittin' man, fo sho."


I believe the difference is that Big Daddy makes normal sounds, while the raptor racers create a sound that is virtually impossible with human vocal chords.

But yes....both were annoying. I don't like BD's but I can stand it a bit more because it's more natural.

The ghouls in dawn didn't make me want to slap the prosthetic teeth out of their mouths. BD did. :lol:

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I believe the difference is that Big Daddy makes normal sounds, while the raptor racers create a sound that is virtually impossible with human vocal chords.

But yes....both were annoying. I don't like BD's but I can stand it a bit more because it's more natural.

How do you know it is impossible? We don't know the source of the zombie infection or what effect it has on the human body. If you can sit through a film and believe the dead have come back to life then you have to suspend enough belief in regards to the vocal chords.

Big Daddy on the other hand was just a completely retarded concept from start to finish.

---------- Post added at 01:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------


Oh, really?

http://www2.gol.com/users/noman/images/charac/dead25.jpg

(Was anybody else as disappointed as me during their first viewing of Dawn that Rifle Zombie doesn't blow his own head off?)

YES YES YES


In fact I was pissed Roger never pulled the fucking trigger when the zombie grabbed the gun. if there was ever a prime time to have a head explosion shot, that would have been it.

[darth los]

Big Daddy on the other hand was just a completely retarded concept from start to finish.[COLOR="Silver"]



THIS. BD just took me totally out of the film.

:cool:

[soulsyfn]

Its all good, I hope to be able to see the movie sometime this year :(

[bassman]

Well of course you have to suspend your disbelief when viewing a zombie movie, but as with all films there is a certain level to which you can still go along with it, but once it's crossed you start rolling your eyes a bit. I believe Neil summed this up well with his hatred toward Indiana Jones 4...

Imo....BD sounds a bit more plausible while the raptors don't. And the raptors also run, so that doesn't help me get into it.

[Leo]

Just to let some people know survival of the dead has been playing on fios here in america.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
As someone who has completely lost faith in Romero's ability to deliver the goods, I feel the best I can reasonably expect is for the man to find the integrity to bring his run to a climax and in the process perhaps do some game-ending things, like developing a cure or explaining the origin of the outbreak.

Romero has now laid as many turd-eggs as he has gems. That's something even the most die-hard fan must recognize.

He CAN'T continue doing the "Pocket of Survivors Vs. Undead World" with slight variations, because he's Lost the ability and vision to make a truly great zombie movie. ANYONE can tell his heart simply isn't in the game anymore.

Romero is bitter about his pigeon-holed fate, yet by cranking out awful example after still more awful examples of the genre he was once GOOD AT, he does nothing but ensure that no one in their right mind would give him a significant amount of $$ to do something different.

Why? Simple Studio Logic. "If the man can't deliver the goods with the zombies anymore, we'd be fools to risk throwing more good money after bad into the hole in the water the sinking S.S Romero has become."

Where's the narrative going? One of two places. Either GAR sits down and makes peace with himself about NEVER being given money for non-zombie work, and then somehow finds the grit to go back to low-budget basics in his roots, or he goes straight to Uwe Boll/Rob Zombie Hell.

Can feel bad for the man and still recognize the damage is irreversible. GAR is the William Shatner of directors. He needs to embrace it and try to redeem his legacy, not keep going through the motions.

Honestly, 1 more crap-bomb like Diary or Survival and GAR's off my "Must See List". Never thought I'd find myself saying something like that, but there it is.

Tell me that many of you aren't feeling the same way. Honestly?

[bassman]

It's funny that people think his newer efforts some how make his originals less of the classics that they have been for 25-45 years.

Romero has done nothing to those films since they were completed and they are still the same. What he does now will never change that. He's not going George Lucas and changing things in them, for fucks sake.

Do you stop listening to one of your favorite band's albums when they change a member? You might stop listening to their new albums, but their old is still the same.

You want to write off Romero, go for it. A bunch of people have. But saying some shit about his Legacy going under is silly. He still invented the genre and he is still the godfather of the dead.

Rant over.:p

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well,
As someone who has completely lost faith in Romero's ability to deliver the goods, I feel the best I can reasonably expect is for the man to find the integrity to bring his run to a climax and in the process perhaps do some game-ending things, like developing a cure or explaining the origin of the outbreak.

Romero has now laid as many turd-eggs as he has gems. That's something even the most die-hard fan must recognize.

He CAN'T continue doing the "Pocket of Survivors Vs. Undead World" with slight variations, because he's Lost the ability and vision to make a truly great zombie movie. ANYONE can tell his heart simply isn't in the game anymore.

Romero is bitter about his pigeon-holed fate, yet by cranking out awful example after still more awful examples of the genre he was once GOOD AT, he does nothing but ensure that no one in their right mind would give him a significant amount of $$ to do something different.

Why? Simple Studio Logic. "If the man can't deliver the goods with the zombies anymore, we'd be fools to risk throwing more good money after bad into the hole in the water the sinking S.S Romero has become."

Where's the narrative going? One of two places. Either GAR sits down and makes peace with himself about NEVER being given money for non-zombie work, and then somehow finds the grit to go back to low-budget basics in his roots, or he goes straight to Uwe Boll/Rob Zombie Hell.

Can feel bad for the man and still recognize the damage is irreversible. GAR is the William Shatner of directors. He needs to embrace it and try to redeem his legacy, not keep going through the motions.

Honestly, 1 more crap-bomb like Diary or Survival and GAR's off my "Must See List". Never thought I'd find myself saying something like that, but there it is.

Tell me that many of you aren't feeling the same way. Honestly?

Honestly I will still check out the mans work because as I noted before I respect him for his contributions to the genre. Plus his films made me want to become a filmmaker, so he will always get a "I must at least check it out" from me, but just because I am a fan doesn't mean he gets a free pass when he releases shit, but I am willing to stick by the man.

While I am not a fan of Survival it was at least better than LAND so in a way things have gotten a tad better, but I still want something better than what has been offered and while he is alive I am willing to give him that chance.


It's funny that people think his newer efforts some how make his originals less of the classics that they have been for 25-45 years.

Romero has done nothing to those films since they were completed and they are still the same. What he does now will never change that. He's not going George Lucas and changing things in them, for fucks sake.

Do you stop listening to one of your favorite band's albums when they change a member? You might stop listening to their new albums, but their old is still the same.

You want to write off Romero, go for it. A bunch of people have. But saying some shit about his Legacy going under is silly. He still invented the genre and he is still the godfather of the dead.

Rant over.:p

His newer stuff doesn't change the first three for me in anyway. I still respect and love those films and always will. I just won't speak kindly of him when it comes to LAND, as I feel it was a travesty of cinema. Not Uwe Boll Bad, but not far off.

[Trin]

It's funny that people think his newer efforts some how make his originals less of the classics that they have been for 25-45 years.The problem is that the later movies jack with the phenomenon, raising questions that confuse the issue and cast doubts on the original movies. Take Big Daddy for instance. How much have we discussed and debated Bub's role in the larger zombie populace as a result of what we saw from BD?

And Survival...
...just plain f'd up the whole phenomenon. If Bub was unique in the fact that he didn't lunge for humans, what about all those dozens of chained up zombies on Plum Island? They never seemed to care about the humans walking amongst them, and not one Dr. Logan was around "training" them.

It's that kind of thing that GAR is doing to himself.

Perhaps the biggest problems the new movies present is that they point out how lucky GAR got with Night and Dawn. Notice I didn't include Day because if he'd gotten his way (i.e. the Original Day Script) we'd have a much different Day, and it'd be alot more like Survival than our beloved classic.

He hasn't gone to the point of Matrix yet - where the later movies actually changed my opinion of the original - but it's working that way.


...but I still want something better than what has been offered and while he is alive I am willing to give him that chance.
I'd give him that chance after he's dead too.

[DjfunkmasterG]

You think ole george will come back as a zombie and make another movie... could you imagine the press he would get then?

[Trin]

You think ole george will come back as a zombie and make another movie... could you imagine the press he would get then?
That's what's been happening since Land. He died in the 90's, came back, and is doing what he did in life... just operating less perfectly.

[Leo]

I think part of it might be the feel of the movie as well. His older stuff felt like you were watching it as if it were really happening because it just shows how a certain group of people are surviving in realistic ways (barricading a house, holding up in a mall), whereas his new stuff feels more like a cheap movie because the zombies are all starting to act smart and the characters are doing things that don't make sense, like trying to let the zombies live with them. I think another thing that made his old stuff better was the suspense, his new stuff hardly has any suspense if it even does.

[Wyldwraith]

@Bassman: My reference to GAR's Legacy was about the totality of his body of zombie-movie work. Of course nothing he's done since or will do in the future affects the quality of his first three films.

What I meant basically is this: Given that Land is viewed anywhere from being mediocre to bad by the fans, Diary is almost universally reviled and Survival isn't any better, at some point the majority of fans will find their opinion of a director changing, and not for the better if his recent work doesn't come near the quality of his early stuff.

One can say that GAR has completely lost touch with how to make a good zombie movie and yet be saying nothing that detracts from the original trilogy. Yes, GAR pioneered the Genre, and he will always be recognized for that. However, if he were to die tomorrow he would probably be remembered as a director who created a trilogy of really great zombie movies and a couple general horror films, whose later offerings weren't up to the standards he himself set.

THAT is what I meant when I spoke about GAR's Legacy. Nothing you're doing now or will do in the future changes what you've done in the past, but what you do in the present and future DOES affect how one is perceived from the total perspective.

Maybe I went too far when I said I wouldn't check any new stuff of GAR's out. I couldn't get all the way through Survival without getting disgusted, but I still gave it a shot. In all likelihood I'll simply view his work with much lower expectations than I once did if he makes another movie. That way I'll either be pleasantly surprised or worst case, not too disappointed.

It's not just GAR though. Whenever any director, author or artist has finished their run, it's their entire body of work as a whole that's assessed in taking what will become the "historical" measure of the man/woman.

[JDFP]

Personally, I'm hoping that GAR will pull a Meat Loaf. Meat's one of my most favorite singers out there, but the man's career has been riddled with success and failure, and failure, and continued striving. Meat's "Bat Out of Hell" (1977) is one of my most favorite albums ever created. It's epic, powerful, intense, and bombastic in all the 'good' ways. It's Wagnerian Rock. A large part of the greatness of "Bat Out of Hell" had to do with Jim Steinman writing the songs for Meat to perform. Like or hate Steinman's influence on music, the man is a genius who has created some epic slices of music.

From this epic beginning with "Bat..." there was only one place to go, and that was straight down. Meat's albums after this in the 80's ("Dead Ringer", "Midnight at the Lost and Found", "Bad Attitude", and "Blind Before I Stop") were all worth listening to for fans, but they were pale comparisons to the greatness of "Bat" and really just mediocre compared to it.

Alot of fans had given up on Meat, just as many are complaining about Romero, stating that the man only made one truly great album. Then, in 1993, to the shock of everyone, Meat and Steinman got together and created one of the greatest rock albums of the decade with "Bat Out of Hell 2". The themes of love, lust, fear, pain, heartache -- all the great themes were still there, but it was an album for a new generation -- reaching out to people in today's time and age. Meat's albums since "Bat 2" haven't been able to compare to the great epics created between his pairing with Jim Steinman, but they are markedly fun as hell rock albums where he's accepted his role as being the 'larger than life' rocker with heart ("Welcome to the Neighborhood", "Couldn't Have Said it Better", "Bat Out of Hell 3", and "Hang Cool Teddy Bear" which is releasing on May 11 -- and I will be looking forward to buying this album).

Sometimes brilliant glory can only be captured once. Harper Lee never wrote another novel after "To Kill A Mockingbird", and sometimes I wonder if her reasoning was in knowing anything she published after it would never compare. However, there are times where greatness can be captured again -- or at least improved upon previous works. I consider Romero's original trilogy to be similar to "Bat Out of Hell" whereas the most recent films are Meat Loaf's albums in the 80's. I'm hoping that Romero will surprise us all, against everyone who is stating he can never do it again, and pull a "Bat Out of Hell 2" out of his hat to shock the world as coming back with a vengeance.

Like your love of favorite singers/bands/albums, you keep hoping that the spark can be lit once again. And, sometimes, it can.

So, folks, would you offer your throat to the Romero with the red rose? :D

j.p.

[darth los]

I think part of it might be the feel of the movie as well. His older stuff felt like you were watching it as if it were really happening because it just shows how a certain group of people are surviving in realistic ways (barricading a house, holding up in a mall), whereas his new stuff feels more like a cheap movie because the zombies are all starting to act smart and the characters are doing things that don't make sense, like trying to let the zombies live with them. I think another thing that made his old stuff better was the suspense, his new stuff hardly has any suspense if it even does.


Good points and I'll even supplement them.

Another thing is character development. We actually care deeply about the characters in the trilogy.

When i think of the new trilogy I couldn't give 2 fucks about any of them. Another one of his shortcomings that I think has been overlooked by us or atleast underdiscussed.

:cool:


---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------



Like your love of favorite singers/bands/albums, you keep hoping that the spark can be lit once again. And, sometimes, it can.
j.p.

Las Vegas casinos count on the same thing. :p :lol:

:cool:

[soulsyfn]

While I agree the original trilogy will forever be cemented in my/our mind(s) as awe inspiring pieces of work (to varying degrees).

I do feel that the new trilogy is making it impossible for new generations to feel as awe-struck as we were. Especially since the new generation(s) might be watching the new trilogy before the old trilogy... therefore their judgement will be clouded.

And, I do hope that GAR does make another awe inspiring movie in the genre... I really really do!

[darth los]

While I agree the original trilogy will forever be cemented in my/our mind(s) as awe inspiring pieces of work (to varying degrees).

I do feel that the new trilogy is making it impossible for new generations to feel as awe-struck as we were. Especially since the new generation(s) might be watching the new trilogy before the old trilogy... therefore their judgement will be clouded.

And, I do hope that GAR does make another awe inspiring movie in the genre... I really really do!


I'm not seeing any reason that he can't other than his inexplicable stubborness in taking the series in the direction he is.


Diary was promised as a reboot but didn't deliver. We were all giddy because it sparked mental images of the original three and the endless possibiliteis.

But it was a fail.

Imo, he needs to stop this smart ghoul/evolution crap and get back to what made the trilogy as classic as it was.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

Good points and I'll even supplement them.

Another thing is character development. We actually care deeply about the characters in the trilogy.

When i think of the new trilogy I couldn't give 2 fucks about any of them. Another one of his shortcomings that I think has been overlooked by us or at least underdiscussed.

Once again, Darth, you've cut right to the heart of the matter.

As much as we complain about over-emotive zombies (and their equestrian skills) the real shortcomings of Land, Diary, and prolly Survival (can't really say - ain't seen it yet) are that we're not made to care about the human characters.

In the Classic trilogy, there's the feeling that the characters are complex, engaging human beings. The true horror in these films (imho) comes not from the Living Dead, but the inability of the survivors to work together.

For example, on this board, we've discussed the relative merits of Harry Cooper and Captain Rhodes. That they may not have been as "bad" as we initially observed. That's the beauty of these characters (and the actors' performances), that even after 25, 30, 40 years there's still facets of these persons to explore.

Not so much in the new films. I suppose we were supposed to identify with Riley in Land, but he's a bland cypher. The kids in Diary were all expendable Horror-movie fodder. Seriously, I was more invested in the characters in Dawn '04 than in these kids.

I guess this begs the question - who's writing these scripts? Is it Romero, or some knob out of the Ivy League?

[Wyldwraith]

Very good points about the characterization failings,
I also believe you were spot on about the real problem. Ie: Romero's stubborn insistence to keep going in a direction his fans have OBVIOUSLY given him mountains of negative feedback on.

Zombies are scary because of the faceless, relentless horde factor, and because of the "Anyone can become one of THEM" factor. Romero's last 3 movies almost completely bypass these elements in favor of still more social commentary.

It may be as simple as Romero erroneously feeling he needs more complexity in his scenarios, or that he's bored. Honestly, too bad for him. Director success relies on pleasing us. Simple as that :)

Just my .02

[Trin]

Another thing is character development. We actually care deeply about the characters in the trilogy.
I disagree. I liked many of the characters in Land. Riley/Charlie is about my favorite duo in all the Dead movies, inclusive of Peter/Roger. And I'm a noted Land-disliker. It simply wasn't the characters that failed me in Land.

And I liked several of them in Survival. Who can not like O'Flynn?

Diary... pooh... not one good character... except Jason, but only after he was dead.


And, I do hope that GAR does make another awe inspiring movie in the genre... I really really do!
I think he could.


I'm not seeing any reason that he can't other than his inexplicable stubborness in taking the series in the direction he is.

Imo, he needs to stop this smart ghoul/evolution crap and get back to what made the trilogy as classic as it was.
Completely agree. He's pushing some weird learning/behavior agenda that started with the Day script, didn't play out obviously enough in Day, got rehashed some in Land, took a brief respite in Diary for a much, much worse message, then resurfaced in Survival kinda in the passenger seat. I wish he'd just write the damned zombie manifesto and then go back to kick-ass zombie survival.

[AcesandEights]

He's pushing some weird learning/behavior agenda that started with the Day script, didn't play out obviously enough in Day...

Are you saying there was something wrong with Day of the Dead, forumite?

Because it could be construed that you were meaning something to that effect.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NVLhg3UMnS0/0.jpg



(I know you meant it didn't play out enough for GAR's tastes, btw.)

[Trin]

Are you saying there was something wrong with Day of the Dead, forumite?

Because it could be construed that you were meaning something to that effect.
No, sir!! 4 out 5 Aunt Elisha's agree. Day was awesome!!