Why people hate LOTD

[Griff]

If LAND were to be considered a failure, then it would be an interesting failure. Its a movie full of ideas, that dares to try something radically different, yet doesn't quite deliver on the tremendous promise of its brilliant screenplay due to cutbacks. But that's another tale. I'd much rather sh*t on DAWN '04 instead.

DAWN04 essentially steals its structure from NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, steals its antagonists from 28 DAYS LATER (which doesn't quite make sense here) and then just plays out in hapazard, inconsequential fashion (once everyone is safely in the mall, there is no more story - they have to throw random obstacles, like generator failure, at its characters to keep them busy). Even the ending, which begins as something stolen from MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE (in that they flee in a sailboat headed for an island), steals yet again from NIGHT (where all the characters die, even the lead protagonist) but fails to marry any of these elements in even a slightly meaningful way.

Even in MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE, a self pro-claimed 'moron movie', there's the thematical resolution of them fleeing technology, the homicidal rampaging machines of man's own design, in a wind-powered sailboat - bound for a un-industrialized island destination. In NIGHT, everyone perishes due to their inability to give up their individual agendas and work together. Yeah, when simplified, it sounds kinda like a 'Sesame Street' sketch but, hey, that show was educational! Anyway, when the main character, Ben, is shot down by rednecks, its a kick in the guts - not because of the futility of it all, but because if that gun-toting posse had made some kinda effort to distinguish between the living and the dead, to communicate with those outside the group, then there may have been no such loss.

As for DAWN04... well, its all made up as they go along. They escape on a boat because its an excuse to get them to leave the mall because they were really just sitting there with nothing to do. Call it convenience, call it contrivance, just don't call it good story telling. That they all get wiped out when they reach the island? I don't like my nihlism that merciful. I prefer the uncertainty of the original DAWN, where our characters still have will, and head back out into a world that just may not hold a place for them, whether they've got the fuel to get them there or not. If Romero had stuck with the helicopter as it left the mall, only to show it crashland in the woods where the zombies get to Fran and Peter, I would have felt cheated. I mean, it could have been done really cool with special effects and blood and sh*t but it wouldn't have the balls the actual ending does, essentially a big unanswerable question mark that gives us no easy way out.

I should say that I do not hate the DAWN remake from top to bottom, its got stuff that a horror fan just has to enjoy (ie. the opening title sequence), but I will never commend it. Its completely bereft of any sort of originality or ingenuity, and even deserves to have stars deducted for being THE MOST EXPENSIVE ZOMBIE MOVIE EVER MADE. At a budget effectively more than double that of LAND, its no wonder the dumb dumbs got their rocks off.

Sh*t story, sh*t characters, too much money and more cliches than you can level a shotgun at?

A vote for DAWN04 is a vote for everything that's wrong with Hollywood ...and I rest my case.

[clanglee]

Wow, a pretty strong case it is too. Unfortunately, I still like Dawn '04 better than Land. For that matter. . .I liked Maximum Overdrive as well. . so. . .Put that in your pipe and smoke it!! I do agree that Dawn '04 did screw up in getting these guys out of the mall, no real reason to leave in my opinion. But the nihilism exibit in the end of that movie is pretty par for the course with zombie movies. Hell, George was gonna kill off the characters in dawn too originally. I dunno man. Land just left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't hate it. And if anyone else beside GAR had made it, I would have been more forgiving. But it was his movie, and he kind of took a crap on his own genre with it. Not a big crap. . but a crap nonetheless. So. . .umm. . so there!!

[Deaths_Shadow]

The reasons i didn't like land are because for me GAR usually used low key actors and i love it when any director goes this route as big named actors get enough glory (usually to much) and for me detracts from the film because sometimes your not looking at the character played in the film your thinking thats Dennis Hopper or thats John Leguizamo.

Don't get me wrong there great actors, i just like my GAR movies like his previous 3, I don't mind somewhat intelligent zombies but for me these were waaay over the top. I remember first watching Day and Bub was such great acting it blew me away because it came across so realistic, And when the Doc got shot and Bub found him dead and got all emotional i really felt it. I didn't feel anything with Land.

I also didn't like the FX for the zombies to be honest (flame if you must) i thought the FX for Dawn 04 or Resident Evil 2 looked better but i really prefer Day of the A Dead FX the best. Most of these zombies looked more like weird looking vampires. Heck Tom Savini looked almost exactly the same in Land as he did as a vampire from Dusk till Dawn. Besides Big Daddy the butcher carrying a knife the girl (while still wearing her uniform) with her cricket bat, just a little to much for me.

And as far as the story goes, it was ok excluding the zombies going off into the sunset at the end (that just didn't make any sense to me) and them not wanting to launch a couple missiles at there asses (knowing they nearly got eaten and seen there friends getting treated like prime rib didn't make any sense either, thats a 2 in one shot screw up in my eyes) as the zombies retreated.

I think for me it was trying to pack to much extra fluff and puff with a Hollywood shine. My girfriend (who i had to force to watch the trilogy and likes it after she seen it wasn't just blood and guts did not like this movie) for pretty much the same reasons.

I've heard several people say that people were expecting more from this movie and i think in an odd way it was just the opposite,like the old saying sometimes less is more. Those other movies didn't have big budgets and were masterpieces compared to Land. I also think age plays a factor in who likes what. I would be willing to bet the older crowd such as i are more of the not liking Land and the younger crowd are more liked Land.

If so its like listening to music at age 20 then you get to be 36 and can't stand whats on the radio. Not a bad or a good thing just sometimes thats the way it is. Sometimes old schoolers get set in there ways in life but it happens to most people as they get older and theres nothing wrong with that, theres not to many movies that catch my fancy as they once did. (except for 28 weeks later, and 30 nights looks to be killer and of course Diary and anything marvel based. :)) Any hoot thats my 2 cents. :)

[xopher]

You know, that's something else aobut this film. The zombies WERE a just a tiny bit TOO smart. There was something about the way Big Daddy looked at things. He just had a little too much sense about himself, and they were just a TAD bit too organized.

[Danny]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!?:lol:

[SRP76]

I just watched again...and I still don't like it.:D

Now, I actually remember most of the things that made me sit up and say, "how the hell?!!".

I had forgotten how aggravating Big Daddy was. This guy was the Rambo and Stephen Hawking of the undead, rolled into one. Moves like he's alive (even though he's been dead for years), has some zombie version of "Spidey Sense" (so he knows Riley and the other guy are watching him), automatically is immune to fireworks (and instantly slings an assault rifle like he'd been carrying one for years), finds the human city untold miles away without so much as a map (so he has some "Deadhead GPS" downloaded into his brain), somehow understands the concept of flammable gasoline reacting with an ignited propane tank (and how the hell did he light the damn thing, anyway?! Big Daddy happened to have a Bic on him, or something?!)...it just goes on and on with him!

Contrast that with the sheer stupidity of some of the "live ones". That idiot "Mouse" comes to mind: "oh, let's sit here in the middle of Deadworld, with HEADPHONES ON, so we can't hear a thing". Yeah, brilliant, buddy. I won't bother to berate the fool for his "skateboard backward from Eddie Munster" technique; I'm sure we all laughed at him for that before.

That's the tip of the iceberg, really. Bad. Bad, bad.

[DubiousComforts]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. :mad:
That's not saying very much. Both movies are turds, but at least Romero's movie attempts to present new ideas. DAWN '04 has a shopping mall and that's about the total extent of its ideas. About 15 minutes into the film, the characters happen upon a completely secure and well-stocked shelter, only to spend the rest of the movie obsessing about how to leave it. It's lazy filmmaking at best.

28 Days Later is a much better remake of the original DAWN, just minus the shopping mall.

[Danny]

*mind boggles*

c'mon people, land wasnt the best but dawn '04 better?

do i need to bring up the a-team "fixin' stuff" garage montage again?:lol:

[AcesandEights]

Well, as someone who liked both movies and thinks comparing the two is asinine, (but will still go ahead and do so in the next few words), I think that Dawn 04 hit the mark better than LotD did...but it was easy because the mark Dawn 04 was aiming at was so low.

LotD really was a departure in many ways for Romero and it's ashame that he lost some people because he tried to do some things differently. Yes, there were quality issues in the movie, but...some people give a **** and some people don't. Some let their idea of politics dictate what they believe Romero was trying to say and this too bothered those people.

[xopher]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!?:lol:

No, I enjoy watching Land Of The Dead. I enjoyed watching Dawn '04 as well. I also, though, enjoy talking about how each film could have been better, and the ways are quite numorous :rockbrow:

[SRP76]

Some let their idea of politics dictate what they believe Romero was trying to say and this too bothered those people.

That's me - my philosophy is "NO politics is good politics" when it comes to movies.

I watch movies to have fun. If I want a political science lecture, I'll go to class, not the theatre.

As such, I try to ignore "what Romero was trying to say", because it's irrelevant to me. Instead, I try - emphasis on "try" in the case of this movie - to just enjoy the movie and have fun.

"Social commentary" works best when it's got a good movie around it. This one, it seems like Romero had "something to say", and the actual movie was an afterthought. Not good. The "movie" part ends up suffering.

Dawn '04 didn't have that problem. Since it wasn't all wrapped up in "sending a message", the movie was able to be itself - a fun-to-watch flick. Is it Gone With the Wind? No. But, as just a zombie flick, it works. For pure entertainment, it's got Land beat.

[MinionZombie]

And you flat out know I love Land.

Yawn04 blows nuts.

[clanglee]

Aww Minion, you know you love Dawn '04. Come on out of that closet man. Quit Dawn bashing. It's just your repressed feeling coming out in anger. Let it go, and just Dawn out!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[MinionZombie]

Aww Minion, you know you love Dawn '04. Come on out of that closet man. Quit Dawn bashing. It's just your repressed feeling coming out in anger. Let it go, and just Dawn out!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Nope, I categorically think it's a load of pish ... utter pish.

[EvilNed]

That's me - my philosophy is "NO politics is good politics" when it comes to movies.

I watch movies to have fun. If I want a political science lecture, I'll go to class, not the theatre.

...

"Social commentary" works best when it's got a good movie around it. This one, it seems like Romero had "something to say", and the actual movie was an afterthought. Not good. The "movie" part ends up suffering.


Erh... Contradicting yourself a bit?

[Mutineer]

This is the longest debate ever rivalling MAC/PC

Dawn 04

I still cannot fathom not liking this film. Hundreds upon hundreds of Zombie films released over the years with, what, 20 actual good ones ? 10 Great ones ? This film breathed life into the genre along with 28 Days Later.

It was not perfect, but a lot of fun.

LAND ?

Uccck. What a joke this film was. Bad, bad, bad .....

Lame cinematography, absurd Dead Reckoning vehicle, bad action sequences and on and on and on ....

What an utter load of crap of a letdown.

Dawn 04, 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are all much better films.

[SRP76]

Erh... Contradicting yourself a bit?

No. Just because I don't particularly enjoy something, doesn't mean I don't know what goes on with it.

I also hate basketball. That doesn't mean I don't know how it's played.

[Danny]

Nope, I categorically think it's a load of pish ... utter pish.

aside from the opening ten minutes of chaos i agree with ya.

[clanglee]

Nope, I categorically think it's a load of pish ... utter pish.

I know you think that man. You have made it quite clear. :lol::lol::lol:

[Danny]

long after music, religion, science and time adn spce are gone, this thread will carry on after the next crunch and bang so a nexly spawned universe will discover this adn cosmic wars will be faught betwene the filthy dawners and the lazy landers.



^*james cameron steals the idea and makes 40 million dollars at the box office on a slow weekend*

[bassman]

long after music, religion, science and time adn spce are gone, this thread will carry on after the next crunch and bang so a nexly spawned universe will discover this adn cosmic wars will be faught betwene the filthy dawners and the lazy landers.



^*james cameron steals the idea and makes 40 million dollars at the box office on a slow weekend*

:lol: I would definitely pay to see that. But then again, I'll pay to see anything Cameron does.

Plus....you know that landers would win.:p We'll crush the filthy dawners in a metal press or throw them out of an airlock. Wait a minute....:shifty:

[DjfunkmasterG]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!?:lol:

I think so. It definitely blows chunks.

[capncnut]

AM I THE ONLY PERSON WHO LIKES THIS MOVIE!?!?!?:lol:
No, you 'aint. The folks that call it crap have no rights to really because they secretly watch dogs**t like 'Friends' with their families and love it. I will agree, it's not the best of Romero's films but it's far from crap. I highly doubt ANYBODY on this (or any other forum) could better it or even remotely better a single scene from it...


Yawn04 blows nuts.
Yawn 04 is an MTV music video from start to finish. I wont dog it completely because it has 'some' enjoyable scenes but overall, it's like a piece of bubblegum. 10 minutes in and it loses it's flavor completely. Not only that but it's got runners in it, and everybody knows runners are the Liberace of zombies!

http://hometown.aol.com/jeeveslon/images/liberace.bmp
"Ooo-wah-ah-ah-ah, c'mon get down wit' da sickness!" :rolleyes:

[Mutineer]

Friends is one the best sitcoms in tv history along with MASH, Cheers and Seinfeld.

Wait ... What does liking Friends have to do with Land of the Dead ?

-

I'm working on a project with a DP / Director combo that would blow your theory out of the water and they currently reside in 'forum land'

-

I like Runners and Walkers.

Runners are far more intense and scarier; how many folks on this forum could run 100 yards at full sprint before collapsing from too much beer and pot ? :D

Land was beyond crap.

[MinionZombie]

Friends = I enjoyed it, a fun show, it's like a visual cuddle/hug ... plus Chandler rocks and Jennifer Aniston is fit, and Courtney Cox was fit till late season 2/early season 3, and Lisa Kudrow was fit until she got all shagged around the eyes...

Land = awesome, I loved it.

Yawn04 = donkey nuts ... actually that is a disservice to the nuts of donkeys ... it's a load of old, non-species-determined penis, is what it is.

Some Capn-theory out-of-water blowing go-an-on 'ere mates. :D

Oh, and shufflers all the way!

[bassman]

Friends = I enjoyed it, a fun show, it's like a visual cuddle/hug ... plus Chandler rocks and Jennifer Aniston is fit, and Courtney Cox was fit till late season 2/early season 3, and Lisa Kudrow was fit until she got all shagged around the eyes...

Land = awesome, I loved it.

Yawn04 = donkey nuts ... actually that is a disservice to the nuts of donkeys ... it's a load of old, non-species-determined penis, is what it is.

Some Capn-theory out-of-water blowing go-an-on 'ere mates. :D

Oh, and shufflers all the way!

I enjoyed Friends. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it, but if I see it's on and there's nothing better on the tube, I watch it. And yeah....Chandler's sarcastic comedy and the hot ladies are what really keep me watching it.



How about we all quit this Land/Dawn is better thing? Seriously....now its just turned into hurling insults. People have their own opinion....hell, there are people out there that probably hate the original Dawn. We can't change that. Let's just agree to disagree. Or we could continue this 9000000 page thread. Either way.:cool:


*walks away thinking of Bill Murray at the end of "Scrooged" and singing "Put a little love in your heart"*

[Mutineer]

Hate the orginal Dawn ?

I admit I have some reservations with some elements of the film (The blue zombies and silly action sequences) but who could say they Hate It ? :mad::barf:

I agree; opinions are opinions; let's now bash people for them.

[bassman]

Hate the orginal Dawn ?

I admit I have some reservations with some elements of the film (The blue zombies and silly action sequences) but who could say they Hate It ? :mad::barf:

I agree; opinions are opinions; let's now bash people for them.

I don't mean anyone around here hates it. I HIGHLY doubt that anyone here doesn't like Dawn. I was just talking in general...

[capncnut]

I'm working on a project with a DP / Director combo that would blow your theory out of the water and they currently reside in 'forum land'
Well, I'll look forward to seeing it. When/if its released.

[DubiousComforts]

How about we all quit this Land/Dawn is better thing?
Does anyone have to quit if they happen to dislike both movies?

The fact is neither film is better than 28 Days Later or Shaun of The Dead. Just like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, leave it to those Brits to improve upon something that the Americans invented. :D



Runners are far more intense and scarier; how many folks on this forum could run 100 yards at full sprint before collapsing from too much beer and pot ? :D
Well, being that most of the zombies you'd encounter would be sporting beer guts rather than Olympic athlete physiques, it's hard to imagine any of them being able to sprint 100 yards in death when they obviously couldn't do it in life. This supports my argument that DAWN '04 is lazy filmmaking at best.

[Danny]

to whom it may concern, mr m.zombie and mr c.cnut:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/hi5.jpg

[Mutineer]

Does anyone have to quit if they happen to dislike both movies?

The fact is neither film is better than 28 Days Later or Shaun of The Dead. Just like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, leave it to those Brits to improve upon something that the Americans invented. :D


Well, being that most of the zombies you'd encounter would be sporting beer guts rather than Olympic athlete physiques, it's hard to imagine any of them being able to sprint 100 yards in death when they obviously couldn't do it in life. This supports my argument that DAWN '04 is lazy filmmaking at best.

heh heh

How about some beer gut zombies on ZOMBIE PCP ?

[SRP76]

The fact is neither film is better than 28 Days Later or Shaun of The Dead.

Ugh. I hated both of those.

I guess we're complete opposites.:D

[Danny]

Ugh. I hated both of those.



http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1040782-1186482045-Killercomic12576.gif

FAIL

[SRP76]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1040782-1186482045-Killercomic12576.gif

FAIL

Yup, that's my impression of those two movies.:p

[Danny]

ive been saving onto that one for jsut such a post:lol:

[SRP76]

Well, to be fair, although I didn't like those, I place them thousands of miles above Redneck Zombies.

I felt like punching myself in the face as punishment for watching that one. Gets my vote for "Worst of All-Time".

[Danny]

that was allright till the last 15 minutes when it jsut whent to ****.

[DubiousComforts]

Ugh. I hated both of those.

I guess we're complete opposites.:D

You're just confused, and I'm not. :D

Seriously, what was there to hate? Even the living dead in SHAUN are more effective than DAWN '04, and the former film is a freakin' comedy. The black kid outside the pub, for example, is scary as hell. The filmmakers hit a home run using only simple make-up and direction to set the mood.

Point out a more effective zombie in DAWN or LAND; I sure don't see one. DAWN in particular wasted lots of time and money creating elaborate make-up effects that in the end barely resembled human beings, such as the fat woman from the truck (obviously a guy). He/she would have been more at home in a Raimi film than a Romero remake.

Zack Snyder had no idea how to effectively create a creepy mood, so he took the easy way out and simply turned the living dead into a horde of road runners. The only threat seemed to be the possibility of being stampeded to death.

[capncnut]

Seriously, what was there to hate? Even the living dead in SHAUN are more effective than DAWN '04, and the former film is a freakin' comedy. The black kid outside the pub, for example, is scary as hell. The filmmakers hit a home run using only simple make-up and direction to set the mood.
Well, I'm a Shaun hater of the highest order but I agree with everything you say there. The zombies in Shaun were much more scarier than the ones in Yawn 04. I live in London where soccer hooligans flood the streets and that's what the zombs in Yawn 04 are like, soccer hooligans. Throw 'em a Chelsea scarf and you can walk through a whole pack without injury. :D

[MinionZombie]

to whom it may concern, mr m.zombie and mr c.cnut:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/hi5.jpg
Yakshemash. :p

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/7940/picborat17fw.jpg

[xopher]

First, I had to laugh my ass of when I saw this: http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Dead-Land/dp/B000RJO56O/ref=sr_1_11/104-3408890-1083115?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1192053038&sr=1-11

It a double feature: Dawn Of The Dead (2004) and Land Of The Dead in an affectionately packaged two-dosc set. Specially made for the people of this forum >:-)

But then I found my self saying WTF!?!?! as I stumled oacross this: http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Living-Dead/dp/B000U65G0I/ref=sr_1_7/104-3408890-1083115?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1192053038&sr=1-7

It's a filmw called Dawn Of The Living Dead. Why do people do this? Taurus Entertainment tried to highjack Day Of The Dead, then Creepshow, now somebody is making Dawn Of The LIVING Dead?

I'm kind of thinking that's a little shady. If I was George Romero, I don;'t know if I'd be mad as hell, or arrogant as hell about this kind of stuff.

[MinionZombie]

Interesting that the duo-dvd cover focuses on the Land - the superior film IMO. :p

I think "Dawn of the Living Dead" has been around for quite a while, that'll be a new DVD release. Interestingly, that title was the working title for GAR's film ... blatantly somebody trying to cash in, kinda like "Zombi 2" in Europe.

[bassman]

Interesting that the duo-dvd cover focuses on the Land - the superior film IMO. :p


I actually just saw this same dvd set in the store the other day and thought the exact same thing...

[MinionZombie]

I actually just saw this same dvd set in the store the other day and thought the exact same thing...
*high five for the hive brain!*

:cool::thumbsup:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Interesting that the duo-dvd cover focuses on the Land - the superior film IMO. :p

Superior film?



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

Hold on let me stop laughing at that statement. :shifty: Damn i spit ice tea all over my monitor.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::moon:

That was some funny sh1t MZ.... Thanks for the good laugh this morning.

[MinionZombie]

:rolleyes:

Was absolutely waiting for that response. :rolleyes:

And yet not a hint of irony to my statement *high fives bassman* :sneaky:

[bassman]

:lol:

yeah booooiiyyyyy!

[DjfunkmasterG]

You're both stoned if you think Land is superior to Dawn 04. The production value of DAWN 04 clearly outshines Land in every detail (Cinematography, CGI, Acting, Story) :D

[bassman]

Something about all this seems awfully familiar.:shifty:


But yeah, I do. And no...I'm not stoned. :(

[suicide22]

Don't get me started on that movie please.:barf:

[bassman]

Don't get me started on that movie please.:barf:

Dawn04, right? Yeah....it's that bad.:p

[MinionZombie]

Something about all this seems awfully familiar.:shifty:


But yeah, I do. And no...I'm not stoned. :(
Nor am I baked.

Besides, Yawn-o-rama'04 had $12m extra in its budget. Story was cack, because the script was abominable, and the acting was at times pointless, again down to the shoddy script ... like Ving-a-ling being such a badass "f*ck all ya'll" moron-crowd-pleaser, characters introduced and then killed off within 10 minutes in a scene which is supposed to be emotional and tug on people's heart strings.

The characters make retarded decisions, that daft bitch screws up said f*cking retarded plan by being a complete retard and going after that f*cking dog.

And I'm sure the production of Yawn04 was far less troubled and interfered with by the studio, than Land got.

As for the cinematography, I'll take the cold, brooding dark of Land over the videogame, uber-colour-contrast-jizz-fest of Yawn04.

*tag teams with bassman*

[Trin]

I watched Land again and I now better understand why I hate Land. It's because the first 15 minutes were wonderful and the movie went so far downhill afterward.

The first fifteen minutes exceeded all my expectations. We got to see intelligent well prepared characters venture out in the zombie-infested wasteland. They had a plan and knew how to handle themselves. The conflict between Riley and Cholo was intriguing, the guy shooting himself when he got infected was excellent, the fireworks brought an interesting twist to things.

Moving on, the city setup and defenses seemed good, the interplay between the sociatal classes was interesting, the Riley/Charlie and the Cholo/Kaufman relationship development was interesting. There was a lot to like.

Things just went to hell at some point. The movie stopped making sense. Cholo ransoming the city for money. Riley getting caught up trying to bring him in. The whole Slack character. Big Daddy being a zombie who didn't feel any need to feed. The movie wasted a lot of time setting up events that weren't worth portraying.

And then culminating in a city that was virtually undefended against a relative few zombies. Clearly the group of people living inside the protected area were not capable of having created that protected area. All the intelligence of the first 15 minutes were forgotten in the last 30 minutes.

Shaun of the Dead did a good job of pointing out where the zombie movies before it were unrealistic. Land should've learned from that.

Dawn '04 was an entertaining movie, but it required running zombies to be worth anything. It's like setting a home run record by taking steroids. Sure it's fun to watch but everyone knows you cheated. And after reading MZ's last post I agree with his comments entirely.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Nor am I baked.

Besides, Yawn-o-rama'04 had $12m extra in its budget. Story was cack, because the script was abominable, and the acting was at times pointless, again down to the shoddy script ... like Ving-a-ling being such a badass "f*ck all ya'll" moron-crowd-pleaser, characters introduced and then killed off within 10 minutes in a scene which is supposed to be emotional and tug on people's heart strings.

The characters make retarded decisions, that daft bitch screws up said f*cking retarded plan by being a complete retard and going after that f*cking dog.

And I'm sure the production of Yawn04 was far less troubled and interfered with by the studio, than Land got.

As for the cinematography, I'll take the cold, brooding dark of Land over the videogame, uber-colour-contrast-jizz-fest of Yawn04.

*tag teams with bassman*

The girl going after the dog was the worst part about DAWN 04, but everything else was far better in execution than any one moment in Land. Land was a complete mess, like Trin said the first 15 minutes of Land was decent, but the remaining 75-80 minutes was total crap. When they introduced BD's howling... Thats when I said... total crap fest. From that point everything else in the story was just unwatchable.

Lets not talk about retarded decisions... you didn't see anyone in Dawn 04 saying "They're just looking for a place to go." Referring to the zombies. In Dawn 04 they used them to play games to pass the time (hollywood squares anyone?) Not just let them wander around when they still posed a very large threat.

Ving Rhames is supposed to be that character, he played as he saw it. His sole purpose was to try to get to his brother, when in a situation like that you sometimes forget that other people need your help because you are only thinking about you and your family.

You complain about a character being introduced then being killed off in 10 minutes. They at least put enough emotion into that scene to make it passable. The only emotion Land had lasted 10 seconds when you see the zombies eating all the people stuck behind the fence.

I can't debate cinematography with you because as a filmmaker, like you, everyone has there likes and dislikes with cinematography... but everything else... is fair game. :D

[MinionZombie]

So you're dissing the story of Land because of Big Daddy's howling? :rockbrow:

At least with Land it opens you up for a lot of nerd-gasm style discussions into the practicalities of life in that world, how things were done, and dare I mention it, the discussions about currency that were inspired on this forum. But for the love of GAR, let's not have another currency thread people, just use the search button to read it ... but don't bring it back, it's dead & buried. :lol::dead:

I think Land is quite smart in the portrayal of the people, the haves and have-nots, the ignoring of the problem, the obsession with possessions and money, risking your life to feed those who sit on their butts all day, the cost of vices...it's essentially a microcosm of a dim-view of a capitalist society.

What's Yawn04 got? Moronic nobodies, some don't even have a name, who just mope around or have an absolute blast, absolutely no thought is paid to consumerist subtext. It's just stuff happening, it's damn near a haunted house tour.

Land got a raw deal during the production, very much like Day did - another film of Romero's which was decried as pish-tosh at the time, but which is now considered a genre classic.

Yawn04 is a shiny thing flashed before the eyes of the dimwitted MTV audience, you aren't challenged to think further for yourself ... plus it's got Disturbed on the soundtrack. :hurl:

OO-WAH-AH-AH-AH!!! :rolleyes:

[bassman]

Lets not talk about retarded decisions... you didn't see anyone in Dawn 04 saying "They're just looking for a place to go." Referring to the zombies.



Am I the only one here that actually understands the meaning behind that??

[MinionZombie]

Am I the only one here that actually understands the meaning behind that??
I do. I thought that was a great aspect to the film - again, another element where the audience is called to think a bit further, consider things a bit deeper ... the lines of humans and zombies is blurred, a stale-mate war, the purpose of both 'species' and so forth.

[Trin]

At least with Land it opens you up for a lot of nerd-gasm style discussions into the practicalities of life in that world, how things were done, and dare I mention it, the discussions about currency that were inspired on this forum. But for the love of GAR, let's not have another currency thread people, just use the search button to read it ... but don't bring it back, it's dead & buried. :lol::dead:
I love the nerdtastic discussions as much as anyone, but Land is so messed up it defies discussion. How do we discuss the practicalities of a world where the people could maintain a GPS system but weren't bright enough to build a fence along the river? Where they had electric fences and didn't think to make a circuit breaker at the fence station? Where they offered no explanation for the lack of hundreds of thousands of zombie trying to get inside the protected area?


I think Land is quite smart in the portrayal of the people, the haves and have-nots, the ignoring of the problem, the obsession with possessions and money, risking your life to feed those who sit on their butts all day, the cost of vices...it's essentially a microcosm of a dim-view of a capitalist society.
Agreed. That aspect was very well done. I just wish it had put as much thought and intelligence into being a great zombie movie first. Romero's social commentary should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Both Night and Dawn '78 succeeded in being great zombie movies with an undercurrent of social commentary. Land consistently made plot concessions to facilitate the social commentary. Cart before the horse.

No better example then Big Daddy. BD shouldn't have lasted through the first 5 minutes. "Hey look, that one's learning. He's communicating with the others." Blam. BD Drops. Drive off... But nooooo. We can't have our precious social commentary without Big Daddy leading the charge and dodging every bullet and walking off into the sunset at the end. Plot concession!!

Dawn '04 was no better. It lost me when they all got bored and decided to go drive around the zombie-infested world with nothing but plot contrivance at the wheel. Lame!!

[Griff]

Big Daddy being a zombie who didn't feel any need to feed.

I think that's very important element that gets overlooked. Man is an animal when his stomach is empty. Once he has satiated that basic desire, he is able to concentrate on bigger ambitions, to evolve behaviourally.

In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal.

It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Big Daddy just ruined Land, not too mention Romero's in your face commentary. I like his stuff to be subtle, not WHAM, with the force of a baseball bat to the head. It is obvious, much like me, he hates the Bush administration... that was so out there it overshadowed anything relevant in the film as far as a plot goes.

Ooooo, we are greedy rich republicans, you liberal middle class get into your holes and grind out that paycheck while we relax off the sweat from your backs.

I know he was trying to make a point and maybe this generation of movie goer needs that, but come on... That was the most pathetic display at social commentary... his use of being subtle.... went right out the ****ing window.

Land has some shining moments, but the overall story just drags down whatever good is in there and just rolls it up into a huge ball of crap. I so wanted Land of the Dead to rock... I told everyone I knew if you think Dawn 04 was good wait til Land comes out... the master will show them how its done... instead he put on an excellent display of what not to do.

Sorry to hurt the die hards, but Zack Snyder... and Danny Boyle ran circles around Romero's Land with their respective films. I don't care how many producers were up his ass... Day had a cut budget and that film is better than Land, so any excuses are void.

I am not saying they didn't rattle his brain, but Land was not a Romero zombie film. Land missed a lot of points, over did the smart zombies and ruined a great screenplay that he himself wrote... tis a shame because the screenplay was way better in execution than the film.

I still respect the man because the original 3 dead films are tops in my book. They define the zombie genre... no debate there. Period! Land is just a sloppy film, and whether or not DAWN 04 had an MTV thing going on matters nothing because it was still a far more entertaining film and is at least re-watchable. I don't know the last time I took my Land DVD off the shelf aside from dusting it off to do cleaning... My DAWN 04 HD-DVD gets constant play, hell even Shaun gets more play than Land.

[Griff]

Subtle? DAWN was anything but subtle.

[SRP76]

In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal.

It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along...

No, I'm not buying it.

Big Daddy never ate anyone....on camera, that is. Big whoop. He sure had no qualms about killing every single living person he came in contact with. The only reason he didn't eat, is because he was in a hurry to attack Fiddler's Green.

I'm not hearing the "zombies are a great bunch of guys, once you get to know them" theme. It's a straight lie. They are zombies. They are here to kill you.

So, the "message" doesn't hold any water for me.

[acealive1]

land is a great movie,its somethin for my generation to enjoy. til now,we had to deal with the senseless romero knockoffs

[MinionZombie]

Subtle? DAWN was anything but subtle.
Yeah, proper Dawn was quite clear in it's consumerist examination, the characters run around screaming and hollering with glee at all the stuff they can steal for free, there are montages with them taking guns, wearing fur coats, enjoying the toys, taking the food, they fill out their little home upstairs with expensive furniture, they gamble with money they've nabbed from the bank etc etc etc ... that's all pretty clear and up front.

Like beaurocratic ineptitude, as a theme, is very clear and present in "The Crazies". Selling out, as a theme, is quite clear in "Knightriders". Identity, as a theme, is quite clear in "Bruiser"...and so forth.

*high fives Griff & Bassman*

[xopher]

I think that's very important element that gets overlooked. Man is an animal when his stomach is empty. Once he has satiated that basic desire, he is able to concentrate on bigger ambitions, to evolve behaviourally.

In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal.

It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along...

I like this perspective. Not everyone likes philosophy and religion as much as I do, but as for myself, I can make an analogy out of anything and meditate on it, so any time there's fresh fodder, I'm game.

I've felt that from the begining there was something to be learned from his films. When I watched Night as a kid, man, there was something about that movie, something I had never thought or felt before. For the first time, the good guys didn't win, or maybe the zombies WERE the good guys. It really challenged my perspective. Now, I have to say the newer films are a little softer, and I would be willing to wager that it has something to with needing to keep the film at an R-rating. It has to. Even the "unrated" version of Land really didn't have that moch gore. There were no intestines or other guts being eaten. The lighting and what-not were just too glossy/Hollywood/I-can't-exactly-put-my-finger-on-it.

You are right Griff, Romero never DID make a conventional Zombie movie, and now we've watched his movies and created within our minds a set of "rules" by which all zombies movies are supposed to operate. But George A Romero is a revolutionary. I don't think he likes to stick to "rules", and you'll notice that even though he's making a new film, and doing it independently, he's still changing the rules. He doesn't want to do the same old thing. He wants something new.

However, having said that, I really hope he toughens up Diary Of The Dead cuz even though I liked it, Land was just too soft.

(Asia looked soft too ;)) Hee hee!

[Griff]

The only reason he didn't eat, is because he was in a hurry to attack Fiddler's Green.

Uh, yeah, that's pretty much what I said. He had an agenda, he had ambition - not just for himself, but for his zombie brethren. The beginnings of revolution. They were 'making themselves useful'.

And I think Riley recognized that in Big Daddy and his buddies at the end which is why he didn't blast them. They had not acted out of greed but out of self-preservation and now, rather than rolling in the spoils, they were moving on to something hopefully better - just like them.

But, hey, whether you buy it or not, its to LAND's credit that at least we can even consider it. With DAWN04, what you see is what you get - which aint much.

[7734]

I just wish it had put as much thought and intelligence into being a great zombie movie first. Romero's social commentary should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Both Night and Dawn '78 succeeded in being great zombie movies with an undercurrent of social commentary. Land consistently made plot concessions to facilitate the social commentary. Cart before the horse.



That's the whole problem superbly uncovered. Too many plot tangents create too many plot holes. I think the best example is Cholo holding the Green as hostage. Realistically, I think, someone like him would have taken the Reckoning and all the ammo and supplies he could have stuffed in the rig and drove off, never looking behind.

These things happen to artists when there are expectations of two or three generations waiting hanging on your next product. Romero had way too much to live up to, and so his 'Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece' sort of crashed and inevitable disappointed a lot of people.

But you naysayers just wait for Diary of the Dead. He's going to bring it back to square one and put it all right.

Right?

[Griff]

That's the whole problem superbly uncovered. Too many plot tangents create too many plot holes. I think the best example is Cholo holding the Green as hostage. Realistically, I think, someone like him would have taken the Reckoning and all the ammo and supplies he could have stuffed in the rig and drove off, never looking behind.

That's fine... Except you've described exactly what Riley does. Cholo buys into the whole Fiddler's Green farce but Riley sees it for the artificial construct that it is. Cholo's actions are meant to be irrational or, at least, based on a false rationale. Riley is the voice of reason who, like Big Daddy, sees beyond the diversions, recognizes the real issues at hand and acts accordingly. In a sense, he's like a less passive version of John from DAY OF THE DEAD who, along with McDermott, sees the futility of their situation and can't understand why others would cling to it.

I would never argue that LAND OF THE DEAD is 100 percent realistic but I do believe that it is governed by reason. These plot holes that people speak of aren't oversight's on behalf of Romero but rather his characters who subscribe to a false ideal. Money and riches shouldn't have any value in an artificial world, surrounded by death, with an upperclass that thrives and prospers at the expense of the masses ...and it shouldn't have any value in Fiddler's Green, either. But it does.

And that's no plot hole - its a point.

[MinionZombie]

Eh? The reason Cholo took Dead Reckoning was purely so he had leverage over Kaufman, Cholo was only interested in money, and if Kaufman didn't pay up, he'd just take Dead Reckoning instead.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Subtle? DAWN was anything but subtle.


The commentary in DAWN was way more subtle than in Land. I don't believe the social commentary was as in your face in DAWN as it was in LAND.

[vill666]

I've loved every zombie movie made except house of the dead...land had a good story..I liked it...

[DubiousComforts]

The commentary in DAWN was way more subtle than in Land. I don't believe the social commentary was as in your face in DAWN as it was in LAND.
If you're refering to DAWN '04, that's because it had no social commentary. It had a mall setting, and that's where all similarities between original and remake end. The commentary is why Romero's films are held up above all the remakes and "re-imaginings." Otherwise, you might as well be watching Resident Evil or Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town. Romero's films always break new ground, an area which other genre films lack. That being said, the commentary in LAND wasn't handled very well.

[Danny]

*fireowkrs go off and for more totally scripted dramatism hellsing shows up to join in with bassman and mz to throw his dawn 04 bithcin's in the ring*

dude, dawns story was NOT better than lands, there wasnt one other than run, at least there was some focus in land, this aint a flame at dj, its just dawn strated so ****ing great, the opening carnage was fan-****ing-tastic, but it just got so downhill, ving rhames, the less said the better since theres nothing positive but it added so many unnessecary characters which had little screen time or plot involvement in any way and it just didnt flow well narrative wise, sure the camera work was nice but when you dont care about the cahracters or get drawn in does it matter?
im not too big a fan of either but land is by far adn wide my favourite of the two, though i gotta say resi 3 was much better than dawn 04.

oh yes.

i whent there, bought a t-shirt, took some pictures, whent on the rides, had a time, brought it back, but not before saving some in a foil wrapped doggy back to bring it back again later.

oh yes, i whent there.:lol:

[Trin]

Dawn '78 wasn't subtle in its commentary. However, the commentary flowed from the plot very well so it didn't draw attention to itself like what happens in Land. Yes, the survivors embraced consumerism with gusto. But you don't scratch your head and wonder why. With Land we find ourselves excusing the plot and characters, explaining that any deficiencies exist to support the director's message.

I agree that characters have intentional flaws and those are not plot holes. Where I see plot holes are where the society's flaws on a whole literally defy its existence. The sheer ineptitude of the Green to defend itself makes you wonder how it ever came to be, or how it has managed to stay in power at all.

I understand the message that Big Daddy and the zombies were evolving past their need to feed. I agree that is likely the vision Romero intended. But I think it's lame and contributes to Land being a bad movie.

Bub was a horror masterpiece. He gave us hope that the zombies could overcome their instincts. But that hope was snatched away when we discover he'd merely been trained to accept a deferred reward.

Changing the nature of zombies from flesh eating monsters to introspective misunderstood beings who just want to discuss their feelings over tea does not make the zombies more interesting, nor does it make Romero a visionary.

For a Land Sequel I think we should have Litigation of the Dead, where Big Daddy represents Cholo and the other zombies in a class action lawsuit to get his money. With that much potential for social commentary you wouldn't need to burden yourself with plot at all.

[MinionZombie]

oh yes.

i whent there, bought a t-shirt, took some pictures, whent on the rides, had a time, brought it back, but not before saving some in a foil wrapped doggy back to bring it back again later.

oh yes, i whent there.

I f*ckin' love that, has to be said. :D

[SRP76]

Big Daddy represents Cholo and the other zombies in a class action lawsuit to get his money.

:lol:

As outrageous as that sounds, there's probably someone out there, thinking, "hey, that would be a great idea!".

[DjfunkmasterG]

If you're refering to DAWN '04, that's because it had no social commentary. It had a mall setting, and that's where all similarities between original and remake end. The commentary is why Romero's films are held up above all the remakes and "re-imaginings." Otherwise, you might as well be watching Resident Evil or Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town. Romero's films always break new ground, an area which other genre films lack. That being said, the commentary in LAND wasn't handled very well.

Nope I was referring to the original DAWN.

[Trin]

Comparing Land and Dawn '04 is like asking which works better to relieve the pain of a headache - a nail driven through your foot or watching an Oprah marathon for 24 hours solid? They're both horrible in completely different ways, and neither satisfies the intended desire.

[DjfunkmasterG]

What else can you compare Land too? In the glut of Zombie films that came out between 2003 and 2005, the only ones worth comparing are Land and Dawn. I won't compare RE flicks with them, frankly because the RE films have sucked (I haven't seen 3, but from what I hear I ain't missing much.)

[Trin]

Beyond a very high level "which do I like more" comparison, I don't know how you compare Land and Dawn '04. They're not trying to be the same thing.

To answer that high level question I liked Land better than Dawn '04 (my apologies to DJ). Perhaps for no better reason than Land was a Romero movie in the 'Dead' universe and I'm hungry for anything that adds to the series.

I will say that I think Dawn '04 did a better of job of meeting its goals. It tried to be a thrill ride and it was.

And I can't hold this in any longer. Zombie baby plus deranged baby-daddy puts Dawn '04 on the same level as Chopping Mall. Yeah, I went there too...

[Mutineer]

I walked out of DAWN 04 totally jazzed. One of the best Zombie films I have ever watched; pure entertainment, action and adrenalin. Nothing like the orginal sans the Mall and as I have oft stated, the opening scene and credits were worth the price of admission alone.

The action, suspense, the mood created and the getting down to business made it a fun ride. I still don't see how there can be haters on DAWN 04 ? I think it mainly due to the ROMERO GOGGLES; just admit, Zach did a better job than George did.

Romero had an opportunity to finally do something special, with Undead films at it's highest peak ever, and he made a boring, poorly constructed film.

The charcters sucked, the plot sucked, the Dead Reckoning was a joke, the gags were amatuerish, it wasn't scary, it had ZERO mood and the action scenes were a joke.

The zombies overunning the citizens of Fiddlers Green was comical; patrons sitting at the cafe tables as zombies run, no .... walk slowly in and overrun them ?

Come on.

Big Daddy's intelligence and 6th sense powers were an insult to zombiedom. The mob, er 20 or so zombies that walk underwater across a river was bad, bad, bad. Completely inplausible even in the Land if the Undead.

The scene where homeboy is aiming his gun at the little man through the (I think they were bleachers?) was bad, bad, bad.

All of the vacant buildings with only FG being occopied was lame, lame, lame.

It was a horrible film from the moment the zombies were playing the horns and we saw a zombie couple holding hands.

-

DAWN 04, 28 Days and Weeks and Shaun all blow this film out of the water.

-

George ? Thank you for giving us the Undead Genre, but you are a skilless hack of a director whose chops just have never developed.

-

[Danny]

teh only thing saving dawn 04 for me is it opened with jhonny -mother ****ing- cash! though ive said it many times before the opening 15 mins rocked, but the its just seemed to lose steam, plus ,yknow, dont make me bring up the a-team construction montage again folks.
but its all personal tastes so there is no definitive answer, i prefer ladn too awn, yet preffered resi 3 to both of them, adn thats just me, everone likes the same films for different reasons, so different strokes for different folks, i mean we can bitch again adn again, and do, over which is scarier, orhas the better script but in the end its all just personal tastes and preferance so there is no answer, hence my ouroboruos reference a few pages back.

[bassman]

I love how some try to change other's opinions....

Like what you like and move on. Or at least just take stabs at each other every once in a while like MZ, DJ, and myself.:p

[Mutineer]

I agree, DAWN 04 was not perfect by any means

The A-Team scene was silly, the dog girl was grossly a bad idea but somewhat saved with 'We gotta go get the guns anyway' reasoning.

I also see where it lost some steam, but with an opening like it had, it could be hard to top. It is as if the climax opened the film.

-

I loved the cast. Steve was the perfect Dick. Michael was beliavable and likable as the leader. Ving underplayed what could have been an over powering personality. Even the hot chick carried a cool vibe. CJ was rad but I wish we could have seen his development transitioned properly and not suddenly a cool guy.

I could have done without the young lovers and the redneck securty guard.

I totally embrace the running the zombies. I think the genre needed the twist. Yes, 28 Days Later did it first and YES, Return of the Living Dead can claim the fame on the idea; Return (My FAV of all based purely on the Punk Rock atmosphere and characters) never seemed to have the ferocity and terror that 28 Days and DAWN 04 created with their running dead.

To be clear; I wanted LAND to rock. I went in with 100% support and enthusiasm and walked out almost embarrassed for it. Whereas I ran home telling my wife "OMG, you gotta see DAWN 04 !, I came home from LAND with "Eh, wasn't very good." : /

Each to his own. :dead::confused:

-

A liner note:

I found 28 Weeks Later to be a nice entry and would welcome a sequel into that world.

[Danny]

now if i was him, i wouldnt have even done a mall bit, just keep her running adn viewing the u.s fall apart as she crosses it, make the entire movie like the opening, granted itd be the most expesnive horror movei ever but thats easily a 9 out of 10:lol:

[Mutineer]

True true true !

[MinionZombie]

Who'd need that when World War Z is gonna get made? Now that is a zombie war epic in waiting, I'm still reading the book, just read the chapter about German forces having to retreat (just after the bit about Redecker - which was awesome by the way).

Now if they can make that book into an awesome movie that is faithful to the source material - THAT will be worth while. Something new in and of itself.

[Danny]

im at the bit were there camping in the north in the audio novel, i think mark hamils performance as the army vet in the world war z audio novel was great, i hope he plays the dude in the movie as well.

[MinionZombie]

Audio Novel?! You lazy bastard! :lol::D

[Danny]

well i heard that it had some names in it like hamil so it was the proper choice, plus i couldnt find a torrent of a pdf:lol:

[Legion2213]

Dawn '78 wasn't subtle in its commentary. However, the commentary flowed from the plot very well so it didn't draw attention to itself like what happens in Land. Yes, the survivors embraced consumerism with gusto. But you don't scratch your head and wonder why. With Land we find ourselves excusing the plot and characters, explaining that any deficiencies exist to support the director's message.

I agree that characters have intentional flaws and those are not plot holes. Where I see plot holes are where the society's flaws on a whole literally defy its existence. The sheer ineptitude of the Green to defend itself makes you wonder how it ever came to be, or how it has managed to stay in power at all.

I understand the message that Big Daddy and the zombies were evolving past their need to feed. I agree that is likely the vision Romero intended. But I think it's lame and contributes to Land being a bad movie.

Bub was a horror masterpiece. He gave us hope that the zombies could overcome their instincts. But that hope was snatched away when we discover he'd merely been trained to accept a deferred reward.

Changing the nature of zombies from flesh eating monsters to introspective misunderstood beings who just want to discuss their feelings over tea does not make the zombies more interesting, nor does it make Romero a visionary.

For a Land Sequel I think we should have Litigation of the Dead, where Big Daddy represents Cholo and the other zombies in a class action lawsuit to get his money. With that much potential for social commentary you wouldn't need to burden yourself with plot at all.

Excellent post.

You nailed the problem with the "Land" zombies right on the head.

I want my zeds smashing down barricades and trying to eat my brains...not "looking for a place to go"....jeez!

"Land" was a massive let down for me.

[clanglee]

Excellent post.

I want my zeds smashing down barricades and trying to eat my brains...not "looking for a place to go"....jeez!

.

No you didn't!!! The brain faux pax!!! Get a rope!!! ;)

I agree with you in principle though. . .. .

[Legion2213]

Oops. :o

Of course, I meant "vital organs", not "brains"...easy mistake to make...:D

[Trin]

Maybe the zombies in Land stopped eating people because they do prefer brains and couldn't find any humans left with any.

And thanks for the props on my post!!

[SRP76]

When did they stop eating people? They ate everyone in Fiddler's Green, and ate everyone that was trapped in "The Throat".

They ate all kinds of people in that movie.

[clanglee]

Not when Big Daddy told 'em not to. You see when Big Daddy grunts and grits his teeth. . .that means "lunch time is over". . .or "Duck for cover!! They are shooting at us. Can't you see?" . . . or "Here, Using the aid of this grunt and this simple hand gesture, I would very much like for you to use your rapidly decomposing brain to make an unlikely leap of intuition thereby aiding us in our endeavor to raid the human city, not to dine upon them, but simply to oust them from their homes and cause general panic, thus exacting my revenge upon a man that I have never before seen, but that I, in some mysterious way, will know is the leader of said humans! .. . and. . umm. . then I'll blow his car up." :rolleyes:

[bassman]

Not when Big Daddy told 'em not to. You see when Big Daddy grunts and grits his teeth. . .that means "lunch time is over". . .or "Duck for cover!! They are shooting at us. Can't you see?" . . . or "Here, Using the aid of this grunt and this simple hand gesture, I would very much like for you to use your rapidly decomposing brain to make an unlikely leap of intuition thereby aiding us in our endeavor to raid the human city, not to dine upon them, but simply to oust them from their homes and cause general panic, thus exacting my revenge upon a man that I have never before seen, but that I, in some mysterious way, will know is the leader of said humans! .. . and. . umm. . then I'll blow his car up." :rolleyes:

Just a few things....


"aiding us in our endeavor to raid the human city, not to dine upon them, but simply to oust them from their homes and cause general panic"

This is what the humans had done to the dead in Uniontown where Big Daddy was from. He wanted to wreak the same havoc upon Fiddler's Green. Think 9/11 to Afghanistan.


"thus exacting my revenge upon a man that I have never before seen, but that I, in some mysterious way, will know is the leader of said humans! .. . and. . umm. . then I'll blow his car up"

If you notice, Kaufman basically runs right into the wall of zombies coming his way. Then Kaufman shoots Big Daddy. This pisses Big Daddy off and he goes after him. BD didn't necesarilly know Kaufman was the leader, but Kaufman kinda showed him that he had something to do with it because he was the only human in Fiddler's Green that was shooting at the zombies.

And about the car blowing up.....Kaufman locked the doors.:confused: What else was BD to do? Chew his way through the car? He was an evolved zombie(and an ex-gas station attendant) so he knew what the gas could do and he took out the car.

[Danny]

..for a few days ther ei really thought this descussio had finally died....:lol:

[clanglee]

I hear you Bassman, but my point was, there were complex messages being passed from Big Daddy to the other "regular" zombies. I just incorperated some of my other beefs about the movie into my general rant. The idea of a GAR zombie advancing that far mentally was just plain silly. And him being able to teach the others, also silly. One would think that a zombie would start out smart, and then get dumber as time progressed, and his brain matter liquifies. Ahhh well.

[Mutineer]

I agree

Absurd and lame and bad.

Why do so many people hate LAND ?

Cause it sucked.

[panic]

Sad, but true.


I agree

Absurd and lame and bad.

Why do so many people hate LAND ?

Cause it sucked.

[bassman]

I hear you Bassman, but my point was, there were complex messages being passed from Big Daddy to the other "regular" zombies. I just incorperated some of my other beefs about the movie into my general rant. The idea of a GAR zombie advancing that far mentally was just plain silly. And him being able to teach the others, also silly. One would think that a zombie would start out smart, and then get dumber as time progressed, and his brain matter liquifies. Ahhh well.

If the story had continued from Day, I think Bub would have communicated with others. He was smarter than BD....

[Trin]

If the story had continued from Day, I think Bub would have communicated with others. He was smarter than BD....
I think Bub would have gone in search of emotional solace to ease his loss. Finding the zombies lacking in compassion he'd leave the military base. His quest for love would lead him north, finally ending when he sees a shining beacon of light stretching to the heavens. Standing on the docks, peering across the river, he knows the human companionship he craves is just a short walk away. He walks into the water and begins across.

And is swept to the ocean because ZOMBIES CANNOT WALK ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF A FLOWING RIVER!!!

One thing I do find interesting is that at the end of Day Bub doesn't eat Rhodes. He put revenge over hunger. If you want to point to a telling similarity between Bub and BD then that's the important one imo.

[bassman]

And is swept to the ocean because ZOMBIES CANNOT WALK ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF A FLOWING RIVER!!!


Pssst. Hey. pssst. *taps on your shoulder from behind and whispers* Zombies are fiction to begin with.:shifty:

You have a good point about Bub not eating Rhodes, though. I didn't think of that one.

[ProfessorChaos]

I think Bub would have gone in search of emotional solace to ease his loss. Finding the zombies lacking in compassion he'd leave the military base. His quest for love would lead him north, finally ending when he sees a shining beacon of light stretching to the heavens. Standing on the docks, peering across the river, he knows the human companionship he craves is just a short walk away. He walks into the water and begins across.

And is swept to the ocean because ZOMBIES CANNOT WALK ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF A FLOWING RIVER!!!


:lol::lol::lol:

nice.;)

[Trin]

Pssst. Hey. pssst. *taps on your shoulder from behind and whispers* Zombies are fiction to begin with.:shifty:
My therapist says I'm not ready to talk about that yet but with some time and progress...

[Legion2213]

My therapist says I'm not ready to talk about that yet but with some time and progress...

Bassman & your therapist...they tell lies!!!

Stay sharp soldier...stay alert! :D

[SRP76]

If the story had continued from Day, I think Bub would have communicated with others. He was smarter than BD....

I don't think so, at all. He appeared to have no inclination to "talk" to the other dead as they were tearing Rhodes apart. He just left.

Without Logan, Bub would have just gone back to being stupid. Remember, he did those fantastic things for a reason - "the reward".

Like Logan said himself, with no reward, there is NO USE for "civilized behavior". With Logan dead, Bub wasn't getting any more rewards.

And let's not forget the whole problem with "the reward", in the first place: it was human flesh!

Through all of it, Bub was still just a flesheater; he was just doing tricks for it, instead of ripping it right off your skeleton.

With no more "soldier jerky" being served, he would go back to just getting it in the old-fashioned way.

[DubiousComforts]

I walked out of DAWN 04 totally jazzed. One of the best Zombie films I have ever watched; pure entertainment, action and adrenalin. Nothing like the orginal sans the Mall and as I have oft stated, the opening scene and credits were worth the price of admission
These are the exact reasons why I dislike DAWN '04: mindless filmmkaing for a non-thinking generation. There is certainly no accounting for taste (or lack thereof), but "good popcorn movie" is simply not a valid gauge of quality.

There are hundreds of "popcorn movies." Thousands. A million of them! With all the available technology, any idiot can make an action/adrenaline movie. And any idiot usually does. Did you happen to catch 30 Days of Night? Now we have DAWN-like fast vampires, too, but still no story and certainly no imagination.

Btw, I dislike LAND, too, but you have to admit the intro/set-up was just as cool as DAWN '04 (minus a car chase).

And despite how many people hate it, the fact is that SHAUN of The DEAD had more thought put into it than either DAWN or LAND, and lo and behold, the filmmakers' ideas are actually prevalent on the screen. What a concept! :D



One thing I do find interesting is that at the end of Day Bub doesn't eat Rhodes. He put revenge over hunger. If you want to point to a telling similarity between Bub and BD then that's the important one imo.
If you recall, Bub had just fed on "his reward." He had been successfully conditioned, and there was no reason for him to feed mindlessly again or he could have eaten Logan, too.

[Legion2213]

Bub was pretty damn upset when he found Logan...the fact that he had gone to find him and "tell him" that his chain had come loose made it all the more sad. :(

Bub was a wonderful zombie character, everybody loves Bub....Big Daddy was just an annoying git...nobody loves him.

[ProfessorChaos]

....Big Daddy was just an annoying git...nobody loves him.

in fact, i'd say that everybody hates him.:D

[Danny]

*barges through the crowd and stands forward in a superman pose*

actually I like big daddy, he really seemed to feel for all the other zombies dying for what in his mind was no reason, though in etrospect im one of the younger members here so maybe its a generational thing yknow?, i duno but point is there was a lot worse than big d in land, dont make me bring up "motown" again and that spanish dude.

pilsbury was the **** though.;)

[MinionZombie]

Pilsbury was awesome.

Big Daddy was good too, I liked Biggy D. :cool::)

[Danny]

*borat voice ON* high fiiiiiveee!:D

[MinionZombie]

*borat voice ON* high fiiiiiveee!:D
I mean who doesn't love a fat Samoan guy talking about grand theft auto? :)

[bassman]

I mean who doesn't love a fat Samoan guy talking about grand theft auto? :)


Yeah, he was pretty funny. The other two that Faufman sent are pretty much Banta fodder, but every flick has those.

[MinionZombie]

At least they had names, not like the blonde chick who's only there to get effed in the A, in Yawn04. :lol:

One of my points for my 'post-millennial development of the horror genre' dissertation chapter on Yawn04.

[clanglee]

This was a post of mine from another thread, but I think it sums up my feelings on the soldier characters. Thought it would be rather appropriate on this thread.


"I already voted for Big Daddy here, but my close second was Pilsbury. How the F#$k did that big fat samoan get away from the zombies in the first place? And please tell me what the F^*k he was doing there in the first place!? The only stupider (i know it's not a word) character was that bullfighter guy, carrying around his retarded little bullfighter cap. How gay is that!? Who thought THAT would be a neat character quirk!!? I cheered so loud when that idiot son of a transvestite whore got shot!! um. . . . . .oh my. . did i just go off on a rant? Terribly sorry. . ."


As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Pilsbury.

[Mutineer]

Pssst. Hey. pssst. *taps on your shoulder from behind and whispers* Zombies are fiction to begin with.:shifty:


The point is that it needs to stay plausible within' the created world.

[panic]

Actually, the point is to:

1. Make a movie people watch and enjoy,
2. Make a film that you're happy with and tells the story you want to tell,
3. Hopefully make a movie that is financially successful so you can make your next film.


The point is that it needs to stay plausible within' the created world.

[MinionZombie]

Actually, the point is to:

1. Make a movie people watch and enjoy,
2. Make a film that you're happy with and tells the story you want to tell,
3. Hopefully make a movie that is financially successful so you can make your next film.
And GAR achieved all those with Land of the Dead.

Also, within his universe, Big Daddy makes sense and is the next step in the zombie evolution. Heck, in Day of the Dead, Bub recognised shaving, a toothbrush, a book, listened to music, said "hello aunt Alicia/Elisha/however you spell it" on a phone, was a cock-in-the-mouth-shy (to quote Kevin Smith) of being full on flaming for Dr Logan, and then had a actually emotional scene (hey, it gives me the shivers anyway) when poor old Bub finds Logan dead in the freezer.

Bub also ends up having a one-on-one feud with Rhodes and chases him down, shooting him several times before leaving him to the 'wolves' and sarcastically saluting him...

And people bitch about Big Daddy?

Geez...some people are fussy. :sneaky:

[Mutineer]

Actually, the point is to:

1. Make a movie people watch and enjoy,
2. Make a film that you're happy with and tells the story you want to tell,
3. Hopefully make a movie that is financially successful so you can make your next film.

2 out of 3 aint bad. :D :p

[Legion2213]

And GAR achieved all those with Land of the Dead.

Also, within his universe, Big Daddy makes sense and is the next step in the zombie evolution. Heck, in Day of the Dead, Bub recognised shaving, a toothbrush, a book, listened to music, said "hello aunt Alicia/Elisha/however you spell it" on a phone, was a cock-in-the-mouth-shy (to quote Kevin Smith) of being full on flaming for Dr Logan, and then had a actually emotional scene (hey, it gives me the shivers anyway) when poor old Bub finds Logan dead in the freezer.

Bub also ends up having a one-on-one feud with Rhodes and chases him down, shooting him several times before leaving him to the 'wolves' and sarcastically saluting him...

And people bitch about Big Daddy?

Geez...some people are fussy. :sneaky:

Bub was taught those things by a smart human (over weeks/months) he didn't just start doing them of his own accord...that's how he developed.

[MinionZombie]

Nout to do with how the lessons were learned, I was merely pointing out the elements in the story, comparing it to Land ... and then being confused why some people get so bent out of shape over Biggy D.

I like Biggy D, as I've said before. *high fives hellsing over mutual Biggy D respect ... knuckles* :D

[SRP76]

Nout to do with how the lessons were learned, I was merely pointing out the elements in the story, comparing it to Land ... and then being confused why some people get so bent out of shape over Biggy D.



See, I never liked Bub (or the concept of Bub), in the first place. So a new "SuperBub" zombie wouldn't appeal to me.

[MinionZombie]

See, I never liked Bub (or the concept of Bub), in the first place. So a new "SuperBub" zombie wouldn't appeal to me.
Well at least Sir, you're consistent. :)

[Trin]

I like Bub. I hate Big Daddy.

Bub was plausible. He was trained over a period of time. His highest level actions were still simplistic and within the bounds of what he'd been shown and what he knew from his life. The emotions he displayed were likewise simplistic and commensurate with his level of development. And perhaps most importantly we never got the sense that the same thing couldn't have been done to any of the zombies. He wasn't really different.

With Big Daddy we're expected to buy off that he was different, more evolved, more intelligent - more whatever. With no rationale behind it we're supposed to accept that he was just advanced.

I have no problem with the zombies re-capturing higher level functionality after being left alone for years. But why just one zombie? And why was he soooo much more advanced? And why did his enlightenment come so suddenly? One day he's tending his gas station hearing a ding and wondering where the car is and by the next dawn he's teaching other zombies to use machine guns.

I'd be happier with LOTD if all the zombies had evolved similarly. If they'd all started to show some emotions, skills, and remembered behaviors it would've been more plausible. And when the humans come and disrupt their "community" they are able to band together and rise above their limitations - that makes sense.

I'd also be happier if the zombified Theodore Tugboat had escorted the zombie masses across the river using his remembered tugboat skills.

[clanglee]

:lol: Trin, I agree. My main problem was how BD was able to pass on his knowledge and control over himself to the other zombies. Also, IMHO, the actor sucked. He was WAY over the top. TOO much emotion. Way too much emotion for a zombie. I know, I know "Bub showed emotion" yadda yadda yadda. The actor who played Bub made me believe in his zombie plight. Bub showed only a little emotion, more like a little simple kid than an enraged linebacker. I dunno, Big Daddy just sucked.

[Danny]

I like Bub. I hate Big Daddy.

Bub was plausible. He was trained over a period of time. His highest level actions were still simplistic and within the bounds of what he'd been shown and what he knew from his life. The emotions he displayed were likewise simplistic and commensurate with his level of development. And perhaps most importantly we never got the sense that the same thing couldn't have been done to any of the zombies. He wasn't really different.

With Big Daddy we're expected to buy off that he was different, more evolved, more intelligent - more whatever. With no rationale behind it we're supposed to accept that he was just advanced.

I have no problem with the zombies re-capturing higher level functionality after being left alone for years. But why just one zombie? And why was he soooo much more advanced? And why did his enlightenment come so suddenly? One day he's tending his gas station hearing a ding and wondering where the car is and by the next dawn he's teaching other zombies to use machine guns.

I'd be happier with LOTD if all the zombies had evolved similarly. If they'd all started to show some emotions, skills, and remembered behaviors it would've been more plausible. And when the humans come and disrupt their "community" they are able to band together and rise above their limitations - that makes sense.

I'd also be happier if the zombified Theodore Tugboat had escorted the zombie masses across the river using his remembered tugboat skills.

well unlike day they werent jsut shambling, they were all remmbering, the couple walked hand in hand, the brass band ect. daddy just seemed to be gaining a little more cognitive ability than the others, but only a little i.e he just rmemebered that much more, and when he showed others the lightbulb clicked above them too, least thats my view, big daddy rocks - and with that im off to watch land again, screw y'all i love that movie.

[clanglee]

I'm starting to think this is a generational thing. With MOST of the older people disliking the movie, and MOST of the younger people liking it. Ahh well, with age comes wisdom. . . ;)

[darth los]

Maybe because we're old enough to recall when movies were actually good and original. Have you seen what passes for a blockbuster movie in the past few years? It's sickening. :hurl:

[Doc]

Maybe because we're old enough to recall when movies were actually good and original. Have you seen what passes for a blockbuster movie in the past few years? It's sickening. :hurl:

I'll hurl with you. :hurl:

[darth los]

If any more people join the hurl parade others might think that we're at the back end of a kegger !! :D

[clanglee]

:lol::lol::lol: . . . :| uh oh :barf: :hurl:

[Skippy911sc]

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles. And don't get me started on the CGI stuff. I like the idea that guys pushed plungers down and fake blood sprayed out all over...instead of the computer putting the blood in. But we must evolve with the films. Not everything is a Citizens Kane or DOTD ;)

[MinionZombie]

Land of the Dead is far removed from the brainless likes of many modern horror movies, or films like SAW which are horror-on-crack fast.

As for fast pace, dude - Dawn of the Dead. The pace of that film, even in the extended cut, is quite often rip-roaring. The opening 15 minutes is damn-near relentless, fast cuts, shedloads of action, guns going off, heads exploding, flesh-eating - you name it, it's got it.

Now, Yawn04, that is the ADHD-addled ugly stepchild of zombie horror. Flashy colours and MTV style ... and no substance.

[darth los]

This is definitely one thread that never seems to burn out. People feel how they feel and i doubt that will ever change.

[Doc]

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles. And don't get me started on the CGI stuff. I know what you mean. :lol:

[Danny]

I think the generational idea is very true. This idea that there always has to be something happening and in a fast forward type of action is crazy...most of the time I have a hard time watching modern movies due to the fast paced filming the double shots...just look at the new Bourne film...I like them but they start to give me a headache from all the flashing camera angles.

lol, as i said on my radio shwo t'uther day, i watched my first hd-dvd movie, children of men and had to stop 55 mins in from a head splitting migrane.:lol:

high definition officially kills your brain.

[clanglee]

You have a point, but what I really think it is is the whole "Set in our ways" thing. Land broke away from too many staples of the George Romero zombie films. We oldies grew up with these movies. We have a certain brand loyalty. When Land came out, I think we felt a bit betrayed by the movie. It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting. Kind of like when New Coke came out. (and if you don't remember that whole horrid affair, you are of the younger generation) I happen to like Dawn'04 Which was fast paced. I don't think Land was fast paced, it was rather well paced as a matter of fact. My problem with Land is is a juvenile effort compared to GAR's previous dead movies. Crap plot, with holes the size of Pittsburg. Silly characters, and sub par acting. Dawn'04 wasn't a GAR movie, and it was much better constructed than Land. Sad sad sad.

[Legion2213]

You have a point, but what I really think it is is the whole "Set in our ways" thing. Land broke away from too many staples of the George Romero zombie films. We oldies grew up with these movies. We have a certain brand loyalty. When Land came out, I think we felt a bit betrayed by the movie. It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting. Kind of like when New Coke came out. (and if you don't remember that whole horrid affair, you are of the younger generation) I happen to like Dawn'04 Which was fast paced. I don't think Land was fast paced, it was rather well paced as a matter of fact. My problem with Land is is a juvenile effort compared to GAR's previous dead movies. Crap plot, with holes the size of Pittsburg. Silly characters, and sub par acting. Dawn'04 wasn't a GAR movie, and it was much better constructed than Land. Sad sad sad.

I actually cared and worried about the fate of one of the characters in Dawn 04 (Andy), I found it very hard to worry about the fate of anybody in Land. I just didn't care about any of those people.

Dawn 04 is a decent movie...one of the best non-GAR zombie movies in my limited experience. As for Land, well, it had the same effect on me as the first "new" Star Wars movie...:(

[Griff]

well unlike day they werent jsut shambling, they were all remmbering, the couple walked hand in hand, the brass band ect. daddy just seemed to be gaining a little more cognitive ability than the others, but only a little i.e he just rmemebered that much more, and when he showed others the lightbulb clicked above them too, least thats my view, big daddy rocks - and with that im off to watch land again, screw y'all i love that movie.

Yes! Here was my theory on the zombie evolution in LAND:

"The zombs in LAND (well, those from Big Daddy's hood, at least) seem to have certainly learnt to develop beyond mere eating machines. Like live humans who are able to satiate that basic desire, they're then free to pursue other endevours. Like starting families and living in communities. Or playing the tamborine.

The other thing to consider, however, is that they also seem very adept at mimicry and the ability to learn upon that. Big Daddy wields a gun because he's seen what it can do. Ultimately, its his influence that spreads across the living dead of Uniontown. You could almost picture Bub, at the end of DAY, wandering out into the dead community with the skills he's developed and becoming the catalyst for a similar situation. This has been hinted at since before Stephen led the brigade up the stairs in DAWN, indeed all the way back to when the dead first gravitated to that one particular farmhouse in NIGHT.

The evolution of the zombie may be less gradual and more spontaneous than we think. All it takes is that initial impulsion to motivate progress and then the evolutionary process is off and running at an indeterminable rate. A lack of stimuli, on the other hand, could explain why certain zombie groups seem to stagnate - just like primitive cultures that remain unchanged, even after tens of thousands of years. Then they have their first, small taste of 'civilization' and the next thing you know, they're using steel instead of stone and wearing Nike t-shirts that cover up their genitalia.

In otherwords, the zombie's ability to to develop culturally may have been innate from the very beginning, it just requires a little provocation."

I found it almost profound how once food had been taken out of the equation (for the dead residents of Uniontown must've gone a very long time without eating since their stores have yet to be raided), the zombies began to re-develop their old pre-death behaviours. Big Daddy is back at the gas station... the band is playing in the gazebo... a couple goes for a leisurely stroll, hand in hand... hell, one zombie is even content enough to just chill out on the park bench.

Its only when this kind of tranquility is violently torn apart by the supply raiders that Big Daddy throws down his gas pump, picks up a weapon and marches off to war, with those he has enlightened in tow.

To others with their fleeting consideration and brisk dismissal of the whole thing, its just another plot hole. To me it says alot about Romero's thoughts on revolution, violent revolution and its quest to establish some kinda of civilized order out of chaos.

To me the LAND vs DAWN04 debate isn't about age, its about perception, or the lack thereof...

[Doc]

This has been hinted at since before Peter led the brigade up the stairs in DAWN






Don't you mean Stephen?

[Griff]

Don't you mean Stephen?

Shut up.

Fixed...

[darth los]

My problem with Land is is a juvenile effort compared to GAR's previous dead movies. Crap plot, with holes the size of Pittsburg. Silly characters, and sub par acting. Dawn'04 wasn't a GAR movie, and it was much better constructed than Land. Sad sad sad.

There's no bigger gar fan than myself. However, i said it before and i'll say it again: imo land is of the quality that if i didn't know better and someone told me that it was a sci-fi channel original movie, i'd believe them. I'd be like " yeah, that sounds about right".

[MinionZombie]

As for the whole "old timer" thing, it's a bit black & white.

I came to the series and GAR's films long before Land came along. I've watched the original & best Dawn many-a-time before seeing Land, I love GAR's earlier work with gusto, and yet I still love Land because I see it as a good film.

So I think the whole "young n old" thing is a bit tar-brush-like to be honest. I'm young, and I thought Yawn04 was f*cking pish.

[bassman]

As for the whole "old timer" thing, it's a bit black & white.

I came to the series and GAR's films long before Land came along. I've watched the original & best Dawn many-a-time before seeing Land, I love GAR's earlier work with gusto, and yet I still love Land because I see it as a good film.

So I think the whole "young n old" thing is a bit tar-brush-like to be honest. I'm young, and I thought Yawn04 was f*cking pish.

Same here. To say it has to do with age is just stretching. Sounds like they seem to think we saw Land and then came to HPOTD and saw the other films.

I think MZ agrees with me that it's the least of Romero's Dead films, but it's still a decent flick. Someone earlier said "It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting.".....what were you expecting? The first three are all totally different films. Were you expecting Land to be identical to one of them or something?

Anyway....it's not his best, but it's better than most. And the age argument is just insane.

[MinionZombie]

Same here. To say it has to do with age is just stretching. Sounds like they seem to think we saw Land and then came to HPOTD and saw the other films.

I think MZ agrees with me that it's the least of Romero's Dead films, but it's still a decent flick. Someone earlier said "It wasn't what we were hoping for, or expecting.".....what were you expecting? The first three are all totally different films. Were you expecting Land to be identical to one of them or something?

Anyway....it's not his best, but it's better than most. And the age argument is just insane.
Once again bassman, you're on my level.

If I get my brain going long enough to find the dusty old file in the cabinet, I think the reason I ended up coming here was either:

1) Reading an article in a 1997 issue of SFX magazine on GAR

or

2) Watching Day of the Dead (I watched the GAR zed flicks backwards, then Land).

Saw Dawn on my 15th birthday, so I saw Day when I was somewhere around 14 and a half.

Land is the least of GAR's zed flicks, but I think it's more because it was 20 years after the last one of the 'trilogy', all of which have had years and years, decades even, of following and cult worship.

Land busts in 20 years later, into a world of expectations from fans - expectations are death to any movie. I didn't go in expecting anything, and I loved it.

And you're quite right, all the films are completely different from one another. It's why Day of the Dead flopped in cinemas, people were expecting another Dawn of the Dead - with Land of the Dead they were expecting the same movies all fudged together into one flick, well unsurprisingly that didn't happen because GAR had others things to say and others ways to say them - just like he did with Day, just like he did with Dawn.

Land may have suffered at the hands of the studio involved, but since when did a GAR film not experience a trouble-free production?

[darth los]

Anyway....it's not his best, but it's better than most.


I knew we could find common ground on this issue. :)

[clanglee]

Ahhhh, my age argument obviously came off in the wrong way. I am not suggesting that younger people are lesser fans. But When you have waited as long as we have for the next movie to come out, It does effect your expectations. Thing is, I am unable to go into a GAR movie without expectations. I expect good movies from him, not mediocre efforts. Land was a mediocre effort. Granted, better than most Z movies, but by far the worst of GAR's so far. FAR below the level of the others. Now, the age thing. . .I am old and set in my ways. That explains my expectations. I NEVER said my theory holds true for everyone, just an observation that seems to be supported by most of the postings on this thread. Young people are more accepting of new things in general. Anyways, I'm sure I missed a few points, hard to post at work and concentrate, but I'll get back later.


Yes! Here was my theory on the zombie evolution in LAND:

"The zombs in LAND (well, those from Big Daddy's hood, at least) seem to have certainly learnt to develop beyond mere eating machines. Like live humans who are able to satiate that basic desire, they're then free to pursue other endevours. Like starting families and living in communities. Or playing the tamborine.

The other thing to consider, however, is that they also seem very adept at mimicry and the ability to learn upon that. Big Daddy wields a gun because he's seen what it can do. Ultimately, its his influence that spreads across the living dead of Uniontown. You could almost picture Bub, at the end of DAY, wandering out into the dead community with the skills he's developed and becoming the catalyst for a similar situation. This has been hinted at since before Stephen led the brigade up the stairs in DAWN, indeed all the way back to when the dead first gravitated to that one particular farmhouse in NIGHT.

The evolution of the zombie may be less gradual and more spontaneous than we think. All it takes is that initial impulsion to motivate progress and then the evolutionary process is off and running at an indeterminable rate. A lack of stimuli, on the other hand, could explain why certain zombie groups seem to stagnate - just like primitive cultures that remain unchanged, even after tens of thousands of years. Then they have their first, small taste of 'civilization' and the next thing you know, they're using steel instead of stone and wearing Nike t-shirts that cover up their genitalia.

In otherwords, the zombie's ability to to develop culturally may have been innate from the very beginning, it just requires a little provocation."

I found it almost profound how once food had been taken out of the equation (for the dead residents of Uniontown must've gone a very long time without eating since their stores have yet to be raided), the zombies began to re-develop their old pre-death behaviours. Big Daddy is back at the gas station... the band is playing in the gazebo... a couple goes for a leisurely stroll, hand in hand... hell, one zombie is even content enough to just chill out on the park bench.

Its only when this kind of tranquility is violently torn apart by the supply raiders that Big Daddy throws down his gas pump, picks up a weapon and marches off to war, with those he has enlightened in tow.

To others with their fleeting consideration and brisk dismissal of the whole thing, its just another plot hole. To me it says alot about Romero's thoughts on revolution, violent revolution and its quest to establish some kinda of civilized order out of chaos.

To me the LAND vs DAWN04 debate isn't about age, its about perception, or the lack thereof...

Perception my ass. You may be right, George may have meant all that. But it's still silly. Corpses getting smarter, without stimuli. Corpses, ROTTING corpses. Personally I think you looked a little too deep into the abyss my friend, and came back with an interesting explination. But that interesting theory, while deep, and thoughtful, was still a bunch of crap logically. Dead things could not get smarter, they are rotting, their brains are rotting. I just don't buy it. And zombies went back to their old ways back in the original Dawn too. My main problem with the movie was how one smart zombie was able to make all the other zombies overcome their urges and stupidity to become an effective army. Not buying it. Please don't impune my, or anyone else's perception ability simply because we did not not get the same deep and profound ,but ultimately silly, message from the movie that you did.

[Griff]

Dead things could not get smarter, they are rotting, their brains are rotting. I just don't buy it.

If you can't buy it, then leave the store. That's the concept that Romero has been selling since film one and LAND was the next logical step in pushing that agenda. If you don't like it, that's fine, but don't act like LAND let you down if you were never up for where the series was heading in the first place. Its like being pissed off that Luke became a Jedi... its not just the thing that links the films, its also what drives them. If that pisses you off, then maybe you should concede the films were never really made for you all along rather than deduce that the filmmaker doesn't understand his own creation.

[Trin]

I really don't see where Romero has had any such zombie evolution agenda prior to Land. Looking back to Night, Dawn, and Day and suggesting that he had that agenda in place the whole time is the movie equivalent of Data Fitting - i.e. interpreting the facts to support an already decided upon conclusion.

If you look at Night, Dawn, and Day without considering Land you'd be hard pressed to suggest any sort of zombie evolution was forthcoming. The zombies in Night, Dawn, and Day all had the same basic intelligence, mimicry skills, and emotions. They didn't evolve from movie to movie. The zombies in Night had learned not to approach the fire just as the ones in Day had learned not to approach the pen doors just as the ones in Land had learned not to approach the electric fences. The zombies in Dawn were mimicking their past life behaviors 3 weeks after the outbreak. This wasn't new zombie behavior 3 years later. And if Bub proved anything it's that no matter how much you train a zombie it's still a monster.

In my opinion Big Daddy was a huge departure from the established Romero zombie, not the next step.

I think Romero created the idea of zombies evolving specifically to support his societal and class commentary in Land.

[MinionZombie]

Night of the Living Dead - they're all fairly normal, dumb zombies.

Dawn of the Dead - specific discussion about them using "bludgeons and so forth". The zeds all flock back to the mall they once called their home away from home. The Krishna zombie figures out that Stephen came from that door and figures its way back upstairs to their hideout and attacks Fran.

Then there's the zombie who grabs the gun from Roger, it knows what it's looking at, even if it can't get it's head completely around the concept. It then makes a reasoned choice at the end when it grabs Peter's gun, dropping Roger's in favour of Peter's rifle.

When Stephen appears from the elevator as a fellow zombie, they're all ready to pounce on what they think is going to be still a human, but no - he's a zombie - the clawing hands stop sharply and then they all move away - they've recognised their own.

Day of the Dead - the main one being Bub, he recognises a tooth brush, a book, a razor and music, he even operates the tape player. He is trained to respond with rewards promised after wards. He recognises a gun, operates it, salutes a fellow army officer and then recoils in anger when the salute is not returned. Bub shies away when Rhodes points a gun right at him, but stands up to him when he has a gun of his own, only getting angry and confused when nothing happens - he even figures out for himself it's because there was no clip in the gun.

Bub, once escaped, discovers his master's body (a human he practically idolises or just respects - such as in the scene where he grabs Logan's arm and then feels that they're not too dissimilar after all), he gets confused, upset, has a zombie-cry and then gets angry - spotting a gun - he goes after Rhodes and gets bloody satisfaction, sarcastically saluting him as Rhodes is split in two.

Land of the Dead - the next step in zombie evolution, bish-bash-bosh.

[ProfessorChaos]

Land of the Dead - the next step in zombie evolution, bish-bash-bosh.

yeah, but there should be a limit to zombie evolution. the points you've made are all quite valid (although you forgot to mention the original cemetary zombie's use of a rock to bust a car window and karen cooper's use of a trowel to kill her mother as some signs of intelligence/thought/reasoning abilities/whatever you call it)...but there's gotta be a limit somewhere, man.

big daddy's actions are waaay over the top....the scene where he stomps a fellow zed's head in order to put it out of its misery comes to mind, as well as his ability to fire weapons ( i know bub did as well, but bub was sort of an exception, the way i've always seen it), "rally the troops" and lead a living dead revolt, navigating like a living-dead gps system, dragging his instantly clever and obedient brigade of ghouls for miles, marching across a river, then inspiring his comrades to take up any sort of weapons to battle their enemies, then chasing down the guy who just happens to be the arch-villian of the film, then overcome his fear of fire to pick up a flaming propane tank and roll it down to a gas-soaked car and kill kaufman.

what's gonna happen next for evolution if romero continues this storyline? are we gonna see a zombie working on creating a flux capacitor? what about running for zombie president? fixing zombie social security, zombie homelessness, zombie hunger, etc?

some people don't like their zombies to have the ability to run, some don't like their zombies having the ability to reason....at least not to the point that big daddy and his cohorts can.

evolution, schmevolution.

[Griff]

I really don't see where Romero has had any such zombie evolution agenda prior to Land. Looking back to Night, Dawn, and Day and suggesting that he had that agenda in place the whole time is the movie equivalent of Data Fitting - i.e. interpreting the facts to support an already decided upon conclusion.

Romero's original story, Night of Anubis (written prior to NIGHT), ended with machine gun toting zombies chasing down the last of the living humans (shades of I Am Legend). I'd say its a safe bet that Romero has had the evolution thing in mind for a long, long time.

I'm not merely "interperating facts to support an already decided upon conclusion". Instead of lazily labelling everything that's slightly peculiar as a bloody "plot hole", I'm exploring why Romero has made certain uncoventional choices and am finding a universal consistancy to them that points towards certain agendas and observations that Romero has most definitely decided to deliberately pursue.

If you wanna ignore the politics in his work, go ahead, but don't tell us that they're not there.

[AcesandEights]

Instead of lazily labelling everything that's slightly peculiar as a bloody "plot hole", I'm exploring why Romero has made certain uncoventional choices and am finding a universal consistancy to them that points towards certain agendas and observations that Romero has most definitely decided to deliberately pursue.


Mmmm, that made me feel good when I read it! Good points, all, Grif! I hate the blanket default to "plot hole" and the like for anything that people don't happen to 'get'.

[MinionZombie]

There's no limit to evolution, otherwise you might as well be a "zombie creationist" *lightning and thunder crashes through the HPOTD forum, spooky music and a Vincent Price cackle* - DUN-DUN-DUUUUUUUN!!!!

I couldn't be bothered to list all the factors aiding to zombie intelligence, but it just goes to show, as Griff has also been showing eloquently, that the idea of an increasingly smart zombie that learns has been at the centre of Romero's zombie films.

Heck, Land of the Dead, in it's original idea was going to be about ignoring the problem and treating the zombies like the homeless...it's there in Land, in a slightly different way, but one of the main points in GAR's zed flicks is it shows different stages along the line, the humans fall deeper into the abyss and the zombies get stronger, smarter and greater in number.

I really struggle to understand why people have such trouble accepting Land considering the previous films in the saga and what they were all about.

And don't anybody compare that statement above to my hatred of Yawn04, I hate that film because the script is shoddy beyond belief and it's pandering to the sort of no-brained numpties who like watching "Living on the Edge".

But that's a whole other story, and one that I've explained at GREAT length before...just wanted to add a disclaimer so people don't start manipulating what I'm saying, ya sneaky buggers. :eek:

*additional*

Aces - indeed, it's one of the things I liked most about Land. It doesn't explain everything to you, nor lay it all out on a silver platter. The story goes beyond what's on screen - the different between plot and story is a prime example for film students here. There's the plot of Land, and then there's the story of Land - the latter which goes beyond the film in both directions and leads to lots of discussions and theories and fan analysis, chat, talk and hypothesis ... Yawn04 just belches out a bunch of flashy edits and sickeningly high-contrast-uber-psycho-colour and it just has it's plot and no proper story ... and the plot is mis-handled.

[bassman]

it's one of the things I liked most about Land. It doesn't explain everything to you, nor lay it all out on a silver platter. The story goes beyond what's on screen - the different between plot and story is a prime example for film students here.

Since when have Romero's dead films EVER explained everything? He never does that in any of the films...

And just as Griff said, his films have always been an evolution. If that's not obvious to the viewer, the viewer needs to read a bit more between the lines.

[MinionZombie]

Well indeed, that is the thing with GAR's films, or many of them - especially the dead films. But was just saying that Land is no different, and it isn't bogged down with retarded and time consuming exposition explaining everything to the viewer so they don't have to ask questions ... kind like what Yawn04 does ... but it doesn't have anything to explain in the first place.

"Dead people biting living people, cool sh*t happens in a flashy way, the end". :rolleyes:

A movie which gets the viewer going, giving them a jumping off point and encourages them to think outside of the 2 hour plot, is a sign of intelligence in my book. It's like eating a lush snack and then finding bits in your teeth to suck on for a few hours afterwards. :cool:

[bassman]

It's like eating a lush snack and then finding bits in your teeth to suck on for a few hours afterwards. :cool:


:lol:
Great metaphor, man. Really.

[Trin]

I recognize the politics in his work. I'm not ignoring that. And I don't label the zombie evolution as a plot hole. I think of it as a plot contrivance to facilitate his message.

I maintain that Big Daddy was the first evidence of a zombie evolving. He spontaneously demonstrated skills and behaviors that were not mimicked and not learned. He demonstrated deduction. He overcame his instinct to feed. He was a true leap forward in the species.

You guys seem to define any display of intelligence or emotion as evolution. I don't get that. I have no argument that the zombies possess a certain level of intelligence and emotion. And it's repeated throughout all the movies that they can learn. None of that rivals Big Daddy, and none of the previous movies point to an eventual Big Daddy type character emerging from within the zombies.

The Bub argument is very frustrating. Bub was not evolved. Bub was trained. He showed no skill that wasn't either taught to him or explained as a skill he was mimicking from his past life. He still showed the instinct to feed even if it was supressed through conditioning. He bears no resemblance to Big Daddy.

I saw 3 of these 4 movies when they came out, I've been a fan of the series for over 20 years, and I've voraciously read every interview and snippet of info I can get on the subject. I can tell you that when these movies came out no one was talking about the zombies and their meaning. In years past GAR himself has said that the zombies were nothing more than a backdrop for the human struggle he was depicting. When Day came out Bub was considered a masterful twisting of the knife because after all the viewer's hopes were put upon him he really wasn't different.

Romero changed the nature of the zombies with Big Daddy because he needed that to convey his message. Fine. He can make the zombies whatever he wants to support his agenda. I agree wholeheartedly that the analysis you've all put forth for the zombies makes sense within the confines of Land.

But I'm not buying that BD was a natural extension of the previous movies and I see the idea that this was always the path as revisionist history to force-fit the events of the past to the mold that Land created.

[bassman]

So you're saying that it's impossible that Big Daddy may have remembered some sort of repression in his past life as he saw it happening to the zombies - his family, if you will?

What about the gun? He picked it up and pretty much instantly knew what it was. Keep in mind that Bub did the same thing.....Logan just handed it to him without any teaching.

Same with the jack hammer, the fact that sharp objects cut through wood, or the fact that water isn't necessarily harmful.....he recognized it. He remembered.

And everything else could have been pretty easily been picked up by watching the scavengers ride about town. But most of it was (as dawn says) simple weapons and remembering his past life. As he started showing the others, they started remembering more too. The same thing that's happened in the original three.

[Legion2213]

I'll never accept land of the Dead and it's smart zombies...one smart zombie, maybe, but a whole hoarde of 'em who instantly understand and follow the other smart one, no way.

It's amazing how devisive this movie is. I believe that day also split the fans a bit, but I wasn't a fan back then, so I can't say for sure. Land just "feels" wrong for me...others here seemed to really enjoy it, each to his own I suppose.

[clanglee]

Trin, you are my new favorite person. I have very little time here at work to get my thoughts down, so it helps to have your input, we seem to agree on most things about this movie. Griff, and all you Land-Lubbers (sorry, couln't resist), Until Bub, there was NO zombie evolution evidence. And personally I think of Bub as more of a special zombie with training. Griff If you are going to bring up scripts that never were, take a look at the original Day script. The zombies in that are shooting guns and not eating people, WITH TRAINING!! Scientists and Behavioralists working around the clock. The zombies in Night, Dawn, and Day are essentially the same intelligence level. Basic tool use, loose cooperation. No difference except for Bub. The Z's in Land make intuitive leaps that require human level logic. Expecially Big D. Blowing up the car was what did it for me. Sigh. Anyways, we won't agree on this. Never will. Griff, these movies are indeed for me, I've been a fan almost all my life. I would never tell GAR what to do, his ideas just fell short this time. . end of story. :moon:

[SRP76]

I also don't see any "evolution" until at least Day.

In Dawn, they did mention the zombies "using tools", blah-blah. So? We SAW them do it in Night, too. It just happened that the program Ben and crew were watching on TV didn't specifically mention it. That's the only difference.

The zombies in Dawn were pretty much exactly the same ones as in Night. They weren't any more advanced.

[Doc]

The zombies in Dawn were pretty much exactly the same ones as in Night. They weren't any more advanced. Yeah the only difference was the whole remembering thing. Unless that was Night to ,but I don't recall.

[Griff]

Nyeah, I don't think Bub was trained so much as he was encouraged. With Logan feeding him, he was able to forget about food long enough to take in his environment and, in a first step of evolution, begin to manipulate that environment.

Like I mentioned previously, the zombies in Uniontown had probably gone without a decent bite for so damn long, they had no choice but to (re)develop some slightly more useful behaviours. If their evolution, behavioural evolution (we're not talking Darwin here), seems highly accelerated to you, then I can think of two reason why that might be:

1) its a movie and time is money.
2) that's how it usually happens in the real world. Take the industrial revolution, for instance, and the advances that have happened in society over the past 200 years that dwarf anything achieved in the 10,000 prior to that. Ideas built upon by ideas, that's how it usually works.

Big Daddy is just the catalyst. The rest of the zombs had the potential to learn and adapt all along, just like Bub.

[darth los]

What about the gun? He picked it up and pretty much instantly knew what it was. Keep in mind that Bub did the same thing.....Logan just handed it to him without any teaching.

That's funny. I actually thought that bub was more advanced in terms of using a firearm. He saw it, picked it up, cocked it, aimed it and squeezed the trigger. When big daddy first picked up the machine gun it looked like he fired it by accident and was kind of surprised at what he did.

[clanglee]

Night of the Living Dead - they're all fairly normal, dumb zombies.

Dawn of the Dead - specific discussion about them using "bludgeons and so forth". The zeds all flock back to the mall they once called their home away from home. The Krishna zombie figures out that Stephen came from that door and figures its way back upstairs to their hideout and attacks Fran.

Then there's the zombie who grabs the gun from Roger, it knows what it's looking at, even if it can't get it's head completely around the concept. It then makes a reasoned choice at the end when it grabs Peter's gun, dropping Roger's in favour of Peter's rifle.

When Stephen appears from the elevator as a fellow zombie, they're all ready to pounce on what they think is going to be still a human, but no - he's a zombie - the clawing hands stop sharply and then they all move away - they've recognised their own.

Day of the Dead - the main one being Bub, he recognises a tooth brush, a book, a razor and music, he even operates the tape player. He is trained to respond with rewards promised after wards. He recognises a gun, operates it, salutes a fellow army officer and then recoils in anger when the salute is not returned. Bub shies away when Rhodes points a gun right at him, but stands up to him when he has a gun of his own, only getting angry and confused when nothing happens - he even figures out for himself it's because there was no clip in the gun.

Bub, once escaped, discovers his master's body (a human he practically idolises or just respects - such as in the scene where he grabs Logan's arm and then feels that they're not too dissimilar after all), he gets confused, upset, has a zombie-cry and then gets angry - spotting a gun - he goes after Rhodes and gets bloody satisfaction, sarcastically saluting him as Rhodes is split in two.

Land of the Dead - the next step in zombie evolution, bish-bash-bosh.

In night they used bludgeons on thc car window and to break out the headlights. In dawn they showed some of their routines from life but Night zombies may have, for all we know, have the same traits. In Day, we have Bub. Now Bub was special. The charcters in the movie went out of their way to let us know he was special. He was being conditioned by Logan. Trained if you will. But I will admit, that as a zombie, Bub was different. I guess just like Big daddy was different. They both show emotion and rational thought to a degree. But they were one of thousands, millions of zombies. Special. Now I didn't see Big Daddy putting on his lab coat and using the skinner method on his fellow dead heads. So how do they get to be so smart too? Land, MAYBE the zombies are evolved. But if so, it is a huge departure from the first 3 movies. There is no evidence of evolution as a species in the previous 3 movies!! (Which, for a species that does not breed, evolution is impossible anyways)And that is part of what I don't like about Land.

Land of the Dead- The next de-evolution in zombie movies bosh-bash-bish

[


Nyeah, I don't think Bub was trained so much as he was encouraged. With Logan feeding him, he was able to forget about food long enough to take in his environment and, in a first step of evolution, begin to manipulate that environment.

Like I mentioned previously, the zombies in Uniontown had probably gone without a decent bite for so damn long, they had no choice but to (re)develop some slightly more useful behaviours. If their evolution, behavioural evolution (we're not talking Darwin here), seems highly accelerated to you, then I can think of two reason why that might be:

1) its a movie and time is money.
2) that's how it usually happens in the real world. Take the industrial revolution, for instance, and the advances that have happened in society over the past 200 years that dwarf anything achieved in the 10,000 prior to that. Ideas built upon by ideas, that's how it usually works.

Big Daddy is just the catalyst. The rest of the zombs had the potential to learn and adapt all along, just like Bub.

Glad you made the observation about darwinism. :lol: I just jumped on that above. I have one answer for you man, Language. Without a spoken or written language there is no chance of "cultural" evolution, Or culture at all for that matter. Nope, I'm still standing by the opinion that while it was a nice idea, zombies were just a bad vehicle for the message man.

[Trin]

So you're saying that it's impossible that Big Daddy may have remembered some sort of repression in his past life as he saw it happening to the zombies - his family, if you will?

What about the gun? He picked it up and pretty much instantly knew what it was. Keep in mind that Bub did the same thing.....Logan just handed it to him without any teaching.

Same with the jack hammer, the fact that sharp objects cut through wood, or the fact that water isn't necessarily harmful.....he recognized it. He remembered.

And everything else could have been pretty easily been picked up by watching the scavengers ride about town. But most of it was (as dawn says) simple weapons and remembering his past life. As he started showing the others, they started remembering more too. The same thing that's happened in the original three.
I'm not trying to suggest that Big Daddy didn't draw from remembered behavior at all. My point is that there are some things he couldn't have and for those he required deductive reasoning, and that trait had little or no precedent in the previous movies' zombies.

A few examples:

Big Daddy killed the decapitated zombie in an act of mercy because he pitied it for its suffering. Not only does it show empathy for another zombie (show me an example of that in the original movies) but that decision represents a long and complex line of reasoning for which he'd have virtually no frame of reference from his previous life.

The water is a great example. What made him think he wouldn't drown? If he'd jumped in and started swimming I might believe it was remembered, but he didn't. He deduced that he could survive underwater. That's an amazing amount of self-awareness.

The simple fact that Big Daddy was cognizant enough to teach and lead other zombies is proof enough that he was an aberation. Prior to Land the zombies, Bub included, were virtually ignorant of each other's existence.

I don't know why it would surprise anyone that Bub was able to immediately use the gun. As Dr. Logan suggested it appeared Bub had military training given his memory of how to salute. He presented Bub with the gun in an attempt to evoke remembered behavior believing the gun would be immediately familiar to someone who had been military trained. Dr. Logan repeatedly pointed out that the behaviors he elicited from Bub were remembered.


Trin, you are my new favorite person.
LOL - I've thought several times that we do tend to agree. A few of your posts from the past few pages echo my thoughts very well indeed. I had intended to post something to that affect but instead got ... sidetracked. :)


Big Daddy is just the catalyst. The rest of the zombs had the potential to learn and adapt all along, just like Bub.
Now that I agree with. There was huge precedent for the zombies to learn and adapt. And I really have no disagreement with the fact that the zombies learned from Big Daddy so quickly.

My disagreement is with Big Daddy existing at all. Like clanglee I wouldn't tell GAR how to make his movies, but this is the "Why people hate LOTD" thread and that's one of my reasons.

[clanglee]

Ok, now I want to say this. This thread can get pretty heated, and I enjoy arguing LOTD with all of you. But I want everyone to know that I respect your opinions and there are no hard feelings towards anyone. If I have come off as disrespectful in anyway, it was unintentional. That being said. . . . . . . . . . . . .Land sux!!! :D

[bassman]

Big Daddy killed the decapitated zombie in an act of mercy because he pitied it for its suffering. Not only does it show empathy for another zombie (show me an example of that in the original movies) but that decision represents a long and complex line of reasoning for which he'd have virtually no frame of reference from his previous life.

Although not a zombie, what did Bub do when he found Logan dead? He was upset that someone he was connected to had been killed. Had this not happened and something was hurting Logan, do you not think that Bub would have empathy for him?

Not only that....but have you never had similar feelings in your life? I know I have. Perhaps this goes back to that remembering his past life deal? Perhaps all of his actions could be related to his past life?;)

Anyway....I'm bored with this zombie of a thread. It's gone on long enough for me. I've answered ALL questions about Land in some form or another. Land is a good addition to Romero's franchise to me. If you guys don't see it that way....well....sorry, you're just down one fun movie.

[capncnut]

Anyway....I'm bored with this zombie of a thread. It's gone on long enough for me.
You're not wrong. This thread needs putting out of it's misery, can't one of the mods lock it or something? :|

[ProfessorChaos]

You're not wrong. This thread needs putting out of it's misery, can't one of the mods lock it or something? :|

although i've only posted a couple of times on this thread, i would like to second this notion. how about closing the entire land forum while you're at it...the movie's been out for over two years now.

[MinionZombie]

Ugh hell yeah, this thread has run it's course at least twice already. No doubt somebody would bitch about closing it and start another one. :rolleyes:

The Land forum is on the "to do list" still I think.

[AcesandEights]

You're not wrong. This thread needs putting out of it's misery, can't one of the mods lock it or something? :|


I've considered sacrificing some time here by flaming the thread into lockdown, but I don't want to get banned :)

[Trin]

I will enjoy discussing Land today, tomorrow, and for the next 20 years, just like I enjoy discussing Night, Dawn, and Day now even though I saw them 20 years ago.

I know I'm not the most prolific member here, but I can say that these forums have forced me to think very hard about the movie and to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate my thoughts on it. A lot of people have made some great points, some of which have changed my opinions, some of which have reinforced my opinion, some of which have caused me to see whole new aspects to the movies. But for all of them I can say it's good discussion.

I wish we'd had this kind of thing when Day came out.

I say give it another 20 years and then close it.

[bassman]

I will enjoy discussing Land today, tomorrow, and for the next 20 years, just like I enjoy discussing Night, Dawn, and Day now even though I saw them 20 years ago.

I know I'm not the most prolific member here, but I can say that these forums have forced me to think very hard about the movie and to constantly evaluate and re-evaluate my thoughts on it. A lot of people have made some great points, some of which have changed my opinions, some of which have reinforced my opinion, some of which have caused me to see whole new aspects to the movies. But for all of them I can say it's good discussion.

I wish we'd had this kind of thing when Day came out.

I say give it another 20 years and then close it.


Nobody is saying no more discussion about Land. We're just saying take out the Land forum and Land can be discussed in Dead Discussion just like the other three films. It's a few year old film and there's really no need in it's own forum.

Keep Diary's forum up for awhile, and when it starts to get some years on it, move it to Dead Discussion. Then do the same for Diary 2, etc etc....

[Trin]

After much thought I'm going to contradict myself and reverse my position that there's no precedent for zombies to exhibit deductive reasoning in the first 3 movies.

It all boils down to one scene that I can't get out of my head. It's when Bub puts it together that he has a gun and can use it to shoot Rhodes. Knowing how to use the gun is remembered behavior, but there's definitely a point where he has a flash of insight that the gun can be used to kill Rhodes. He wasn't just shooting the gun mindlessly, he was shooting it with purpose. That moves him beyond mimicry into reasoning.

Does that make Big Daddy plausible? Or the next obvious step in zombie evolution? Or Romero's plan all along? I'm not there yet. But the next time I watch Land I'll keep that perspective in mind.

Thanks @ griff and all for beating that point home.

Now you can close the thread. :p

[MinionZombie]

*sigh of relief*

I'm glad you're looking outside your own box (so-to-speak) Trin.

Indeed, Big Daddy is both plausible and the next step in the zombie evolution, and I would say GAR definitely had that level of progression from a long time ago, at least from when he was writing Day of the Dead at least.

But even if he didn't (which he blatantly did), GAR wrote Land and directed the darn thing, so he was obviously making the film he wanted to make ultimately (studio troubles aside, so you know what I mean :)).

...

And Bub is super awesome. :cool: I'd say that Bub is the best zombie EVER, easily.

[bassman]

Indeed, Big Daddy is both plausible and the next step in the zombie evolution



Yeah...but even though we like Land and the idea of BD, you and I both know that Eugene Clark should've been fired and BD recast with a better actor. I think ALL of us here at HPotD agree with that...

How cool would it have been if it were Howard Sherman reprising his role as Bub? It could've worked into the story somehow....

Like he says on the Documentary....he could teach the zombies to eat chicken.:p

[Doc]

And Bub is super awesome. :cool: I'd say that Bub is the best zombie EVER, easily. No arguments there. :D

[clanglee]

Yes Bub is awesome. No Doubt. I agree with you there. And a BIG yes to the fact that BD would have been more plausible with a better actor. I think I've mentioned that before.

:shifty:

don't tell anyone we agreed on something.

:lol:

[acealive1]

Yeah...but even though we like Land and the idea of BD, you and I both know that Eugene Clark should've been fired and BD recast with a better actor. I think ALL of us here at HPotD agree with that...






speaka fora youself,american :lol::lol:

[Legion2213]

And Bub is super awesome. :cool: I'd say that Bub is the best zombie EVER, easily.

Anybody who disagrees with this statement of fact should face a lifetime ban from HPotD (and the internet as well). :D

[Griff]

Yeah, I say we close this thread.

...and all head over to the 'Why people love LOTD' thread!

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, I say we close this thread.

...and all head over to the 'Why people love LOTD' thread!
Hell yeah!

But indeed, I think this thread has well and truly run it's course (twice if not more :D) and I think we've all agreed that it's time this thread was archived, Lost Ark style. :)

I also thought I'd stick the thread, so that people can mourn it's passing, and others can have a bit of a trawl through so we don't have another bloody one crop up. :D