Why people hate LOTD

[DjfunkmasterG]

True, very true.

I'm just surprised that DJ admitted that there are a few things good in "Land". I don't think think he's loosened up that much before.:lol:

Yeah, you're the leader of the "love" camp, Minion. I like "land" alot and I'm really glad it was made, but I think I'm in more of the "Good, entertaining movie that has it's flaws, but I don't hate it" camp:confused:


Well I decided to not totally focus on the negative. The problem with LOTD in my opinion is there is so much negative stuff that overshadows the stellar moments of the film. When the bad out weigh's the good well the only thing you focus on is the bad.

[AcesandEights]

I'm just glad to see people approaching the matter with an air of common sense. I'd rather understand why people don't like the film, than be forced to shake my head at people making over the top vitriolic statements, or watching people bear-bating one another.

So, it looks like this thread has evolved somewhat.

No, pun intended.

[MinionZombie]

*cries out Big Daddy style*

EVOLUTION!!!! :cool:

[Danny]

......well done for that:|

[MinionZombie]

Yeh I know, I rock copious amounts don't I? :cool:

[Danny]

copius?, i thought that was a term used in cooking or engine maintenance?:moon:

[MinionZombie]

It's one of my new favourite words.

COPIOUS! :cool:

[Danny]

mine are

1friggin'
2bitchin'
3pimp-mobile
4kryptonite
5like a rabbit caught in the headlights

:D

[mst3k]

I think it was that after waiting almost 20 years for a new zombie film by GAR nothing could live up to it.

And it was almost a class on the theory of marxism ( with zombies ).
I think he went overboard on the " the rich are evil and the poor are good" message"

the flick had some huge holes in the storyline that you could drive a truck through. ( other than the dead walking around and eating people )

I saw it twice with a hardcore fan and someone that never saw a GAR movie before. Both were down on the flick.

I am fan of GAR but he could make a better movie than land.

And yes, if he makes another zombie flick I'll be there on opening day. I was turned off by the " if you don't like land you are not a GAR zombie fan" vibe going on here last year. but that seems to have died down.

[Hawkboy]

And it was almost a class on the theory of marxism ( with zombies ).
I think he went overboard on the " the rich are evil and the poor are good" message"


I think you missed the point a bit. It's not that rich people are evil but people who keep other people down for their own gain and profit are evil. Mr. Romero is rich himself and I don't think he see's himself as evil.

[MinionZombie]

He's a rich, aging hippy - but the good kind of "hippy". The bad kind all sold out and still trade off their days at Woodstock or some bra burning parade or something. GAR seems like a pretty chilled out kinda dude who seems pretty enlightened - knows his place sorta thing. A lot of the "bad" hippies think they can change the world by not washing and living in a tent. :D

[creepntom]

i don't understand the hate, but then again, i didn't read all 17 pages of this either.:| :p

i enjoyed it, mainly cause i didn't expect to be like the others. i felt it evolved nicely.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Why I hate LOTD:

The makeup. I thought it was pretty bad but what really bothered me was that it took the feel of grisly decay, so nicely set up in Day, and threw it out the window. In the end, I felt I was watching a sequel to Night 90 instead of Day of the Dead.

The attacks. The attacks in Day as well as Dawn were pretty extreme, adding to the horrific feel of the situation. The attacks in Land were so quick and clean (perhaps an editing issue) as to be practically non-existent, leaving the film feeling pretty flat.

The living. There were too many people at Fiddler's Green which, again, hurt the consistency of the series.

The characterizations. I couldn't get a feel for anyone let alone care for anyone because the characters were so bland, almost like cardboard. Also there was no real feeling of struggle. Oh yeah, there was the class warfare crap but it was depicted at such a shallow level as to be annoying. It worked better, IMO, in Night or Day with racial tensions between a few characters that surface as the tension increases (Baldie in Night 68 didn't say it but you knew that he didn't want the colored in HIS cellar, he was just too conservative to say so).

The music. Dawn, Day and even Night had fun, enjoyable scores. Land had, well it had something, just nothing memorable.

That's all I can think of for now. I haven't read all the posts in this humungous thread so I may have repeated some points.

[Danny]

A lot of the "bad" hippies think they can change the world by not washing and living in a tent. :D


i thought all hippies fell under that particular category.:p

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, I think a lot of people went in expecting something and then didn't get it. I've found time and again, when I expect a movie to be/do something - it never pans out and I'm disappointed. It's like with "Hostel", I went with the hype of it being ultra-violent and really scary ... erm, no.

With "Land" I was simply just really psyched about a new GAR zombie flick, and seeing it in the cinema opening night, but I wasn't expecting anything from it. Afterall, Day of the Dead wasn't another Dawn of the Dead, so Land was never going to be another Night/Dawn/Day. Each film has a completely different style and feel to it's predecessors/successors - and I like that, he's keeping the series fresh where other filmmakers would churn out same-again-fare.

[NumberOneGARFan]

Why do people hate LOTD? The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the length. I see it as part of the series. That'd be nice if good old GAR did a trilogy, Then think of LOTD as the first in the trilogy. For all he knows there's going to be 9 or 10 dead films he says. His movies are usually based on politics of the time. He needs something big to happen before he does the next one. I say Land Pt. 2 would be good. See if they made it to Canada. Maybe eventually to alaska? It has been a few decades since he directed a dead movie. :skull:

[MapMan]

Whats to hate ? It had some very important elements:

Zombies
Guns
two semi hot lesbians for a very brief......too brief......so short.....moment.....


excuse me.

[cinezombi]

I loved it. Most people argue with me but I thought it when in the same direction as the other films. Could have been longer.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Whats to hate ? It had some very important elements:

Zombies
Guns
two semi hot lesbians for a very brief......too brief......so short.....moment.....


excuse me.

But it had no decent or coherent story.


I think you missed the point a bit. It's not that rich people are evil but people who keep other people down for their own gain and profit are evil. Mr. Romero is rich himself and I don't think he see's himself as evil.


Rich people are evil. :D


I know where you are coming from, and I agree 100%. This is a pure example of the class war going on today. If you look at how the current administration handles the poor and middle class, you see the exact same thing in LAND.

[Griff]

I really enjoy those glimpses of the outside world - the land of the dead - where we see the dead going about their business. I love that the band are still (or, perhaps more correctly, have returned to) honking and hooting away in the gazebo, that the security guard is lurking in the liquor store, that the gardener is mowing (albeit the parking lot), that Big Daddy is pumpin' gas and that there's a guy perfectly content to just SIT there on the park bench. What else are ya gonna do when you run out of people to eat? To quote a movie tagline: "Adapt or Die."

I love the silohetted zombies amongst the trees, the corpse bride, the extra-emaciated zombies nearing their end of days... the peaceful, almost thriving, existence of it all - torn asunder by the growl of Dead Reckoning and the wail of her guns.

I love that kinda attention to detail, a sorta love even, that you just don't get from any other zombie filmmaker.

I do, however, hate the over-reliance on CGI blood. **** that ****.

[cinezombi]

You Have to love the Fireworks element "Skyflowers" I thought that was a nice touch.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Interesting plot element. I like the fact the zombie are no longer affected by them and went on to eat the city folk. It was like a bad fireworks display on the fourth. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

time to resurrect this dying thread in time for those thinking about watching LAND on Halloween. DON'T DO IT! Grab another romero dead film instead. :D

[MinionZombie]

*shakily grabs phat handgun and quivers the barrel at Dj*

Damn it man! That horse was almost gone, it had almost reached the pearly gates and you dragged it kicking and screaming back into the land of the rotting! :dead::eek::dead:

[DjfunkmasterG]

*shakily grabs phat handgun and quivers the barrel at Dj*

Damn it man! That horse was almost gone, it had almost reached the pearly gates and you dragged it kicking and screaming back into the land of the rotting! :dead::eek::dead:


If it was dead, how was it kicking and screaming?
Sorry man, I felt like beating another dead horse today.
Yesterday was the curse filter, today LOTD! :elol:

[LouCipherr]

time to resurrect this dying thread in time for those thinking about watching LAND on Halloween. DON'T DO IT! Grab another romero dead film instead. :D

Absolutely - as a matter of fact, screw all other movies, go see Carpenter's Halloween in the theatres on Oct. 31st if you live in the US. :p :D

MZ - put down the gun.. step away from the Dj slowly.. he won't attack unless provoked! :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Absolutely - as a matter of fact, screw all other movies, go see Carpenter's Halloween in the theatres on Oct. 31st if you live in the US. :p :D

MZ - put down the gun.. step away from the Dj slowly.. he won't attack unless provoked! :lol:

Yeah, stop waving that gun in my face. It may accidently go off and Uwe Boll will end up directing DEADLANDS 2 or even worse... Taurus

Deadlands 2: Plauge of the craptagium zombies.

[LouCipherr]

Yeah, stop waving that gun in my face. It may accidently go off and Uwe Boll will end up directing DEADLANDS 2 or even worse... Taurus

Deadlands 2: Plauge of the craptagium zombies.


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN!

MZ, put down the damn gun before you kill us ALL by making us watch DL2 "Directed by: Uwe Boll" AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!

A fate worse than death! :lol:

[ssbib]

Why are people so against Land of the Dead? I thought it was a quality film. Obviously not as good as Dawn, but its a fresh new film for the 21st century. If it was done any other way it would've just been re-hashing the same old stuff in my opinion.

[MinionZombie]

Don't get technical with me. :D

You dragged his soul kicking and screaming back to his near-lifeless splodgy corpse. :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

Don't get technical with me. :D

You dragged his soul kicking and screaming back to his near-lifeless splodgy corpse. :p


Oh well soul... yeah, you got me there. :D

Beat that bitch, whoop that trick, whoop his ass :elol:
Beat that mutherfvcker into a pulp of pony blood and fur

[MinionZombie]

Oh my ... now there's a graphic image.

*waves huge spliff in front of Dj* ... hey, wanna chiiiiilllllll? :p

ssbib - actually there was a HPOTD poll a while back and the majority of people were in favour of Land, so it's all good.

*slowly lowers the gun, removing clip ... and ... removing the last bullet, so nobody can fudge him over* :shifty:

[Khardis]

I dont hate it but its definatly the worst zombie movie he has ever made, in fact its a pretty sub par zombie movie overall. Not because of intelligent zombies, but because George bought into all the BS about how great with satire he is and all the other bleating his colon suckers fill his head with and he tried to make a movie like that on purpose. The result is a crappy zombie movie with a lot of lame politics in it. George isnt out to make good movies anymore, hes out to make some kind of a point, and thats why his 4th dead film was a flop.

[Minerva_Zombi]

Why do people hate LOTD? Same reason they hated Day when it first came out, Its not Dawn. Land Of The Dead is a good movie. Big Daddy bothers me and always did. But, the whole concept and the interesting take on zombie infested afterlife is beautiful. Im happy with it. Plus, it wasn't a non-studio film which factors in on things like style and content. I was hoping for a film that looked and felt like 28 Days Later because the way that movie was done was utter brilliance. But, Land is a great horror film compared to to **** like TCM :The Beginning and All these dumbed up Americanized versions of good Japanese horror films. But i must say, The Devil's Rejects was the best horror movie to come out last year. But, Land is a close second. Wolf Creek was pretty good too.. Im rambling... lol


I dont hate it but its definatly the worst zombie movie he has ever made, in fact its a pretty sub par zombie movie overall. Not because of intelligent zombies, but because George bought into all the BS about how great with satire he is and all the other bleating his colon suckers fill his head with and he tried to make a movie like that on purpose. The result is a crappy zombie movie with a lot of lame politics in it. George isnt out to make good movies anymore, hes out to make some kind of a point, and thats why his 4th dead film was a flop.

It wasn't a flop. It made alot of money. And hes always used political satire. And I think that if thiat **** ever happened, thats the life would be after it all happened. Some Nazi-Conservo would take over and control our lives using money. Like **** is now. Plus, he wrote that script before 9-11 so, its not like he based the whole thing off of trying to make a statement. LOTD has a good screenplay, good effects, good characters, a good atmosphere.. I mean all in all, you can't complain.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It wasn't a flop. It made alot of money.


$20,000,000 US and $23,000,000 overseas isn't a lot of money. The film barely made it's budget back in the US. They had to milk it overseas to gain any money.

It did better on video, but still fell short of studio projections.

The studio projectd $65,000,000 like the DAWN remake for total US Box office.

[Khardis]

Why do people hate LOTD? Same reason they hated Day when it first came out, Its not Dawn. Land Of The Dead is a good movie. Big Daddy bothers me and always did. But, the whole concept and the interesting take on zombie infested afterlife is beautiful. Im happy with it. Plus, it wasn't a non-studio film which factors in on things like style and content. I was hoping for a film that looked and felt like 28 Days Later because the way that movie was done was utter brilliance. But, Land is a great horror film compared to to **** like TCM :The Beginning and All these dumbed up Americanized versions of good Japanese horror films. But i must say, The Devil's Rejects was the best horror movie to come out last year. But, Land is a close second. Wolf Creek was pretty good too.. Im rambling... lol



It wasn't a flop. It made alot of money. And hes always used political satire. And I think that if thiat **** ever happened, thats the life would be after it all happened. Some Nazi-Conservo would take over and control our lives using money. Like **** is now. Plus, he wrote that script before 9-11 so, its not like he based the whole thing off of trying to make a statement. LOTD has a good screenplay, good effects, good characters, a good atmosphere.. I mean all in all, you can't complain.


Dont take my disagreeing with you personally.

It was a flop IMO, it was a sub par movie. It wasnt Dawn thats for sure. but I dont think Dawn was the best Zombie film GAR made either. I think Day was superior to all 4.

GAR in his old forgetful age has forgotten how to scare people and make good movies. He used to make movies to make movies, now he makes them to make some inane point. This is why Land was inferior to the other 3 films. It was hokey and kind of obvious. I felt like I was being lectured to, not let into some creepy apoc style world.

[capncnut]

I'm quite happy with it actually. I kept an open mind with Land so I wasn't terribly disappointed by it. I really liked the way GAR progressed the learning with the zombies and thought the whole Fiddler's Green concept was cool. I do agree that some sequences were a bit too cheesy for my liking, ie; machine gun severing the head and Big Daddy stomping on it etc but there's no way I will be encouraged into thinking that this film is crap. No way! Some of GAR's coolest scenes were in this film; the zombies crossing the water, Big Daddy's dealing with Kaufman and the entire beginning sequence all stand out to me. Just because GAR has made an average film doesn't mean we should flog him for it and abandon the chapter he worked so hard to complete. I appreciate the fact that he at least had a stab and tried to progress the story intelligently without walking backwards. Everybody has the right to free speech but if anyone slagged off Land in this thread then I have one thing to say, "let's see if you can do any better!"

[Khardis]

I'm quite happy with it actually. I kept an open mind with Land so I wasn't terribly disappointed by it. I really liked the way GAR progressed the learning with the zombies and thought the whole Fiddler's Green concept was cool. I do agree that some sequences were a bit too cheesy for my liking, ie; machine gun severing the head and Big Daddy stomping on it etc but there's no way I will be encouraged into thinking that this film is crap. No way! Some of GAR's coolest scenes were in this film; the zombies crossing the water, Big Daddy's dealing with Kaufman and the entire beginning sequence all stand out to me. Just because GAR has made an average film doesn't mean we should flog him for it and abandon the chapter he worked so hard to comlete. I appreciate the fact that he at least had a stab and tried to progress the story intelligently without walking backwards. Everybody has the right to free speech but if anyone slagged off Land in this thread then I have one thing to say, "let's see if you can do any better!"

Wether or not someone can do better is irrelevant. I dont have to be a food critic to know that I dont like the flavor of something disgusting. Likewise I dont have to be a famous and accomplished director to know that a film is crap, medicore or really good.

[capncnut]

It's all down to personal taste I guess but c'mon! People are talking about this movie like it's the worst one ever made - how stupid, the movie is FAR from awful! GAR needs pure support right now...

[Maitreya]

My response to this is my response to everyone that says a mainstream zombie movie is "God-awful".

Ask yourself one question:

Is it worse than Contagium?

'Nuff said.

[Minerva_Zombi]

well, day was a huge flop too but that doesn't mean it isn't a good film. and copme on, it did open right in the middle of summer with movies like batman begins, war of the worlds, star wars, etc. land should have waited until the original october date. i think it was a flop at the box office because it was released in the middle of the summer. i think making 50 million on a low budget zombie film isn't a flop. they only had like 1/3 of dawn's budget. like 10 - 15 million. so, i wouldn't consider it a flop at all.

[Khardis]

well, day was a huge flop too but that doesn't mean it isn't a good film. and copme on, it did open right in the middle of summer with movies like batman begins, war of the worlds, star wars, etc. land should have waited until the original october date. i think it was a flop at the box office because it was released in the middle of the summer. i think making 50 million on a low budget zombie film isn't a flop. they only had like 1/3 of dawn's budget. like 10 - 15 million. so, i wouldn't consider it a flop at all.

A summer release is always better. They call them summer blockbusters because thats when theater attendence is at its height since all the kids are out of school. There was no excuse for its pitiful showing, I saw it the night it was released as did my 2 brothers. I also saw Batman and all that around the same week or whatever when they were all open. I doubt most people would choose only 1 film to see. Moat of us just see them all.

The fact that Land did so poorly reflects more on 2 things.

1. Its horror. Lets face it horror doesnt do as well in the box as most film types.

2. The reasons I mentioned before about this being too hokey and people not wanting to be preached to by an aging liberal.

As well as we should also ay that its not worth comparing days box office numbers to Lands, Day was an under budgeted movie with no name actors that was barely in the theaters. Land was a major movie production with a lot of money and big studio time behind it.

[Minerva_Zombi]

i disagree, the big blockbusters are what people go to see. and horror isn't considered a big blockbuster. same thing has happened to movies like clerks 2 and the devil's rejects. good movies with big followings but, lack-luster box office results. hell, romero states that that was big reason for its dissapointment at the box office. thats why it blew up on dvd. it was on the top 5 most wanted list at my blockbuster. cuz it came out around halloween. and i disagree with ur belief that land is farenheit 9/11 with zombies. romero just looked at how things are going now and did the exact same thing hes done in the past. and i think his message behind it, really interested people in the fact that, there's more to it than just a stupid zombie movie. it tells or continues a story. but, if you watch it, it makes me wish that romero did resident evil. cuz there are shots, scenes, etc. that are just so resident evil-esque that it saddens me that the resident evil movies are how they are now. :( i mean, dennis hopper is super conservative and it was his idea to play kaufman as a rumsfeld type character. he even undestands that if it did happen, thats how the world would be run. by a money hungry conservo.

[capncnut]

Land was a major movie production with a lot of money and big studio time behind it.

Out of all the gripes I do have with Land, that's probably the biggest one!

[Danny]

Wether or not someone can do better is irrelevant. I dont have to be a food critic to know that I dont like the flavor of something disgusting. Likewise I dont have to be a famous and accomplished director to know that a film is crap, medicore or really good.


*sniffs*-you could just have **** taste in films.:p

[Khardis]

*sniffs*-you could just have **** taste in films.:p

Well I am on a GAR Zombie based website discussing his work...

[Graebel]

I doubt most people would choose only 1 film to see. Moat of us just see them all.



That's funny. My husband and I (and all our friends with kids) are lucky if we see 1-2 movies in the theater all year. I only got to see Land in theaters cause I skipped out on work and went to the matinee while my son was still in school.

As to the thread... I liked Land, flaws and all. Where the movie sometimes sagged, I thought the soundtrack perfectly conveyed all things zombie. Plus I thought Charlie was hilarious.:cool:

[capncnut]

I thought Charlie was hilarious.

Robert Joy STOLE that movie methinks. :D

[MinionZombie]

Robert Joy rocked balls in Land, he was my favourite character in the film.

Minerva:

Clerks 2 - budget: $5 million, current gross $24+ million ... factor in the up-coming DVD and all the related merchandise and it's far lacklustre, especially when Smith is known for his consistent, roughly $30 million box office.

The Devil's Rejects - budget: $7 million, gross of almost $17 million - then add in DVD sales, and again, not a bad turn out - especially for a horror movie with an incredibly niche audience - add on the fact it's one sick and twisted movie and it's even more of a surprise.

Land of the Dead only bombed box-office wise in America because the morons at Universal released it in summer box office madness season and pitted a Halloween movie against superheroes blowing sh*t up. Land was released in Europe much later, Britain for example was lagging in last on September 23rd, and it did rather nicely ... with DVD sales too.

Just wanted to be pedantic and annoying...:p

[xopher]

I saw Land Of The Dead twice in theatres and have watched it many times at home. I just finished watching it again about half an hour ago, and I'm finally begining to apreciate the film in the same way that I apreciate the older ones. When I first saw it, I couldn't get past the name actors, the film was a bit too flashy. It's similar to when a religious organization tries to make a fast paced movie or a drama and they get a bunch of goody church people trying to act like bad guys by pretending to smoke and say "Hell" or "Damn" once. They're too nice and proper, you can see right through it. But I've seen Land enough now that I'm begining to see the characters instead of the actors. Rather than portraying different characters, the big name actors often end up just looking the same person going through different situations. Julia Roberts and Christopher Walken come to mind rather quickly though I love them both! (You're gonna want that cow bell!)

Interesting factoid, the guy who played Cholo's buddy (I can't remember his name) the guy who said "Next time would you just let me take f*cking shot?" He was in a series of "End Of The World" films put out by some preachers indy movie company. He played William Speeno. I DO NOT agree with the ideology presented in those movies but they are kind of interesting if you can get past the really obviouse preaching. I picked up the second installment "Revelation" because it had Jeff Fahey in it. I thought they'd get better but the later films resorted to old school actors like Morgot Kidder (Lois Lane!), Gary Busey, and believe it or not, Mr. T and Howie Mandel?! (sigh) I think I would have cast Land with an actor like Jeff Fahey and then a bunch of no-names. But I do think Asia, Simon, Robert, and Dennis were surprisingly good together.

As far as George being liberal, hmmm..... I consider myself to be pretty conservative but I agree with GAR on most of the ideas he presents.

I think I'd agree that what hurt the film the most was the time of release. Even when Star Wars came out, theatre attendance was reportedly at an all time low. I would think it would have been wiser to maximize the effect of the genre by waiting until Halloween season to release the flick. Just My Humble Opinion :-)

[_liam_]

christ almighty this is an epic thread. pardon me but i skipped pages 5-19...

i think it was an excellent zombie film, one of the best, but as a george a romero zombie film and more specifically as the long awaited, saga closing epic conclusion, it was a wee bit of a letdown in that it was a bit mtv, too short, and the ending didn't give much closure.

however it was very well cast, had a good atmosphere etc etc.
7/10

[rawrOTD]

Over all I'd say the film gets a C+
after getting into the imfamous zombie obsession with night of the living dead , I was totally pumped to see a new GAR film

unfortunately LOTD just didnt make me feel like the other 3 had
here are my reasons:

- no sense of atomosphere
in the others i felt incredibly claustrophobic, and it seemed the characters were always doomed
even if there was a lull
a death or infighting or even a news report seemed to slowly crumple all hope
in land theres no sense that our characters are trapped, or even in danger if they are not careful

-no survival
when you live in a huge city with walls and moats, the dead seem to be way far away in another world
even when they attacked and breached the city there was no sense of surviving
just everyone died and panicked
what if kaufman had holed up in his tower? or taken all the living soldiers he could to protect him and abandon his people?
if the irish dude's rebellion took place as the invasion did and the tower was kaufmans final fortress?
where the hell did he think he was going in that car by the way?
even our "heros" were simply riding around in a big truck

- nobody I liked died
as each character was introduced i knew who would be alive in the end
not a single "good guy" died
just cholo, some goons, and nameless soldiers
when ben died in night, or roger in dawn i was drawn into loving the film even more
if you take people that have never seen dawn and show the movie, they will moan noooooooooooooooooo as roger is bitten
it would have been great if somebody actually died and I cared
it was like watching a new james bond flick


- the ending
awww the zombies are people tooooo
you know what would have been a good idea? if they killed them
not that it was like "dude they're zombies kill them lol"
just
if they slaughtered big daddy like any other
it would have parralled ben dying
in a reverse way

- if you have everyone drive off into the night?why not have them go a litle bit further
lets follow them a little bit , it wouldnt be bad to see them travelling
finding food , shelter,
in fact the movie is short
it would divide the film into a really solid 2 parts
the city, and the road

- big daddy looked silly
-no seiges of barricaded buildings
- characters were empty
ex. charlie?
yeah so he got saved by riley from a fire , hes a good shot and dumb as a moose dressed as a swedish policeman
great....so....
you can do this with every character in land its seriously a three word personality

cholo
greedy, smartass, a big ego

hes also annoying, but i dont think he was really going for that as a character

anyhoo
i have not lost faith
and every zombie movie i see i hope for what GAR gave me in the first three

pumped for the day remake, 28 days later sequel, and diary of the dead
toodlelooo

[xopher]

Yeah, I had alot of trouble with Big Daddy. I didn't feel that his "cry" or yell, whatever you wanna call it, was very zombie-ish. In fact, I feel that all the zombies in this movie were a little off on their acting. Something was not very Romero, and a little too Universal. And I mean old school Unicersal. Like Frankenstein was scarier than most of these zombies. As a matter o f fact, ole Boris Karloffs Frankenstein could probably kick Big Daddy's a55.

[Parazombie]

I do think the concepts were interesting, but they're were too many to try to explain in such a short amount of time. If the movie had been longer, or maybe even broken up into two, I probably would have liked it a lot better. Plus, there were too many of the living in the movie.

[jim102016]

No helicopter! No damned helicopter! One of my favorite aspects from Dawn and Day was not continued by GAR. I watch this movie once in a while, but its my least favorite. In my opinion, I think Diary will stink, so the next opportunity for redemption will be what ever zombie flick George throws together after that.

[xopher]

I realized something else yesterday as I was thinking about the quadrilogy of Dead films. When I watched Night Of The Living Dead, I related to it because it was so similar to my life as a kid. There was chaos on the outside of my house and on the inside it was every man for himself. The first three films have this same type of setting, and the claustraphobic atmosphere helps to maximize this feeling. Land had too big a set, it was too spread out for the threat of dealing with someone you didn't like to really amount to anything. In Night, Dawn, and Day, there was a world outside waiting to eat you alive and the fear was always that somehow they'd get in. But on top of that, you were stuck in a small space with other people who grew more and more discontent with each other as the film went on. Land just doesn't have this feel about it and the one thing that I keep coming back to is, it's just too big a movie. They should have barracaded themselves in Kauffman's building out of panick only to realize that was the wrong way to go. THAT would have been alot freakier to me :-)

[Khardis]

Yeah, I had alot of trouble with Big Daddy. I didn't feel that his "cry" or yell, whatever you wanna call it, was very zombie-ish. In fact, I feel that all the zombies in this movie were a little off on their acting. Something was not very Romero, and a little too Universal. And I mean old school Unicersal. Like Frankenstein was scarier than most of these zombies. As a matter o f fact, ole Boris Karloffs Frankenstein could probably kick Big Daddy's a55.

Thats one thing I blame on GAR, instead of the zombies being zombies, they were now characters. 1 Bub with 100s of regular mindless ghouls is one thing, but 100 Bubs is absurd. The zombies were now "good guys" it was BS.

[bassman]

Thats one thing I blame on GAR, instead of the zombies being zombies, they were now characters. 1 Bub with 100s of regular mindless ghouls is one thing, but 100 Bubs is absurd. The zombies were now "good guys" it was BS.


But, the zombies were never the "bad guys" in any of the films.

[Khardis]

But, the zombies were never the "bad guys" in any of the films.

Disagree completely. They were an enemy. Dead ghouls who want to kill and eat living humans seem like a pretty good bad guy to me. Then you had the human protagonist struggle and infighting which left them to the whims of that horde of baddies.

In this one.. they were good guys which was absurd. I always side with the living, maybe its because I dont like walking corpses eating the living.

[bassman]

The dead rising was more of a small problem that could have easily been solved. The dead don't mean to be dead, they don't mean to rise, and they don't mean to eat the flesh of the living. It's "Pure motorized instinct".

For a character to be a "Bad Guy", I think the character should at least have te ability to understand what "Bad" is. They're just there. the "Bad Guys" are the humans that can't work together to get things done. Our horrible nature towards one another.

There's different ways to take it. I just like applying movies/entertainment to everyday life. If the films were just about the zombies(Yawn04), then I probably wouldn't even like them(effects excluded;) ).

[Khardis]

The dead rising was more of a small problem that could have easily been solved. The dead don't mean to be dead, they don't mean to rise, and they don't mean to eat the flesh of the living. It's "Pure motorized instinct".

For a character to be a "Bad Guy", I think the character should at least have te ability to understand what "Bad" is. They're just there. the "Bad Guys" are the humans that can't work together to get things done. Our horrible nature towards one another.

There's different ways to take it. I just like applying movies/entertainment to everyday life. If the films were just about the zombies(Yawn04), then I probably wouldn't even like them(effects excluded;) ).

I dont agree with that, thats like saying Grendal killing all the peasants wasnt evil or bad because Grendal was a monster and just doing what monsters do. Eating and killing people.

Apply that to any monster. Does Michael Myers know he is evil? Hitler thought he was doing good, but he was clearly a bad guy.

The zombies eat and kill the heros of the story. They are badguys. They arent menacing for sure, thats what makes them so terrifying. They emotionlessly instinctually just kill and eat living people. Like a robot. Like a Terminator?

[bassman]

Ehh....everyone has their own views. I just try to look at the deeper aspect of (good)horror films.

I agree with Romero's views on the zombies("I love them") and the purpose they serve in his films. The people are the frightening ones to me....not the dead.

[Khardis]

Meh, I agree with GARs old usage of zombies. To scare people. When he turned them into sociopolitical themes and good guys his films started to tank. Land for example. We will see if he does the same with his next film, i assure you though that if he wants to make money he will go back to just trying to make a good horror movie and laying off the preachy theme crap.

[bassman]

He's always used them the same way. Land was just more up-front and in-your-face for the kiddies these days that watch crap like "When a Stranger Calls" and the countless "Saw" sequels.

It's always been there. But like I said, everyone has their own viewpoints. I watch them one way, you watch them another. But at least we're still supporting the master!:p

[Khardis]

He's always used them the same way. Land was just more up-front and in-your-face for the kiddies these days that watch crap like "When a Stranger Calls" and the countless "Saw" sequels.

It's always been there. But like I said, everyone has their own viewpoints. I watch them one way, you watch them another. But at least we're still supporting the master!:p

Thats where we disagree, I disagree that it was always there.

I think people need to realize that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. NOTLD = GAR and friends trying to make a movie to scare people and maybe make some profits.

Dawn = Gar + friends going back to what made him famous after the last few films he had done bombed basically. Made another zombie movies to scare people and make money.

Day = GAR making a scary movie to make money.

Loooooooonnnnnng break.

Its in this long break I believe that GAR finnally started buying into the BS the diehard fans were saying aobut his film. I remember reading an article one time from some author who was widely read in highschools across America, whos book is over interperted alllll the time. And he basically set it straight by saying, no It didnt have those deeper meanings and themes and if it did it was all accidental I wrote a good story and that was it.

Thats what hapopens with GARs dead films...except instead of setting the record straight he basically bought into every over interperitations of his works and then tried to actively put it into his last few movies. Land for one and Bruiser for 2. Both were flat movies that were kind of screechy and preachy and bombed.

Theres a reason George... we go to horror movies to see horror movies, not political and social diatribes. You would have though watching the Village would have shown him that.

[bassman]

So it's all just a big accident?:rockbrow: Hrm. I don't know what to tell you, bro. If you think that all the commentaries in the films are coincidental......well, Romero has got the best luck at making a good film out of anyone I've ever seen.

Oh well. To each his own. Even if it were accidental......I still love the movies for it. I'm not in the crowd of MTV'rs that enjoy the cheap shock of a cat jumping out of the darkness or track star velociraptor-zombies.:p

[Khardis]

So it's all just a big accident?:rockbrow: Hrm. I don't know what to tell you, bro. If you think that all the commentaries in the films are coincidental......well, Romero has got the best luck at making a good film out of anyone I've ever seen.

Oh well. To each his own. Even if it were accidental......I still love the movies for it. I'm not in the crowd of MTV'rs that enjoy the cheap shock of a cat jumping out of the darkness or track star velociraptor-zombies.:p

Listen to his commentaries, really. He stated in one of them I forget which probably Day, that the themes in Night or Dawn were accidental. I like his movies too, well pre Land ones I do... which is why I am mad he is buying into the BS hes been getting fed all these years. His commentaries reflect my point, these days he pushes the "I put it in on purpose even back then" bits in which are not real, especially when you listen to his old laserdisc commentaries.

[bassman]

Or he could have just been rather modest about it. Take it how you will. For ALL of his films to be as thick with commentary as they are......it's quite hard to think they were accidents. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with "Night". The fact that Ben was black, etc., etc. may have been slightly accidental. But not Dawn and Day.

[otisbenny]

Well, I liked Land. Certainly not as much as the first 3, but it had its moments. If only GAR had sloooowed down the pace and gave room for characterization. That's part of what set his films apart, for me. The long stretches of mall tedium in Dawn were essential and added to the reality of their situation. But that wouldn't fly with today's audiences. Eveything needs to be quick cuts and hurry up to advance the plot. He wouldn't have made this film 20 years ago in this manner. And, yeah, Big Daddy was silly.

[LouCipherr]

otisbenny just hit the nail on the head with that one. I couldn't agree more. Good post.

[bassman]

Well, I liked Land. Certainly not as much as the first 3, but it had its moments. If only GAR had sloooowed down the pace and gave room for characterization. That's part of what set his films apart, for me. The long stretches of mall tedium in Dawn were essential and added to the reality of their situation. But that wouldn't fly with today's audiences. Eveything needs to be quick cuts and hurry up to advance the plot. He wouldn't have made this film 20 years ago in this manner. And, yeah, Big Daddy was silly.

Great point, but I don't think this was his decision. I think the studio had their hands in that aspect of the film. It was rushed.

Now that he's back swinging his independent thing, I think "Diary of the Dead" will have more characterization.

[LouCipherr]

Great point, but I don't think this was his decision. I think the studio had their hands in that aspect of the film. It was rushed.

Now that he's back swinging his independent thing, I think "Diary of the Dead" will have more characterization.

Exactly, which is why I'm awaiting Diary with an open mind and heart. I think GAR does his best work independently - and I think the studio screwed LOTD. The production was rushed as you said, and it shows in many places (especially in the character development department)

Well said, bassman. (see, we agree sometimes. :D ;))

LC

[Khardis]

Gotta disagree, I think the problem with Land was the script, not the studio.

[LouCipherr]

The script I read for LOTD was pretty damn good, but half of it never made it into the movie, sadly.

[Khardis]

I read it, I wasnt impressed. It was ok I guess, but not up to par with the other 3 films.

It still had that streak of moral screeching and preaching in it that annoyed the hell out of me.

[suicide22]

The problem with LAND OF THE DEAD is it is not a bad movie… The film felt too much like DAWN OF THE DEAD REMAKE in its style of movements of the characters. The movie also felt too much like GEORGE ROMERO’S DAY OF THE DEAD 1985 VERSION—the film was good, but it felt too similar to DAY OF THE DEAD. “It would have been good to say, to George… when you made LAND OF THE DEAD in 2004 you made DAY OF THE DEAD REMAKE back to back with DAWN OF THE REMAKE 2004” :eek: :cool: :mad: :evil:

[Philly_SWAT]

The problem with LAND OF THE DEAD is it is not a bad movie… The film felt too much like DAWN OF THE DEAD REMAKE in its style of movements of the characters. The movie also felt too much like GEORGE ROMERO’S DAY OF THE DEAD 1985 VERSION—the film was good, but it felt too similar to DAY OF THE DEAD. “It would have been good to say, to George… when you made LAND OF THE DEAD in 2004 you made DAY OF THE DEAD REMAKE back to back with DAWN OF THE REMAKE 2004” :eek: :cool: :mad: :evil:
Ummmm.....I think that Land of the Dead and Day of the Dead are nothing like each other, either in storyline or tone.

[Brubaker]

The script I read for LOTD was pretty damn good, but half of it never made it into the movie, sadly.

They had a scene in the script with a chopper flying off carrying some of Kaufman's flunkies that would have been neat to see on the screen. I could easily picture Hopper's horrified reaction to that type of scenario. I also chuckled reading about the origins of Pretty Boy's nickname. There were a few other things missing that would have been nice on screen, but there was probably a reason they were all cut.

[MinionZombie]

Anyone got a link to the script for Land, that's legal?

[Brubaker]

Anyone got a link to the script for Land, that's legal?

I honestly don't remember where I read the script, it was awhile back. I saw it in two different places. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't have the slightest idea if it was legal or not. Wherever it was I first read it, the site had dozens of scripts but appeared to be a popular/legit site. I could be wrong.

[MinionZombie]

Nevermind, googled one up yesterday ... now to find time to actually read it...

[Danny]

Anyone got a link to the script for Land, that's legal?

http://www.simplyscripts.com/l.html and dont say i never get youse guys anything:cool:

[MinionZombie]

lol, I already googled it up yesterday, read the posts ya dafty. :p:)

[Griff]

Listen to his commentaries, really. He stated in one of them I forget which probably Day, that the themes in Night or Dawn were accidental. I like his movies too, well pre Land ones I do... which is why I am mad he is buying into the BS hes been getting fed all these years. His commentaries reflect my point, these days he pushes the "I put it in on purpose even back then" bits in which are not real, especially when you listen to his old laserdisc commentaries.


Alot of the themes in NIGHT that were identified by third parties (e.g. Vietnam, racial tensions, the cold war and everything else under the sun) were accidental, for sure. DAWN, on the other hand, wears its themes on its sleeve. So much so, in fact, that their presence is irrefutable. You can't tell me that film isn't a purposeful indictment on consumerism - there are scenes that specifically celebrate rapant materialism and, later, portray its ultimate path to discontent. Clearly deliberate stuff. DAY is a little more subtle in execution but its still pushing certain ideas (as well as being, perhaps, the most philosophical of the series). LAND, while a little bit on the nose, follows on as expected (and as layed out in Romero's pre-NOTLD short story, Night of the Anubis).

You'll have to excuse me if I don't go by your say-so alone, but if you can provide an example of Romero contradicting himself in terms of intentionally/unintentionally making thematic commentary, I'd like to see it.

Cos I'm not buying it.


The script I read for LOTD was pretty damn good, but half of it never made it into the movie, sadly.

I agree. There were some potentially amazing set pieces in that script that were just never realized. Which is funny since some people around here seem convinced he was given 'carte blanch' to make whatever he wanted, how he wanted it - which obviously wasn't the case with LAND OF THE DEAD.

Its budget was obviously stretched to the limit. It still looks like it cost more than DAWN'04, though, even though it had about half the production budget of that film. Just had to mention that.

Oh, and one more thing regarding box office. LAND took the fall for DOOM. The 70 million dollar DOOM movie was to open for Universal that week but they knew it didn't stand a chance one week between BATMAN BEGINS and WAR OF THE WORLDS so they swapped release dates with the 17 million dollar LAND. That, my friends, is a f*cking fact. The rest is speculation and heresay...

[coma]

Alot of the themes in NIGHT that were identified by third parties (e.g. Vietnam, racial tensions, the cold war and everything else under the sun) were accidental, for sure. .
In a cinemafantastique NOTLD issue from 1979 (great issue, interviews with everyone almost) that I have somewhere (wish I could find it) George explains that NOTLD is about revolution. The same thing he has always said. One group engulfing another, older, order. The other stuff was accidental. He has also always maintined that the main theme is lack of communication. Which, imo, is evident in all of the films he has made. Not just the Zombie films.

[Khardis]

Alot of the themes in NIGHT that were identified by third parties (e.g. Vietnam, racial tensions, the cold war and everything else under the sun) were accidental, for sure. DAWN, on the other hand, wears its themes on its sleeve. So much so, in fact, that their presence is irrefutable. You can't tell me that film isn't a purposeful indictment on consumerism - there are scenes that specifically celebrate rapant materialism and, later, portray its ultimate path to discontent. Clearly deliberate stuff. DAY is a little more subtle in execution but its still pushing certain ideas (as well as being, perhaps, the most philosophical of the series). LAND, while a little bit on the nose, follows on as expected (and as layed out in Romero's pre-NOTLD short story, Night of the Anubis).

You'll have to excuse me if I don't go by your say-so alone, but if you can provide an example of Romero contradicting himself in terms of intentionally/unintentionally making thematic commentary, I'd like to see it.

Cos I'm not buying it.



I agree. There were some potentially amazing set pieces in that script that were just never realized. Which is funny since some people around here seem convinced he was given 'carte blanch' to make whatever he wanted, how he wanted it - which obviously wasn't the case with LAND OF THE DEAD.

Its budget was obviously stretched to the limit. It still looks like it cost more than DAWN'04, though, even though it had about half the production budget of that film. Just had to mention that.

Oh, and one more thing regarding box office. LAND took the fall for DOOM. The 70 million dollar DOOM movie was to open for Universal that week but they knew it didn't stand a chance one week between BATMAN BEGINS and WAR OF THE WORLDS so they swapped release dates with the 17 million dollar LAND. That, my friends, is a f*cking fact. The rest is speculation and heresay...


Sure I can tell you that Dawn also was accidental. but dont take my word for it listen to its commentary track. George himself said he didnt really think of it that way and it was only set in a mall because his friends owned the mall.

[Cody]

It should of been called Dusk of the Dead

[Griff]

In a cinemafantastique NOTLD issue from 1979 (great issue, interviews with everyone almost) that I have somewhere (wish I could find it) George explains that NOTLD is about revolution. The same thing he has always said. One group engulfing another, older, order. The other stuff was accidental. He has also always maintined that the main theme is lack of communication. Which, imo, is evident in all of the films he has made. Not just the Zombie films.

Oh yeah, those themes were certainly deliberate. Its just people have attributed just about everything else to the movie that simply weren't intended (a prime example being the racial thing - which we know was merely a coincidence).


Sure I can tell you that Dawn also was accidental. but dont take my word for it listen to its commentary track. George himself said he didnt really think of it that way and it was only set in a mall because his friends owned the mall.

Well, I hardly think George thought "Hmmm... I'm gonna make a movie slamming American consumerism. Sh*t, I know: I'll make a sequel to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD". Obviously the genesis for the setting of DAWN came from the tour of the mall he was given by its owner but in DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD he says he then began to think about the thematic implications of that setting and of ways to develop them.

If you think there's no deliberate social commentary in DAWN then you are trippin', my friend. I mean, that's why the characters take over the mall in the first place - instead of trying to flee like in every other zombie movie (including the shameful remake).

[Khardis]

Oh yeah, those themes were certainly deliberate. Its just people have attributed just about everything else to the movie that simply weren't intended (a prime example being the racial thing - which we know was merely a coincidence).



Well, I hardly think George thought "Hmmm... I'm gonna make a movie slamming American consumerism. Sh*t, I know: I'll make a sequel to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD". Obviously the genesis for the setting of DAWN came from the tour of the mall he was given by its owner but in DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD he says he then began to think about the thematic implications of that setting and of ways to develop them.

If you think there's no deliberate social commentary in DAWN then you are trippin', my friend. I mean, that's why the characters take over the mall in the first place - instead of trying to flee like in every other zombie movie (including the shameful remake).

Uhhh every zombie film Romero makes theyre holding out. Night they hold out in a house, Dawn a Mall, Day a bunker, and Land a fortified City.

I think there was no intentional theme making in Dawn, like GAR said there wasnt on the commentary. I think that people just keep interjecting it into the film because they want the film to be more than just a good horror film. I say stop that, let the film just be a film. The only film in which he intentionally tried to use themes was Land. And that turned out terribly.

[Adrenochrome]

The only film in which he intentionally tried to use themes was Land.

are you watching the same films as the rest of us?
Just curious, don't get all "Spitfire" on me.

[bassman]

Griff is right, dude.

If you can't see the obvious consumerism commentary in the original Dawn, you should have your eyes checked.:p


Oh well....even if you can't see it, at least you still like the movies.:cool:

[Khardis]

are you watching the same films as the rest of us?
Just curious, don't get all "Spitfire" on me.

Yeah I am. I just watch them for what they are though. I like GARs world plenty without having to give it anymore.


Griff is right, dude.

If you can't see the obvious consumerism commentary in the original Dawn, you should have your eyes checked.:p


Oh well....even if you can't see it, at least you still like the movies.:cool:

Of course I like the movies. But my point isnt that the case cant be made that the theme is there, I am saying it wasnt intentional. I have a lot of experince with this sort of thing when I wa sin college. I took a lot of creative writing classes (mostly story, rather than poetry) and people would say the SAME stuff about the stories I was required to submit. Analyzing everything from color verbage I used to motives and what they meant. One of my kicks was to say that I never planted any themes, I just wanted to write a good story. But that didnt stop the class form finding millions of themes and satires etc. Were they there? The case can be made for sure that they are, were they intentional? No, and if they were it wasnt on a concious level.

[Adrenochrome]

Yeah I am. I just watch them for what they are though. I like GARs world plenty without having to give it anymore.



you're a "zombie".

[Khardis]

Nah, im a "purist" if anything.

[Adrenochrome]

Nah, im a "purist" if anything.

ahhh, NOW I understand you!:D

[bassman]

Of course I like the movies. But my point isnt that the case cant be made that the theme is there, I am saying it wasnt intentional. I have a lot of experince with this sort of thing when I wa sin college. I took a lot of creative writing classes (mostly story, rather than poetry) and people would say the SAME stuff about the stories I was required to submit. Analyzing everything from color verbage I used to motives and what they meant. One of my kicks was to say that I never planted any themes, I just wanted to write a good story. But that didnt stop the class form finding millions of themes and satires etc. Were they there? The case can be made for sure that they are, were they intentional? No, and if they were it wasnt on a concious level.

But just because you don't put anything personal into your art doesn't mean Romero didn't. In fact....that's what most artists do whether it be films, music, painting, etc. They inject personal feelings, ideas, or emotions into the art and then the reader, viewer, what-have-you takes the art and looks at it from their own personal angle. Yes, the viewer/audience often sees things that weren't intended(That's a good thing for the viewer), but they often also see the main points the artist had intended on getting across.

Romero was definitely trying to get across the point of the current state of consumerism in the world. There are other things that people find(example: Ben being black in the original Night) that weren't intended and that's great....but there are still things put in there intentionally.

An artist is not an artist without using his craft to show his opinions, feelings, ideas, etc.

[Adrenochrome]

But just because you don't put anything personal into your art doesn't mean Romero didn't. In fact....that's what most artists do whether it be films, music, painting, etc. They inject personal feelings, ideas, or emotions into the art and then the reader, viewer, what-have-you takes the art and looks at it from their own personal angle. Yes, the viewer/audience often sees things that weren't intended(That's a good thing for the viewer), but they often also see the main points the artist had intended on getting across.

Romero was definitely trying to get across the point of the current state of consumerism in the world. There are other things that people find(example: Ben being black in the original Night) that weren't intended and that's great....but there are still things put in there intentionally.

An artist is not an artist without using his craft to show his opinions, feelings, ideas, etc.

Ben in Night is a PERFECT example!
in '68...other than Sidney Poitier (and maybe Bill Cosby), how many (memorable) black "heroes" where in American cinema? I'll tell you how many.....NONE!

[Khardis]

But just because you don't put anything personal into your art doesn't mean Romero didn't. In fact....that's what most artists do whether it be films, music, painting, etc. They inject personal feelings, ideas, or emotions into the art and then the reader, viewer, what-have-you takes the art and looks at it from their own personal angle. Yes, the viewer/audience often sees things that weren't intended(That's a good thing for the viewer), but they often also see the main points the artist had intended on getting across.

Romero was definitely trying to get across the point of the current state of consumerism in the world. There are other things that people find(example: Ben being black in the original Night) that weren't intended and that's great....but there are still things put in there intentionally.

An artist is not an artist without using his craft to show his opinions, feelings, ideas, etc.

I put personal stuff into the stories I had written. In fact almost every character I have ever created is some extension of myself. But thats differnt than injecting themes into the work itself. Again check out the Dawn Commentary. GAR didnt intend to put that as a theme. He just used the mall because his friends owned the mall and he thought it was a cool place to hold up in an invasion. The whole consumerism thing was spiel written later on by critics and fans to give the movie EXTRA meaning and finesse. it didnt need the extra, it was a good film on its merits alone.

I just dont know why GAR bought into all this crap eventually and started to believe it. I think it started with Bruiser. But the adding of the analyzation started with Dawn, even though it was unintended themes. Then they tried to put themes into night and Day... which was absurd.


Ben in Night is a PERFECT example!
in '68...other than Sidney Poitier (and maybe Bill Cosby), how many (memorable) black "heroes" where in American cinema? I'll tell you how many.....NONE!

I remember reading somewhere some stuff GAR had said and Dwayne was not intended at 1st, and ended up almost as an accident as the main character in night. Which just added to the films success, but not intentionally. Even if you read the script and watch night, there is nothing racial about it, if you didnt know Ben was black by watching him you'd think the role was written for a white man. Which makes sense because I think it was.

[bassman]

Sadly, I think you're missing alot in the films if you only view them as midless zombie films.

I suppose next you'll tell me that "Watership Down" isn't about Man's ignorance and everlasting need to distroy. Or that "Fight Club" isn't about capitalism, consumerism, and commercialization.:confused:

[Adrenochrome]

Sadly, I think you're missing alot in the films if you only view them as midless zombie films.

I suppose next you'll tell me that "Watership Down" isn't about Man's ignorance and everlasting need to distroy. Or that "Fight Club" isn't about capitalism, consumerism, and commercialization.:confused:

Oh, I'd wet my pants on LIVE television just to hear/read his views on The Planet of the Apes (both book and film)

[coma]

I put personal stuff into the stories I had written. In fact almost every character I have ever created is some extension of myself. But thats differnt than injecting themes into the work itself. Again check out the Dawn Commentary. GAR didnt intend to put that as a theme. He just used the mall because his friends owned the mall and he thought it was a cool place to hold up in an invasion. The whole consumerism thing was spiel written later on by critics and fans to give the movie EXTRA meaning and finesse. it didnt need the extra, it was a good film on its merits alone.


I remember reading somewhere some stuff GAR had said and Dwayne was not intended at 1st, and ended up almost as an accident as the main character in night. Which just added to the films success, but not intentionally. Even if you read the script and watch night, there is nothing racial about it, if you didnt know Ben was black by watching him you'd think the role was written for a white man. Which makes sense because I think it was.

GAR always says Duane Jones was the best actor amongst his acting friends so he got the lead. Also it was written to be a white truckdriver.

It's possible (though I am not entirly convinced) that He didn't outright think "i'ma gonna make a movie 'bout consumerism", But anyone who writes well can't help injecting their POV all over something, comscious or not. But when fran says something like "you're hypnotized by all the shiny things" I kind of thinkit was something he had in mind. It's too direct. As well as all the fur coats and jewlery. It could be said "thats what anyone would do" which could be countered by "because we are infatuated with crass materialism"

This is not at all the same thing as making a splatter action painting and later on saying it's about Mans relationship with God. People do that alot. When you write alot themes are repeated and you dont have to think "i'm gonna write this zinger to screw those wall street mopes" to have it running all over you're work.


Or that "Fight Club" isn't about capitalism, consumerism, and commercialization.:confused:
You forgot alienation and emasculation:)

[Adrenochrome]

...But anyone who writes well can't help injecting their POV all over something, comscious or not.

Exatcly!! And, by doing so, one builds a "theme".
Theme: a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic.

**patiently waits for Khardis to become "snotty"**

[coma]

Exatcly!! And, by doing so, one builds a "theme".
Theme: a subject of discourse, discussion, meditation, or composition; topic.

To expand a little bit, I'll give an example
I am really in the mood to write a new song, feeling all creative etc.
I wirte a song, just to do it. Im just putting cool words together.
a week later I listen to the recording and realize that I was writing not just a song about nothing, but about the personal crisis I was dealing with. Sometime way more embarrasingly personal and naked than I ever would have done if I thought about it.
Maybe the creative urge was there because something was eating at me, so it may have not been concious, but it's still entirely interntional. So to say it's what I meant to do is not revision, just hindsight.
At least that has been my experience

[Adrenochrome]

To expand a little bit, I'll give an example
I am really in the mood to write a new song, feeling all creative etc.
I wirte a song, just to do it. Im just putting cool words together.
a week later I listen to the recording and realize that I was writing not just a song about nothing, but about the personal crisis I was dealing with. Sometime way more embarrasingly personal and naked than I ever would have done if I thought about it.
Maybe the creative urge was there because something was eating at me, so it may have not been concious, but it's still entirely interntional. So to say it's what I meant to do is not revision, just hindsight.
At least that has been my experience

that makes perfect sense to me (and, I know others).
When I paint, I almost blackout....I'm not "there" anymore. One is not an "artist" unless one puts his/her "everything" into it. ya know?
I have three paintings that I don't remember doing. Damn, I'm rambling....
Khardis, maybe you need to "create" instead of stare.

[Khardis]

Sadly, I think you're missing alot in the films if you only view them as midless zombie films.

I suppose next you'll tell me that "Watership Down" isn't about Man's ignorance and everlasting need to distroy. Or that "Fight Club" isn't about capitalism, consumerism, and commercialization.:confused:

You're missrepresenting what I am saying. I didnt say that those themes are not in the film, I said they were not intentional and they were dug upon by a 3rd party perspective and not by GAR himself. I dont watch them for mindless zombie films, I watch them because they are claustrophobic anarchy films that make for good horror. I dont need to pretend that every silly little theme or thing *I* think up was put in intentionally. 99% of the time it isnt, its accidental. (As GAR has said)

You cannot bring other films into the mix that are not GAR films because then youre dealing with differnt creators. I read Fight Club in its book form and loved the film. And Chuck Palahnuik(SP?) Absoutely put those themes into on purpose, as said on not only the films commentary, but its quite transparent in the book itself. Hell the characters even say it. The major theme though in the book was less about consumerism that was just a side effect to the character feeling insignificant for not only being a normal white male, but for being raised by a single mother. This kind of wierdness permiates a lot of Chucks books, check out Choke for example.

I refer you to an earlier post where i mentioned my old college days in creative writing. Same situation, differnt people.


GAR always says Duane Jones was the best actor amongst his acting friends so he got the lead. Also it was written to be a white truckdriver.

It's possible (though I am not entirly convinced) that He didn't outright think "i'ma gonna make a movie 'bout consumerism", But anyone who writes well can't help injecting their POV all over something, comscious or not. But when fran says something like "you're hypnotized by all the shiny things" I kind of thinkit was something he had in mind. It's too direct. As well as all the fur coats and jewlery. It could be said "thats what anyone would do" which could be countered by "because we are infatuated with crass materialism"

This is not at all the same thing as making a splatter action painting and later on saying it's about Mans relationship with God. People do that alot. When you write alot themes are repeated and you dont have to think "i'm gonna write this zinger to screw those wall street mopes" to have it running all over you're work.


You forgot alienation and emasculation:)


Frans line doesnt really bring the point home though. In order for that to work she would have ot be referring to the zombies, which is what the alleged "satire" was. Zombies in a mall. For the humans though (the people we would actually identify with) it wasnt about being a zombie, it was about surviving.


To expand a little bit, I'll give an example
I am really in the mood to write a new song, feeling all creative etc.
I wirte a song, just to do it. Im just putting cool words together.
a week later I listen to the recording and realize that I was writing not just a song about nothing, but about the personal crisis I was dealing with. Sometime way more embarrasingly personal and naked than I ever would have done if I thought about it.
Maybe the creative urge was there because something was eating at me, so it may have not been concious, but it's still entirely interntional. So to say it's what I meant to do is not revision, just hindsight.
At least that has been my experience

I find it difficult to beleive that you can write something and not conciously realize youre doing something intentionally. That doesnt make sense by definition.


that makes perfect sense to me (and, I know others).
When I paint, I almost blackout....I'm not "there" anymore. One is not an "artist" unless one puts his/her "everything" into it. ya know?
I have three paintings that I don't remember doing. Damn, I'm rambling....
Khardis, maybe you need to "create" instead of stare.

I create plenty, I just dont buy into hippy mumbo jumbo about trances and all that. If youre painting in a trance, then youre not doing something intentionally. Youre doing it in a trance. All that crap aside I dont think you can write plot (not poetry) without being 100% concious, otherwise you make a mess with what youre doing. I would know I spend a lot of time writing stories. And while I have purposefully and not done stories with themes I always knew what I was putting into my stories.

Maybe you should try writing, I paint too (oils) and while I dont do modern art silly stuff, I do enjoy doing landscapes. They're nothing phenominal but they do look good. I can drift off and daydream while doing those too, but not when I am writing, because writing utilizes language and stream of conciousness, painting does not.

[Adrenochrome]

Maybe you should try writing, I paint too (oils) and while I dont do modern art silly stuff, I do enjoy doing landscapes. They're nothing phenominal but they do look good. I can drift off and daydream while doing those too, but not when I am writing, because writing utilizes language and stream of conciousness, painting does not.
So,.....

See dog run.
See Jane see dog run.


OR.....

a good story...

most people prefer writers that let their head fly. The ones that sit in front of their typewriter (and if you don't sit in front of one of these, poo on you! I use one of those OLD, black "stab at the keys" things......damn, I love that sound!) and pound out what their subconcious vomits up make the best writers/authors. Perfectionist/Purists ruin their work (even though, good) by over analyzing their art.
No offense.
I do get what you're saying, but......I strongly disagree


oh, one more thing....I do write.......I have a room-full of tablets telling many stories.

[bassman]

No....I understand what you're saying. But to say that the commentary in the original Dawn was accidental...well. You need to re-evaluate some things.:p


Oh well....Like I said, at least you're supporting Romero.:cool:

[Khardis]

So,.....

See dog run.
See Jane see dog run.


OR.....

a good story...

most people prefer writers that let their head fly. The ones that sit in front of their typewriter (and if you don't sit in front of one of these, poo on you! I use one of those OLD, black "stab at the keys" things......damn, I love that sound!) and pound out what their subconcious vomits up make the best writers/authors. Perfectionist/Purists ruin their work (even though, good) by over analyzing their art.
No offense.
I do get what you're saying, but......I strongly disagree


oh, one more thing....I do write.......I have a room-full of tablets telling many stories.

you should post some. And I disagree that people have to let thier mind vomit to write well. Structured writing always works best. And I write on my laptop, I hate typewriters. Poo on those.. I dont see how they would make a difference. Style without substance is meaningless.


No....I understand what you're saying. But to say that the commentary in the original Dawn was accidental...well. You need to re-evaluate some things.:p


Oh well....Like I said, at least you're supporting Romero.:cool:

Dude, dont take my word for it, GAR said it HIMSELF. Check out the old laserdisc commentaries he did for Dawn and Night.

[Adrenochrome]

Khar, baby.....have you noticed how many threads have been closed due to your inane ramblings?
Shooo, go play.

[coma]

Frans line doesnt really bring the point home though. In order for that to work she would have ot be referring to the zombies, which is what the alleged "satire" was. Zombies in a mall. For the humans though (the people we would actually identify with) it wasnt about being a zombie, it was about surviving.

I think the zombies and the Humans are both part of the larger theme. They are us, etc. So that is the verbal expression from the human side. Though I have also heard him say much of it (Dawn) was accidental. Though the general theme he has maintained was intentional.


I find it difficult to beleive that you can write something and not conciously realize youre doing something intentionally. That doesnt make sense by definition.
That is only because you may not have had that experience. I don't usually "channel" or have a "trance" but I zone out when I do work occasionally. I am psychotically prolific and have written/drawn Comic books/Strips, short and long form stories, films, thousands of songs and scripts and plays. When you bust out stuff non stop you just flow, in a song for example, you just put words togethe that sound good and they can resemble themes that you did other times consciously.
I also paint landscapes and more modern expressionistic figurative art. And occasionlly "silly" non representational pieces. Some of that stuff is silly, just not MINE:moon:

The times work has seemingly appeared out of nowhere are fleeting, but it is an experience matched by few other things. I am decidedly non spiritual, but I experienced it on anumber of occasions.

And call ME a hippy I'll; smack you with my B.C. Rich Warlock*:D

I dislike Typewriters, they are loud and I dont like Carbon.


*It's a late 80s Pointy Metal Guitar that I happen to own, in case you didn't know.

[bassman]

Dude, dont take my word for it, GAR said it HIMSELF. Check out the old laserdisc commentaries he did for Dawn and Night.

If it's the one that I've heard, I believe he says that he didn't have the idea immediately but it came to him as he began writing the script.

[Griff]

"I wanted to give it the same thematic core that the original film had and speak about some of my own ideas about society and I don't think its an underlying message, I think its, like, in your face - right up front. ...The way society has been conditioned to think that as long as you have this... stuff... life is wonderful and being falsely attracted and seduced by things that really shouldn't have value in your life but do."

George A. Romero on DAWN OF THE DEAD
'The Dead Walk', Anchor Bay Entertainment.

[bassman]

:lol:

Thanks, Griff...

[rawrOTD]

you should post some. And I disagree that people have to let thier mind vomit to write well. Structured writing always works best. And I write on my laptop, I hate typewriters. Poo on those.. I dont see how they would make a difference. Style without substance is meaningless.



Dude, dont take my word for it, GAR said it HIMSELF. Check out the old laserdisc commentaries he did for Dawn and Night.

IMO
whoa whoa whoa
sir you can definately write and paint and create in general while not thinking, or a better definition would be thinking all at once

What about surrealist art work and writing? Automatism is the surrealist technique of writing as fast as possible without thinki or stopping or editing anything. Its pure.
The automatic technique has created the best works by Surrealist writers, look up Andre Breton and Rene Crevel.

Also what about the Beat Generation ?
Are you really going to discount writers like Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg ?
Kerouac wrote On the Road in something like a month, mostly by typing all day long on a huge scroll. He didn't structure a damn thing, he just wrote. If it was a thought out plot it would defeat the purpose. Naked Lunch doesnt even make sense! and its an American classic!

Mind vomit and thought explosives are the closest thing we get to fully and completely expressing ourselves. all of my own writing makes very little sense, but that isnt the point really. If the goal of writing was to make sense the only thing left would be non fiction books and realistic paintings of fruit.

I realize this isnt really the complete topic at hand, but as a lover of Gonzo journalism, dada, surrealism, and the beat generation I must say
:| YOU MUST LEAD A BORING AND TERRIBLY CALCULATED LIFE.:|

if that makes you happy thumbs up
but come now creativity stems from that little insanity we all have in us

[Brubaker]

Khardis, if Dawn didn't contain any intentional references to consumerism then why would Flyboy start shooting at the bikers?

Never mind, I answered my own question. GAR thought "it would make a great action scene."

By the way, I am referring to the 1978 film, in case you are really pulling our leg when you say you've seen it :D

[bassman]

IMO
I realize this isnt really the complete topic at hand, but as a lover of Gonzo journalism...


Hey man.....another fan!:D

[Adrenochrome]

... creativity stems from that little insanity we all have in us

exactly!!!

[Brubaker]

IMO
whoa whoa whoa
sir you can definately write and paint and create in general while not thinking, or a better definition would be thinking all at once

What about surrealist art work and writing? Automatism is the surrealist technique of writing as fast as possible without thinki or stopping or editing anything. Its pure.
The automatic technique has created the best works by Surrealist writers, look up Andre Breton and Rene Crevel.

Also what about the Beat Generation ?
Are you really going to discount writers like Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg ?
Kerouac wrote On the Road in something like a month, mostly by typing all day long on a huge scroll. He didn't structure a damn thing, he just wrote. If it was a thought out plot it would defeat the purpose. Naked Lunch doesnt even make sense! and its an American classic!

Mind vomit and thought explosives are the closest thing we get to fully and completely expressing ourselves. all of my own writing makes very little sense, but that isnt the point really. If the goal of writing was to make sense the only thing left would be non fiction books and realistic paintings of fruit.

I realize this isnt really the complete topic at hand, but as a lover of Gonzo journalism, dada, surrealism, and the beat generation I must say
:| YOU MUST LEAD A BORING AND TERRIBLY CALCULATED LIFE.:|

if that makes you happy thumbs up
but come now creativity stems from that little insanity we all have in us

His (Khardis') writing probably does have themes, he just doesn't realize it. I think R.L. Stine has the market cornered on story writing without any themes :D

[Khardis]

Khar, baby.....have you noticed how many threads have been closed due to your inane ramblings?
Shooo, go play.

Yeah I did notice the threads going under, but not from *my* ramblings. Its the same experience I see whenever I walk into a Yale bar (I live near Yale, god help me) and I hear a bunch of "educated" folks talking about how evil Republicans are and I decide to set them straight by talking just as loud and passionately to my party of friends at our table. Then they all freak out and try to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them with words like "facist, chickenhawk, nazi, oppressor, evil capitalist" etc... of course I wear all those names as a badge of honor which just makes them even more angry.

Same thing here.

Apparently you and your ilk prefer a forum with a bunch of yes men who all agree with one and other. I dont see why, there is nothing challenging or intense about that. But I assure you, I am here to stay. I figured out your guys game and I have played it a lot before. I am just going to keep bringing the logic and facts and playing Mr. Nice and Civil and when you guys get out of line you go to the principals office. Capiche Gumba?

[Adrenochrome]

Yeah I did notice the threads going under, but not from *my* ramblings. Its the same experience I see whenever I walk into a Yale bar (I live near Yale, god help me) and I hear a bunch of "educated" folks talking about how evil Republicans are and I decide to set them straight by talking just as loud and passionately to my party of friends at our table. Then they all freak out and try to bludgeon anyone who disagrees with them with words like "facist, chickenhawk, nazi, oppressor, evil capitalist" etc... of course I wear all those names as a badge of honor which just makes them even more angry.

Same thing here.

Apparently you and your ilk prefer a forum with a bunch of yes men who all agree with one and other. I dont see why, there is nothing challenging or intense about that. But I assure you, I am here to stay. I figured out your guys game and I have played it a lot before. I am just going to keep bringing the logic and facts and playing Mr. Nice and Civil and when you guys get out of line you go to the principals office. Capiche Gumba?

NOPE, wrong again! Gosh, you're on a roll!

[Khardis]

"I wanted to give it the same thematic core that the original film had and speak about some of my own ideas about society and I don't think its an underlying message, I think its, like, in your face - right up front. ...The way society has been conditioned to think that as long as you have this... stuff... life is wonderful and being falsely attracted and seduced by things that really shouldn't have value in your life but do."

George A. Romero on DAWN OF THE DEAD
'The Dead Walk', Anchor Bay Entertainment.

Check the laserdisc one he did in the early 90s if you can.

[Khardis]

IMO
whoa whoa whoa
sir you can definately write and paint and create in general while not thinking, or a better definition would be thinking all at once

What about surrealist art work and writing? Automatism is the surrealist technique of writing as fast as possible without thinki or stopping or editing anything. Its pure.
The automatic technique has created the best works by Surrealist writers, look up Andre Breton and Rene Crevel.

Also what about the Beat Generation ?
Are you really going to discount writers like Jack Kerouac, William Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg ?
Kerouac wrote On the Road in something like a month, mostly by typing all day long on a huge scroll. He didn't structure a damn thing, he just wrote. If it was a thought out plot it would defeat the purpose. Naked Lunch doesnt even make sense! and its an American classic!

Mind vomit and thought explosives are the closest thing we get to fully and completely expressing ourselves. all of my own writing makes very little sense, but that isnt the point really. If the goal of writing was to make sense the only thing left would be non fiction books and realistic paintings of fruit.

I realize this isnt really the complete topic at hand, but as a lover of Gonzo journalism, dada, surrealism, and the beat generation I must say
:| YOU MUST LEAD A BORING AND TERRIBLY CALCULATED LIFE.:|

if that makes you happy thumbs up
but come now creativity stems from that little insanity we all have in us

It sounds like you swallowed a little too much hooey in your highschool creative writing classes. If writing a bunch of disjointed stuff works for you, ten hey man... thats all good. You do realize though that you can write sharp stuff without going into la-la land right? My life is pretty normal... I dont know if that counts as calculated. So when will you be landing on the moon or joiing the Alaskan fishing fleet? I mean thats something you must do often right? Otherwise your life must be boring and calculated.

[Adrenochrome]

Check the laserdisc one he did in the early 90s if you can.

Reaching....."oh, reaching.....must .......grab...........something"......., overacts Khardis, Shatneringly.

(NOTE to Mods: not a flame, just having some fun)

[Khardis]

Khardis, if Dawn didn't contain any intentional references to consumerism then why would Flyboy start shooting at the bikers?

Never mind, I answered my own question. GAR thought "it would make a great action scene."

By the way, I am referring to the 1978 film, in case you are really pulling our leg when you say you've seen it :D

Not only does it make good action, but I would imagine Stephen shot at them for the same reason I would shoot someone breaking into my apartment to steal something.


His (Khardis') writing probably does have themes, he just doesn't realize it. I think R.L. Stine has the market cornered on story writing without any themes :D

You may want to go back and re-read this thread. I mentioned an exact answer to what youre posing to us. And like I said BEFORE I have put in themes on purpose and have had people point out themes I put in and didnt realize. My point is that GAR didnt do it on purpose.


NOPE, wrong again! Gosh, you're on a roll!

Well this was a worthwhile post. Whats the matter couldnt think of anythign actually substantive to say? Or were you just tired of arguing logically about what we had been discussing and decided you would turn to attacking me personally instead? typical. Well here is your warning, discuss what is on topic and lay off me personally or you get warned.


Reaching....."oh, reaching.....must .......grab...........something"......., overacts Khardis, Shatneringly.

(NOTE to Mods: not a flame, just having some fun)

Eh, if you dont have access youre always welcome to come ot my apartment ot see for yourself. Luckily I worked in Mad Mikes Supervideo for 3 years when I was a highschooler (when laserdisc was still big and DVDs werent invented) so I had access to 100's of my favorite films on LD.

[Adrenochrome]

My point is that GAR didnt do it on purpose.


No artist means to "do it on purpose".
That's the beauty of it!
We flush our minds of all that "crap"!!
Next thing you know....there's a story, a painting, something!!!!
Let your head go.




Eh, if you dont have access youre always welcome to come ot my apartment ot see for yourself. Luckily I worked in Mad Mikes Supervideo for 3 years when I was a highschooler (when laserdisc was still big and DVDs werent invented) so I had access to 100's of my favorite films on LD.

4 numbers and one mind - 2006 and you.

[Khardis]

No artist means to "do it on purpose".
That's the beauty of it!
We flush our minds of all that "crap"!!
Next thing you know....there's a story, a painting, something!!!!
Let your head go.

Disagree completly. While its cool to occasionally find something you didnt mean to put in, a body of writing with nothing but that would read very poorly ans very scattered. And I think its silly to compare a painting to a story in regards of creation. Again, you cannot make a story without a flow of conciousness. You can however paint that way. So lets stick to writing since it more directly relates to the actual topic at hand.




4 numbers and one mind - 2006 and you.
Not quite sure I understand what youre saying here, but I am guessing its an insult of some kind?

[Griff]

Check the laserdisc one he did in the early 90s if you can.

I can but would you gimme a rough time frame and an idea of what I'm looking for? I gave you a direct quote and a source so I'd appreciate something a little more substantial than essentially being told to go research your argument for you.

[Adrenochrome]

Disagree completly. While its cool to occasionally find something you didnt mean to put in, a body of writing with nothing but that would read very poorly ans very scattered. And I think its silly to compare a painting to a story in regards of creation. Again, you cannot make a story without a flow of conciousness. You can however paint that way. So lets stick to writing since it more directly relates to the actual topic at hand.




Not quite sure I understand what youre saying here, but I am guessing its an insult of some kind?

Maybe in a few years, you'll "get it".....if not, oh well...
It's obvious you "don't get it" now.

Later,

Tom



peace


I can but would you gimme a rough time frame and an idea of what I'm looking for? I gave you a direct quote and a source so I'd appreciate something a little more substantial than essentially being told to go research your argument for you.

Let him dig......let him dig.......deeper and deeper........let him dig.:p (oh, and let him report....let him report.....)

[rawrOTD]

It sounds like you swallowed a little too much hooey in your highschool creative writing classes. If writing a bunch of disjointed stuff works for you, ten hey man... thats all good. You do realize though that you can write sharp stuff without going into la-la land right? My life is pretty normal... I dont know if that counts as calculated. So when will you be landing on the moon or joiing the Alaskan fishing fleet? I mean thats something you must do often right? Otherwise your life must be boring and calculated.

Actually I never took creative writing in highschool
I began collecting surrealist books and studying the surrealist and dadaist movements in 7th grade, thats pretty much 5 years of research that I did
entirely because I love the art :)

and yes I consider my life to be less than normal
my friends and I spend alot of our time wandering the state on foot in packs of 12 to 30
inventing violent games to play on playgrounds (examples Fabiotag, Dead Monkey, Turtle Dick Explosion)

we dont do drugs, but we do pretend to be Russian soldiers in Siberia alot

instead of going to junior prom we dug a 7 ft deep hole in the woods and had a party in it while listening to a mix of T.S.O.L. , the Stooges , and swing/ big band
the cops got called and when they found out the bottles were actualy full of root beer they said we were "****ing awesome" and left:cool:


this is all 100% true
so while i may not be landing on the moon
:| I'm almost 100% sure that you are boring:|

you hang out in a Yale bar and mock liberals?
hahahahahahahahahaha
god damn your idea of a good time is lame.
"Oh i masturbate my ego all day, its fun."
absolutely lovely!
absolutely marvelous!
I see that you systematically rebut all of the people that argue against you in the forum.
So I guess I'm next in line you robot!


and no to write you dont have to go to la la land , you can stay right there and actually think
maybe for the first time say everything at once

have a banjo-lickin' good time there skippy
be sure to SQUEAL LIKE A PIGGY when you mock me

[Griff]

Here's another one for ya, Khardis:

"The idea of the mall itself, the moment we see it, the moment we come in and see what it is... I think its gonna become obvious in terms of what we're saying about the false security of, y'know, consumer society..."

George A. Romero on DAWN OF THE DEAD circa early 1978 (ie. before the film had been finished, let alone seen by anyone)
DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD, dir: Roy Frumkes


instead of going to junior prom we dug a 7 ft deep hole in the woods and had a party in it while listening to a mix of T.S.O.L. , the Stooges , and swing/ big band
the cops got called and when they found out the bottles were actualy full of root beer they said we were "****ing awesome" and left:cool:

F*cking nuts, more like it, but more power to ya.

[_liam_]

lol rawrotd, heroic stuff.

i dont hate this film,but i think it was below par, and this coupled with the unreasonable expectations held by most fans of the series (including me), have probably led to it getting a bit more bashing than it deserves.

i think it was at least average.

[Danny]

^ see thats all you gotta say, but damn out of the 26 pages i guessing theres at least a dozen that arent even flaming there just bitching, its just a movie, not everybody likes the same movies simple as that.:rolleyes:

[MinionZombie]

Agreed, creativity is creative in itself, it can come at any time and in many ways.

I both think about what I'm doing - but that comes more in the planning stages prior to doing whatever it is I'm planning to do. Then when it comes to doing it, things often go a bit (or very) freestyle and it becomes instinct, or it comes from the heart, rather than the mind.

It's whatever works for you, but neither way can be discounted outright because they're both very much valid.

I go for both techniques, it's whatever feels right for whatever project. Often when doing something new you have to think about it a lot more, like when I was filming short films for BBC Local TV earlier this year. Being the BBC there's a whole checklist of things you have to do and take into account - so there's a lot of thought put into it, into acquiring all the pieces you'll need when you come to edit.

But after a couple of times where you're thinking, it becomes second nature and then it becomes instinct.

Another thing though, I remember with the first short I made for them, I impressed the people in charge of the project in my region of country (who were commissioning the films to then send to the BBC from our county) with my visual skills - and that's something that purely came instinctually. I've always been a very visual person, it's something I've nurtured over the years (took Art for GCSE and again for A-Level having already done it for the first 3 years of high school as well as in my own time as a hobby). Finding the "artistic" shots I was putting into that first film (and my other films) doesn't come from thought - for me personally anyway - it comes from a subconscious level where my mind switches off and my eyes & heart take over. I see something that flicks the instinctual light on and I shoot it. It's like being in a trance, eyes glancing around in a frenzied fashion, sifting and sorting the images around me until I find what feels good.

That's my take on the creative process.

[Khardis]

Actually I never took creative writing in highschool
I began collecting surrealist books and studying the surrealist and dadaist movements in 7th grade, thats pretty much 5 years of research that I did
entirely because I love the art :)

and yes I consider my life to be less than normal
my friends and I spend alot of our time wandering the state on foot in packs of 12 to 30
inventing violent games to play on playgrounds (examples Fabiotag, Dead Monkey, Turtle Dick Explosion)

we dont do drugs, but we do pretend to be Russian soldiers in Siberia alot

instead of going to junior prom we dug a 7 ft deep hole in the woods and had a party in it while listening to a mix of T.S.O.L. , the Stooges , and swing/ big band
the cops got called and when they found out the bottles were actualy full of root beer they said we were "****ing awesome" and left:cool:


this is all 100% true
so while i may not be landing on the moon
:| I'm almost 100% sure that you are boring:|

you hang out in a Yale bar and mock liberals?
hahahahahahahahahaha
god damn your idea of a good time is lame.
"Oh i masturbate my ego all day, its fun."
absolutely lovely!
absolutely marvelous!
I see that you systematically rebut all of the people that argue against you in the forum.
So I guess I'm next in line you robot!


and no to write you dont have to go to la la land , you can stay right there and actually think
maybe for the first time say everything at once

have a banjo-lickin' good time there skippy
be sure to SQUEAL LIKE A PIGGY when you mock me


Hmm I didnt say educating liberals was a good time.. you did. And for the rest of what you wrote, well it was cute and all but i had a hard time of figuring out what any of it had to do with anything really.

And good luck with your commie friends pretending to be Russian soldiers, do you guys also pretend to murder Ukranians and send thier children off to Gulags and far away coal mines?

[rawrOTD]

Hmm I didnt say educating liberals was a good time.. you did. And for the rest of what you wrote, well it was cute and all but i had a hard time of figuring out what any of it had to do with anything really.

And good luck with your commie friends pretending to be Russian soldiers, do you guys also pretend to murder Ukranians and send thier children off to Gulags and far away coal mines?

nah we arent commies, but yes we pretend to slaughter people
sometimes one half of the group will be the ones marching to gulag and the rest are soldiers

we also reinact D Day on a regular basis
really we dont stand for anything
so if you were looking to strike a nerve in bashing communists by pointing out how they systematically massacred people
you failed :lol:


anyhoo, you seem the type that needs to have the last word
so in attempt to not drag this thread into a random flame war about creativity, Russian atrocities, and maybe even whether or not bananas grow straight (and later on are bent for packaging purposes)

I'll say toodle loo to this arguement
peace to you Khardis :D
now
lets get back to zombies and all that

[_liam_]

^ see thats all you gotta say, but damn out of the 26 pages i guessing theres at least a dozen that arent even flaming there just bitching, its just a movie, not everybody likes the same movies simple as that.:rolleyes:


eh? you talking to me mate?
I didn't say everyone was flaming, i just think the movie gets a lot of undeserved flak (in the press and elsewhere, as well as here), due to the 20 years of hype (effectively), which generated high expectations, like the star wars prequels, et al (although they actually were pretty bad imo). Not such an unreasonable comment, surely you can see what i mean?.

Don't get me wrong, i didn't like it much either, but i wouldn't go so far as to say it was a piece of **** or whatever, it was just painfully average when it could/should have been the ultimate, chapter closing zombie epic.


By now i realise you don't like me (for whatever reason, jesus, i only come here to discuss z-films and the odd bit of chit chat), but please try to be a bit less drunken with your stabs!


(erm, sorry if you weren't actually referring to my post btw!!! hungover and cranky today)

[Brubaker]

Khardis, I have decided to forever immortalize you in my signature! :D

[bassman]

Don't get me wrong, i didn't like it much either, but i wouldn't go so far as to say it was a piece of **** or whatever, it was just painfully average when it could/should have been the ultimate, chapter closing zombie epic



"Chapter closing epic"? I thought Romero said before "Land" was made that it was meant to be the start of a new trilogy? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember him saying that in some interview. If he did, I think he's abandoned that plan because of the studio crap and just recently said that "Diary" is the beginning of a new trilogy.

[_liam_]

oh i'm probably wrong dude, i just assumed it was the last one as it was originally meant to be a trilogy and then part 3 didnt go the way he wanted it to, so he did another.

a new trilogy though? that is an exciting prospect.

[coma]

"Chapter closing epic"? I thought Romero said before "Land" was made that it was meant to be the start of a new trilogy? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember him saying that in some interview. If he did, I think he's abandoned that plan because of the studio crap and just recently said that "Diary" is the beginning of a new trilogy.
He DID say that. Thats why they changed it to Land, to start a new francise.
I would really like to know his thoughts on Land.

[_liam_]

yeah i'd love to know what GAR thinks of it, in retrospect.

i know the shaun of the dead team liked it.

[Khardis]

Khardis, I have decided to forever immortalize you in my signature! :D

I enjoy the Kudos, but I am not sure if you should do that, as it could be construed as a flaming and or signature abuse? I will reread the rules and let you know when I got a second.


"Chapter closing epic"? I thought Romero said before "Land" was made that it was meant to be the start of a new trilogy? I may be wrong, but I seem to remember him saying that in some interview. If he did, I think he's abandoned that plan because of the studio crap and just recently said that "Diary" is the beginning of a new trilogy.

I recall that as well actually. I hope he doesnt though, because Land wasnt anything stellar and he needs to go back to what he does well. Making movies indy without all the head smashing theme overloading.

[_liam_]

well i'm not sure, i think people do romanticise the indie film making process, it's ok to have a bit of money on board as long as the people fronting the cash don't tell you how to spend it.

if i might draw a tenuous, music based analogy, LOTD was GAR's equivalent of Metallica's "the black album". tons more money spent and way more polished than the older, more culty efforts, but just not as satisfying on the whole and a bit too glossy.

[bassman]

I recall that as well actually. I hope he doesnt though, because Land wasnt anything stellar and he needs to go back to what he does well. Making movies indy without all the head smashing theme overloading.

:lol:

He's already stated the theme of "Diary". Sorry...no more mindless zombie flicks, I guess.:rolleyes:

[rawrOTD]

Personally I'd love to see some new pieces to the original invasion. In particular the Government/world/military response. There must hae been an initial "hey dudes we can just bomb these suckers!" only to realize it would mean destroying their own cities and citizens
they must have tried conventional warfare: infantry, tanks, the basic army response
war on zombies would be bizzare, but theres no way it didnt happen
theyd go in all macho america! and come back having created thousands more zombies .
it would be a great inbetween of dawn and day
the government created the team in the bunker for day
but they seem to indicate that the Gov. has fallen apart or been eaten alive
so that would be cool

also the initial panick in a city would be interesting, mass scale rioting and looting would be expected, people trying to survive humans and zombie would be great
one of the only parts of dawn 04 i liked was that they had scores of zombies in the parking lot
teaming city streets would be a cool scenerio for a z movie
panick, rioting, evacuating, hiding, tribes would start up within survivor camps, maybe the city would be quarentined like in The Plague (camus's book where an epidemic traps people in their city walls)
people would try to smash the walls down , sentries would have to kill them in a very machine gun to your child's face style
maybe the walls would fall and zombies would spill out spreading infection until theres very few humans left

or maybe the country would solve the problem and bomb the city, killing our lovely characters in a very negative ending that would fit more with logic

- right i spent too long on this
but that would be totally sweet

[coma]

I enjoy the Kudos, but I am not sure if you should do that, as it could be construed as a flaming and or signature abuse? I will reread the rules and let you know when I got a second.

You are starting to sound a bit like a hall monitor. Authoritah! If you don't like it, just ask him not to do so. Everything doesn't have to turn into a war.


well i'm not sure, i think people do romanticise the indie film making process, it's ok to have a bit of money on board as long as the people fronting the cash don't tell you how to spend it.

if i might draw a tenuous, music based analogy, LOTD was GAR's equivalent of Metallica's "the black album". tons more money spent and way more polished than the older, more culty efforts, but just not as satisfying on the whole and a bit too glossy.

Pretty Good Analogy, lets just hope the spiral doesn't continue in A hole ness like Metallicas. They are just embarrasing. James sure looked like a total dickhole in that Documentary.

[_liam_]

lol quite, let's hope diary isn't as bad as "load"!

[Khardis]

:lol:

He's already stated the theme of "Diary". Sorry...no more mindless zombie flicks, I guess.:rolleyes:

Then I am guessing it will flub much like land did. We will see I guess. Bruiser didnt do well either.

[bassman]

"Bruiser" wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. And of course, I like Land....so just because YOU don't like these films, they are "flubs"?:rockbrow:

[_liam_]

hey if he thinks it's a "flub" (you kids) and you don't then that's cool, he's got his you got yours.

i liked bruiser! although i do hate the newfits...

[Khardis]

"Bruiser" wasn't as bad as people make it out to be. And of course, I like Land....so just because YOU don't like these films, they are "flubs"?:rockbrow:

But it WAS a flub. Commercially, even amoungst his fans. The best comments people can say about it are "well Day flubbed at 1st too" I mean my god...

[coma]

I also liked Bruiser and Monkey shines and the Dark Half. A films boxoffice success means less than nothing to me. Its film not sports.
The only GAR film I didnt like was Season of the Witch, which totally sucked.:(

And generally, the word for commerical failure is FLOP.
Flub is a mistake, usually verbal, so some misunderstanding may be because of the language being used in an unfamiliar way

Also "It's a Wonderful Life" was an utter flop and totally forgotten until, because of it;s Public Domain status, it showed up on TV very often. Now it's considered by many to be a top 50 classic.

[Khardis]

hey if he thinks it's a "flub" (you kids) and you don't then that's cool, he's got his you got yours.

i liked bruiser! although i do hate the newfits...

I liked Bruiser too, but I dont see why its a crime to say that it wasnt really that great of a film, comercially, and amoungst the fans it isnt a big deal. I would say it isnt victorious like day Dawn was or even Night.

I also liked Troll 2, but for a differnt reason heh.

Oh no!!! nilbog is backwards for Goblin!!!:lol:

[bassman]

But it WAS a flub. Commercially, even amoungst his fans. The best comments people can say about it are "well Day flubbed at 1st too" I mean my god...

Yeah....and commercial sucess determines whether or not a film is good.:rolleyes:

[Khardis]

Yeah....and commercial sucess determines whether or not a film is good.:rolleyes:

Well, wether or not a film is good usually determines at least to some degree wether or not a film will be commercially successful.

[bassman]

So you're a fan of "When a Stranger Calls"(remake), "The Grudge", and "Pulse"? These crap horror films seemed to do pretty well for themselves.

Sadly, most films that are successful these days are aimed at teens and are about as good as "Batman & Robin". It's mindless teenagers that bring the most money to theaters.

Thankfully, it seems as though good films may be starting to make a come back on the big screen("The Departed" for example)

[coma]

Well, wether or not a film is good usually determines at least to some degree wether or not a film will be commercially successful.
Uhhhh. No.
I disagree.
I direct you to the canon of Julia Roberts
lets not forget
The Last Samurai
and the inverse
Fight Club. Not particularly succesful in theatrical.

A film's sucess has to do more with if a bunch of people see it on one weekend after a blisteringly huge marketting campaign. Not to mention Theatre Chains that play the same kind of crap over and over. There is not often even an OPPORTUNIY to see a decent picture. It's 12 screens of crud.

Gar films always build slowly. You think NOTLD was a right away? Most Indie films took a long time to build. They would hang around in different theatres for MONTHS. Now if it doesnt explode on release day, it's gone. Not to mention "succesful" films are often only successful until it's gets around that it blows. Hense the usual 2nd or 3rd weekend slough off.

Success = Good is the reason for the drought of decent flicks. I didn't even say good. You'll probably say that's not what you said. But it is.

[_liam_]

lol nah, disagree, & it's a wonderful life and indeed NOTLD are good examples.

It's about how heavily the film is promoted & distributed, if the film is a little bit above average then coupled with the marketing it will do well.

i mean how many stone cold classics came out this year? i would say children of men, and who went and saw that?! bloody no-one (btw if you liked 28 days later check that movie out, it's one of the best i've ever seen).

I don't want to condescend to the great public (i will anyway), but basically 90% of people will only go see a film if the tv/radio/magazine shove it down their throats for a couple of weeks, which makes them remember it when theyre in the cinema with their missus or whatever, and the studios will only lavish that kind of money on a movie if it's safe & bankable, which critically speaking, usually means it's nothing special.

there are exceptions, obviously, but that is the way it works, by & large.

so yeah, maybe before the age of focus groups and intensive marketing box office revenue was some indication of quality, but i'd say those days are long gone now.

(edit - sorry to repeat some of what you said coma, i think we posted at the same time - fight club is an EXCELLENT example of how marketing can screw up a movie's performance but word of mouth can save it)

[bassman]

Yeah....the marketing for "Fight Club" was all wrong and it didn't do too good in theater. Now it's a huge cult film, though.

Same with "Donnie Darko".

[_liam_]

i certainly didn't bother seeing fight club based on the advert, to me it looked like a boxing movie with brad pitt. sod that. it wasn't until i saw the adam and joe show spoof that i thought it might be worth checking out...

[bassman]

i certainly didn't bother seeing fight club based on the advert, to me it looked like a boxing movie with brad pitt. sod that. it wasn't until i saw the adam and joe show spoof that i thought it might be worth checking out...

Yeah....the trailers made it seem like a straight-up movie about fighting. At least some people had read the book and knew what they were in for.

I had followed it's production on the net because I'm a huge fan of director David Fincher(Seven, The Game). Well....I was some-what looking forward to seeing it when I went into the theater on opening weekend. Little did I know that in a weird way it changed my life a little bit. It rocked my world. I saw it about four times in theater and have watched it many, many times on DVD. It's one of my favorites(obviously...check out the sig.) and I highly recommend it to everyone.

It's a perfect example that success in theater, adverts, etc aren't what make a movie.

[coma]

I saw the trailer and it looked good to me and I generally disl;ike action movies. There was probably something small in it besides that visually it looked great.
I did not expect at all what it actually was. One of the few true classics in the last few years,

[MinionZombie]

Blates, box office means nothing in terms of the quality of the films themselves, any correlation is severely scattergun, hit & miss. All box office tells you is how many people herded themselves into the cinema to see it, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was any good or not. Just think, how many times have you gone to see a film and it's turned out pants?

Add on that "quality" is ultimately objective, and box office means almost nothing in terms of telling of a film's quality. Just think of how many sleeper hits there have been over the years...

[_liam_]

fight club was taxi driver for generation x.
totally in love with that film, know what you mean about it being life changing.
Read the book many times, saw the film so many times that i vowed i wouldnt watch it for five years.

the soundtrack by the dust brothers is also one of the best electronica albums i've ever heard - single serving jack is a CHOON & a half.

did you hear that fincher, palahnuik and trent reznor may be working on a musical? apparently palahnuik listened to "the downward spiral" on repeat whilst writing fight club...


er...and then the zombies came and ate them all ;)

[coma]

fight club was taxi driver for generation x.
totally in love with that film, know what you mean about it being life changing.
Read the book many times, saw the film so many times that i vowed i wouldnt watch it for five years.

the soundtrack by the dust brothers is also one of the best electronica albums i've ever heard - single serving jack is a CHOON & a half.


Right O. I love that soundtrack. The Dust brothers are really great, unlike their name stealing collegues (Chemical formerly Dust Bros. That is not a name you get by coincidence). They did the beats for Pauls Boutique. It was supposed to be their first album. Samart move because I'm sure it made them very rich.

I really related to much of the content of Fight Club. And the end blew my brains out.

[Brubaker]

Blates, box office means nothing in terms of the quality of the films themselves, any correlation is severely scattergun, hit & miss. All box office tells you is how many people herded themselves into the cinema to see it, it has absolutely nothing to do with whether it was any good or not. Just think, how many times have you gone to see a film and it's turned out pants?

Add on that "quality" is ultimately objective, and box office means almost nothing in terms of telling of a film's quality. Just think of how many sleeper hits there have been over the years...

He's right, Khardis. No matter how "good" Land ended up being, to you or anyone else, it would have still made around the same amount of money at the box office. Even if the finished product had been different, the turnout would have been about the same. Give or take a couple of million one way or the other.

[7feet]

Box office usually seems to mean US box office, and that's clearly bollocks. International is maybe a little more indicative. These days I 'spect that DVD sales are even better. And the best would probably be numbers off of chinese manufactured bootleg sales. After any and all hype has died, how many people will pay 3 bucks to own the flick? Somebody has got to be following that, and I'd be really curious to see some numbers.

[otisbenny]

The major reason LOTD bombed was the 20 year gap between it and Day. The target audience of horror films is 17 to 25 year olds, or something like that. The average kid wasn't born when Day was made. To see Land, many people felt that since it's a sequel, they would have to watch the first three to understand it. How many local video stores carry all three? My local blockbuster only has Night and Day. This may have felt like too much work for most people. So, only the faithful saw Land.

[bassman]

The major reason LOTD bombed was the 20 year gap between it and Day. The target audience of horror films is 17 to 25 year olds, or something like that. The average kid wasn't born when Day was made. To see Land, many people felt that since it's a sequel, they would have to watch the first three to understand it. How many local video stores carry all three? My local blockbuster only has Night and Day. This may have felt like too much work for most people. So, only the faithful saw Land.

How exactly was it marketed as a sequel? The only adds that referred to it as a direct sequel was the original trailer, which was pull by the studio within 48 hours of it's release.

You may be right.....but the way I see it, it didn't do really good because of it's release(during the blockbuster season) and because the advertising campaign wasn't very good.

[otisbenny]

It may not have been marketed as a sequel but I'm sure it was perceived as one. Every review referred to it as the 4th film in the series. How can that not be seen as a sequel? The release date hurt, for sure, but most other wide-release horror films had good opening weekends against tough competition. If Land was a stand-alone film, it would have done better.

[Brubaker]

I do see your point, that the only people likely to see Land would be those who saw one of the previous GAR films. However, that argument isn't 100% foolproof. Stuff like the Star Wars, Alien or James Bond movies don't require you to have seen the previous films. I could understand if it was something like Ghostbusters, Friday the 13th or Jaws, where it makes sense to see the previous film (or films) before watching a sequel.

Truthfully, there are probably a lot of people who saw the trailers/previews for Land that weren't aware of the earlier films. Whether or not they ended up seeing it is another story.

[rcane74]

I'll take a lame GAR movie over any other zombie movie. That said, LOTD was a huge disappointment. Big Daddy was just wrong and Riley letting the zombies off the hook at the end was plain asinine. Hope Diary gets it right....

[JohnoftheDead]

i like the idea of a super zombie but clarks acting was a little over the top.
but i love the way it showed the zombies evolving as the movie played out
the ending was a little to hollywood for me .

Yeah I agree on his acting, everytime my best friend & I watch LOTD, whenever Big Daddy starts his yelling at the sky as if to say, "why god!? why!?", we always sing "...let my people go..." Boy this won't seem funny at all to anyone who has never heard that song.

[DjfunkmasterG]

1 year + and the discussion still lumbers along, much like Romero's zombies.

[MinionZombie]

And having recently re-watched Land of the Dead, I still love the film. :)

[Mutineer]

I really keep trying to like it but I just can't :confused: :(

I really hope Diary kicks ass; truly truly truly

[capncnut]

And having recently re-watched Land of the Dead, I still love the film. :)
I'll back you up on that. Land might not be the best of the bunch but it's definitely worthy. :cool:

[MinionZombie]

I'll back you up on that. Land might not be the best of the bunch but it's definitely worthy. :cool:
Exactly, it's not the best of the bunch, it's probably on the bottom of that particular pile, but it doesn't make it a shiite movie, far from it, they're all excellent films and they're all so different from one another ... the problem Land had was all the anticipation and expectation from some fans, and a gap of 20 years. I think some people were expecting more than what was actually ever possible. It's always better to not expect or even underestimate, and then the goodness shines through with ease.

It was so much fun watching it in the cinema as well. I was sceptical about Diary, I still am kinda ... but I've warmed to the idea, especially the part where Romero gets back to his indie roots ... although his level of indie and the truly honest level of indie are different things. :p

[CrazyCortez]

Yes maybe some of you expected better, but you cant say that Land is a bad movie, it still kicks ass :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yes maybe some of you expected better, but you cant say that Land is a bad movie, it still kicks ass :)


"Land is a bad movie!"

I am sorry, but Land is the worst Romero zombie film ever made. I don't know what people see in that film. I have tried, really tried to sit down and enjoy it, but I just can't. There are just too many flaws, and Big Daddy is just the most annoying character on the planet. Get rid of him and you would have an excellent film, with him in it, the film is below medicore.

[bassman]

"Land is a bad movie!"

I am sorry, but Land is the worst Romero zombie film ever made.


Most of the people that like Land feel the same way.:rockbrow:

Its definitely the worst of Romero's. But if you stop comparing it to the past three films and watch it for itself, it's an entertaining flick.

[DVW5150]

1 year + and the discussion still lumbers along, much like Romero's zombies.

" Shoot it in the head man. ":barf:

[CrazyCortez]

"Land is a bad movie!"

I am sorry, but Land is the worst Romero zombie film ever made. I don't know what people see in that film. I have tried, really tried to sit down and enjoy it, but I just can't. There are just too many flaws, and Big Daddy is just the most annoying character on the planet. Get rid of him and you would have an excellent film, with him in it, the film is below medicore.

well you are right about him, the movie would be better without bid daddy. But still I like the movie. Not as good as the original trilogie, but it is a nice zombie film :)

[Cody]

big daddy and the whole zombie evolution thing made me upset

[Danny]

am i the only person who liked big daddy for the character and didnt compare him to bub?

[bassman]

am i the only person who liked big daddy for the character and didnt compare him to bub?

I agree. The only difference is that even though I viewed Big Daddy as a stand alone character and enjoyed his importance to the plot, I still think Eugene Clark was a casting mishap. If the character hadn't been so intense and over the top, he would have been wonderful....

[Danny]

totally, big daddy was a great character and he aint the reason lands the least popular movie i think, just a more obvious one.

[MinionZombie]

I dig Biggy-D. :)

The acting, yes, that needed some work, but I look beyond that (hey, I put up with the downright bizarre zombie walks from previous films, those never bothered me :p) and just, to quote GAR, "yuck it up".

Land is definitely the bottom of the GAR zed-flick pile, but the bottom of that pile is still sweet and I still really dig the film and really liked how GAR was evolving the zombies ... I saw Bub as a leaping off point for Biggy-D, but never compared.

Some were expecting Land to be certain things, especially after a 20 year gap, but I never expected anything beyond just having some fun, which is exactly what I got and then some. :)

[capncnut]

I dig Biggy-D. :)
Not me, he was the one who destoyed the movie with his "RARRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!"-ing. Seriously, I loved Land but Big Daddy was too much, too evolved... you mean to tell me he can shove a petrol pump through a car window, light a petrol can and kick it towards the vehicle? What absolute frothing dog s**t! :dead:

[MinionZombie]

He didn't light the thingymajig, they passed them at the road workers area, little oil lamp type things, he remembered those, fetched one (could have been from nearer though, in fact that's likely as he wasn't gone long) and rolled it down a slope, a monkey could do that, and zombies at that stage are at least of monkey intelligence ... ish.

Surely it's piss easy to shove a petrol pump through a window? Bill Hinzman lobbed a stone through one.

[ProfessorChaos]

^ but the cemetery dude smashed the passenger window with a large rock.

i think that with safety glassused on most windshields these days, it'd be a bit tougher than one might think...

[MinionZombie]

*gets his annoying nerd on*

But in a world where the dead can get up and walk, it's gonna be possible to shove a petrol pump gun through a windshield. :sneaky::p:D:)

muahahahaaaaaa. :D

[ProfessorChaos]

^well spoken, sir...

[DjfunkmasterG]

He didn't light the thingymajig, they passed them at the road workers area, little oil lamp type things, he remembered those, fetched one (could have been from nearer though, in fact that's likely as he wasn't gone long) and rolled it down a slope, a monkey could do that, and zombies at that stage are at least of monkey intelligence ... ish.

Surely it's piss easy to shove a petrol pump through a window? Bill Hinzman lobbed a stone through one.


But Romero's zombies were afraid of fire in his other films so now he has changed two mythologies.

1. No Longer afraid of fire
2. You come back in an hour as opposed to a few days, even in Night it took little Karen at least 12 hours to come back.

Inconsistencies in your own legacy is not a good thing.

[bassman]

But Romero's zombies were afraid of fire in his other films so now he has changed two mythologies.



But those zombies weren't as evolved as these. If Bub had been around flame, he wouldn't have been scared. Obviously the spark of gunfire didn't bother him. Same with BD and his crew.

And as far as changing his own mythology about the amount of time that it takes to turn.......when was a definite timeline ever laid out? It took Roger days but then it also took Karen a few hours. Maybe there are different circumstances.....

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, the time between bites and turning is all over the shop, a case-by-case basis, and come to think of it anybody bitten in Day of the Dead either was totally chowed or killed themselves or whatever.

And also - clearly in Land the zombies were afraid of water, but they got over that fear...and anyway, zombies aren't suddenly fans of fire - the zombie that catches alight near the end of Land for instance...it's not just groovin' on the stank of it's own burning goo...all that's changed is that a zombie is now capable of controlling something which holds a controlled flame.

No doubt if someone was poking a flaming pole in their faces, they'd still back away with fear, it's just that they've now decreased their fear of it. :sneaky:

[Danny]

the little girl in night wasnt dead, she took the length of the entire movie to die, then turn, remember the idea of bacteria laced bites killing wasnt introduced then it jsut a body snatchers type deal.

[darth los]

Yes maybe some of you expected better, but you cant say that Land is a bad movie, it still kicks ass :)



Well, actually I can. In my opinion land is horrible. This is one of the reasons why these threads go on forever. We should stop trying to convert people to our own point of view. If someone thinks land is a great film it's their business, I'm not gonna knock em' for it the same way I don't want to be called a blasphemer for my opinion. Although, i agree that land is better than almost every non- Gar zombie flick out there. I'm still not gonna stop using it as a coaster though. :p I think my opinion is actually a testament to GAR. For his past work which is totally classic, that this film doesn't live up to and my faith in his ability that he can do much better. That's what really p'd me off,. Whether it's due to studio interference or whatever, this wasn't his best work product. Another reason why these topics can't be killed is that new members naturally have allot of enthusiasm for topics that we've discussed ad-nauseum. I for one don't mind. I ain't mad at em'. If i'm sick of seeing a certain topic, it's easy to just scroll by it. in any case, for the record, you guys kick arse. Laters!

[capncnut]

I like Land but I gotta agree with you Darth up to a point. It is far from his best work and is very disappointing when compared to the first three installments of the series.

Now he has a chance to redeem himself with Diary Of The Dead. A film that's technically completed but has no teaser or preview clip...

[DVW5150]

A great movie in my opinion.

[Danny]

i think the word for a thread like this is ouroboros, cus it aint never gonna end on way or the other.

[OddDNA]

But Romero's zombies were afraid of fire in his other films so now he has changed two mythologies.

1. No Longer afraid of fire
2. You come back in an hour as opposed to a few days, even in Night it took little Karen at least 12 hours to come back.

Inconsistencies in your own legacy is not a good thing.



Like I said in the 28 weeks post...when you make rules to a film you have to stick with them or the movie becomes less enjoyable.

If you are going to let a zombie put a pump nozzle through a car window, leave the person whom he is attacking, go find a flame that he remembered from earlier in the movie, know that flame reacts with petrol, realize he need to roll toward the car from afar as to not be injured and do this all for the sake of revenge against the person whom he thinks is in charge of Fiddlers Green?

Why not just let him dress in disguise as a human sneak into the green and assassinate Dennis Hopper. And the movie can be about the trial where B Daddy is his own lawyer. He can be vindicated and be elected mayor of Pittsburgh then he wouldnt have to be looking for a "place to go" just like that stiff The Gaurdian.

Worthless Film. If I didnt drive 3 hours to go to the premire I would have walked out right after the scene of a zombie playing the trombone.

[bassman]

So in that case.....you don't like Dawn or Day either? The dead had intelligence in those films.

I mean.....Bub shaving must have been equally as ridiculous. He uses a gun too. Let's not forget that they're dead people that are walking around.

None of the movies are exactly grounded in reality.:rolleyes:

[darth los]

Like I said in the 28 weeks post...when you make rules to a film you have to stick with them or the movie becomes less enjoyable.

If you are going to let a zombie put a pump nozzle through a car window, leave the person whom he is attacking, go find a flame that he remembered from earlier in the movie, know that flame reacts with petrol, realize he need to roll toward the car from afar as to not be injured and do this all for the sake of revenge against the person whom he thinks is in charge of Fiddlers Green?

Why not just let him dress in disguise as a human sneak into the green and assassinate Dennis Hopper. And the movie can be about the trial where B Daddy is his own lawyer. He can be vindicated and be elected mayor of Pittsburgh then he wouldnt have to be looking for a "place to go" just like that stiff The Gaurdian.

Worthless Film. If I didnt drive 3 hours to go to the premire I would have walked out right after the scene of a zombie playing the trombone.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MinionZombie]

*high fives bassman*

In a world where this thread won't die, anything is possible. :sneaky::D

[OddDNA]

So in that case.....you don't like Dawn or Day either? The dead had intelligence in those films.

I mean.....Bub shaving must have been equally as ridiculous. He uses a gun too. Let's not forget that they're dead people that are walking around.

None of the movies are exactly grounded in reality.:rolleyes:


As for Dawn and Day...

Dawn was the 1st one I saw so it was easier to see dawn and go to night...

And as for day I really disliked it for a long time because of Bub. It kind of grew on me but I still dislike Bub, it is too much for me. But the rest of the movie without Bub is good enough..the character interactions are well done I think.

And it is more important for a movie to be consistant than realistic.

The Princess Bride is pretty far fetched, but it is consistant.

A movie like Land is pretty consistant but it doesnt really follow the rules of the other movies...

Why is a zombie with emotions and reason scary at all?
The the that really makes zombies such a good movie monster is they lack those things that make us human while they are still in human form.

What if zombies stopped attacking humans or felt guilty if you wept or if they knew you from when they were alive or if you begged them? that is the logical next step in GARs progression and I think it is too much, to me Dawn had the perfect zombies. They had merely a string of disconnected recolections. Seemingly little or no reasoning power...

Also A zombies driving force should be to eat the living...not to get revenge.
A zombie shouldnt mind if he gets shot up and really shouldnt care if another zombie gets killed WTF?

Damn that is a bad movie.

I can think of many zombie genre movies that are better than Land.
GAR dropped the ball, plain and simple.

[Rolfus]

bub was trained, i am not sure for how long logan was teaching him.

i just plain hated big daddy.

[bassman]

Why is a zombie with emotions and reason scary at all?
The the that really makes zombies such a good movie monster is they lack those things that make us human while they are still in human form.


Big Daddy isn't supposed to be scary. The real antagonists of Land are Kaufman and Cholo.

That's what Romero has done from square one. The dead don't mean to be what they are.....they just become that. The real horror of ALL of the films is that the humans can't work together to solve a simple problem and they eventually cause their own deaths.

And Bub wasn't really trained, Rolfus. More like he had a guide to give him a hand and see what he could do. Remember the book, gun, and razor? He did that all by himself.

[MinionZombie]

Big Daddy isn't supposed to be scary. The real antagonists of Land are Kaufman and Cholo.

That's what Romero has done from square one. The dead don't mean to be what they are.....they just become that. The real horror of ALL of the films is that the humans can't work together to solve a simple problem and they eventually cause their own deaths.

And Bub wasn't really trained, Rolfus. More like he had a guide to give him a hand and see what he could do. Remember the book, gun, and razor? He did that all by himself.
What can I say except - well said, my man. :)

That's exactly what Romero has been doing with his dead films since the start, it was even in The Crazies where beaurocracy and frustration from miscommunication led to the cure being lost.

[dirtydwarf]

Very good point. Yet another reason why these movies are so creepy. We have to fear not only the dead but the system we have come to rely on to survive.

[OddDNA]

Big Daddy isn't supposed to be scary. The real antagonists of Land are Kaufman and Cholo.

That's what Romero has done from square one. The dead don't mean to be what they are.....they just become that. The real horror of ALL of the films is that the humans can't work together to solve a simple problem and they eventually cause their own deaths.

And Bub wasn't really trained, Rolfus. More like he had a guide to give him a hand and see what he could do. Remember the book, gun, and razor? He did that all by himself.



But society only breaks down with the backdrop or unreasonable zombies.

If the zombies have reasoning power they are simply less dangerous versions of people in my city.

and that is what I like about GAR movies, humans are both sides of the coin they present the dicotomy (sp?) but that works best on a backdop of mindless zombies...when you start giving zombies starring roles in a movie then they are no longer a backdrop they are characters.

[Cody]

hellsings right this thread will never be over unless its locked.

[capncnut]

ouroboros
Mmm, where have I heard that name before?

[MinionZombie]

Mmm, where have I heard that name before?
Red Dwarf, mate ... series 7 if I'm not mistaken. :cool:

It's on the box that baby Lister is placed in (by Lister himself, as he's his own father ... freaky episode, typically highbrow and mentally challenging though).

[capncnut]

Actually I remembered, the Disc Of Ouroboros is found next to Alessa's life support machine in the first Silent Hill. :D

[AcesandEights]

Ouroboros goes back a lot farther than Red Dwarf. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros) it some time, it's a good, abbreviated read.

[capncnut]

Weird. :rockbrow:

[MinionZombie]

lol, I know it came before Red Dwarf, hehe, that was just where I thought Capn might have seen it ... it's the first place that popped to my mind anyway...cos Red Dwarf is awesome. :cool:

[Danny]

heh "my dads name was rob oros", crackin' ep, but yeah i was on about the actual word, no reference for once.

[darth los]

People hate it cause the topic keeps rising from the dead.:eek:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Damn ,this thread is still somewhat alive... NICE!

Land was on HBO late night the other night and it was nice to see they finally corrected the aspect ratio problem on the HD version.

[MinionZombie]

Damn ,this thread is still somewhat alive... NICE!

Land was on HBO late night the other night and it was nice to see they finally corrected the aspect ratio problem on the HD version.
The thread only keeps limping along purely because of you Deej. :p:D

Oooh...so tempted to close the thread just to spite ya...but *sigh* "with great power comes great responsibility" ... *saunters off looking noble, head held high and such...

[bassman]

The thread only keeps limping along purely because of you Deej. :p:D

Oooh...so tempted to close the thread just to spite ya...but *sigh* "with great power comes great responsibility" ... *saunters off looking noble, head held high and such...

"Even though you've been raised as a human, you are not one of them. You have great powers, only some of which you have as yet discovered.":p

[DjfunkmasterG]

The thread only keeps limping along purely because of you Deej. :p:D

Just doing my part to keep people from wasting 93/97 minutes of their life depending on what version they watch.

[bassman]

Just doing my part to keep people from wasting 93/97 minutes of their life depending on what version they watch.

I try to do the same for people thinking of watching Yawn04, brother!:cool:

[MinionZombie]

I try to do the same for people thinking of watching Yawn04, brother!:cool:
Nice comeback *high five*. :cool::p

[Arcades057]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. :mad:

[bassman]

blah blah blah....it's all opinion.

We were just joking around...

Clearly you would like Yawn04 better. I mean, you do have what appears to be a picture from the Resident Evil film as your avatar.:eek:

:p:cool:

[darth los]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. :mad:

Gotta support my fellow dawn 04' lovers. HI FIVE !! :thumbsup:

[DjfunkmasterG]

DAWN 04 all the way baby. :thumbsup:

[AcesandEights]

DAWN 04 all the way baby. :thumbsup:

Hells yeah! :D

[kennethos]

Hi DJ and everybody else...
As a more recent Romero Dead fan, I looked forward to seeing LOTD in theaters, to finally see a good zombie movie on the silver screen, especially after being reintroduced to the genre by '04's Dawn remake (which I loved).
So I figured, LOTD would be fantastic...good budget, good FX, Romero in charge, what could go wrong?
Now, I have no idea if there was any studio static going on. But what I saw didn't impress me. There were plot holes in LOTD big enough to drive Mac trucks through. Let's see, a couple of issues...
In a world where people have survived a zombie holocaust, and presumably everybody knows how to kill them, why were there still people/soldiers firing into the mid-sections of zombies? Aiming and missing once or twice at the head, I understand. But firing at the head only as a last resort? Are they complete morons?
If Kaufman is as wealthy as he claims, and outfitted Fiddler's Green with as much stuff as he said he did, why was there little, if any, surveillance equipment? Dead Reckoning had at least one camera on it. Part of the reason the city fell was because nobody knew the zombies were coming. Granted, the river crossing may not have been expected. But you'd think Kaufman and his crew would have been smart enough, if not competent, at least, to put up cameras to remote-monitor everything. Maybe even an intercom system, to talk to each other? Security, anyone?
All those buildings in the city...did anyone live in them, besides the folks in the tower? If they did, it would have been too easy to survive even a zombie invasion of the city...just wait them out. But apparently, this didn't happen.
These are a few things that come to mind. The biggest disappointment, in my mind, was that the writing/story was so poor. All of these things could have been in the story, and would have made a better, more interesting and involving plot and saga. Instead, we watch stupid people die at the hands of zombies, which is the key premise of waaay too many bad zombie films. I expect better from Romero and his crew, especially after the trilogy.
Perhaps Diary of the Dead will be better, I don't know. I would just love to see an intelligently-written and well-directed zombie movie, even if it's a low-budget indie production.

[Dommm]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. :mad:

That would have to be a matter of opinion. at the risk of Minion wrath I would say it was a great movie. But as for being a better movie. No Way The survivors are one dimisional planks, the Zombies arn't terrifying they are scary in the way that you simply fight to survive. The beauty of the orignal was the slow plodded pace the sense of horror that slowly overwhelmes you. Dawn 04 is a rollercoaster ride, you fight you survive you run, you fight some more. THE ORIGNAL LEAVES YOU WITH A SENSE OF DESPARATION. You feel for the survivors and you watch them, wanting them to survive. And there in lies the beauty.

[Griff]

A few things I learnt at the recent Festival of Fear.

Just about everybody mentioned that LAND was a rough shoot.

Roy Frumkes says that the budget was 14 million. Initially they were gonna get 20 million's worth by shooting up in Canada but has the exchange rate fell, it ended up only being about 15 million and stuff had to be jettisoned - quick.

Romero said he was shooting so fast and furiously that he never really had any idea exactly how the movie was shaping up. He was grateful that he was able to knock together something workable after only a minor reshoot.

Remember those rumours of Romero walking off the set? He said all during the shoot he was continually requesting additional units to get maximum coverage but Universal wouldn't oblige. Finally he gets five units - only on the very last day. He figured 'Well, you don't really need me then' and walked off set in quiet protest.

Nicotero said that the schedule was so tight that he survived on only 3 hours of sleep a night. They shot the feasting-zombies-in-the-ammunions-dump on the very last night, presumably when those other units were also working. Without them, its conceivable that we may not have gotten that sequence at all, or at least a severely compromised version.

Romero said he'd gladly spend a 100 nights out in the freezing cold if it meant he could get the footage he wanted.

Ultimately Romero blames himself, reasoning that he should have done a complete script rewrite, ala DAY, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

In light of this, I think LAND deserves a bit of a break from some of you harsher critics, particularly those who've tried their hand at filmmaking and have an idea of what you can be up against.

As for DAWN04, that was made for how much? 28 million? And on a much nicer exchange rate so perhaps up around the 40 million mark in value, if not beyond? And still it was a much, much bigger disappointment, despite the lowered expectations (indeed, when people say 'Hey, the remake was good' its usually because they thought it was gonna completely suck anyway).

In closing: LAND wins. DAWN04 hangs its head in shame.

[MinionZombie]

Hooray for Griff! :):cool:

Damn straight, give Land a break, it still rocks! Filmmaking is a tough gig, and it sounds as if GAR took a rinsing.

And Yawn04 still sucks.

[DruNewp]

Land will, in time, be accepted. When DAY came out, everyone hated it. Now it's, while maybe not a favorite in the saga, totally accepted.

I also think a big part of the let down was the ending. The "they're just like us" line threw some people off, I'm sure. I didn't mind it.

[xopher]

Day, from what I understand Romero to have said, totally bombed in the theatres. People loved it at the premeire and were in fact cheering "Bub! Bub!" It just didn't take off from there. I know an awful lot of people who would say though that it IS there favorite.

Land is similar, and I must say, I enjoyed watching it at the theatre. But I've got to admit, I wasn't scared by it at all. I remember thinking to myself throughout the movie and trying to convince myself that I was just too used to the new f***ed up psychotic horror, or that I had just watched too many zombie movies and was immune to it now. But that really wasn't it. I mean I still get a little freaked out by Night and Dawn. Come to think of it, Day wasn't as scary as the first two but it gives me the creeps a little as well because there's so many other elements, like the idea of being stuck under ground with a very limited supply of food. Something about the claustraphobia, the depressing music, and non-big name actors just really draws me into the older films.

Land was too big budget to really please me as a horror flick, but just didn't go far enough with the violence and effects to be an action flick, which I felt it would have been more succesful as.

Peace to all >:-)

[clanglee]

That would have to be a matter of opinion. at the risk of Minion wrath I would say it was a great movie. But as for being a better movie. No Way The survivors are one dimisional planks, the Zombies arn't terrifying they are scary in the way that you simply fight to survive. The beauty of the orignal was the slow plodded pace the sense of horror that slowly overwhelmes you. Dawn 04 is a rollercoaster ride, you fight you survive you run, you fight some more. THE ORIGNAL LEAVES YOU WITH A SENSE OF DESPARATION. You feel for the survivors and you watch them, wanting them to survive. And there in lies the beauty.

I don't think anyone here would even begin to say that Dawn '04 was better than the original Dawn. They were arguing that Dawn'04 was better than Land. Which it was. By far. Talk about plank characters. . .sheesh:rolleyes: Land had those in spades. The silliest characters ever. Don't get me wrong. . . I LIKE Land. . kinda. It was just too. . .goofy for me to really get behind. It was kind of like Romero was imitating a 14 year old immitaing Romero.:confused:

[kennethos]

While I appreciate LOTD's defenders trying to explain some the details of what happened (and granted, an exchange rate and studio interference rank high up on the problem-meter), my complaints are with the story and plot-holes. If the story is solid and working, then even poor filmmaking can survive, and critics and fans will be satisfied. Thus, I look forward immensely to Diary, to see if GAR in charge makes a difference....I hope it does.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The review at AIN.COM shows Diary being really decent.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33974

[SRP76]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid.

Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it.

Everything else in the movie follows that, so it's a downhill spiral, for me.

And now the other thing: I'm not an idiot, and I don't give a damn about the campaign trail. In short, I do NOT need to be savagely beaten about the head and neck with your political "commentary".

Such crap is fine, if it's disguised. Example would be Dawn. Now, I realize Romero was "sticking it to the man", so to speak. But, when I first saw it, I didn't realize that. Why? Because the "commentary" was hiding in a cool-ass movie, that was - dare I say it? - actually fun to watch. Having a movie like that makes it easy to ignore the politicking.

But, Land was nothing like that. It seemed like an infomercial for Romero's soapbox preaching. The actual movie got lost. I can't stand that! I'm trying to watch a movie; be subtle with this stuff. Don't slam the viewer in the jaw with it every five minutes! It shakes the viewer out of the thrall.

These are a couple of the reasons why I was not into Land.

[AcesandEights]

Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it.

Choose to apply your imagination or suspension of disbelief at that point. You're also backing into a problem to see how it was solved, which is fine, but tends to always make problems and tasks appear all the more difficult and discounts (removes from the equation) happenstance and adaptation to independently evolving circumstances.

[bassman]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid.


No, Brother. He doesn't think that we're stupid. He thinks that everyone else doesn't quite "get it".

Being that we're fans, he knows that we see his ultimate underlying message that the human race is doomed, but he wants other generations to understand that the ending isn't so simple.

I understand(with you) that we as a human race are doomed, but he's trying to portray to a new generation the same posibilities.

I know that "Land" has it's flaws, but it still has the same message that we're biulding up to our own demise.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid.

Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it.

Everything else in the movie follows that, so it's a downhill spiral, for me.

And now the other thing: I'm not an idiot, and I don't give a damn about the campaign trail. In short, I do NOT need to be savagely beaten about the head and neck with your political "commentary".

Such crap is fine, if it's disguised. Example would be Dawn. Now, I realize Romero was "sticking it to the man", so to speak. But, when I first saw it, I didn't realize that. Why? Because the "commentary" was hiding in a cool-ass movie, that was - dare I say it? - actually fun to watch. Having a movie like that makes it easy to ignore the politicking.

But, Land was nothing like that. It seemed like an infomercial for Romero's soapbox preaching. The actual movie got lost. I can't stand that! I'm trying to watch a movie; be subtle with this stuff. Don't slam the viewer in the jaw with it every five minutes! It shakes the viewer out of the thrall.

These are a couple of the reasons why I was not into Land.


You have made some excellent points about your thoughts on Land. While mine lie in the technical side (Acting, Directing, Editing) I could definitely see your point when looking at it like that. Well said.


A few things I learnt at the recent Festival of Fear.

Just about everybody mentioned that LAND was a rough shoot.

Roy Frumkes says that the budget was 14 million. Initially they were gonna get 20 million's worth by shooting up in Canada but has the exchange rate fell, it ended up only being about 15 million and stuff had to be jettisoned - quick.

Romero said he was shooting so fast and furiously that he never really had any idea exactly how the movie was shaping up. He was grateful that he was able to knock together something workable after only a minor reshoot.

Remember those rumours of Romero walking off the set? He said all during the shoot he was continually requesting additional units to get maximum coverage but Universal wouldn't oblige. Finally he gets five units - only on the very last day. He figured 'Well, you don't really need me then' and walked off set in quiet protest.

Nicotero said that the schedule was so tight that he survived on only 3 hours of sleep a night. They shot the feasting-zombies-in-the-ammunions-dump on the very last night, presumably when those other units were also working. Without them, its conceivable that we may not have gotten that sequence at all, or at least a severely compromised version.

Romero said he'd gladly spend a 100 nights out in the freezing cold if it meant he could get the footage he wanted.

Ultimately Romero blames himself, reasoning that he should have done a complete script rewrite, ala DAY, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

In light of this, I think LAND deserves a bit of a break from some of you harsher critics, particularly those who've tried their hand at filmmaking and have an idea of what you can be up against.

As for DAWN04, that was made for how much? 28 million? And on a much nicer exchange rate so perhaps up around the 40 million mark in value, if not beyond? And still it was a much, much bigger disappointment, despite the lowered expectations (indeed, when people say 'Hey, the remake was good' its usually because they thought it was gonna completely suck anyway).

In closing: LAND wins. DAWN04 hangs its head in shame.

the 28 million was after exchange. The original budget was $36 million then it was cut down to $18,000,000 when House of the Dead flopped and Universal lost faith in the zombie genre, which prompted a re-write to tone down bigger sequences. Once they watched a work print they dumped another $5,000,000 into it for a few reshoots to up the action and violence.

[xopher]

For some reason the money issues make me feel sick to my stomache. Romero seems to have had very little problem making good movies in the past on low budgets. I admit I watch older low budget movies with a certain affection but still... It seems like once you start getting into large sums of money the stakes are really high and it all depends on someone-over-you's ability to see the vision you're shooting for. As someone who did like Dawn '04, I don't think Universal has the ability to see Romero's universe as Romero sees it. I think Romero is a great independant film maker. I can say that I have tons of great ideas for movies that I'm hoping to make within my life time, but I could never work for a studio. I need the freedom to TAKE MY TIME. Rushing things together never works out well for me, I've learned this BIG TIME producing music. I used to make **** and recall it within weeks. I'm just the kind of person that needs to do what I'm feeling as it comes to me.

Long live the indy film industry! Long live Romero!

[Trin]

I can sympathize with Romero for getting his knees chopped off with the budget and timetables, and I think those things contributed to the lack of success for Land. But my beef with Land is still the lack of intelligence in the plot.

Night, Dawn, and Day made sense. The settings, plot development, and character actions were all well thought out. I rarely found myself second guessing things. I often found myself applauding the ingenuity of the characters and the intelligence that Romero brought to the progression of events.

Land was just the opposite. I found myself either scratching my head or shaking my head throughout. So much of the movie just didn't make sense. From setup to character actions to simple implausible events. I could list a dozen examples that you've all heard countless times.

But I will list one, because this is where it all fell apart for me. When the zombies shambled across the bottom of the flowing river I just lost it. Early on they established that the rivers served as a natural barrier to the zombies and I thought that added nicely to a well conceived city setup. I assumed they meant that it was impossible for a creature of such limited physical ability to cross a river. Then they assert that the zombies had simply never tried?? Preposterous!!

I don't know what would've come from a higher budget or more time to film, but I have no reason to believe my long list of gripes would be any different.

[clanglee]

This thread is undead. Someone shoot it in the head, quick!! :dead:

[xopher]

I can sympathize with Romero for getting his knees chopped off with the budget and timetables, and I think those things contributed to the lack of success for Land. But my beef with Land is still the lack of intelligence in the plot.

Night, Dawn, and Day made sense. The settings, plot development, and character actions were all well thought out. I rarely found myself second guessing things. I often found myself applauding the ingenuity of the characters and the intelligence that Romero brought to the progression of events.

Land was just the opposite. I found myself either scratching my head or shaking my head throughout. So much of the movie just didn't make sense. From setup to character actions to simple implausible events. I could list a dozen examples that you've all heard countless times.

But I will list one, because this is where it all fell apart for me. When the zombies shambled across the bottom of the flowing river I just lost it. Early on they established that the rivers served as a natural barrier to the zombies and I thought that added nicely to a well conceived city setup. I assumed they meant that it was impossible for a creature of such limited physical ability to cross a river. Then they assert that the zombies had simply never tried?? Preposterous!!

I don't know what would've come from a higher budget or more time to film, but I have no reason to believe my long list of gripes would be any different.

Okay, yeah that I can agree with you there definitely. I kind of liked the characters and the over all feel, that's why I don't want to NOT like this movie, I saw so much potential but it never actually delivered and there were several things that didn't add up like you said. The water thing DID actually bother me considerably. What bothered me more though was the fact that there were no good claustraphobic scenes with the zombies. Most of the scenes were out in the open where there's really no danger of getting cornered. When I was a kid I was petrified of the zombies in GAR's movies, but that's because for such a slow moving fiend their strength is in corners and small rooms where the humans are out numbered, the ole' strength in numbers thing. When you're working on a low budget you're forced to do things on a smaller scale which in this case happened to be the older movies' strength. Land was too large scale, too action movie-ish, and too polished. Even though I like it, it really just wasn't made right.

One more thing: Big Daddy was terrible and Eugene Clark as the lead zombie role was too, "Moses leads 'em out of Egypt" and not enough "the zombies are coming for you mwa ha ha ha ha ha!" As big a fan as I am for the social and political commentary, that was a little over the top.

And now to say something that's probably going to get me stoned and put in the stockade: As shallow as he was, Reily was my favorite character.

[Trin]

I kind of liked the characters and the over all feel, that's why I don't want to NOT like this movie, I saw so much potential but it never actually delivered
That sums it up nicely for me. If the movie was just horrible outright I could dismiss it. But it offered soooo much potential.

I liked several of the characters and thought they were great additions to the Dead series. Charlie was my favorite (yes, I know that makes me goatboy around here - lol). To me Charlie was a stroke of Romero genius. While the troopers with their automatic weapons were dying he survived with his single shot, highly accurate, highly reliable weapon.

After the first 15 minutes of the movie I was stoked. The atmosphere was just incredible. The action was fantastic. The conflict between Cholo and Reilly was a great foreshadow. I was thinking these guys are clearly prepared for survival. They have Dead Reckoning and the fireworks and they've figured it all out. Hell yes!!

I was eating my popcorn and smiling and looking forward to seeing just how the zombies get the upper hand.

And then they walk across the bottom of the river. wooot.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well ya know ILM could easily fix this movie by erasing Big Daddy, just get another more TALENTED ACTOR and I think that would fix a majority of the problems.

There is a decent story in this mess of a movie. I won't ever deny that.... I just wish someone could flush it out.