George plans two more films to continue the diary/ survival story

[Danny]

http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=15161

huh. On one hand im kinda peeved he's sticking with zombies and not something new, i know thats really the only way hes guranteed funding nowadays but still...
-anyway, two more flicks, possibly two parts of one extra long feature continuing the theme from survival of the changes george made at the end to his diary universe zombies.

Honestly im kinda interested in where he' going to take this angle, as opposed to the clever big daddy style ones he did in the past. my guess? zombie animals, resident evil style. Actually one scene i liked in resident evil extinction was the whole birds style scene with the zombies crows- though knowing romero i would imagine a zombie clown riding a zombie tiger.

and im okay with that.:lol:

Jokes aside its nice to see hes making more movies, especially that hes trying more new ideas and not sticking with the same increasingly tired and overpopulated night style shambler.

[Wyldwraith]

Feel just the opposite,
Romero's more recent "innovations" have all been uniformly CRAPTASTIC. I'd be much more thrilled if he announced he was returning to the basics than this blind flailing as he desperately continues trying to find a new vehicle for his ever more preachy social commentary.

As for zombies being the only way he's guaranteed funding, after his last three offerings I think he should be damned grateful that's still even true.

One thing is certain. The money men behind every film are more cynical than even the most jaded of fans. If Romero doesn't squeeze out a successful picture soon he's pretty much over. Yes, the trilogy was genre-spawning/defining awesomeness, but he's nearly expended all the creative capital the original trilogy provided him on one mediocre movie and two flicks nearly as painful to watch as the DAY REMAKE.

Diehard fans may be incredibly forgiving, but the individuals who comprise the remaining bulk of the movie-making process are NOT.

It's not just about financing either. GAR demonstrated that at least at one point he could do a lot with a little. Yet a Director alone does not a good movie make, anymore than a Quarterback can win a football game solo. Talented new faces in the industry have to consider what effect having a complete flop on their fledgling work-records may have.

Failure to gain the participation of first-rate special effects, camera work, sound, lighting, not to mention acting, can doom any movie to creative still-birth.

And yes, Characterization IS something Romero has been remarkably weak in recently. Land is arguably the last movie where we CARED AT ALL what happened to the characters, but Land doesn't hold a candle to the original Holy Trinity of Zombiedom in that respect.

This goes back to my continuing belief that GAR has lost sight of the trees for the forest. Too much energy has been going into "The Message", and not NEARLY enough into simply making us tense up as we see Protagonist-X get into a close scrape, and out again by the narrowest of near-miss/close calls.

Which is the beating heart of Survival Horror. We need to be able to care about, and thus be able to imagine ourselves in the place of the protagonists. If you can't draw the audience in and make them care if the gutsy brunette manages to wiggle through the air duct she's trying to escape the zombies with, if you're not holding your breath as she struggles to get unstuck and get her oh-so-vulnerable legs away from the inexorably advancing zombies who just busted down the door, you have no movie.

[ProfessorChaos]

gotta agree with wyldwraith. i cannot even pretend to be excited about this.

he is a legend for his original trilogy, but i've given up on mr. romero after the last few offerings. no more please.

[JDFP]

If Romero introduces zombie animals / running zombies / zombies that start yelling "BRAINS!" / zombies with super-human strength / zombies that 'aren't really zombies but are infected people with a RAGE virus' / zombies that have the ability to claw their way up buildings / zombies that can walk on walls / oh God stop stop stop!

If any of this shit is any "zombie" film it's an automatic turn off for me. I will not be seeing it if any of the above is the case. I don't consider "28 Days" and "28 Weeks" in this category BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ZOMBIES; but I'm sick and tired of this supposed zombie bullshit...

The Holy Trinity ("Night", "Dawn", "Day") is it for me. If you can't tell a story successfully without using any of the above for zombie flicks then it doesn't mean it's because "slow zombies don't scare people anymore" but because you're a terrible director that doesn't know how to create tension/horror.

I'd be interested if Romero does another flick, but only if he goes back to basics again. Pull a U2, Romero, go back to why we all here fell in love with your films and the joy of enjoying the characters and horror -- tell a good story with simplicity. Otherwise, don't bother. Call me old-fashioned, but what's wrong with telling a bloody good TRADITIONAL (a la Romero's creation) zombie story that isn't absolute shit?

j.p.

[darth los]

And onewonders how much GAr can mangle things before the same people who hate on dawn 04' turn on him for doing way worse things in his films than you would ever find in that remake...

Crickets.


Yes raptor zombies can be annoying but zombie animals and the ghouls who ride them!?!

If I didn't see it myself I'd swear it was a fucking Jerry Springer episode.

:cool:

[bassman]

Is he trying to make up time for the two decade decline in work? F*ck man....give it a rest already.

I guess i'm happy the old man is keeping busy, but I don't think I could be any less interested at this point.

[krakenslayer]

I don't understand all the calls for Romero to stop. I think people are so melodramatic: there are far worse things in life than watching a movie you don't like.

Basically,if the new movies are bad, then you never have to watch them more than once and still have the original trilogy to fall back on (and it's not like a little-seen "bad" movie would cloud the public memory of those earlier films in the same way a lousy, big budget Hollywood remake would). If they're good, then that's one or two great movies we could never have had otherwise. I'd expect indifference from the haters, but not outright opposition. I really don't see how we can lose.

[major jay]

Yeah, keep cranking them out while you still can!

[darth los]

I don't understand all the calls for Romero to stop. I think people are so melodramatic: there are far worse things in life than watching a movie you don't like.

Basically,if the new movies are bad, then you never have to watch them more than once and still have the original trilogy to fall back on (and it's not like a little-seen "bad" movie would cloud the public memory of those earlier films in the same way a lousy, big budget Hollywood remake would). If they're good, then that's one or two great movies we could never have had otherwise. I'd expect indifference from the haters, but not outright opposition. I really don't see how we can lose.


It's like atching Michael Jordan play for the wizards. Does it change any of his previous acomplishments? No.

Same with Michael Jackson.

But it hurts to watch someone who was formerly great flailing around, just a shell of their former selves.

Does it tarnish GAr's classics? No. Is it going to be what he's remembered for.

Hopefully not, but very likely.

:cool:

[krakenslayer]

It's like atching Michael Jordan play for the wizards. Does it change any of his previous acomplishments? No.

Same with Michael Jackson.

But it hurts to watch someone who was formerly great flailing around, just a shell of their former selves.

Does it tarnish GAr's classics? No. Is it going to be what he's remembered for.

Hopefully not, but very likely.

:cool:

I'm just looking at it from a utilitarian perspective...

My estimate of the chances of Romero making another true classic (a la Dawn) if he continues making films: 1%

The chances of Romero making another true classic (a la Dawn) if he ceases making films: 0%


Even if you rate the chances of him making another classic at 0.00000000001%, that's still an infinitely higher chance than if he never makes another film. :D

[darth los]

Even if you rate the chances of him making another classic at 0.00000000001%, that's still an infinitely higher chance than if he never makes another film. :D


Can't argue with those stats. :lol:

Although instead of the word infinitely I would have used the word exponentially. That is all.

Just busting your balls dude. Tight nutsack and everything. :lol: :p

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

I don't understand all the calls for Romero to stop.
I do. People are unable to leave their egos at the door.

The chances of Romero ever making another DAWN of the DEAD at 0%. He's said as much himself over and over and over. Come to terms with it.

[Danny]

I don't understand all the calls for Romero to stop. I think people are so melodramatic: there are far worse things in life than watching a movie you don't like.

Basically,if the new movies are bad, then you never have to watch them more than once and still have the original trilogy to fall back on (and it's not like a little-seen "bad" movie would cloud the public memory of those earlier films in the same way a lousy, big budget Hollywood remake would). If they're good, then that's one or two great movies we could never have had otherwise. I'd expect indifference from the haters, but not outright opposition. I really don't see how we can lose.

ditto, all these cries are for more of the original trilogy, but he's made that. it rocked and hes done it. Land in particular showed how the zombies of the original trilogy dont have the same impact today. Its all a sign of the times and when they were made. Does any changes effect how good the origionals are? of course not. Romero took voodoo zombies and changed them to begin with, the genre has gotten increasingly more stale and boring in the last ten years and if anyone can do another big change up thats still walking dead and not sick people ala 28 days later then i think romero can.
I'm not saying i expect him 100% to make another masterpiece, the next two stories might suck, the acting and effects might suck but i AM interested in what romero wants to change about zombies. im sure he knows that, by and large, big daddy and bub were met with close minds and cries of "ONLY MAKE MORE OF THE SAME FOREVAR!" so i think hes gonna go somewhere entirely different in this diary universe.
Maybe he'll go so far as to go the shibito/necromorph route instead. with something thats still walking dead but somethings twisted and mutated there forms into something like the walking dead enemies from those games. Even now he's still associating with the resident evil franchise and rereading his resi script i still think he's got it in him to add new twists to make a successful new change to the zombie idea that can make them scary again. Granted its not guaranteed, but id still like to see what he has in mind.

[JDFP]

The chances of Romero ever making another DAWN of the DEAD at 0%. He's said as much himself over and over and over. Come to terms with it.

Very true, but at the same time I have a sliver (just a tiny sliver, mind you) of hope that Romero can strike lightning again and create another epic like the original trilogy. He made 3 incredible zombie flicks in a row and then 3 not-so-incredible (to say the least) zombie flicks in a row. The Law of Averages dictates that the next one might be epic again. :)

Probably not, but there's always a sliver of hope. It IS possible even though unlikely.

j.p.

[DubiousComforts]

Very true, but at the same time I have a sliver (just a tiny sliver, mind you) of hope that Romero can strike lightning again and create another epic like the original trilogy.
(in Yoda voice) This is why you fail.

[bassman]

All I want is for the man to take a step back and breathe a minute. He's been spewing zombies for three straight movies in what....5 years? Now he's quickly working on two back-to-back?

I don't want the guy to stop. Let him have his fun and I will definitely give it a shot, but just take it a bit slower. Rushed work is only going to produce sub par results.

The ten-ish years between the original trilogy probably did him wonders. Now he's churning em out every two years....

[darth los]

With the release of every succesive turd it's becoming easier and easier to come to grips that the man is done. That much you have right.

:cool:

[Trin]

I agree with all of what Wyldwraith said up there.

I'll add my own thoughts...

Romero has lost focus on what scares us and what excites us. He's pushing gimmicks and messages now. "Hey look what cool little facet of society I've spotlighted. Look how creative I am." He's become the Seinfeld of horror. "Did you ever notice that unless something is on Youtube no one considers it real?"

Want to make shambling zombies scary again? Put a lot of them into a movie and instill that feeling of claustrophobia that first gripped us with Night. Make them mindless and relentless. Show us how the apartments are chaotic death traps that make us collectively want to flee for our lives. Show us how hiding inside a mall just creates a prison. Show us that if you land your helicopter you'll soon be faced with a WALL of zombies which makes you flee back to your cave. Show that there is, in fact, no where to run.

Want to make it exciting again? Give us real world characters and give us hope for their situation. Show them making good decisions to further their survival in a bad situation. Make them likeable. Make them smart. Make them caring. Make it so we can identify with them. Allow us to put ourselves in their shoes without a constant stream of WTF as a result.

Land failed because the plight of the characters was implausible. There were no zombies around. Kaufman had no basis for his hold on power. There was nothing hampering Riley and crew from changing things. And when we did face zombies they were reasonable and sparse. In short, there was no desperation in their desperate plight. There was only WTF. Contrast that with the plight of the characters in Dawn or Day. The sense of desperation was palpable.

Zombies need to be numerous, mindless, relentless, and they need to be coming to get you!! Not gimmicky, and evolving, and emotional, and contemplative. They aren't a study in society or dietary requirements.

I firmly believe that Romero could make another movie on par with the trilogy. And I'm glad to hear that there are potentially 2 more Dead movies on the horizon. I just wish it'd get better.

[Legion2213]

Even those of us who have hated his recent offerings will give him another chance...hope thrives on meagre fare (or something). I've been very critical of his last two movies I have blasted the third which sounds like crap (sight unseen), but I really do want to see him make another good zombie movie.

But for gods sake, as others have said, get back to making good zombie movies with some decent plots, decent characters and a sense of "OMFG, these billions of zombies are a massive threat"

Somebody here suggested making a zombie movie that focused on the people who have to manage and contain it such an outbreak, but I don't think GAR could do that without making the entire film an attack on the gov, the military and emergancy services.

[krakenslayer]

I do. People are unable to leave their egos at the door.

The chances of Romero ever making another DAWN of the DEAD at 0%. He's said as much himself over and over and over. Come to terms with it.

Technically, the chance of any physically possible outcome occurring is always above 0%. However, if he doesn't make films, the outcome becomes no longer physically possible, and therefore must be 0%. :D

Personally, I don't want another Dawn of the Dead, anyway. That film was already made and it was great. Then Day came along, and it was great in a whole other way. I just want another great movie that is different again, many would disagree with me, but in my subjective experience, Survival felt like a step in the right direction. So it's not really out of the question that he will make another film that I consider "great", as individual and arbitrary as that word is.

[rongravy]

(in Yoda voice) This is why you fail.
Why you fail, this is.
Wouldn't that be better?
:D

[Wyldwraith]

::Applauds and agrees wholeheartedly with Trin::

THAT is what I'm saying people! Romero isn't failing "because we're close-minded" or "because we insist on the exact same thing forever!"

No, he's failing because of all the reasons outlined by Trin and myself. This isn't about creative innovation or the lack thereof. It isn't about people being unwilling to accept anything that departs from the formula established by the original trilogy.

It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died.

Stop the presses. Need go no further. If the viewer does not care what happens to the characters NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. Movie fails.

FACT: Diary and Survival (at the very least. Again, I'll leave Land up for debate) departed from, and were DEVOID of the atmosphere that made the Original Trilogy great, for all the reasons Trin so eloquently described. Absent that atmosphere of desperation. Absent the feelings of dread, revulsion and a macabre horrified fascination evoked by the zombies of the Original Trilogy, the movie has no power, and no draw on the viewer to imaginatively immerse themselves in the plot, or relate to the character(s)' struggles.

Again, MOVIE FAILS.

I could go on and on in this manner, but I believe the point has been made. This isn't about whether we're open to GAR trying new things. It's about the reality that Romero has either forgotten or no longer finds value in the very elements of characterization, plot and atmosphere that made his first three movies great.

It's like Romero is trying to create a new means of lighting a fire, except his new methods don't include Oxygen or flammable materials.

No one is saying Romero should basically redo the first three movies, but abandoning ALL the basic elements of the formula that went into them is foolish and can only lead to more awful movies.

I don't know what it is with Romero, but he either reincorporates the elements required to make ANY Survival Horror film a potential success, or there's simply no hope of anything better.

[EvilNed]

I'd rather have two more films by George Romero than George Lucas.

[JDFP]

It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died.


Since when does personal conjecture become "fact"? An opinion is an opinion, even if a great number of other people agree with you. I would say, FACT: Land sucked, and it's not debatable as to whether it sucked or not. But this is not a "fact", it's my personal conjecture on the issue. Liking or disliking a film is a matter of personal aesthetics, and aesthetics as being abstract (not a concrete philosophical/scientific system) isn't a matter of absolutes (either something that is or is not).

I agree with you in the extent that none of the films from the new trilogy live up to the standards of the original trilogy. Call it mass-aesthetic approval because I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree with this argument. I also agree that if Romero keeps with the approach he's taken with the last three films than any new films he does will also probably suck according to our mass-aesthetic opinion.

There were two characters I actually did like quite a bit in "DIARY" (and far more than any actor/actress that was in "LAND" save Dennis Hopper) -- the first being the professor, Maxwell (played by Scott Wentworth). With a not-so-great script or production values I think Wentworth really shined in this role and I wanted to see more regarding this man and his fate. I'd be interested in knowing why Wentworth (a Shakespearean stage actor) decided to audition for the role in a Romero flick exactly (perhaps they were drinking buddies or he needed a paycheck?) but I enjoyed his performance. Second, I would seriously like to bang Moynihan (Michelle Morgan). I thought she did a fine job given the limitations of the film -- she was a strong-willed feminine archetype similar to Fran and Sarah at an early stage (the beginning). I found her character interesting and if you watch the "documentary journal" with her she actually fleshes out some interesting tidbits on the character of Moynihan.

Part of the problem with "DIARY" is a weak script and relying on too many different archetype-characters as opposed to more realistic individuals -- with the exception of the acting of Wentworth and Morgan who I believe rose above this archetype challenge. There are just too many characters for 'fodder' without relying on a core group of individuals in divulging in their back-story and their confronting the experience. I did find the film entertaining though, certainly more so than "LAND", but I digress...

All in all, I just wish that Romero would leave the social commentary/ideology to the side and focus on characters. What makes the original films so great is that they are character driven films. If you took away all the blood, gore, and all that silly stuff that supposedly people think make a "horror" film you'd still have a great horror flick because of the central story and the relating to the well-crafted characters. It's also what made "Knightriders" (as a character-driven piece of film-making) so damn good. I don't know what has happened along the way to Romero and why or how he lost this focus in creating films... but I'd love to see him be able to re-create character-driven stories again -- and if that can happen, we can have another epic zombie flick to add to the original trilogy as being a great work of film-making.

j.p.

[EvilNed]

It's about some cold hard facts. FACT: Leaving Land aside as debatable, GAR's last two movies have been DEVOID of worthwhile characterization. In Diary not only did we the viewers NOT care about the fate(s) of ANY of the characters, it was actually something of a relief as each one died.

I disagree with your "fact". Humm. Didn't know you could do that. But here I am. Doing it.

[fulci fan]

I think that Romero will not go back. In fact, I think if the next two get made, they will be even worse. I could imagine him thinking that talking zombies going to work in an office would be a good idea. Or a zombie dad playing catch with his son. Hell, if Romero could make as many zombie films as he wanted, he would have the zombies be just like humans. Thus defeating the idea of a "zombie". Imagine the worst, people. It ain't getting any better. :bored:

Where is the Fulch when you need him?. ;)

[Rancid Carcass]

he would have the zombies be just like humans.

But that's what they are, us - just functioning less perfectly, as the old saying goes.

[fulci fan]

But that's what they are, us - just functioning less perfectly, as the old saying goes.

Yeah, but, the more he has them advance, the sillier it gets. Know what I mean?

[Danny]

Yeah, but, the more he has them advance, the sillier it gets. Know what I mean?

no, honestly i don't. look at the antagonists in day, they werent zombies, they were humans driven by base human emotions like fear. The origins of romero style zombies is based in that cold war era paranoia of anyone around you secretly being an enemy, a monster. romero chose the infamous undead ghouls, others chose things like spores from space that grow a replica that replaces you. the fact that zombies were undead made them creepy, but never scary. right from night of the living dead the scary thing is a situation where you are completely out of your own control. with people who are more dangerous than the zombies because they think, they feel, they could explode on you at any minute.
Zombies have really started out as just a plot device, a catalyst like a natural disaster where people batton down the hatches and huddle together to wait out the storm so to speak. With changes people tried to make them the scary part, like the rage infectees of 28 days later but they lacked something that instilled the same reasoning that made the ideas of the romero trilogy really resonate with people. For the time they were so warped and bizzare, and at the same time familiar and all the more chilling because of it. Nowadays we have seen much creepier and scarier stuff in movies, and in news reports. The dawn of the century was rife with mass fear and paranoia, not about human invaders, but microscopic invaders. We no longer feared the neighbor who might be a commie, but the unseen contagion we might be breathing in. attacking us from the inside. So it was no surprise the change in the narrative took the "bite and your infected" route from day and ran the fuck outta town with it.
Unfortunately in our fast paced, overssaturated global media society it grew stale much faster.
On the whole romero fans are a stuffy, unwavering bunches who either want that magic of the original trilogy recaptured and anything else is heresy or just fear change for what it may bring, regardless of the fact that a change can be bad and instantly changed back, or to something better.
On the whole wether you staunchly want to defend it or not the idea of the old black and white shambler has grown stale and the biting, infectious runners are catching up with alarming swiftness. Someone needs to find that successful revamp of the movie monster we all find so creepy that will continue there position up there with the vampires, werewolves and frankenstein monsters and such of the horror genre. Or it will get to the point where people will grow up saying "this is stupid, why dont they just run faster than them?"-not that some arent doing that now.

But on the whole thats still looking at it the wrong way. Zombie movies arent traditional horror really, there the unnatural disaster movie. The zombies are a mindless swarm, a storm of gnarled hands and gnashing teeth, a blizzard of rotten flesh and flies. All they serve to do is put people together in situations where the rules and laws of society dont apply and they must work together regardless of backgrounds they had before then. Right now shamblers aint cutting it for that and it needs a nice refreshing change, if romero has an idea thats a bit more different than "but no, wait, see- these ones can use hammers!" then right on. This aint goerge lucas ere talking about. Wether you liked or hated romeros last 3 flicks there were still choice points in each that shone through like diamonds in a turd and i still have enough faith in the old coot that he can come up with something way more out there than we expect that might be surprisingly entertaining and cause another generation fo filmmakers to go "oh no, now lets copy THIS films plot and monsters instead!"

[JDFP]

On the whole wether you staunchly want to defend it or not the idea of the old black and white shambler has grown stale and the biting, infectious runners are catching up with alarming swiftness.

There will always be room for traditional Romero-esque zombies just as there will always be room for traditional vampires who can't go out in sunlight and who can be killed by a stake through the heart and be hurt by crucifixes and holy water. Sure, you have your niche markets of "Hey, let's create a vampire that can go out into sunlight or isn't afraid of crucifixes! That'll knock their socks off!" -- but it's only a niche.

I couldn't disagree more that the idea of shamblers has "grown stale". Directors have grown lazy and thus their product is stale. An argument could be made (quite successfully, I believe) that Hollywood as a whole has grown stale. The creative juices are there but studios would just as soon settle for a re-make they know they can make a profit off of as opposed to tell a new and compelling story. And hey, who needs plot / story / character-development in this stuff? Let's just make the zombies faster, let's use better make-up, let's blow alot of shit up and people won't care if the movie is bankrupt of emotion or feeling. And it works. Michael Bay makes millions off of it. :hurl:

The whole argument of: "Shambling zombies don't scare people anymore" is bullshit. What the director who is saying this is really saying is: "I can't find a way to really scare people with shambling zombies." So, to make up for imagination and the ability to tell a good story Hollywood settles for creating zombies with superhuman strength that can sprint.

Another example would be torture porn films in which they attempt to make every film more graphic than the last ("Hostel" / "Martyrs" / "A Serbian Film"). Instead of worrying about telling a compelling story with development and plot, let's just throw up a bunch of gore, blood, and mutilation. 'Cause that'll keep peoples minds off the fact that we don't really have any character-development or plot worth watching. :bored:

EDIT: Romero did his own "re-making" of zombies and vampires as well. I'm not saying it can't be done and can't be done well, but if the reasoning behind it is because you can't scare people with traditional ideas/monsters than it's a weak argument from a weak director. It's all about the story and the characters.

j.p.

[DubiousComforts]

But on the whole thats still looking at it the wrong way.
The right way to look at it is the director makes the film and audience watches it without thinking they know what's best before even sitting their ass in the chair. The film is supposed to tell a story, not pander to a genre.

An additional right way to look at it is to seek out films that are the work of actual craftsmen and not Hollywood-pampered pretty boys that are more interested in furthering their careers than creating thoughtful entertainment.

[C5NOTLD]

All I want is for the man to take a step back and breathe a minute. He's been spewing zombies for three straight movies in what....5 years? Now he's quickly working on two back-to-back?

I don't want the guy to stop. Let him have his fun and I will definitely give it a shot, but just take it a bit slower. Rushed work is only going to produce sub par results.

The ten-ish years between the original trilogy probably did him wonders. Now he's churning em out every two years....


Well he did turn 70 this year. How many directors are making films in today's Hollywood at that age? That's somewhat of a rarity. How many directors in their 80s are working on films? At 70, he couldn't take 10 yrs off. Romero and the rest of us only have a certain amount of time no matter what you do.

I always thought it would be great to see him do other types of films but if the financing is coming through for him now with zombie films and If he is still having fun and enjoying making these films - I say let him do whatever he wants to.

He's earned the right to have fun with whatever he decides to make. If the films are a financial success or strikes a chord with an audience then that's a plus. But he seems to be very happy whenever you see him interviewed or at the conventions. Apparently he is still attracting investors which is great for him. Based on his track record people will always be interested in seeing what he will do next whether you like the film or not. The man has talent at any age.


.

[Andy]

I Just read the thread title and i thought "argh seriously?"...

He's made one good trilogy and one shit trilogy, anymore movies will just tip the balance further into shitiness, he needs to stop.

[major jay]

Well he did turn 70 this year. How many directors are making films in today's Hollywood at that age? That's somewhat of a rarity. How many directors in their 80s are working on films? At 70, he couldn't take 10 yrs off. Romero and the rest of us only have a certain amount of time no matter what you do.

I always thought it would be great to see him do other types of films but if the financing is coming through for him now with zombie films and If he is still having fun and enjoying making these films - I say let him do whatever he wants to.

Well said, dude. This is the reality of his situation. He obviously doesn't want to retire and still is physically able to do this, so if he can get something financed why not go for it?
Fuck that legacy bullshit.

[Staredge]

There were two characters I actually did like quite a bit in "DIARY" (and far more than any actor/actress that was in "LAND" save Dennis Hopper) -- the first being the professor, Maxwell (played by Scott Wentworth). With a not-so-great script or production values I think Wentworth really shined in this role and I wanted to see more regarding this man and his fate. I'd be interested in knowing why Wentworth (a Shakespearean stage actor) decided to audition for the role in a Romero flick exactly (perhaps they were drinking buddies or he needed a paycheck?) but I enjoyed his performance. Second, I would seriously like to bang Moynihan (Michelle Morgan). I thought she did a fine job given the limitations of the film -- she was a strong-willed feminine archetype similar to Fran and Sarah at an early stage (the beginning). I found her character interesting and if you watch the "documentary journal" with her she actually fleshes out some interesting tidbits on the character of Moynihan.

j.p.

This. I could see a story being made of how they get out of the safe room and go from there.....much like a sequel to Dawn could have been made.

Am I alone in saying that the fiction section has any number of REALLY GOOD plotlines??? Stop :annoyed: with the social commentary and make a damn story!!!!! The nice thing about Night and Dawn were that the commentary was secondary to the story. You could watch it without :rolleyes:. Not so Land and Diary (haven't seen Survival yet). Actually, I think Survival could have made a great story if done right. Sounds like it wasn't.



(odd thought: how cool would it have been in Land, instead of Dennis Hopper....we had Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko????)

[Mike70]

He's made one good trilogy

i wouldn't even go that far. he's made one great zombie movie, day of the dead. night and dawn are amateurish exercises that i cannot watch without laughing anymore. neither one has a place in my movie collection.

i'm not so enthused by the latest offerings but at least they are reasonably well made, professional looking films.

[Wyldwraith]

Many are missing the point,
One previous poster went so far as to say something like (pardon the paraphrasing) "The director decides on the story, and its for the fans to find something they like in that story."

I could not POSSIBLY disagree more with such sentiments. As I have said on numerous prior occasions: "The first and most important duty of a director is to deliver a film that the viewer(s) will enjoy."

Simple enough to understand, whether you agree with the sentiment or not, right? All right, so this sentiment is the lead-in to my fundamental problem with Romero's more recent work. The man has all the feedback that he could want available for the asking, so he KNOWS his "new innovations", or "new style" is NOT being well-received by the majority of viewers.

How does Romero respond? He seems to ignore the majority perception that his last three films have fallen far short of the benchmark he himself set decades ago. Instead he rushes forward, continuing to ever-more-tightly grasp hold of these new elements that collectively embody the finished results of his last three films.

What's that truism often spouted at addicts? "The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem."

Does he? No. Instead Romero pushes forward in the same vein. It's as if he's thinking "If I just beat it into the viewers' heads blatantly and repeatedly, somehow my doing this will change what the fans want, and bring them all in line with my Vision."

Honestly, I believe that Romero has never been the type of man or director interested in what anyone other than himself thinks about his work. It's simply a case of Right Time, Right Place, Right Content with the original trilogy.

An argument can be well-made that for a man like Romero to experience such success from that kind of mindset confirmed (in his mind) that he could go on creating whatever he wanted, however he wanted and damn what anyone else thought and everything would work out just fine.

Maybe it isn't a matter of Romero having changed. Maybe he's exactly the same as he's always been, and it's simply a matter of his inability to recognize (or even care) that he does NOT in point of fact have a license to put whatever he wants on film with no regard to how the fans have received very similar recent offerings of his.

I hope most sincerely that is not the case. However, it's very difficult to relate to Romero's thought processes, since on the surface his decision-making is incomprehensible (as regards why he would continue making the same sort of movie that's already failed 2, possibly 3 times).

It isn't a problem of classic Ghouls no longer being viable, and it certainly isn't a problem of lack of market share. It's a problem of potential viewers expecting characters they can give a damn about and find themselves interested in. It's a problem of viewers wanting a frightening movie atmosphere instead of an absurd one.

It's a problem of a director being either unwilling or unable to manufacture and assemble the various pieces of the film into an appealing, compelling, and chilling configuration.

If you disagree with this interpretation that's fine. All I ask is you explain your reasoning in depth.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I do. People are unable to leave their egos at the door.

The chances of Romero ever making another DAWN of the DEAD at 0%. He's said as much himself over and over and over. Come to terms with it.

Then he should stop making movies. If you can't strive to give fans who supported you what they love and continue to turn out crap film after crap film (although i like Diary) then he should hang up his scarf and move on.

I know I had the fan base he does and they kept wanting another Day, Night or Dawn I would be striving to do just that because they are the ones who made me the success that I am today.

I will continue to watch his films, even as they decline in quality with each entry, but at some point he does need to stop, look, and go back to see how he can recapture the magic, if his statement is that it will never happen then everything he does not looks like just a cheap cash-in and that is why movies and the studios are getting such a bad rap today.

You as a person and as a filmmaker should be striving to do better and better each time.

[darth los]

Why you fail, this is.
Wouldn't that be better?
:D

But that would mean he'd actally be wrong about something. :eek: :rolleyes:

:cool:

[bassman]

You as a person and as a filmmaker should be striving to do better and better each time.

The real question is.....does he believe that he is actually accomplishing this? He may be looking at his past three and thinking they're classics like the originals.:stunned:

[Andy]

The real question is.....does he believe that he is actually accomplishing this? He may be looking at his past three and thinking they're classics like the originals.:stunned:

Like ive been saying all along, he's gone senile!

[darth los]

Fuck that legacy bullshit.

Yu mean the stuff that everyone will remember you by and ultimately define you? Yeah, fuck that shit. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[Danny]

Yu mean the stuff that everyone will remember you by and ultimately define you? Yeah, fuck that shit. :rolleyes:

:cool:

YES. FUCK THAT SHIT.

you make movies to tell a story, not craft a tombstone epitaph.

[darth los]

YES. FUCK THAT SHIT.

you make movies to tell a story, not craft a tombstone epitaph.

Which is why his career never reached half of the potential that it could have.

:cool:

[Mike70]

Then he should stop making movies. If you can't strive to give fans who supported you what they love and continue to turn out crap film after crap film (although i like Diary) then he should hang up his scarf and move on.

or maybe it is the fans who are completely wrong. artists are not anybody's dancing monkey. if they are happy with what they are doing, what the fark should it matter to them if anyone else likes it or not?


i don't criticize romero's work because i don't think that it is or isn't living up to my own notions of what romero should be doing. i criticize it for its artistic and storytelling failings.

as for another dawn? no way. the first one is already one of the most overrated movies in the history of western film. i don't want to see another.

[darth los]

So if that's the case let him crawl off into a little cave next to Bin Laden and put out videos as well. He can be creative as he wants to be there.


However, if he's going to conventions and actively trying to keep his name out there, which let's face it is due to his hardcore fans, in order for him to still be relevant and in turn attract investors then he dismisses what his fans want at his own peril.


Keep turning out turds like he is and he's going to have all the personal creative time he could ever ask for.

:cool:

[Wyldwraith]

Amen Darth Los,
And to the person who speculated whether Romero views his last three entries as the same sort of classics the Original Trilogy are....

I'll admit, this disturbing thought has crossed my mind. Again, I sincerely hope that Romero isn't essentially delusional to this extent. If GAR can't tell the difference between the crap that is Diary and the awesomeness that is the original Dawn & Day, then there's no hope of anything of quality coming from GAR ever again.

Maybe it's simpler. Maybe Romero has just gotten caught up in his vision of an overarching message, of which each movie is a part. Not likely I know, but I keep hoping that whatever the reason for the man's decline as a director, it's something that can be fixed.

I mean, GAR *does* have a history of getting caught up in the social commentary he embeds in each of his movies. Maybe it's as simple as that myopic focus having worsened, to the point he's giving less and less to the plot, characterization and atmosphere, and more to his ever-more-heavy-handed social commentary.

The "Director-as-dancing-monkey" analogy misses the point. You can defend the right of the director to make any sort of movie he/she wants, but that doesn't mean the fans will or should embrace films produced by someone who flat-out could care less what the fans who give them the opportunity to make more films think about his/her work.

Weighing in on the "Legacy vs. Movie Quality" debate: I think that if a Director is consistent in excellence their legacy will take care of itself. If, on the other hand, a director starts out brilliantly then sharply declines until poor-quality offerings become as consistent as their inspired work once was, their Legacy becomes irrelevant due to the director's eventual loss of relevance and creative credibility.

A director doesn't need to concern themselves with how they will be perceived. Their job is to make good movies.

Been thinking about what a previous poster said, about there being plenty of room for innovation regarding the nature of zombies without resorting to stupidity like Big Daddy and zombies riding zombie animals. Resident Evil DOES prove that much.

If Romero's so interested in "zombie evolution", how about something interesting and believable (relatively). Example: Perhaps the more flesh a zombie takes in, the more available fuel to power whatever process has made them vehicles for the infection. Something along the lines of Time + Consumed Flesh/Fuel = physical mutations designed to make the ghoul a more efficient transmitter of the zombie phenomena.

Not saying necessarily that's the direction to go in. Just an example of something new with potential not to be completely retarded.

[darth los]

The "Director-as-dancing-monkey" analogy misses the point. You can defend the right of the director to make any sort of movie he/she wants, but that doesn't mean the fans will or should embrace films produced by someone who flat-out could care less what the fans who give them the opportunity to make more films think about his/her work.

Very well said.

Gar is a director. So he is necesarily making things for public consumption. Criticism and catering to the very people to whom you owe your success is a part of that, it's a package deal.


it's like a celeb wanting all the perks yet still wanting their privacy and other things that us less notable slobs take for granted. It's either one or the other.

He can't take all the praise for being a genius, bask in it, eke out a pretty good living for himself and then as his work declines pretty much tell us to fuck off, that we don't get him.

Imo, that very disrespectful to the people who put him where he is. So now he's left with pissed off fans and a new generation who couldn't give a rats ass about the films that we consider classics. That's why legacy is important.


Don't think so? How do you feel about Michael Richards before and then after his racist tirade? Can you ever look at Kosmo Kramer the same way again? I know I can't. So what happens today can indeed retroactively affect an artist's previous works.

:cool:

[Leo]

Zombies don't need to evolve or run fast or anything because that's not what makes zombie movies great. The thing that makes them great is the suspense of knowing that they will never stop trying to break into any fortification to eat people and the actual human characters of the movie. I think if Romero keeps focusing on zombie evolution and having crappy main characters his movies will suck. Honestly I don't really care about why the zombies came about or what will become of them; I always just watched the movies and thought all that matters is there are zombies trying to eat you now deal with it and what the people do while trying not to be eaten is what interests me.

[darth los]

I think if Romero keeps focusing on zombie evolution and having crappy main characters his movies will suck


You know what started as a quaint, novel little side story has "evolved" into THE albatross for the new trilogy. Ever notice that the morehe makes their evolution the focus the more the films sucks goat nuts?


Of the New triology, diary is my fav and if you notice the evolution angle is non existent in that film. Shouldn't that tell him something? Maybe he knows his films suck, but as WE all know old people are stubborn and set in their ways, so...

:cool:

[Leo]

Maybe old George needs an intervention from his fans and tell him to make his movies the way they used to be. That would be so funny yet so great, he walks in a room and his fans are gathered and they are like we need to have a talk. :lol:

[Maggot Farmer]

For my money the last two movies were garbage (I liked Land'O, and freakin' loved it compared to the last two). But with everyone else raking it in hand over fist by basically just expanding on the Godfather's idea, I hope he keeps making new movies to try to cash in for himself.
I waited for years for Land'O and don't want to wait years again especially because we don't know how many years the old guy really has left.
Keep'em coming ,old-timer, and maybe you'll catch lightning in a bottle.
But what do I know? I'm just a maggot farmer with no zombies to kill.

[Trin]

Is a movie-maker an artist or a businessman? At times they must be some of each.

A movie-maker is working on commission. It's a job done for someone else who pays the bills. Whatever "art" is infused into the process is done within those confines. This isn't a painter laboring away in their studio using their own paint and their own canvas to work their creation. This is a guy using other people's money and other people's materials and those other people expect a return on investment.

If the guy who showed up to paint your house decided to choose different colors than you requested and you thought the finished product sucked would you shrug and say, "He's the artist." Would you hire him again and again? No, you'd get it repainted and never employ the guy again.

[Leo]

Is a movie-maker an artist or a businessman? At times they must be some of each.

A movie-maker is working on commission. It's a job done for someone else who pays the bills. Whatever "art" is infused into the process is done within those confines. This isn't a painter laboring away in their studio using their own paint and their own canvas to work their creation. This is a guy using other people's money and other people's materials and those other people expect a return on investment.

If the guy who showed up to paint your house decided to choose different colors than you requested and you thought the finished product sucked would you shrug and say, "He's the artist." Would you hire him again and again? No, you'd get it repainted and never employ the guy again.

Well since I assume these investors see the fan base he has and how his first 3 are such classics why make garbage? With all these ultra low budget movies being made I'm sure he can do something better.

[fulci fan]

You know what started as a quaint, novel little side story has "evolved" into THE albatross for the new trilogy. Ever notice that the morehe makes their evolution the focus the more the films sucks goat nuts?


Of the New triology, diary is my fav and if you notice the evolution angle is non existent in that film. Shouldn't that tell him something? Maybe he knows his films suck, but as WE all know old people are stubborn and set in their ways, so...

:cool:

Could not agree more. Like I said before, the more they advance and evolve, the sillier the film gets. Imagine if he went back and made a zombie film that was as simple and effective as Night. Do you think he would fuck that up now? If he DID go back to the roots and make a real zombie film, would it even be good?

[C5NOTLD]

Very well said.

Gar is a director. So he is necesarily making things for public consumption. Criticism and catering to the very people to whom you owe your success is a part of that, it's a package deal.


I don't see where he catered to anyone on his early films in his career which are often quoted as being among his best according to fans. He just made the films that he wanted to see. Everyone wants a good film (the audience/the director). But in reality they are hard to make unless all the elements come together.


.

[Danny]

I don't see where he catered to anyone on his early films in his career which are often quoted as being among his best according to fans. He just made the films that he wanted to see. Everyone wants a good film (the audience/the director). But in reality they are hard to make unless all the elements come together.


.

^this.

Everyone praises his best work when he just made what he wanted. now he panders to his "true hardcore fans" and the same fans call it shit and say he should go back to what he did at his peak like he owes them something.

Its entertainment. a filmmaker is an artist who sells a story they have made. they do not, and will not, ever owe there fans a damn thing and it is supremely arrogant to assume so. Each film a filmmaker makes is a stand alone i.p product. they are selling the experience of that story to you and complaining that there trying different things only results in a case of george lucas syndrome, pandering only to fans of past works, trying and failing to recapture that magic and ultimately doing nothing but stagnating the artists reputation and its a double standard i find irritating concerning george romero.
Certain people hate his new stuff and want more of his old stuff, but in the same breath dont want him to do what he wants, only what THEY want. which is ironically what he has been doing for the last few films because its the only way he can afford to tell a story nowadays.

I think certain facets of moviegoers, fandoms in particular seem to have changed over the years to see a filmmaker, a franchise or a connection to a series as some sort of blood pact betwixt them and thee that is heretical to break or deviate from. Its a sad allegory on the state of film, particularly of the horror genre which is really not what it used to be. Its no longer selling a story to occupy 90 minutes of an audiences time to make a living and entertain. Its pandering to what people think people want and said people will complain about getting more thats not more of the same like the new works somehow alter or lessen the impact of the creators previous work.

Romeros a man in his 70's still making movies, he tries new things and gets rejected but this is a man almost half a century removed from what most people consider his 'peak' in storytelling. Any more romero films is better than none ever again. if he wants to go crazy and do what he likes in a film right on i will watch it, and almost everyone will watch it too and complain regardless because things are never as good as "back in my day" when if you want to get technical days is the only all around solid movie of romeros once you take the nostalgia goggles off, but we all love his other films like dawn regardless.

[Trin]

If GAR has gotten to the point where he simply wants to use his movies to push his social commentary, without regard to whether he's making good movies, or pleasing fans, he certainly has that option. If he just wants to have some fun making zombie heads catch fire from acid, electricity, or flare guns, that's fine. The only people he has to convince are the ones writing him the checks.

If he wants fan and critical acclaim, or he is worried about his legacy, he's got a different problem altogether. If the money-men stop backing him, again, he's got a different problem altogether.

I personally refuse to believe that Diary or Survival is the best he can achieve. The quality of those movies doesn't represent his declining talent, they represent his shift in priorities. If he focused his attention back to story and characters instead of message and gags we'd get something of quality again. Something on par with the trilogy.

I also refuse to believe that making a dude stab a zombie through his own head is the "art" that Romero is preciously guarding. That's B-movie stuff.

[shootemindehead]

Hmmm...why do I get the feeling that I am the only one who isn't really THAT surprised that the last couple of Romero films were rubbish? His track record isn't that good.

Let's be honest, Romero is a hack that caught the crest of a wave in the late 60's with his low budget "drive in" success. Between that and 'Dawn of the Dead', everything bar 'Martin' was pretty awful. I know some on here think that 'Knightriders' was good, but I personally thought that was crap.

In fact, the ONLY George Romero film that has ANY truly significant impact today is 'Day of the Dead'. That is the master stroke above all.

Everything else runs the gammut of extremely poor to average. It therefore comes as no shock to me that the likes of 'Diary' and 'Survival' are extra nails in the film maker's coffin when the body of work that isn't all that impressive if the 'Dead' trilogy is subtracted.

This place is called 'Homepage of the Dead' for a reason. It's not 'Homepage of Martin', or 'Homepage of There's always Vanilla'. Without the dead on his side, nobody would know the name George Romero.

[krakenslayer]

Hmmm...why do I get the feeling that I am the only one who isn't really THAT surprised that the last couple of Romero films were rubbish? His track record isn't that good.

Let's be honest, Romero is a hack that caught the crest of a wave in the late 60's with his low budget "drive in" success. Between that and 'Dawn of the Dead', everything bar 'Martin' was pretty awful. I know some on here think that 'Knightriders' was good, but I personally thought that was crap.


Creepshow!?

I also thought The Dark Half was a very badass and atmospherically faithful little adaptation, but I know most people disagree on that.

[shootemindehead]

'Creepshow' isn't very good and the 'Dark Half' is a somewhat tame adaptation of a somewhat tame book.

Neither film is anywhere near his original dead trilogy.

[bassman]

'Creepshow' isn't very good

Dem's fightin words round dese ere parts, boy!:evil::p




I think Romero's had a pretty good body of work. More hits than misses, imo.

[JDFP]

"Knightriders" is the only other film I absolutely love by Romero other than the original trilogy. The rest of his work is eh... some of it is pretty good ("Dark Half", "Creepshow") and then you have stuff I'd rather never have to be bothered to watch again ("Bruiser" and "Martin" -- didn't care for either).

Anyway, as far as Romero's newest three films sucking, let's face it... all the great directors out there are old and will probably be dead within the next 10-20 years. Spielberg, Polanski, Scorsese, Coppola, Argento, Carpenter, and Eastwood (like Kubrick, Peckinpah, and Bergman before them). Who is going to fill the shoes of these people?

I suppose possibly Tarantino and Shyamalan (debateable on both of these cases) could be considered as the closest thing we have now to younger directors that could have the potential of really making an impact in the grand scheme of things; I'm also a huge fan of Cameron Crowe (but he only does a new film every 5 years or so); but otherwise I really can't think of any directors that could possibly be considered "Legendary" based on their work today. I can't think of any younger directors (other than Shyamalan in my opinion) that I really look forward to seeing their work thinking it's going to be a fantastic film like going to see something by Polanski.

Maybe Romero's current out-put is not only a pale comparison of what it used to be but also a statement on the current condition of film-making in Hollywood. Most of what is made today is absolute crap (anyone going to argue with me on that?), and the few great films that are put out are put out by the old and going to be dead within 10-20 years legendary film-makers that I have mentioned above.

What we desperately need is a new dawning/re-surgence in film-making. God knows after years of mostly crap, we're due for a dawning of new great film-makers out there. Otherwise, it might get to a point twenty years from now that we look back on Romero's final films and think to ourselves: "Man, I wish films today could be as interesting as Romero's final films were." :)

j.p.

[shootemindehead]

What we need is the 70's back. Minus the shite parts, which is everything but cinema and the risks that companies were willing to take.

Movies today are made by commitee and they reflect that muddled line of thinking that commitees give birth to. Such approaches eleminate directors of the likes of Peckinpah, Scorsese, Kubrick etc.

As for Tarantino, he was a one trick pony who shot his bolt with Res dogs. Everything else has paled in comparison, including 'Pulp Fiction'.

Shyamalan is decent, but his films are one shot affairs as far as I'm concerned. They're usually hung on a twist and don't live up to repeated viewings.

[bassman]

As for Tarantino, he was a one trick pony who shot his bolt with Res dogs. Everything else has paled in comparison, including 'Pulp Fiction'.


One trick pony? In what ways do you see Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds being related? I understand that he's got his "thing" with loads of dialogue, but his films aren't very similar...

[BillyRay]

What we need is the 70's back.

MALAISE FOREVER!

k6txna0SLpo

[Wyldwraith]

The "Pro-"Recent Romero" crowd are missing the point,
We can debate the nature of film and all the rest of it until we're blue in the face. What doesn't change is Romero's ever-waning attention to characterization, plot and atmosphere.

Trin and Darth have admirably expounded on my beliefs concerning what a director does and doesn't owe....

Bottom line, the reason(s) WHY Romero is devoting less energy to those three critical elements of a given film, while interesting to debate, are ultimately of no consequence. What's important is that the deficit in characterization, plot and atmosphere results in sub-par films.

Can we agree on that at least?

[bassman]

I don't think anybody is really debating with you on that one, man. Those are a must and for the most part they're missing from the new films. At least the last two. I quite like the characters in Land...

[darth los]

So if that's true, fine then. He doesn't owe the fans anything. Yeah, you remember the fans rii? That small cluster of people that actually knows who the fuck he is.

No wonder he's such a sucky business man. Everything that would benefit his career and intellectual property he shrugs off. And that's his perogative. But if he doesn't owe us anything then the opposite is true. We don't owe him anything, like let's say, continuing to support his shitty films. The last three of which we bought without question precisely because we feel we owe him something.

I haven't heard it from the man himself but if the feeling is not mutual and since we don't owe him anything let's see how well (relative term here) he does without his hardcore fans then.

He'll be a flop but atleast he'll have his creative freedom right?

:cool:

[fulci fan]

If you are an E.C. horror fan, creepshow is pretty neat. But I think King was more the boss on that set that Romero himself. He mentioned it in a recent Fango article.

[Trin]

It's really pretty simple in my mind. The people who think that Romero doesn't owe the fans anything, and believe he is entitled to work on whatever artist endeavor he wishes, need to ask themselves why is he making Dead movies at all? Hasn't he said for some time that he'd rather be making other things? So does that mean he's already pandering to the fans? Sure, he's first pandering to the financial backers, but ultimately they're pandering to the fans. So at what point should he realize that he took the job and needs to do his best to fulfill the wishes of his employer?

Just food for thought. I mean, if he really wanted complete creative control he'd need to fund his own movies right?

[shootemindehead]

One trick pony? In what ways do you see Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds being related? I understand that he's got his "thing" with loads of dialogue, but his films aren't very similar...

One trick, as in 'Resivoir Dogs' was his one trick.

One he hasn't managed to repeat.

[bassman]

One trick, as in 'Resivoir Dogs' was his one trick.

One he hasn't managed to repeat.

Oh okay. I've always heard that expression being used to say that someone is doing the same thing over and over again. That one trick, ya know?

My bad.:)

[shootemindehead]

Well, it does mean that. I used the expression wrong, but I wormed out of really well, don't ya think? :lol:

[EvilNed]

I don't think anybody is really debating with you on that one, man. Those are a must and for the most part they're missing from the new films. At least the last two. I quite like the characters in Land...

And to be honest, I really liked most of the characters in Survival as well. So no, Wyld, we cannot agree on that, but I respect your opinion.

[Wyldwraith]

Well,
There are always going to be a very few viewers that take a completely different impression away from a film viewing than the vast majority of others. Not my place, and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT to judge other people's opinions of a film.

Personally, I *believe* that the majority consensus is that GAR's newer movies suffer from any number of plot, characterization, atmosphere and pacing issues. At the very least, that is MY feeling about Survival, Diary, and (to some extent) Land.

My comments about a director owing the viewers of his/her films an enjoyable experience were meant to highlight a pragmatic truism. If people don't like it, they won't pay the ever-rising theater-ticket expenses, and definitely won't buy the movie on DVD. Anyone is free (and welcome) to disagree, but I don't know what that disagreement could be reasonably based on.

GAR has problems. I've been a die-hard fan for better than 19yrs, and I also have a high tolerance for low-budget direct-to-DVD offerings. As a general rule, amongst my circle of friends I'm known to be easily the most generous and forgiving of flaws in a movie. Yet when my tolerance for CRAPTASTIC offerings in a particular genre have been exceeded, it takes something of substance, something of quality from that Director to bring me around again.

I will say this. If Diary and Survival are as good as it gets then I'm not interested. Already I'm delaying my viewing of his last two movies to get the initial consensus on them before subjecting myself to them. I can imagine a time not that far off when I just shrug and look elsewhere for my post-apocalyptic fix.

I do believe that GAR is out of touch/out of the groove when it comes to utilizing interesting (and viable) plot devices and that elusive "X-factor" in a zombie movie that has fans imagining themselves in the scenario portrayed.

Yes, that's just an opinion, but it's an opinion I've formed judiciously, with an eye as to what the man himself seems to consider a good movie. No one is obligated to agree. I'm just saying that I'm SICK of Diary-level crap from someone I KNOW can do so much more if he'd simply pull his head out of his ass.

There are plenty of crap directors out there to make the consistently poor-quality, derivative or unimaginative crap. We NEED Romero to step up and reset the benchmark in the genre before he gets too old, because as it stands shit like Rob Zombie's slasher-franchise remakes are otherwise, sad and revolting as it is, what passes for the top of the heap.

[EvilNed]

Well,
There are always going to be a very few viewers that take a completely different impression away from a film viewing than the vast majority of others. Not my place, and I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT to judge other people's opinions of a film.

There's two things you need to consider:

First off, that statement you made there is made on a pretty big assumption. How do you know it's not simply just split down the middle?

Second off, remember Day of the Dead? 25 years ago, people were saying the exact same thing - about Day of the Dead.

[Wyldwraith]

@EvilNed:

1) I know it isn't split down the middle just from the sample/cross-section of fans that threads like these represent. Nowhere NEAR half the posters believe that Diary and Survival are similar in quality to the Original Trilogy.

2) I get what you're saying about historical perspectives on movies changing over time, but in nearly all of those cases the initial dislike is/was based on contraversial plot elements. NOT on overall movie quality.

Put more bluntly, a hundred years could go by and Pulse 2 will STILL SUCK.
In other words, movies that are so awful that they're nearly unwatchable fall into a different grouping than movies that aren't well received for a time for reasons unrelated to their basic quality.

Oh, and for the record, I rank Day #3 out of the Original Trilogy. The truck-sized plot holes and complete lack of foresight by the characters tends to agitate my Inner Movie Critic. It's still a solid movie, and certainly among the top zombie movies of all time. Just not my favorite.

EvilNed: Can you honestly tell me you don't see clear signs of decline in quality from the Original Trilogy to GAR's more recent offerings?

I know (for reasons I can't understand) that you found the characters in Diary and Survival to be well-created, but are you really saying you believe they're nearly as good as the protagonists of the first three Dead movies?

[EvilNed]

@EvilNed:

1) I know it isn't split down the middle just from the sample/cross-section of fans that threads like these represent. Nowhere NEAR half the posters believe that Diary and Survival are similar in quality to the Original Trilogy.

Nobody's disputing that. It's just that not everyone thinks they're shit either. That's what we're disputing.


2) I get what you're saying about historical perspectives on movies changing over time, but in nearly all of those cases the initial dislike is/was based on contraversial plot elements. NOT on overall movie quality.

Source, please.



EvilNed: Can you honestly tell me you don't see clear signs of decline in quality from the Original Trilogy to GAR's more recent offerings?

I know (for reasons I can't understand) that you found the characters in Diary and Survival to be well-created, but are you really saying you believe they're nearly as good as the protagonists of the first three Dead movies?

Well, to be honest, I found the characters in Diary and Survival to be better than most in Night. Apart from Harry and Ben, that film's pretty weak in that department. But again, I'm not disputing that Day and Dawn are superior. You just seem so deadset that the new films are shit, and there's nothing redeeming about them - well, think again. A lot of people actually like them.

[krakenslayer]

Romero doesn't owe his fans a bean, IMO. He made movies that we enjoyed, and he achieved some small amount of wealth and a career from it. Both parties benefitted, deal done, account settled, paid in full. The poor guy didn't sell his soul to us forever.

Sure, we have the right to be disappointed with any film. But the suggestion that Romero OWES us something, like he is indebted to do whatever we demand of him forever, is crazy!

[mista_mo]

Survival was pretty entertaining, and for some reason, I really enjoyed Alan Van Sprangs character.

Some things felt a little silly, like the zombie riding the horse, and the fishing scene, and the obviously cgi headshot right near the start, but it was an enjoyable film.

My only real concern is that none of them are really scary...at all. I just rewatched the entire original trilogy, and NOTLD, and Day always make me feel uneasy, or downright terrified or depressed. The Ending of Night always leaves me a little sad, and every time I watch, I hope that Ben somehow survives. The final zombie assault is chilling, especially the scene where Ben escapes into the cellar, and the camera just shows dozens of ghouls swarming the door, trying to break it down.

Day of the Dead in its entirety scares me, even to this day, and in this age. I believe that it is one of a select few true horror films, and viewing it evokes intense feelings of despair and terror at how utterly hopeless the entire situation is. I have yet to feel any of this at all with the 3 newest films. None of them are shocking or frightening to me, and they all feel a lot more like Dawn of the Dead (an adventure) compared to Night or Day (a hopeless situation)

I am certain that I will enjoy his next two films, but I am also certain that I will never feel as frightened by them as I have with his past works.

[krakenslayer]

Survival was pretty entertaining, and for some reason, I really enjoyed Alan Van Sprangs character.

Some things felt a little silly, like the zombie riding the horse, and the fishing scene, and the obviously cgi headshot right near the start, but it was an enjoyable film.

My only real concern is that none of them are really scary...at all. I just rewatched the entire original trilogy, and NOTLD, and Day always make me feel uneasy, or downright terrified or depressed. The Ending of Night always leaves me a little sad, and every time I watch, I hope that Ben somehow survives. The final zombie assault is chilling, especially the scene where Ben escapes into the cellar, and the camera just shows dozens of ghouls swarming the door, trying to break it down.

Day of the Dead in its entirety scares me, even to this day, and in this age. I believe that it is one of a select few true horror films, and viewing it evokes intense feelings of despair and terror at how utterly hopeless the entire situation is. I have yet to feel any of this at all with the 3 newest films. None of them are shocking or frightening to me, and they all feel a lot more like Dawn of the Dead (an adventure) compared to Night or Day (a hopeless situation)

I am certain that I will enjoy his next two films, but I am also certain that I will never feel as frightened by them as I have with his past works.

Thanks Mo, that pretty much sums up my whole relationship to these films. You nailed it on the head much better than I could have. :)

[Wyldwraith]

Romero doesn't owe his fans a bean, IMO. He made movies that we enjoyed, and he achieved some small amount of wealth and a career from it. Both parties benefitted, deal done, account settled, paid in full. The poor guy didn't sell his soul to us forever.

Sure, we have the right to be disappointed with any film. But the suggestion that Romero OWES us something, like he is indebted to do whatever we demand of him forever, is crazy!

So absolutist...::shakes head::
I haven't heard ANYONE say Romero should be our outhouse-caretaker or somesuch. Why is it so hard to get that what people mean when they speak about GAR "owing" his fans is that if he doesn't deliver movies we enjoy, the revenues his investors expect to collect from theater tickets and DVD sales just WON'T BE THERE.

For the very, VERY, LAST time: Romero is entitled to make a movie that's 120 minutes of close-up of him picking his nose. No one disputes that. If he can find the money to do it, that's his right, more power to him. Again, no argument.

If, on the other hand, Romero wants to make a movie that will generate acclaim and positive revenues, he will have to craft something the viewers will find enjoyable. It's that simple.

This debate has become rather circular, and more than a little polarizing among the members. I think I'm going to bow out at this point. Some sacred cows are not meant to be trifled with.

[DubiousComforts]

But if he doesn't owe us anything then the opposite is true. We don't owe him anything, like let's say, continuing to support his shitty films.

I haven't heard it from the man himself but if the feeling is not mutual and since we don't owe him anything let's see how well (relative term here) he does without his hardcore fans then.
Is this a promise?

I can only wish.

[JonOfTheShred]

I can't say I'm disappointed in the least that GAR wants to make two more zombie films.

I wish he'd stop making spin-offs of minor characters in Diary, although Sarge was kinda cool. A random prediction: one of the two new films will be about the group of black dudes that gave the kids the supplies Sarge stole.

I'd like to see him tackle the initial outbreak in a city setting. And not for just 10 minutes, I'm talking the entire movie taking place in the first day, but at the scene of a major outbreak point. A huge city, or an event.

[krakenslayer]

I can't say I'm disappointed in the least that GAR wants to make two more zombie films.

I wish he'd stop making spin-offs of minor characters in Diary, although Sarge was kinda cool. A random prediction: one of the two new films will be about the group of black dudes that gave the kids the supplies Sarge stole.

I'd like to see him tackle the initial outbreak in a city setting. And not for just 10 minutes, I'm talking the entire movie taking place in the first day, but at the scene of a major outbreak point. A huge city, or an event.

Some prediction! Romero has said he wanted to do exactly that: the first movie about the black militia (which I'm looking forward to), the second about the annoying "Texan" chick with the terrible accent (which I'm not, particularly), with possible some more cross pollenation of characters from the Diary and Survival films.

Survival fixed about half of the problems I had with Diary: it had a lot more action, a more conventional filming style with some nice visuals, generally less annoying characters, more gore (though still not buckets), and a more fluid narrative with some interesting set pieces (underwater zeds).

There were still some minor issues involving unclear character motivations and decisions, some hokiness that was hard to judge as intentional or unintentional humour, and some CG gore which annoyed some people (not me, so much). But if Survival fixed some of Diary's problems, there's no reason to think that Shaft of the Dead, or whatever he finally calls it, won't fix some of Survival's.

'Course, what bothered you about those films may differ from what bothered me...

I think Survival showed a a willingness or desire to take on more upscale, action packed material like you're looking for, but there is a limit to how upscale a movie can be on a 3 to 5 million dollar budget when you're dealing with union actors (including zombie extras) and are working within that system. I think this is a big problem for Romero: back when he made Dawn, we wasn't affiliated with any film unions and worked completely outside of the system. He was free to shoot in locations guerilla style, get Tom Savini to jump off buildings for him, and cast fans straight off the street as zombies for a dollar per head. Now he has to pay the going Hollywood rate for renting locations, he has to hire teams of professional stunt men to do everything remotely dangerous right down to playing any-and-all practical-effect headshot victims, and he has to employ registered union film extras to play the zombies who are paid about $160 a day and have no passion for the material.

[Wyldwraith]

Ok I lied,
Said I was done with this, but a certain comment drew me back in. Excusing Romero based on the absence of a huge budget? C'MON. The man cut his creative teeth on low-budget films. Yes, things have changed in some ways/become more expensive, but not to the point that if GAR really wanted to return to his roots and film something of similar scale to Night or Dawn, that he couldn't do a great job with 4-5 million $.

And for the record, I actually LIKE Land. In my posts I was recognizing that many either don't like it, or have ambivalent feelings about it. The "River Invasion Scene" makes me nuts, but other than that it's a fairly good movie IMO. I class Land as being WELL above Diary and Survival.

The thing that bothers me most though is that the more I hear of GAR's intentions, the more irritating it becomes. The man finally decides to delve into creative sequels/involved side-plots, but of his two worst movies. UGH.

At this point, I think I'd get more excited about a Resident Evil 4 announcement.

[mista_mo]

I think that you are forgetting the fact that Romero now actually has to pay for zombie extras. When he made the original trilogy, they were mainly just friends of the crew, and people that loved his original works. He paid them what, a dollar? Now, he has to hire union actors that get paid about 160 bucks a day or something like that, and has to hire actual stuntmen instead of just using Tom, or whomever felt like doing it, so now he has to pay them. Everyone in the film is unionized now, and as such, get paid a flat rate for their services. That is a contributing factor for the relative lack of zombies compared to the original 3.

Point being, he has to stretch that 3 million dollars more now than he did back in the day, as a good portion of the funds are being soaked up by unionized extras.

[krakenslayer]

Ok I lied,
Said I was done with this, but a certain comment drew me back in. Excusing Romero based on the absence of a huge budget? C'MON. The man cut his creative teeth on low-budget films. Yes, things have changed in some ways/become more expensive, but not to the point that if GAR really wanted to return to his roots and film something of similar scale to Night or Dawn, that he couldn't do a great job with 4-5 million $.


Did you read the comment I was replying to? The guy said he wished Romero would shoot a movie set in the centre of a huge city at the start of the outbreak on a big scale. I'm discussing budget within that context. I was not excusing anything.

And no, now you mention it, I honestly don't think he could make a movie like Dawn on the same budget as he had in 1977, even allowing for inflation. I guestimate that the movie would cost about $8-10 million to shoot today, paying for the mall, modern effects, union actors, stuntmen, etc.

[JonOfTheShred]

Some prediction! Romero has said he wanted to do exactly that: the first movie about the black militia (which I'm looking forward to), the second about the annoying "Texan" chick with the terrible accent (which I'm not, particularly), with possible some more cross pollenation of characters from the Diary and Survival films.

Shit, I oughta go check out the interviews on Bloody-Disgusting and ShockTilYouDrop. Didn't know that was already the plan. The 'Texan' chick was quite annoying and did have a terrible, fluctuating accent. But at least she was smokin' hot.



Survival fixed about half of the problems I had with Diary: it had a lot more action, a more conventional filming style with some nice visuals, generally less annoying characters, more gore (though still not buckets), and a more fluid narrative with some interesting set pieces (underwater zeds).

Yea, I agree with you here. Not as good as Land, but definitely better than Diary. I think the 'strongest' qualities of Survival are in its set pieces. Very creepy locations.


There were still some minor issues involving unclear character motivations and decisions, some hokiness that was hard to judge as intentional or unintentional humour, and some CG gore which annoyed some people (not me, so much).

Not to mention a HORRIBLE film score. The music was definitely the biggest downfall; way more noticeable to a composer and musician like myself than the CGI kills.


But if Survival fixed some of Diary's problems, there's no reason to think that Shaft of the Dead, or whatever he finally calls it, won't fix some of Survival's.

Shaft of the Dead :lol:


I think Survival showed a a willingness or desire to take on more upscale, action packed material like you're looking for, but there is a limit to how upscale a movie can be on a 3 to 5 million dollar budget when you're dealing with union actors (including zombie extras) and are working within that system. I think this is a big problem for Romero: back when he made Dawn, we wasn't affiliated with any film unions and worked completely outside of the system. He was free to shoot in locations guerilla style, get Tom Savini to jump off buildings for him, and cast fans straight off the street as zombies for a dollar per head. Now he has to pay the going Hollywood rate for renting locations, he has to hire teams of professional stunt men to do everything remotely dangerous right down to playing any-and-all practical-effect headshot victims, and he has to employ registered union film extras to play the zombies who are paid about $160 a day and have no passion for the material.

Yea, this is true. I mean, I wouldn't want it on the scale of Lord of the Rings if it was done all CGI. (A hundred real zombies, with 400 animated ones behind them? No thanks, just give me the 100 real ones.) But with clever filmmaking, I feel a large, LARGE scale GAR flick could be done, and would be epic.

I have a hunch World War Z is the zombie movie I've been waiting to see. Now lets just hope they get it right.

[DubiousComforts]

If the Variety story (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118019404.html?categoryid=2430&cs=1&query=george+romero) is true, then the point of this thread is now moot.

[Wyldwraith]

Wow,
Guess GAR gets his wish to do something non-zombie related. Should make some people happy. Can tell from that brief synopsis in the article it wouldn't be my kind of movie though.

[sirjacktorrance]

i think shoot two movies back to back it´s a good idea for end the new series.he doesnt sing any contract to remake deep red, so he can make theses two.i read he plans this whole tetralogy as one epic picture about the same.it´s like a miniseries or an epic one movie

[darth los]

You know what they say. The bigger the turd...


:cool:

[Jeffery]

I personally would like to see something along the lines of Martin done, but that's just me.

[MikePizzoff]

'Creepshow' isn't very good


Everything else has paled in comparison, including 'Pulp Fiction'.


Me and you. Parking lot. 3 o'clock.

[mista_mo]

Is it for fisticuffs, or sex Mike because, well...what you said can be taken either way really.

Either way, I'm going to be there, and I will tape this for future generations to enjoy.