Why I'm leaving George Romero

[Mikey]

After sitting through three unbearable films by George (Land, Diarrhea, and Survival), I have decided that if George makes one more zombie flick, it will tip the balance to mediocre films. George will have made three good zombies films, and four bad zombies films. Why is this, I wonder?

1. The writing is bad. I'm not sure why he's blowing it now, but the dialogue and premises George has been writing about are extremely boring and uninspired. John Leguizamo ransoming a machine for US dollars???? Idiot college kids running around with HD cameras filming zombies while buddies are getting attacked??? National Guard chicks rubbing one out in a truck in the first scene of Survival??? Muldooon! You baaassstaardd!

2. Zombies are cartoons. They're not your neighbors and friends anymore. They are caricatures with demon eyes that scream. They aren't creepy anymore. It's just another "gag" on how to off a dead head.

3. George is trying too hard to "send a message". Hey, he shot Night with the idea they were shooting a monster flick. Get off the Iraq war, or how the internet works, and zombies learning.

4. Poor character development. The last character that did ANY kind of growing in a Romero zombie flick was CJ form the DAWN remake -- and that wasn't even his film.

Bob Kirkman has taken what Romero started and made it what I think is the best entertainment for zombies -- The Walking Dead. It appears the TV Show on AMC will be fantastic. I hope George can look at it (I doubt he will) and maybe learning from it and start writing a decent screenplay with some character developement and an interesting plot.

BIG DADDY SAYS AAAARRRRRGGGG!!!!

(flame suit on)

[Legion2213]

I haven't seen survival, so I can't comment on it...as for the other two films, you are entirely correct IMO, how people can rip Dawn 04 while watching (and accepting) the utter shite that was Diary is completely beyond me.

I watched Land again on the TV a few weeks ago, it is mediocre at best...as for Diary, I'll probably never view it again, it sucked the big one on all levels.

[JDFP]

Though "Diary" is far superior to "Land" -- it doesn't make it a good movie.

I'd argue that I never left Romero and appreciating his once great zombie flicks -- but Romero left us (his fans).

Should he have done this? That's a completely different argument.

j.p.

[bassman]

Sooo....you're leaving Romero? I guess this means you were in some sort of intimate relationship? There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so get to swimming.

[Legion2213]

Sooo....you're leaving Romero? I guess this means you were in some sort of intimate relationship? There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so get to swimming.

Well, you could say we've been taking up the pooper from him for the last several years and paying for the privilage...Sort of an abusive relationship really. :p

[BillyRay]

Sooo....you're leaving Romero? I guess this means you were in some sort of intimate relationship? There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so get to swimming.

It's not like Uwe Boll is ever going to call you, no matter what he said the next morning... :elol:

[EDukes]

I downloaded a Fanedit version of Land, and it was a huge improvement. It basically erased the whole Big Daddy thing. It also used scenes from V for Vendetta and The Truman show and the audio from NOTLD to replace the intro. I prefer the editted intro where everyone is glued to their TV screens, and then all the viewers are gone, over the dialouge of a forced hick accent person talking about taking out his wife with a curling iron.

Even if Romero's next films are terrible, I'll still always be fan of his for the first three movies.

[Mikey]

Sooo....you're leaving Romero? I guess this means you were in some sort of intimate relationship? There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so get to swimming.

Swimming* Oh, hello Bob Kirkman and Frank Darabont -- you two seem to know what you are doing! Awesome!!!!

George who?

Hey, I'm not discrediting Night, Dawn, or Day, even though there are some who would say DAY is crappy too. I really loved Day because of the conflict between the two parties.

Also, Zombieland: awesome.
Dawn 04: Pretty dang good (not as good as the original, but still entertaining and scary)
28 days later: great...not zombies, but true to the scope of what we all enjoy here

[krakenslayer]

Cheerio!

[Mike70]

i'm brokenhearted now. the love between you and george seemed to be so pure, so forever.

i guess i'll be reading the seedy details in the next issue of "people."

[Mr.G]

Hey, I'm not discrediting Night, Dawn, or Day, even though there are some who would say DAY is crappy too.

But they wouldn't dare show their face on this forum! :mad::moon:

[MikePizzoff]

Hahaha I love how you keep calling Robert Kirkman "Bob" as if you guys are friends.

[Danny]

My face when this thread.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1277709299649.jpg

[mista_mo]

I hope He takes it well. From the way that you worded it, you two must have been in a very deep, loving, fetish sex filled relationship. Now whom else is going to cover his ass in candle wax and poke holes in the side of his penis with red hot nails.

Whom I ask?

[Mr.G]

I got the wax...

[Danny]

i hope he takes it well. From the way that you worded it, you two must have been in a very deep, loving, fetish sex filled relationship. Now whom else is going to cover his ass in candle wax and poke holes in the side of his penis with red hot nails.

Whom i ask?

you have my sword!

[bassman]

i'm brokenhearted now. the love between you and george seemed to be so pure, so forever.

i guess i'll be reading the seedy details in the next issue of "people."

:lol: I love this guy...

Anyway, you don't like his newer films? Get over it. If you feel you need to boycott his previous three...go right ahead. As if his newer films have anything to do with the originals....

"I will never watch the original star wars trilogy because Lucas raped my childhood with the prequel trilogy. waaa waaa waaa"

Your loss. Moving on....

[DjfunkmasterG]

And Bassman comes in with his "smack everyone back to reality approach."

:D


I agree George's new work is disappointing, but I am one who prefers Diary over Land and Survival, and I prefer Survival over Land. I am a zombie film fan if he keeps making them I will probably keep watching them... but yes I agree he has taken the horror element completely out of the movies with LAND and SURVIVAL.

I can't hate on George... it was his films that made me want to become a filmmaker. Even though he can't recapture that horror magic... I keep trying like hell to do it with each of my flicks. Hopefully someday someone will make a great scary Zombie film again.

(Hoping its me :D )

[Neil]

After sitting through three unbearable films by George (Land, Diarrhea, and Survival), I have decided that if George makes one more zombie flick, it will tip the balance to mediocre films. George will have made three good zombies films, and four bad zombies films. Why is this, I wonder?

1. The writing is bad. I'm not sure why he's blowing it now, but the dialogue and premises George has been writing about are extremely boring and uninspired. John Leguizamo ransoming a machine for US dollars???? Idiot college kids running around with HD cameras filming zombies while buddies are getting attacked??? National Guard chicks rubbing one out in a truck in the first scene of Survival??? Muldooon! You baaassstaardd!

2. Zombies are cartoons. They're not your neighbors and friends anymore. They are caricatures with demon eyes that scream. They aren't creepy anymore. It's just another "gag" on how to off a dead head.

3. George is trying too hard to "send a message". Hey, he shot Night with the idea they were shooting a monster flick. Get off the Iraq war, or how the internet works, and zombies learning.

4. Poor character development. The last character that did ANY kind of growing in a Romero zombie flick was CJ form the DAWN remake -- and that wasn't even his film.

Bob Kirkman has taken what Romero started and made it what I think is the best entertainment for zombies -- The Walking Dead. It appears the TV Show on AMC will be fantastic. I hope George can look at it (I doubt he will) and maybe learning from it and start writing a decent screenplay with some character developement and an interesting plot.

BIG DADDY SAYS AAAARRRRRGGGG!!!!

(flame suit on)

I think I'm clearly in agreement with you as I haven't bothered even watching "Survival" yet! Can you believe that! Sort of says it all :(

But at least there's still life in the zombie genre! You only need to think of "The Walking Dead" for some hope!

[ProfessorChaos]

funny thread title aside, i gotta agree with those that say mr. romero has definitely lost his touch.

while i give him credit for shocking the hell out of me as a youth with Night, kicking my imagination into hyper-drive with dawn, and delivering a great drama with day, his last three movies have been mediocre at best (diary), unbearable and silly at their worst (land), and recently, flat-out unwatchable (survival - i actually shut it off and doubt i'll ever bother finishing it...that bad).

if romero never made another zombie picture, i feel it'd probably be for the better. just move on george, the torch is about to be picked up and carried by the walking dead.

[Mike70]

if romero never made another zombie picture, i feel it'd probably be for the better.

ditto. my interest in ol' george is pretty well confined to day and creepshow. most of his other stuff either hasn't aged well or was crap from jumpstreet.

[Trin]

I agree with the OP, and moreover, I agree that this kind of sentiment should be expressed. Dead movies have become low quality mass market fodder. Child labor in foreign countries can't be far behind. Someone's gotta stand up and say enough.

And, yes, the last 3 movies do diminish the first 3. Who remembers Enron as a great, well-managed, prosperous energy company? Is Mike Tyson the greatest boxer who ever lived or is he a rapist ear-biter? How you end your reign on top is just as important as how you begin it!!

Land started the decline with ridiculous plot that told a lackluster story about a lackluster group of people. But at least the setting and visuals were compelling, and there were a few strong characters reminiscent of the original trilogy. Diary turned into a platform for crazy messages, with poor characters and implausible events, pepper-sprayed with gags. Survival just got wacky, with crazy plot, theme, characters, and gags.

Personally, I don't know why it'd take one more. I specifically didn't invite my zombie fan buddies to go see Survival with me. Not after the crap I took for dragging them to Diary. Which was the "please one more chance" after dragging them to Land.

[Legion2213]

I think I'm clearly in agreement with you as I haven't bothered even watching "Survival" yet! Can you believe that! Sort of says it all :(

But at least there's still life in the zombie genre! You only need to think of "The Walking Dead" for some hope!

That is pretty damning isn't it.

I've not seen it myself yet, I just can't bring myself to wate money on a Blu-Ray that I know will be crap when there are far better titles to spend my money on. :(

[Thorn]

After sitting through three unbearable films by George (Land, Diarrhea, and Survival), I have decided that if George makes one more zombie flick, it will tip the balance to mediocre films. George will have made three good zombies films, and four bad zombies films. Why is this, I wonder?

1. The writing is bad. I'm not sure why he's blowing it now, but the dialogue and premises George has been writing about are extremely boring and uninspired. John Leguizamo ransoming a machine for US dollars???? Idiot college kids running around with HD cameras filming zombies while buddies are getting attacked??? National Guard chicks rubbing one out in a truck in the first scene of Survival??? Muldooon! You baaassstaardd!

2. Zombies are cartoons. They're not your neighbors and friends anymore. They are caricatures with demon eyes that scream. They aren't creepy anymore. It's just another "gag" on how to off a dead head.

3. George is trying too hard to "send a message". Hey, he shot Night with the idea they were shooting a monster flick. Get off the Iraq war, or how the internet works, and zombies learning.

4. Poor character development. The last character that did ANY kind of growing in a Romero zombie flick was CJ form the DAWN remake -- and that wasn't even his film.

Bob Kirkman has taken what Romero started and made it what I think is the best entertainment for zombies -- The Walking Dead. It appears the TV Show on AMC will be fantastic. I hope George can look at it (I doubt he will) and maybe learning from it and start writing a decent screenplay with some character developement and an interesting plot.

BIG DADDY SAYS AAAARRRRRGGGG!!!!

(flame suit on)

I hate when you two fight...

Will I have to pick between you now? Where will I go to school? Will I get a new daddy?

[JDFP]

Hey, I'm not discrediting Night, Dawn, or Day, even though there are some who would say DAY is crappy too. I really loved Day because of the conflict between the two parties.



Whoever says that about "Day" is a dumbass that should have film-watching privileges revoked.

j.p.

[DEAD BEAT]

Sooo....you're leaving Romero? I guess this means you were in some sort of intimate relationship? There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so get to swimming.

LOL that's funny dude...i guess for us zombie geeks to say your leavin' GAR probably means you finally have a girlfriend! lmao :D:cool::clown:

[Rancid Carcass]

And, yes, the last 3 movies do diminish the first 3.

I'm not so sure that they do, a good film is a good film regardless of the quality of it's sequels. I mean, Jaws will always be a great movie no matter how many Jaws: The Revenges we get - gawd bless ya Michael Caine!

[Legion2213]

I think I'm clearly in agreement with you as I haven't bothered even watching "Survival" yet! Can you believe that! Sort of says it all :(

But at least there's still life in the zombie genre! You only need to think of "The Walking Dead" for some hope!


I'm not so sure that they do, a good film is a good film regardless of the quality of it's sequels. I mean, Jaws will always be a great movie no matter how many Jaws: The Revenges we get - gawd bless ya Michael Caine!

Were the Jaws sequels by the same guy who did the original though?

[bassman]

Were the Jaws sequels by the same guy who did the original though?

Show some respek - Spielberg handled the original while the others were....someone else...

But Spielberg and I are split up right now. He has custody of the kids. Bastard.

[AcesandEights]

But Spielberg and I are split up right now. He has custody of the kids. Bastard.

Is that lech at least supporting you in the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed, Bass?!

[bassman]

He gave me some stock in Transformers and MIB, so i'm making it all right. He took all the furniture and aliens, though. Jewish bastard.

[Sammich]

I will always watch and appreciate all of Romero's zombie movies past, present, and future. What George has done with Land, Diary, and Survival is nothing short of genius. The last 3 movies he made were not meant to convey a social commentary within the films, but as a way of revealing the current social condition and attitudes of the viewer. The degredation of society in modern times through ever increasing greed, jealousy, arrogance, ignorance, and hate has been well demonstrated in the comments since Land.

[DubiousComforts]

This thread is so disappointing. From the title, it could be assumed that someone would be figuratively leaving George Romero films and this message board, thus taking along their tired, boring comments. Hooray!

But upon reading the thread, it doesn't appear that anyone has left at all. :(

[Mikey]

I will always watch and appreciate all of Romero's zombie movies past, present, and future. What George has done with Land, Diary, and Survival is nothing short of genius. The last 3 movies he made were not meant to convey a social commentary within the films, but as a way of revealing the current social condition and attitudes of the viewer. The degredation of society in modern times through ever increasing greed, jealousy, arrogance, ignorance, and hate has been well demonstrated in the comments since Land.

Seriously??? Did you just contradict yourself???

And did you sayd Land, Diary,and Survival were nothing short of genius??? Playoffs??? Playoffs??? Playoffs!! Playoffs, are you serious??? Playoffs???

[kidgloves]

I think I'm clearly in agreement with you as I haven't bothered even watching "Survival" yet! Can you believe that! Sort of says it all :(

But at least there's still life in the zombie genre! You only need to think of "The Walking Dead" for some hope!

Watch it Neil. I need someone who isn't a drama queen to confirm that it IS the pile of steaming shit that i think it is.
Cheers.

[DubiousComforts]

Can we re-title this thread "Why I'm not leaving George Romero fast enough"?

Or how's about "Leave George Romero now... PLEASE!"

[Danny]

Can we re-title this thread "Why I'm not leaving George Romero fast enough"?

Or how's about "Leave George Romero now... PLEASE!"

how about "JESUS CHRIST, IT'S GEORGE ROMERO, GET IN THE CAR!?!"

[DjfunkmasterG]

GOODBYE CRUEL WORLD!
http://msnsmileys.net/k/smileys/Kolobok_Dark_Skin_-_Madhouse/suicide.gif

:elol:

[Yojimbo]

Can we re-title this thread "Why I'm not leaving George Romero fast enough"?

Or how's about "Leave George Romero now... PLEASE!"

Hilarious, and seconded!

[Trin]

It's really time to admit that GAR is a bad girlfriend and we're too self-esteem handicapped to leave for good. Any talk of leaving is great, but we know that the next movie gets announced and - even in the evidence of recent suck movies - we're gonna get all twittery like schoolgirls and come rushing back. Anyone who was gonna leave GAR for real left after Diary.

GAR is wearing a wifebeater and we're making excuses for why we have bruises, and it isn't gonna change, end of story.

[bassman]

GAR is wearing a wifebeater and we're making excuses for why we have bruises, and it isn't gonna change, end of story.

*sobs* But....but....he loves us! He doesn't mean to hurt us, we just cross the line sometimes! It's our fault!

[BillyRay]

Awww....Who're we kidding?

We can't quit you, George!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/213/514405987_6813fe1971.jpg

[paranoid101]

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/3625/helenlovejoy.jpg (http://img835.imageshack.us/i/helenlovejoy.jpg/)

"Wont somebody think of the children?"

[Mikey]

Just cause I won't watch George's new movies doesn't mean I'm not gonna quit hanging out here.

Or are you going to kick me out of the clubhouse now?

[Wyldwraith]

Said it before,
Original Trilogy: Foundation of all Zombie/Survival Horror Awesomeness.
Land: Mediocre, watchable, but CLEARLY a warning of worse things to come.
Diary & Survival: In the Day '08/RotLD: Rave to the Grave classification of complete crap most of us watched SOLELY BECAUSE OF WHO MADE IT.

The OP has one point at least: George's record is hanging at 3-1-2...or in many people's minds: 3-3. If he cranks out another flop it WILL reflect on his overall legacy.

The post that mentioned Enron and Mike Tyson & how they ended up mattering was right on the money. No, it DOESN"T TAKE AWAY FROM the original trilogy, but it DOES take away from ROMERO HIMSELF, insofar as his future prospects are concerned.

In other words, nothing GAR might do in the future will affect the fact that the Original Dead Trilogy are the bedrock gold-standard of the genre. Another/Even More bad movies WILL HOWEVER affect how GAR HIMSELF is perceived.

Simply my .02, your mileage may certainly vary.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I am in the 3-1-2 Camp - Diary being my 1. I like it... way better than the two stinkers on each side of it.

[Trin]

I feel ashamed to say this. I'm 3-1-2, but Land is my 1. As much as I hate the storyline and plot issues in Land I love the main characters and the setting.

@DJ - You did watch Diary right? :moon:

[LouCipherr]

<sarcasm>

Awww, c'mon everyone, the solution to the "GAR Blues" is so easy...

Go watch Dawn04 and enjoy. You'll forget all about 'im. http://enderzero.net/smilies/bolt.gif

</sarcasm>

Sorry, I could not resist (see my sig below). :lol: :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

<sarcasm>

awww, c'mon everyone, the solution to the "gar blues" is so easy...

Go watch dawn04 and enjoy. You'll forget all about 'im. http://enderzero.net/smilies/bolt.gif

</sarcasm>

sorry, i could not resist (see my sig below). :lol: :d

day-ummmmmm

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:23 PM ----------


I feel ashamed to say this. I'm 3-1-2, but Land is my 1. As much as I hate the storyline and plot issues in Land I love the main characters and the setting.

@DJ - You did watch Diary right? :moon:

Yep, it felt more horror than LAND and SURVIVAL

[DubiousComforts]

Just cause I won't watch George's new movies doesn't mean I'm not gonna quit hanging out here.
But why the heck not?


Or are you going to kick me out of the clubhouse now?
Oh, please?

[JDFP]

Yep, it felt more horror than LAND and SURVIVAL

Wait, "Survival" was supposed to be horror?

I thought it was a black comedy. :)

Gary, I agree with you about "Diary" being far superior than "Land" -- we've had the argument at least once a month on here in the past and I'm sure we'll continue having the argument in the future. It's good to know some things never change.

j.p.

[DubiousComforts]

Wait, "Survival" was supposed to be horror?

I thought it was a black comedy.
Man, you're really concerned about putting things in boxes.

[JDFP]

Man, you're really concerned about putting things in boxes.

That was actually meant as a joke. Sorry my charming wit was too much for you to process there, Dub. :)

Of course I am concerned about putting things where they belong, things are what they are. Horror is horror -- stuff that isn't horror is something else.

And 95% of the stuff that is classified as "Horror" these days (which is generally not horror for those of us who know what real horror is -- and it ain't "Scream" and "Twilight" and shit like that) is absolute shit, that's something I think we can agree on, yes?

j.p.

[DubiousComforts]

That was actually meant as a joke. Sorry my charming wit was too much for you to process there, Dub. :)

It probably won't get any better if we try to classify "humor," as well.

[JDFP]

It probably won't get any better if we try to classify "humor," as well.

:lol: Touche, good sir. Touche.

j.p.

[Wyldwraith]

Personally,
I'm in the 3-1-2 Camp, with Land being my one as well. While I appreciate tastes differ, I just found NOTHING in Diary or Survival that even interested me, let alone anything I found enjoyable.

Land, on the other hand, while there were elements I didn't go for, at least had a few elements I enjoyed. Not trying to preach to, or persuade anyone else. Just stating where my tastes run.

[rongravy]

Leaving Romero?
I bet he still tries the old late night booty call thing on you...


I'm also on an Adam Ant board where there are some people that talk the same kind of smack. If I don't like something, I don't break it out, but it's not going to make me hate the awesome stuff.
I'm a big Sandler fan, but I won't buy Spanglish or Funny People. Why?
Didn't like them, but that isn't gonna stop me from getting superbaked and throwing Billy Madison into the player.

I also liked someone's Star Wars analogy. The prequels were dreadfully heartbreaking, but I could watch Empire every day for the rest of my miserable existence...

I liked Land and Diary. I bet I will like Survival, too. If George is single again, he's all meinz!!!
:moon: I'm ready for my audition...

[Trin]

Yep, it felt more horror than LAND and SURVIVALNow that is an interesting statement. "Felt more like horror." I'm not sure I've ever scrutinized them along that thought process. I've always compared them as GAR zombie movies.

Diary did seem more like a slasher flick than the others. Stereotypical teenagers walking backwards into dark rooms and such. And more like a crappy monster movie. Weird zombies just appearing from nowhere, people running all around like chickens with their heads cut off.

I guess it is a bit more horror-like than the others.

[Rancid Carcass]

:moon: I'm ready for my audition...

"We got this man...we got this by the ass!"

[bassman]

It all depends on your opinion of what horror is. I too think Diary has more of a teen slasher feel, but at the same time find the thought of an army of the undead with weapons pretty damn scary. And I know that's not the popular opinion so...

[Doc]

It all depends on your opinion of what horror is. I too think Diary has more of a teen slasher feel, but at the same time find the thought of an army of the undead with weapons pretty damn scary.

http://www.amazingben.com/argonauts-skeletons.jpg


The hate for Survival is pretty astounding too me. I don't ever remember Land, and Diary even being this hated. :stunned: I haven't seen it myself, but all the negativity the film has been getting is making me think twice before just buying the dvd/blue-ray the first chance I got.

[Skippy911sc]

I think the recent disconnect comes from the idea that people would actually do what is shown in the last three movies. I am sorry to say but I don't know anyone who would film another person being chased and killed instead of help them. These movies have become weekend projects. The scripts must have some major flaws or the editing is just terrible. People don't act and talk the way they are shown in the movies. Just watch day or dawn or even the original night again and then watch these new ones. The newer movies had some bigger actors as well and they still are crap (in my opinion). I will continue to watch them but my theory on the great directors falling short in their older age is being proven correct time and time again.

[Trin]

That is the core of the matter Skippy. You place yourself in the shoes of the characters and end up going wtf for 90 minutes. Not true of the original trilogy.

The originals gave us several different perspectives on the events, with a few standout protagonists that we could rally behind (ie voices of reason). Even in the case of the antagonists you still have a good grasp of what they're after and why. Most often their actions make sense and the only reason they are antagonists is because they're portrayed as pushy or arrogant. In many cases we get people arguing the points made by the antagonists (see Rhodes and Cooper).

The decline began when the character's motives began to serve the message instead of the plot. Land was the first. Too many characters making decisions that no rational person would make all to serve some over-arching message. Bleck. Diary took that to the next level, with characters whose sole purpose was to push message. Survival was more on par with Land. Many of the characters had understandable motives, but the plot was still ultimately driven by the message.

[DubiousComforts]

I think the recent disconnect comes from the idea that people would actually do what is shown in the last three movies.
You've just described both Zombieland and Dawn of the Dead '04 -- movies that are being cited as "awesome" and "entertaining" in this thread.

[rongravy]

I am sorry to say but I don't know anyone who would film another person being chased and killed instead of help them.

You may not know any, but there's loads of them out there. I've seen alot of vids where people stand there filming with their cells instead of helping...
It used to be called OGRISH, the site, now it's Liveleak...
Everybody wants to be famous, doesn't matter who bleeds out.




Maybe we're just old. My kids and their friends do and say things that make me go WTF on a daily basis...

[Trin]

You've just described both Zombieland and Dawn of the Dead '04 -- movies that are being cited as "awesome" and "entertaining" in this thread.
I don't think the criteria for calling those movies awesome or entertaining revolved predominantly around the decisions made by the characters. That said, I would argue that the characters in both those movies had a more pragmatic view of survival than the idiots in Diary.


You may not know any, but there's loads of them out there. I've seen alot of vids where people stand there filming with their cells instead of helping...
While that may be true we're talking about the context of storylines worth portraying in a movie. In the GAR universe there are a million stories of idiots dying... what we're concerned with is the ones worth seeing.

[DubiousComforts]

I don't think the criteria for calling those movies awesome or entertaining revolved predominantly around the decisions made by the characters.
Then what is the "criteria"? I sure hope it's not "check your brain at the door, it's a popcorn flick."


That said, I would argue that the characters in both those movies had a more pragmatic view of survival than the idiots in Diary.

Sez you. There was an overabundance of idiocy on display in both films, and so it seems the audiences that consume them. The filmmakers clearly take their audiences to be a bunch of idiots because it's only about being dazzled by the pretty colors.

[Trin]

Then what is the "criteria"? I sure hope it's not "check your brain at the door, it's a popcorn flick."
People can think it's awesome because it has shiny lights and big explosions if they want. I'm only pointing out that the statement that someone thinks it's awesome doesn't imply that it was judged on the criteria of character actions making sense and being what we'd do in similar situations.



Sez you. There was an overabundance of idiocy on display in both films, and so it seems the audiences that consume them.And yet still Diary outdoes them on idiocy.



The filmmakers clearly take their audiences to be a bunch of idiots because it's only about being dazzled by the pretty colors.And GAR insults our intelligence by pontificating ridiculous message in every film and expecting us to swallow his crazy views of what people would do in a crisis. Choose your poison.

[RustyHicks]

Night, Dawn and Day are classics, no doubt.

Land was so so, Diary was crap and I have not
seen Survivor Island yet...although I hear both good
and bad reviews
When it comes to Geroge's new movies,
I will more than likely see them but I won't be
holding my breath that he'll recapture that charm
that he had with his first three zombie movies

[fartpants]

Now whom else is going to cover his ass in candle wax and poke holes in the side of his penis with red hot nails.



hey some of us pay good money for that :sneaky:

[fulci fan]

I think the reason why the first three were awesome was because the "political messages" were not intentional. The last three did have intentional political messages. Since the fans found deeper meaning than was actually there in the original three, Romero feels the need to intentionally put the political bullshit in there because he thinks that is what the fans want, and it ends up harming the film and his career (my opinion). :rolleyes:

[clanglee]

I think the reason why the first three were awesome was because the "political messages" were not intentional. The last three did have intentional political messages. Since the fans found deeper meaning than was actually there in the original three, Romero feels the need to intentionally put the political bullshit in there because he thinks that is what the fans want, and it ends up harming the film and his career (my opinion). :rolleyes:

From your lips to God's ears my friend. +1

[SmoothHussler]

Romero is a dinosaur. Day of the Dead was corny and ghetto too (but I still love it).

Every movie since has been a joke. Fact is he has no new ideas, can't write and pretty much got lucky with Night and Dawn at a time when audiences were different and expected different things.

He hasn't been relevant in the genre in years. He will always be remembered for pretty much starting the genre we all love, but he's not had it in a while.

[Wyldwraith]

Romero is a dinosaur. Day of the Dead was corny and ghetto too (but I still love it).

Every movie since has been a joke. Fact is he has no new ideas, can't write and pretty much got lucky with Night and Dawn at a time when audiences were different and expected different things.

He hasn't been relevant in the genre in years. He will always be remembered for pretty much starting the genre we all love, but he's not had it in a while.

I'm not sure I can give my unqualified agreement to this sentiment. While I agree and accept the position that GAR will most likely continue this lame-ass stagnancy he's stuck in, I don't believe he's actually INCAPABLE of constructing a decent plot and believable characters. Instead, I believe that HE BELIEVES that the construction of that decent plot and/or believable characters must take a back seat to the Almighty Message.

Were GAR to give up pushing Message/Commentary, I believe he could recapture at least something of Day's level.

As for the "horror" argument. I haven't felt really tense, horror-laced content in one of GAR's movies since the SWAT apartment clearing and the cross-country helicopter flight of the original Dawn. Peter's various harrowing moments in those early portions of the movie held the most intensity, and felt the most immersive of everything in GAR's body of Dead movies.

[JDFP]

Romero is a dinosaur. Day of the Dead was corny and ghetto too (but I still love it).



Hey, if you feel that way about "Day" you should check out Romero's 1985 version which is neither corny and certainly not 'ghetto' like the 2008 piece of shit. It's actually probably the greatest horror film ever made.

The only scene from it that's actually corny is the golf cart scene. "Rhodes, you bastard!" as Rhodes is doing 5 MPH away on the golf cart and Steele stands there.

j.p.

[Rancid Carcass]

The only scene from it that's actually corny is the golf cart scene. "Rhodes, you bastard!" as Rhodes is doing 5 MPH away on the golf cart and Steele stands there.

They can't all be Bullitt. :D

[Mr.G]

I think the reason why the first three were awesome was because the "political messages" were not intentional. The last three did have intentional political messages. Since the fans found deeper meaning than was actually there in the original three, Romero feels the need to intentionally put the political bullshit in there because he thinks that is what the fans want, and it ends up harming the film and his career (my opinion). :rolleyes:

IMO, the original three included intentional themes BUT the audience wasn't beaten over the head with the message while watching. However, the new trilogy's messages are so blatant it detracts from the viewing experience.

[DEAD BEAT]

Hey, if you feel that way about "Day" you should check out Romero's 1985 version which is neither corny and certainly not 'ghetto' like the 2008 piece of shit. It's actually probably the greatest horror film ever made.

The only scene from it that's actually corny is the golf cart scene. "Rhodes, you bastard!" as Rhodes is doing 5 MPH away on the golf cart and Steele stands there.

j.p.


ha! that's a funny 1 dude...never really thought of that!:D

[JDFP]

ha! that's a funny 1 dude...never really thought of that!:D

Someone else here on the board actually pointed it out some time ago, but it's a good point which caused me to only bust a rib laughing so hard in thinking about it. If Steele had wanted to he could have just jogged to catch up with the cart.

Eh, who knows... maybe the golf cart had a super-charger on it? :)

j.p.

[Trin]

Maybe Steele couldn't sustain 5 MPH?

The first time I saw Day I was like, "Seriously? He's making his getaway in a golf cart?" The only thing I could think is that the distance between things was supposed to be a lot farther than it appeared. Like the elevator to the labs was really more like 5 miles of caves. In which case, yeah, I'm taking the golf cart too!! But still, I'd think they could catch up with him.

[Legion2213]

As somebody else observed on the other thread where this was talked of...it wasn't just the golf cart, it was the reaction of Steele and the others as if Rhodes had just leaped into the only APC available and sped off all armoured up and protected or something. :)

Killer scene anyhow, I always hurt myself laughing when I see it. :D

[DeadHoosier]

I agree with the original post in that Survival gave me a Fran-like -- "It's really all over, isn't it" moment. I felt it during Land and Diary, but while watching Survival, I knew hope of GAR producing anything great -- hell, even GOOD -- was gone.

We'll always have the original 3. I never thought I'd wish GAR would stop wasting his time and ours.

[Trin]

You know, that feeling that it was all in the past was all we had for 20 years and we did okay. Land hitting the radar was like a fanboy dream come true, but it's hard to say we couldn't have survived without it.

Just saying, maybe Land/Diary/Survival are like the DVD extras in the Director's Cut of the Original Trilogy, and we just need to start thinking of them as bonus material.

[Yojimbo]

Just saying, maybe Land/Diary/Survival are like the DVD extras in the Director's Cut of the Original Trilogy, and we just need to start thinking of them as bonus material.
Interesting concept. In that sense - as bonus material - they kick ass!

[Eyebiter]

"Such zombies would hardly scare a second grader today."

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/07/welcome-to-zombieland-no-wait-weve-been.html

[triste realtà]

IMO, the original three included intentional themes BUT the audience wasn't beaten over the head with the message while watching. However, the new trilogy's messages are so blatant it detracts from the viewing experience.

I realized a little while back that the first one was accidental (Ben was supposed to be a big white trucker) and then it was copied in Dawn/Day, formula for success style. The reason movies are sucking more and more is zeitgeist.

I haven't seen Diary or Survival but from snippets I think I would like Diary the best out of the three, but I focus on everything but the script.

[fulci fan]

IMO, the original three included intentional themes BUT the audience wasn't beaten over the head with the message while watching. However, the new trilogy's messages are so blatant it detracts from the viewing experience.

Yeah, that could be it too.

[SymphonicX]

After sitting through three unbearable films by George (Land, Diarrhea, and Survival), I have decided that if George makes one more zombie flick, it will tip the balance to mediocre films. George will have made three good zombies films, and four bad zombies films. Why is this, I wonder?

1. The writing is bad. I'm not sure why he's blowing it now, but the dialogue and premises George has been writing about are extremely boring and uninspired. John Leguizamo ransoming a machine for US dollars???? Idiot college kids running around with HD cameras filming zombies while buddies are getting attacked??? National Guard chicks rubbing one out in a truck in the first scene of Survival??? Muldooon! You baaassstaardd!

2. Zombies are cartoons. They're not your neighbors and friends anymore. They are caricatures with demon eyes that scream. They aren't creepy anymore. It's just another "gag" on how to off a dead head.

3. George is trying too hard to "send a message". Hey, he shot Night with the idea they were shooting a monster flick. Get off the Iraq war, or how the internet works, and zombies learning.

4. Poor character development. The last character that did ANY kind of growing in a Romero zombie flick was CJ form the DAWN remake -- and that wasn't even his film.

Bob Kirkman has taken what Romero started and made it what I think is the best entertainment for zombies -- The Walking Dead. It appears the TV Show on AMC will be fantastic. I hope George can look at it (I doubt he will) and maybe learning from it and start writing a decent screenplay with some character developement and an interesting plot.

BIG DADDY SAYS AAAARRRRRGGGG!!!!

(flame suit on)


Agreed with most of it but as sarah once said

"you're making a lot of assumptions here"

-------------------------------------------------------------

UNRELATED:

---------- Post added at 06:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

And I don't get this proclaimation that George should "stop making movies". Shit I'd rather see a bad Romero film than most other kind of films and there's nothing forcing you people to go out and watch them - if you don't like, don't consume his products.

if the man has ideas and can get funding then I say let him keep shooting fish in a barrel until he hits one square on the head - George has a great legacy and none of us have any right to issue sad little demands that he should stop working in the film industry.

As someone said ages ago, this trend of posting "open letters" to directors is nothing more than an egotistical trip into someone's sense of fanboy frustration - just like George lucas, people may not overly buy into his latest stuff but he is the creator and the executor of all things to do with his world and he has just as much right as Lucas to go out and make movies, this constant backlash is both distracting and pointless - let the guy make movies if he wants to - you don't realise just how much of this stuff he could be reading whilst there's a very dedicated and hungry fanbase waiting to see what he'll come up with next, whether we love it as much as Dawn or not, it sickens me to think that maybe one day, Romero will read one of these overly dramatic posts and say "you know what, fuck you - I've busted a nut to get three more zombie films out in less than 10 years and all I get in return is "fuck you, george"."

THIS IS NOT INDICATIVE OF GEORGE'S TRUE FANS.

We may dislike some of the movies and we may slate them from time to time - but we're hear because we love George, we love his legacy and we support him and we are HUNGRY for more entries into his well deserved legacy. We just may not overly like them as much as the others, we may rear criticisms against them and we may have issues with certain elements - but let's not forget that George is a fucking legend and we are damn lucky to see more Romero films in his twlight years - I really want George to know what, the interview Lee Karr did with George perfectly fucking highlights his frustration at these silly statements trying to dictate the progression of his career.

He's not a fucking hollywood celebrity, he doesn't live life surrounded by press and paparazzi, he belongs to the same frickin' world we do - which means his skin is only *so* thick - don't forget that. He's human and is doing what HE wants to do. By all means express your distaste for the latest entries but don't think for a second you've got the right to dictate what he should be doing with his life.

I really, really hope George doesn't read these pages.

* none of that aimed at the OP or anyone else in this thread but an expression of general grievance.*

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------


As somebody else observed on the other thread where this was talked of...it wasn't just the golf cart, it was the reaction of Steele and the others as if Rhodes had just leaped into the only APC available and sped off all armoured up and protected or something. :)

Killer scene anyhow, I always hurt myself laughing when I see it. :D

yeah but he did have the keys and shit like that - he made a blatant play for the armoury without his men, what a c**t - they may have had more of a chance if they stuck together eh - but yeah Steele and co could've probably chased him and beat him to the bloody door hahaha

[Trin]

@Symphonic - I agree in part. I disagree in part.

I think it's lousy that fans write the whole "open letter" calling for a director to stop making movies. That's lame and not supporting. It's also not supportive to continually contend that his best is behind him, etc.

At the same time, if the movies suck, the man has got to hear it. Specific criticisms about his released movies may hurt, but sugar coating or disguising the truth is not helping.

GAR's career is fan supported. We can talk about art and vision and whatever as long as we want but he is SELLING his movies. Some people make it sound like he's puttering around his workshop tinkering with ideas and spending his retirement on his hobby. He's not. He's spending someone else's money making something to sell. You're damned right people have the right to tell him what to make. Maybe not the fans directly but the financial backers do. And ultimately the financial backers want to please the most fans.

How thick is his skin? Thick enough that when Land came out with stupid plot and heaped on message he took all of the criticisms and made something even more stupid with even more heaped on message.

I love GAR. I love his movies. I think he has another great one in him. But let's face it - the man needs an intervention. The OP does a pretty good job of stating the salient points of what GAR needs to hear to be successful going forward. I do hope he's reading this stuff because if you filter out all the unfocused "he sucks" messages there are some real nuggets of truth. Nuggets that could've saved Diary and Survival from zombie mediocrity.

[darth los]

The sentiment that if you criticize his work you are not a true fan is silly at best.

If it's not a good film you shouldn't have to say it is. And his recent entries are not good, live with it.

It's like saying if you don't believe in every single item in the republican party platform then you are not a true republican. :rolleyes:

You might not agree with everything they roll out there but it doesn't mean that your heart is not with them. It just means you're not a robot.

You should be able to voice dissent or discontent for something without fear of being kicked out of the fold.

If there's no chance of you losing is it really a sport? If there's no chance of people not liking it is it really art?

saying he should hang it up is taking it too far i agree as it's his life and he can do what he wants to do but if he's frustrated that fans actually have the balls to call a subpar movie subpar instead of worshiping at his feet then it speaks alot to his character.
:cool:

[Legion2213]

As somebody who has lost all faith in GAR, I still think that writing him "cease and desist" kind of letters is a bit much...I certainly wouldn't sign one if it came my way.

That said, it would be nice if he took some of the valid criticisms on board...especially those of people who have been loyal to him and his movies over the decades.

His last two films were dire, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to waste cash on his third effort, "Survival"...I mean this is a GAR movie for Christs sake, people like us should be buying his films on the day they are released, not feeling totally indifferent to them! :(

[darth los]

As somebody who has lost all faith in GAR, I still think that writing him "cease and desist" kind of letters is a bit much...I certainly wouldn't sign one if it came my way.

That said, it would be nice if he took some of the valid criticisms on board...especially those of people who have been loyal to him and his movies over the decades.

His last two films were dire, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to waste cash on his third effort, "Survival"...I mean this is a GAR movie for Christs sake, people like us should be buying his films on the day they are released, not feeling totally indifferent to them! :(

I'm taking the netflix apraoch to that one buddy which as you said speaks volumes about how most of us feel about his recent work.

:cool:

[bassman]

I'm taking the netflix apraoch to that one buddy which as you said speaks volumes about how most of us feel about his recent work.


For some of us, even that one dollar netflix approach may be too much....

[rongravy]

As somebody who has lost all faith in GAR, I still think that writing him "cease and desist" kind of letters is a bit much...I certainly wouldn't sign one if it came my way.

That said, it would be nice if he took some of the valid criticisms on board...especially those of people who have been loyal to him and his movies over the decades.

His last two films were dire, and I still haven't been able to bring myself to waste cash on his third effort, "Survival"...I mean this is a GAR movie for Christs sake, people like us should be buying his films on the day they are released, not feeling totally indifferent to them! :(

It amazes me. If I no longer liked something or someone, I'd move on to bigger and better things...
Not sit around and bitch about the current state of...
Nevermind. I do that about our current PREZ.:lol:
Nigga gotta eat.

When I joined an Adam Ant forum, there were many people like this.
"Oh mannnnn, he sucks now!"
Some people cried, "Man, what a sellout."
Others proclaimed, "If only he could be like back in the day..."
Some made lasting friendships there that they didn't want to kill. I hear that, but dayumn.
GAR would roll over in his grave, were he dead.
Or re-animated somehow...

When Diary came out, it was hard to find, yet Jennifer's Fucking Sweet-Ass Body was all over the place. Diary was full both times I saw it before it was pulled, Jennifer's Body... not so much.
Personally, in my semi-lucid, ego centric mind, I'd make the best fucking zombie movie ever made.
Am I a fanboy? Am I delusional in my thoughts on what he's done with my beloveds...?
Nahhhh.
Would I love it if everything he ever did now hit me like the original trilogy did?
sure.
Just trying to understand the haters.
If you can blow my mind away with something non-GAR, let fly. Ain't seen anything come close yet...

[darth los]

I think you misunderstand.

I don't spend every waking minute obsessing over gar.

There's a thread relative to the subject and I posted my opinion. Simple as.

Ac tually it seems to me that it's the unwavering supporters who get more up in arms when they're idol's work is questioned or criticized.

It's like questioning what a religious person believes. There are obvious inconsistencies but they don't really want to hear about them.

Ever try that? You might get your head chewed off.

Same with this subject. Very interesting.

Me thinks they doth protest too much Bassman.

For those who can't grasp what that means it's that the "defenders of the faith" get a little too worked up over this when it comes up which leads me to believe that they too think his recent work doesn't pass the smell test.

The "haters" just have the balls to tell it like it is.

Just watch the reaction to this post. :lol:

Now, with that said, it is true that a modern GAr film is better then most that come out nowdays but the bar has been set so low that's not saying much.

:cool:

[rongravy]

I think you misunderstand.

I don't spend every waking minute obsessing over gar.

There's a thread relative to the subject and I posted my opinion. Simple as.

Ac tually it seems to me that it's the unwavering supporters who get more up in arms when they're idol's work is questioned or criticized.

It's like questioning what a religious person believes. There are obvious inconsistencies but they don't really want to hear about them.

Ever try that? You might get your head chewed off.

Same with this subject. Very interesting.

Me thinks they doth protest too much Bassman.

For those who can't grasp what that means it's that the "defenders of the faith" get a little too worked up over this when it comes up which leads me to believe that they too think his recent work doesn't pass the smell test.

The "haters" just have the balls to tell it like it is.

Just watch the reaction to this post. :lol:

Now, with that said, it is true that a modern GAr film is better then most that come out nowdays but the bar has been set so low that's not saying much.

:cool:
My head is about as important as my heart. No sleep lost over all this. Chew all you want.
I like what I like. You have no say in this. You might even be guilty of smelling your own wafting funk of nostalgia over this, above a self sense of reasoning. I am old school, I even grew up with this, too. Though I can respect your own personal disdain for what you THINK isn't kosher, I respectfully disagree.
Balls doesn't necessarily eqaute with common sense. Passion doesn't come from the head, it comes from the heart, which I commend you for having...
2nd place prize, forthcoming...
Got your speech ready?
Uhhhhh... what?

[CooperWasRight]

This thread is still going?
doublehttp://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1277709299649.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1277709299649.jpg

[rongravy]

This thread is still going?

I know, right, who IS the coon?

[CooperWasRight]

I know, right, who IS the coon?

Devoting the rest of this thread to cracking that case would be worth more then a bunch of turds crying about how they are personally "leaving" George... I mean really how melodramatic and middle school can this thing get?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CjNiEyuLums/SvTkLBlfgJI/AAAAAAAAEdM/Im6ObPpSuXQ/s400/thats-ridiculous-award1.jpg

[rongravy]

Devoting the rest of this thread to cracking that case would be worth more then a bunch of turds crying about how they are personally "leaving" George... I mean really how melodramatic and middle school can this thing get?


My mom can sew the shit out of your mom's ass.

The best put down I heard in the 80's had to do with eyeboogers. Then fists.
None of them were meinz.
Instigahhh-ma-mutha-fuckin-ma-ta-tion...

[DubiousComforts]

DI mean really how melodramatic and middle school can this thing get?
Oodles more, no doubt. You must be new here.

This thread disappoints on a daily basis since nobody has actually demonstrated possessing any balls to leave Romero. Promises, promises.

Next time, there should be a deadline instituted for leaving Romero or risk facing grave reprisals.

[darth los]

I know, right, who IS the coon?

Don't know what you mean by that but that's not a nice word to use.

The real you is becoming more apparent by the post.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your charm.

I have no interest in interacting with people like you so this will be my last retort.

Good luck in life. You're going to need it.

:cool:

[Trin]

Oodles more, no doubt. You must be new here.

This thread disappoints on a daily basis since nobody has actually demonstrated possessing any balls to leave Romero. Promises, promises.

Next time, there should be a deadline instituted for leaving Romero or risk facing grave reprisals.
Show us how it's done Dubious!! :stunned: :moon: :lol: :p

[ProfessorChaos]

darth, what ron is doing with that post is making a reference to a south park episode where cartman dresses up as a super-hero he calls "the coon".

http://www.behindthehype.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/thecoon.jpg

at least, i'm pretty sure that's what's going on...no need to get all worked up over it, i'm sure.

[darth los]

Well, when you use a character's name that also happens to be a racial epithet and don't explain you can see how it can be taken that way.

If there was a cartoon character named "cracker", "whitey" or "honkey" and I used it and offered no explanation I might have some slpainin' to do as well.

If you say that's what it is, then that's what it is.

So now that that's settled back to the topic...

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Well, when you use a character's name that also happens to be a racial epithet and don't explain you can see how it can be taken that way.
Which is why the writing of South Park is nothing short of genius.


Show us how it's done Dubious!!

I'll teach you how to leave George Romero! I'll teach your grandmother to suck eggs!

(that's an animation reference, too, before any gets excited...)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Which is why the writing of South Park is nothing short of genius.

And with that one comment you just showed me that idiocracy is completely at large and is slowly taking over the world.


BTW, weren't you going to show us how you leave Romero?

You don't have to leave Romero, but you leaving this message board and never coming back would be a really great start to a beautiful and relaxing weekend for me. :D

[JDFP]

You don't have to leave Romero, but you leaving this message board and never coming back would be a really great start to a beautiful and relaxing weekend for me. :D

Now, Gary, this board just wouldn't be the same without a few folks around here...

There would be alot less drunken ramblings about asinine things if I were gone, if Dubious was gone there would be alot less squabbling and witty quips from him from time to time. I happen to enjoy most of Dub's witty quips (even when directed to me).

Wyldwraith always posts extremely insightful novellas of thoughts that are honestly always highly entertaining to read, Basscunt always throws in some random off the wall thoughts that are always also entertaining, and Aces and Los and G always make me think with their retorts to my oft long winded expositions of opinions in my crazy mind of mine. Occasionally, we are also greeted by the computer program known as Terran which comes by and posts random 11100011 binary bits of fascinating info.

I think this board is made great by most of the members that are here to help keep things interesting/entertaining -- that's why I tip my hat in calling HPotD my message board home. :D

j.p.

[darth los]

And with that one comment you just showed me that idocrisy is completely at large and is slowly taking over the world.


BTW, weren't you going to show us how you leave Romero?

You don't have to leave Romero, but you leaving this message board and never coming back would be a really great start to a beautiful and relaxing weekend for me. :D

And if not the world, definitely these boards.

There are few i can think of that he can take along with him.

But where else can they be internet gansters and face no reprocussions from it?

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

if Dubious was gone there would be alot less squabbling and witty quips from him from time to time.

j.p.

And the world would be a much better place for it... trust me.

The smaller the asswipe population the better society functions as a whole.

[DubiousComforts]

You don't have to leave Romero, but you leaving this message board and never coming back would be a really great start to a beautiful and relaxing weekend for me. :D
Which is all the more reason for me hanging around, chuckles.

Btw, did you mean idiocracy?


Occasionally, we are also greeted by the computer program known as Terran which comes by and posts random 11100011 binary bits of fascinating info.
This is good. +1 for JDFP

[ProfessorChaos]

so, in the last month or so we've lost the capn in addition to the voluntary departures of mike, kortick, and debbie.

and you guys are encouraging more people to leave?:confused:

[bassman]

Those people were generally liked and welcomed around here. Not the case with everyone, im afraid...

[darth los]

so, in the last month or so we've lost the capn in addition to the voluntary departures of mike, kortick, and debbie.

and you guys are encouraging more people to leave?:confused:

In a word...yes.

And yes I liked those people very much.

They didn't try and belittle people and didn't make the few minorities that do come here feel out of place.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

Boy Howdy, reading some of these posts today makes me wonder if the board isn't in real trouble.

I dunno....I like most of you, even the ones I don't like.

http://img.idolator.com/assets/images/idolator/2009/04/377870651_10d3b9166c.jpg

[darth los]

Boy Howdy, reading some of these posts today makes me wonder if the board isn't in real trouble.

I dunno....I like most of you, even the ones I don't like.

http://img.idolator.com/assets/images/idolator/2009/04/377870651_10d3b9166c.jpg

There's definiely something in the air around here. A Schism and I can't put my finger on why that is.

The same people have been here for years but for some reason it's getting to a point where every post is like an insult.

You can read for yourself who's guilty of that.

I can play nice or atleast be corteous but I'm not sure that everyone here is capable of that.

:cool:

[Mikey]

I have a feeling that many here would say that if George filmed himself rolling cigarettes it was the greatest movie EVER and anyone who didn't like it was dumb and didn't "get it."

Face it, people. He's not made a good movie since Creepshow.

Good GAR films:
Night, Dawn, Day, Martin

OK GAR films:
Creepshow, Knightriders

Bad:
Diary, Survival, Land, Crazies, Season of the Witch, Bruiser, Dark Half, Monkey Shines

[bassman]

Good GAR films:
Night, Dawn, Day, Martin

OK GAR films:
Creepshow, Knightriders

Bad:
Diary, Survival, Land, Crazies, Season of the Witch, Bruiser, Dark Half, Monkey Shines

Every one of these are debatable. If someone finds some of Romero's post-Creepshow films good, that doesn't make them a "Romero Slut". It's all opinion. You can't really state your opinion and say "face it" as if it's fact.

[darth los]

Every one of these are debatable. If someone finds some of Romero's post-Creepshow films good, that doesn't make them a "Romero Slut". It's all opinion. You can't really state your opinion and say "face it" as if it's fact.


Agreed.

Opinion= not factual.

:cool:

[rongravy]

Don't know what you mean by that but that's not a nice word to use.

The real you is becoming more apparent by the post.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your charm.

I have no interest in interacting with people like you so this will be my last retort.

Good luck in life. You're going to need it.

:cool:
Wahhhh. FAIL. Thanks for the good luck, though.
Racist?
Nahhhhh, my wife and children are Hispanic.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
Next.

darth, what ron is doing with that post is making a reference to a south park episode where cartman dresses up as a super-hero he calls "the coon".
at least, i'm pretty sure that's what's going on...no need to get all worked up over it, i'm sure.
Thank you, kind sir.
In the future, I will try to at least post a picture along with things like this as to not accidentally butthurt anyone...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Which is all the more reason for me hanging around, chuckles.

Btw, did you mean idiocracy?

Yes I did, sorry I have Pneumonia at the moment, so I am not exactly on my "A" Game.

[SymphonicX]

@Symphonic - I agree in part. I disagree in part.

I think it's lousy that fans write the whole "open letter" calling for a director to stop making movies. That's lame and not supporting. It's also not supportive to continually contend that his best is behind him, etc.

At the same time, if the movies suck, the man has got to hear it. Specific criticisms about his released movies may hurt, but sugar coating or disguising the truth is not helping.

GAR's career is fan supported. We can talk about art and vision and whatever as long as we want but he is SELLING his movies. Some people make it sound like he's puttering around his workshop tinkering with ideas and spending his retirement on his hobby. He's not. He's spending someone else's money making something to sell. You're damned right people have the right to tell him what to make. Maybe not the fans directly but the financial backers do. And ultimately the financial backers want to please the most fans.

How thick is his skin? Thick enough that when Land came out with stupid plot and heaped on message he took all of the criticisms and made something even more stupid with even more heaped on message.

I love GAR. I love his movies. I think he has another great one in him. But let's face it - the man needs an intervention. The OP does a pretty good job of stating the salient points of what GAR needs to hear to be successful going forward. I do hope he's reading this stuff because if you filter out all the unfocused "he sucks" messages there are some real nuggets of truth. Nuggets that could've saved Diary and Survival from zombie mediocrity.

Seems almost everyone misunderstood my post - I said quite frankly that criticisms of George's movies are necessary - most of us hate Land, Diary, or Survival and you'd be hard pressed to find a hardcore fan of the original three that like these films - I was simply commenting on the "open letter" phenomenom and the lack of constructive approaches from so called fans - but if people would read my post again you'd see at least 3 or 4 statements where I say it's fair and just for us to criticise his work and discuss it - it's when it gets to the level of petty, childish insults that it falls apart.

Hope that clears things up.

---------- Post added at 08:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------


The sentiment that if you criticize his work you are not a true fan is silly at best.


This seems to be a response to a response of mine - and I'd just like to iterate once again that if you read my original post I never made or hinted at that sentiment - just to clear things up. You're perfectly right with that statement.


By all means express your distaste for the latest entries but don't think for a second you've got the right to dictate what he should be doing with his life.

That's the basic point right there - we can quite rightly rip the piss out of those last three or ANY of Romero's films - but my issue is with the issuing of demands that he should "cease and desist" - that's just pointless, distracting and not a motive of a true supportive fan, more like a troll, but not a fan. As I say we are lucky to still be getting Romero films this late on and he has indeed busted a nut to get us three zombie movies in less than ten years - I know they have been sub par as of late but to scream that he should give up the ghost really doesn't bode well for the rest of us who actually WANT to see him hit the nail squarely on the head once again!

[Yojimbo]

I know, right, who IS the coon?
I beg your pardon? I don't think I care for that word -I hope I have misunderstood you.

---------- Post added at 01:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------


Well, when you use a character's name that also happens to be a racial epithet and don't explain you can see how it can be taken that way.

If there was a cartoon character named "cracker", "whitey" or "honkey" and I used it and offered no explanation I might have some slpainin' to do as well.

If you say that's what it is, then that's what it is.

So now that that's settled back to the topic...

:cool:
EDIT: Glad that I misunderstood. Will promise to read the whole thread more carefully from now on before posting. Cheers.

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 AM ----------


Boy Howdy, reading some of these posts today makes me wonder if the board isn't in real trouble.

I dunno....I like most of you, even the ones I don't like.

http://img.idolator.com/assets/images/idolator/2009/04/377870651_10d3b9166c.jpg
Yes, billlyboy, I agree. We can all chill.

[DjfunkmasterG]

You gotta admit there probably are only a handful of directors/writer like George who has fans as passionate as we are... how much you wanna bet on some Star Wars fan board there is an exact replica of this thread and someone else is leaving that George too.

Not a good day to be named George and be a filmmaker too.

[bassman]

At least our George hasn't continued the series with cheesy gags, poor acting, and crappy CGI effec.....

Shit.:p

[darth los]

Yeah, that's Russo's department. :lol:

I still can't believe how awful night 30th is. I'm actually embarassed to own it. :o

:cool:

[SymphonicX]

Only Russo can add scenes to a movie and get showed up by the original

[darth los]

Not a good day to be named George and be a filmmaker too.

It's getting harder to dislike Lucas though.

http://buzz.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/08/04/george-lucas-pledges-give-fortune/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHollywoodReporter_Showbiz4 11+%28The+Hollywood+Reporter+%7C+Buzz%29

:cool:

[bassman]

It's getting harder to dislike Lucas though.



having pledged to give away at least half of their fortunes (either over the course of their lives or after death).

It's great he's donating and all, but after death? Pfft....who wouldn't give it away? It's not like he's going to need it. With only half his fortune, even his family won't have to work for generations to come...

[Trin]

Seems almost everyone misunderstood my postNah, I get what you're saying, and as I said I agree wholeheartedly that the "open letter" crap is nonsense.

My rant widened the scope of your post to target the people who say GAR should be left alone to do what he wants to do. And I probably inferred some from your post that you were in that camp. I'm sorry if I attributed opinions to you that were not yours.

To reaffirm and further widen my rant ( :) ) in my opinion GAR gets what he gets. I know that sounds harsh but let's think it through. He's 3 movies into making stuff the fans aren't asking for and don't like. Did he address any of the criticisms of Land in Diary? No. He made the same mistakes worse. And Survival? Please. It was a better movie than Diary, imho, but it had the same problems. Now the fans are writing "open letters." Why would anyone expect different? It didn't have to come to this.

If he's reading this stuff and saying he busted his nut to give us 3 movies in 10 years and we're ungrateful jerks, I'd counter by asking what makes him think he's given US anything? He has specifically and pointedly ignored fan and critic commentary.

[CooperWasRight]

It's great he's donating and all, but after death? Pfft....who wouldn't give it away? It's not like he's going to need it. With only half his fortune, even his family won't have to work for generations to come...

Actually most of the wealth on this planet is passed down and stays in the family. It's shitty(unless it's you inheriting the money) but that's just the way it has been and will likely stay.

Bravo to George... It's the least he can do for "Ruining my childhood"... Man you should have seen the awesome open letter I wrote to him asking for him to step awaaaaaaaaait a minute.

[SymphonicX]

Nah, I get what you're saying, and as I said I agree wholeheartedly that the "open letter" crap is nonsense.

My rant widened the scope of your post to target the people who say GAR should be left alone to do what he wants to do. And I probably inferred some from your post that you were in that camp. I'm sorry if I attributed opinions to you that were not yours.

To reaffirm and further widen my rant ( :) ) in my opinion GAR gets what he gets. I know that sounds harsh but let's think it through. He's 3 movies into making stuff the fans aren't asking for and don't like. Did he address any of the criticisms of Land in Diary? No. He made the same mistakes worse. And Survival? Please. It was a better movie than Diary, imho, but it had the same problems. Now the fans are writing "open letters." Why would anyone expect different? It didn't have to come to this.

If he's reading this stuff and saying he busted his nut to give us 3 movies in 10 years and we're ungrateful jerks, I'd counter by asking what makes him think he's given US anything? He has specifically and pointedly ignored fan and critic commentary.

awesome, no probs - I agree mostly! I think Survival was an attempt at answering the fans concerns though, I don't think he went by totally unknowing of what we have said in the past - it addressed issues with lack of story, adventure, over prominence of politics etc etc - but I certainly see your point there, nicely said :)

[darth los]

Nah, I get what you're saying, and as I said I agree wholeheartedly that the "open letter" crap is nonsense.

My rant widened the scope of your post to target the people who say GAR should be left alone to do what he wants to do. And I probably inferred some from your post that you were in that camp. I'm sorry if I attributed opinions to you that were not yours.

To reaffirm and further widen my rant ( :) ) in my opinion GAR gets what he gets. I know that sounds harsh but let's think it through. He's 3 movies into making stuff the fans aren't asking for and don't like. Did he address any of the criticisms of Land in Diary? No. He made the same mistakes worse. And Survival? Please. It was a better movie than Diary, imho, but it had the same problems. Now the fans are writing "open letters." Why would anyone expect different? It didn't have to come to this.

If he's reading this stuff and saying he busted his nut to give us 3 movies in 10 years and we're ungrateful jerks, I'd counter by asking what makes him think he's given US anything? He has specifically and pointedly ignored fan and critic commentary.

I've always said, whether it's an athlete, movie star or whatever, they owe a certain debt to your fans to whom without they would be nothing.

Now, it's not to say that he should cater to our every whim, that would be silly.

Take the gaming industry for example. The are routinely betas and other things that allow for feedback from gamers that enable the developers to make a better product the fans will enjoy even more.

Now I'm sure some of the feedback is asinine. Conversely, I'm sure that some of it is spot on.

This zombie evolution thing is not working. I know it's his vision, but that doesn't make it good. Most of us hate it and the people who don't utterly hate it merely accept it but that's a far cry from actually liking it.

His stubborn George W. Bush like mentalityof stay they course despite a deteriorating situation is disconcerting to say the least.

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

Ok I now feel like I have to address the actual point of this thread for some reason.

When I read people spouting gibberish like the last 3 films were the worst thing to happen to zombie films it makes me think of...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2OFFruhLjaoI9y3lXDv0e1JeRFAftD kWqrg4U64lv8f5TcvQ&t=1&usg=__7BaWRe7CimWDojTrcuUAsGNPUTA=

Come the fuck on... There are some absolutely worthless zombie films that have come out... When the fuck did making a adequate film become a crime? How many decent albeit not amazing films does the man have to make before your gonna stop your faux surprise and outrage?

If someone is going to try and tell me the Day Remake or Rave to the grave are more worthy films then you may as well kill yourself, Because you are have simply been drinking too much
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpHGCUhROFwfTmWc8nK07DvQc9dkn7k dtuEztxcwbrNd4Qx1w&t=1&usg=__0OYWFGddsyokwpiT-w_PDX0_e8A=

Lastly voicing the idea that no one likes the newest films reveals one thing...
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2UDxCAAJFl7GH_y4pjoQecUS7tR4JX k3M5NW7Oa_sWErsj7g&t=1&usg=__cu2oSwNN7EtHODInA_lOq0N3aLQ=

Take a look around on this or the other major zed board. Many people have enjoyed one or all of the last 3 films... SOME even argue there favorite work of his have come in the last 3 films...albeit not many.

This has been about as serious as I can be to responding to a nonsensical thread.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:26 PM ----------


I've always said, whether it's an athlete, movie star or whatever, they owe a certain debt to your fans to whom without they would be nothing.

Now, it's not to say that he should cater to our every whim, that would be silly.

Take the gaming industry for example. The are routinely betas and other things that allow for feedback from gamers that enable the developers to make a better product the fans will enjoy even more.

Now I'm sure some of the feedback is asinine. Conversely, I'm sure that some of it is spot on.

This zombie evolution thing is not working. I know it's his vision, but that doesn't make it good. Most of us hate it and the people who don't utterly hate it merely accept it but that's a far cry from actually liking it.

His stubborn George W. Bush like mentalityof stay they course despite a deteriorating situation is disconcerting to say the least.

:cool:

NO....and NO!

The gaming industry is all about target marketing.... That is NOT what independent film is about at all.

The man has already been stuffed into niche market... George wanted to be able to do other types of films... The last thing he needs is more restrictions.

If your gonna do focus testing on your projects and do designed by committee films then your a whore... And if your gonna be a whore you may as well be a high priced whore like Micheal Bay.

At the end of the day I'd rather hate George's film and know it was HIS film then love some soft serve turd he slapped his name on that was designed to please everyone... But maybe im just crazy for thinking artist should be able to create the way they want to.

[darth los]

Ok I now feel like I have to address the actual point of this thread for some reason.

When I read people spouting gibberish like the last 3 films were the worst thing to happen to zombie films it makes me think of...

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2OFFruhLjaoI9y3lXDv0e1JeRFAftD kWqrg4U64lv8f5TcvQ&t=1&usg=__7BaWRe7CimWDojTrcuUAsGNPUTA=

Come the fuck on... There are some absolutely worthless zombie films that have come out... When the fuck did making a adequate film become a crime? How many decent albeit not amazing films does the man have to make before your gonna stop your faux surprise and outrage?

And it's language like that, calling people retards, why these boards are in the trouble they are in.

Weren't you ever taught how to talk to other people? You have an opinion, we have our and neither is worth more than the other..


But anyway...and as for actually adressing what you wrote, because when your michael jordan your whole career and scoring 32 points a game, retire and you come back and are only scoring 23 a game, no it's not enough.

It's all relative. Sure they probably are adequate for someone else. But more is expected from the godfather of the genre. We've already seen what he is capable of. He has set the bar for himself and he is falling more and more short of it with every offering.

Screw dawn, Survival actually makes me wish for another land. And that's sad.

Now I await your childish name calling.

And using images of mentally challenged people dude?

Stay classy. :thumbsup:

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Yes I did, sorry I have Pneumonia at the moment, so I am not exactly on my "A" Game.

That's okay, nobody was expecting that you'd had an "A" Game. :D

Pneumonia is very serious. Why are you fooling around here when you should be in a hospital? I've known more than a few people that are no longer with us because they weren't treated properly for pneumonia or didn't take it seriously enough.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4647/getwellsoon.gif

[CooperWasRight]

And it's language like that, calling people retards, why these boards are in the trouble they are in.

Weren't you ever taught how to talk to other people? You have an opinion, we have our and neither is worth more than the other..


But anyway...and as for actually adressing what you wrote, because when your michael jordan your whole career and scoring 32 points a game, retire and you come back and are only scoring 23 a game, no it's not enough.

It's all relative. Sure they probably are adequate for someone else. But more is expected from the godfather of the genre. We've already seen what he is capable of. He has set the bar for himself and he is falling more and more short of it with every offering.

Screw dawn, Survival actually makes me wish for another land. And that's sad.

Now I await your childish name calling.

And using images of mentally challenged people dude?

Stay classy. :thumbsup:

:cool:

Come on man this is a classy thread... And the man is HUMAN. No one stays on top forever... and if 23 points is still better then a 15 point average... But thats the problem with the more,better, faster mentality...It is fundamentally flawed and has to come to a head. Unless your retire or overdose at the top of your game your going down. This seems more true in art related to pop culture such as film and music... Continue to do the same thing forever and you directly compete with your self and your a branded as having no range... Branch out and try different things and you have lost touch or sold out.

One can not compete with the nostalgia of greatness. And i find it the height of absurdity to suggest because some people don't like someones film to ask them to quit making film.. And that was amped up be the silly "Breaking up with George" melodrama... This thread can not being taken seriously.

If these boards are in trouble it probably has more to do with threads like calling for artist to retire.

[darth los]

Come on man this is a classy thread... And the man is HUMAN. No one stays on top forever... and if 23 points is still better then a 15 point average... But thats the problem with the more,better, faster mentality...It is fundamentally flawed and has to come to a head. Unless your retire or overdose at the top of your game your going down. This seems more true in art related to pop culture such as film and music... Continue to do the same thing forever and you directly compete with your self and your a branded as having no range... Branch out and try different things and you have lost touch or sold out.

One can not compete with the nostalgia of greatness. And i find it the height of absurdity to suggest because some people don't like someones film to ask them to quit making film.. And that was amped up be the silly "Breaking up with George" melodrama... This thread can not being taken seriously.

If these boards are in trouble it probably has more to do with threads like calling for artist to retire.


Point taken.

I disagree but I understand what you mean.

And for the record I would never want him to hang it up, that's not where I'm coming from. I know he can make an epic fucking film. I just can't fathom why he's not doing it, and that's where my frustration atleast, comes from. I only want him to do well.

See, no name calling and we both got each other's points even though we don't agree.

Awesome.

:cool:

[SymphonicX]

I don't think this boards in trouble, we've lost a few members - but we're hardly a bunch of raving trolls.

[darth los]

I don't think this boards in trouble, we've lost a few members - but we're hardly a bunch of raving trolls.

Not trolls, it's just the agressive language lately that's disturbing.

There's no need for it. We're all intelligent people, with differing opinions yes, who I'm sure can make their points without insults or namecalling.

And it seems there's been a spike in that sort of activity lately.

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

Point taken.

I disagree but I understand what you mean.

And for the record I would never want him to hang it up, that's not where I'm coming from. I know he can make an epic fucking film. I just can't fathom why he's not doing it, and that's where my frustration atleast, comes from. I only want him to do well.

See, no name calling and we both got each other's points even though we don't agree.

Awesome.

:cool:

No Your a ret.... Im not calling anyone specifically names... The thread is silly so I was poking a little fun. I dont think im alone and others have joined poking abit of fun. And there has been plenty of indefensible gibberish on this issue before this thread around this issue and this thread is basically the personification of silliness.

gibberish= blank of the dead is the worst zombie film ever..
sanity= I didn't like or hated or loved blank of the dead...
gibberish= no one liked blank of the dead
sanity=Many people did in fact like blank of the dead...
gibberish=George should hang it up...
sanity=Don't like it then don't buy it... That is the only real valid voice you as a consumer have. Also that doesn't make it alright to steal it..If you watched you really should go buy it...Just don't watch or buy the next one.

I was thinking this thread would have burned out long ago so I would wouldn't be compulsively drawn to dignifying it with any real words.

[JDFP]

Wait, what the hell are we arguing about here, exactly?

Whether or not it's okay to tell George: "Hey Uncle George, we love you for your original trilogy but want you to know that your most recent trilogy is shit in comparion" or not?

There's a difference in telling granny: "Hey, granny, your cookies suck!" as opposed to "Hey, granny, I really like peanut butter, can you try making some of those peanut butter cookies next time instead of chocolate chip?". It's all about being subtle and diplomacy really.

Fans have every right to point out to a director if we appreciate/enjoy said director's work or not because we the fans have helped create the career of the director by buying their product. If they don't make a product we value, we should complain. If you go to Arby's and get a roast beef sandwich and it's the best sandwich you've ever had and then go back and get another sandwich for several weeks in a row and it sucks each time after do you say to yourself: "Well, this sandwich wasn't very good today that I paid for but I'll let it slide because the first sandwich I had was good"? -- maybe once, sure, but after a few times if you keep going back and the service keeps sucking then you're just not a very intelligent person in expecting it to still be good after awhile. Eventually you either have to go to the manager and say: "Hey, can we do this differently?" (with diplomacy as opposed to throwing the sandwich at the manager demanding a refund) or you have to start going elsewhere to eat instead.

The same goes with Romero. Yes, he made some great films with "Knightriders"/ the original Dead trilogy/ but otherwise, for me at least, he's been giving us subpar work the last three films (even though "Diary" was less subpar than the other two). You could say: "Hey George, these movies suck!" or you can do it with diplomacy and say: "Hey, let's try something different here as I'm giving you my business."

And anyone who says that George doesn't owe his fans anything apparently appreciate getting second-rate products. Anything we pay for as a product owes us for the cost of what we put into the product. If I go to Arby's and spend $6 I expect a great big yummy sandwich. Yes, I gave them money -- they do owe me for it. Likewise, if I go spend $10 to see a flick in the theatre I expect a good film for what I put into receiving the product.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

j.p.

[SymphonicX]

Wait, what the hell are we arguing about here, exactly?

Whether or not it's okay to tell George: "Hey Uncle George, we love you for your original trilogy but want you to know that your most recent trilogy is shit in comparion" or not?

There's a difference in telling granny: "Hey, granny, your cookies suck!" as opposed to "Hey, granny, I really like peanut butter, can you try making some of those peanut butter cookies next time instead of chocolate chip?". It's all about being subtle and diplomacy really.

Fans have every right to point out to a director if we appreciate/enjoy said director's work or not because we the fans have helped create the career of the director by buying their product. If they don't make a product we value, we should complain. If you go to Arby's and get a roast beef sandwich and it's the best sandwich you've ever had and then go back and get another sandwich for several weeks in a row and it sucks each time after do you say to yourself: "Well, this sandwich wasn't very good today that I paid for but I'll let it slide because the first sandwich I had was good"? -- maybe once, sure, but after a few times if you keep going back and the service keeps sucking then you're just not a very intelligent person in expecting it to still be good after awhile. Eventually you either have to go to the manager and say: "Hey, can we do this differently?" (with diplomacy as opposed to throwing the sandwich at the manager demanding a refund) or you have to start going elsewhere to eat instead.

The same goes with Romero. Yes, he made some great films with "Knightriders"/ the original Dead trilogy/ but otherwise, for me at least, he's been giving us subpar work the last three films (even though "Diary" was less subpar than the other two). You could say: "Hey George, these movies suck!" or you can do it with diplomacy and say: "Hey, let's try something different here as I'm giving you my business."

And anyone who says that George doesn't owe his fans anything apparently appreciate getting second-rate products. Anything we pay for as a product owes us for the cost of what we put into the product. If I go to Arby's and spend $6 I expect a great big yummy sandwich. Yes, I gave them money -- they do owe me for it. Likewise, if I go spend $10 to see a flick in the theatre I expect a good film for what I put into receiving the product.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

j.p.


I think you're right but where it gets hairy is the line between art and business - George could argue that it's his choice with how he paints his pictures, and I'd agree with that - but I also agree with your sentiment about voting with your feet - either way those who laughed at Van Gogh's paintings were eventually laughed at themselves for not being able to see his genius...who knows if Diary will be looked on as a groundbreaking masterpiece in 100 years (hahahaha...erm my point is falling apart, help me out here!)

Still though an artist shouldn't have to paint the pictures he feels others demand of him - but if he wants to make any money he probably should!

[Trin]

But maybe im just crazy for thinking artist should be able to create the way they want to.
If he were using your money to make them would you stand by that statement?


And for the record I would never want him to hang it up, that's not where I'm coming from. I know he can make an epic fucking film. I just can't fathom why he's not doing it, and that's where my frustration atleast, comes from. I only want him to do well.
Well said!! And I think we should all acknowledge that it's the frustration over this that is getting us worked up.


I think you're right but where it gets hairy is the line between art and business - George could argue that it's his choice with how he paints his pictures...
I agree. And that's exactly what's landed him making indie films and that's exactly what got him half the money for Land that Zach got for Dawn.



Still though an artist shouldn't have to paint the pictures he feels others demand of him - but if he wants to make any money he probably should!
This is a very good appraisal of the situation. If the man wants to make money he's got to make more appealing movies. When he turns out a movie the fans need to be demanding to see it, not sitting idly by thinking Netflix is good enough.

That, of course, assumes he wants to make money. I'm not sure I've ever heard him say that money is more important to him than his artistic vision. It may a situation of one or the other.

I go back to the OP. The basic bullet points are just a dang good set of rules that would put GAR back on track and we'd get that epic movie we all believe he could make.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Pneumonia is very serious. Why are you fooling around here when you should be in a hospital? I've known more than a few people that are no longer with us because they weren't treated properly for pneumonia or didn't take it seriously enough.

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4647/getwellsoon.gif

They already have me on 4 antibiotics and 6 respiratory drugs. If I don't get better by Monday I was told I would then be off to the hospital.

Right now I sleep in 2-3 hour increments until a coughing fit wakes me up and until i can fall back asleep I haunt HPOTD. Its either that or watch Maury or Jerry and I just can't stoop that low

Hate'em more then I hate Land of the Dead.

[CooperWasRight]

Wait, what the hell are we arguing about here, exactly?

Whether or not it's okay to tell George: "Hey Uncle George, we love you for your original trilogy but want you to know that your most recent trilogy is shit in comparion" or not?

There's a difference in telling granny: "Hey, granny, your cookies suck!" as opposed to "Hey, granny, I really like peanut butter, can you try making some of those peanut butter cookies next time instead of chocolate chip?". It's all about being subtle and diplomacy really.

Fans have every right to point out to a director if we appreciate/enjoy said director's work or not because we the fans have helped create the career of the director by buying their product. If they don't make a product we value, we should complain. If you go to Arby's and get a roast beef sandwich and it's the best sandwich you've ever had and then go back and get another sandwich for several weeks in a row and it sucks each time after do you say to yourself: "Well, this sandwich wasn't very good today that I paid for but I'll let it slide because the first sandwich I had was good"? -- maybe once, sure, but after a few times if you keep going back and the service keeps sucking then you're just not a very intelligent person in expecting it to still be good after awhile. Eventually you either have to go to the manager and say: "Hey, can we do this differently?" (with diplomacy as opposed to throwing the sandwich at the manager demanding a refund) or you have to start going elsewhere to eat instead.

The same goes with Romero. Yes, he made some great films with "Knightriders"/ the original Dead trilogy/ but otherwise, for me at least, he's been giving us subpar work the last three films (even though "Diary" was less subpar than the other two). You could say: "Hey George, these movies suck!" or you can do it with diplomacy and say: "Hey, let's try something different here as I'm giving you my business."

And anyone who says that George doesn't owe his fans anything apparently appreciate getting second-rate products. Anything we pay for as a product owes us for the cost of what we put into the product. If I go to Arby's and spend $6 I expect a great big yummy sandwich. Yes, I gave them money -- they do owe me for it. Likewise, if I go spend $10 to see a flick in the theatre I expect a good film for what I put into receiving the product.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

j.p.

There seems to be a strange sense of entitlement here...The idea that just because you spend 10 dollars to see a film means it has to be good is certainly a nice ideal but it's not very practical. You are not owed a good film simply because you spent money to see it... For starters it is subjective on what a good film is...(So they say)... What you think is good may not be good... So if you pay your ten buck and the director prostitutes him self to make your film and not his... Guess what happens.... You get you 10bucks worth and a bunch of other people dont get there ten dollar value...

see where this is going?.... Now the only way to address this issue is to make a film that takes EVERYONE's wants and concerns into consideration... Then what happens is you get a Hollywood piece of shit that no one is happy with because people have conflicting feelings on what makes a good film.

George for the most part has stayed out of the studio system and I for one am glad there are artist like him who can put there name on a film and it still artistically has some integrity and value. I will most likely continue to kick him down some scratch till the day I die for that reason alone... I may not always like what he puts up on the screen but I respect him.

While this may not mean much to people whom are not filmmakers or artist in general... But those who have studied the film industry or the art industry in general know what Im speaking about...

And I would just stop sticking my finger in the light socket... Or as you would say if the restaurant had changed the ingredients or changed the menu I would find a new place. I don't go to burger king and demand taco's? And as much as I wish taco bell would start serving there mexi-fries(which were basically tatertots with seasoning)..They are not gonna do that even if you are talking industry and commerce.. Even they are no slave to the consumer...

[Trin]

I for one am glad there are artist like him who can put there name on a film and it still artistically has some integrity and value. I will most likely continue to kick him down some scratch till the day I die for that reason alone... I may not always like what he puts up on the screen but I respect him.I didn't realize that setting a zombie on fire with a flaregun then lighting your cigarette on its glowing ember of a head was taking a stand for art! :rolleyes:

Art is what movies that no one likes are called.

You know, you don't really see people telling GAR what to make. There is room to tell him what is not striking a chord with fans without infringing on his artist vision. Good characters. Plausible plot. Sensible message. Can a director really hear those three statements and throw their hands up saying, "They won't let me do anything I want!"

[JDFP]

There seems to be a strange sense of entitlement here...The idea that just because you spend 10 dollars to see a film means it has to be good is certainly a nice ideal but it's not very practical. You are not owed a good film simply because you spent money to see it... For starters it is subjective on what a good film is...(So they say)... What you think is good may not be good... So if you pay your ten buck and the director prostitutes him self to make your film and not his... Guess what happens.... You get you 10bucks worth and a bunch of other people dont get there ten dollar value...


I don't consider it "entitlement" to deserve something if you're spending money for it. If you're giving of your hard-work (money) for a product you expect to obtain your money's worth. An individual should get their money's worth in a good plot, good character development, and well done film. For example, when I go to see a Polanski film I expect a masterpiece of film-making. He hasn't let me down (yet). When I go to see a Romero film -- I expect the Godfather of Modern Zombies to present an exceptionally well crafted piece of horror film-making. Unfortunately, that's not what we've been given the last decade (generally speaking, much longer depending on who you ask). If you were to buy a Corvette you'd expect speed -- not a Corvette with a 4-cylinder engine. It's not entitlement to expect the best from known items/people that can provide the best.

I don't consider expecting the best from the best as a "strange sense of entitlement" at all but rather a valid expectation for a product that has delivered the goods in the past. How is it not practical to expect nothing but the best from the best? Would you spend $5K on a Rolex for the watch to stop working a week later?

You say "you are not owed a good film simply because you spent money to see it". Why else would someone spend money (especially with high ticket prices at a theatre) to go see a film if they didn't expect it to be worth the money they spent for it? I suppose there are people who spend money for a subpar product and are happy with it -- I'm certainly not one of them.

I understand what you are saying about "subjective" interpretations as to what good is or is not, but based upon a proven track record you should certainly come to appreciate something by the value/craftsmanship/proven ability of the item. Otherwise, what use is it? Would you go to an opera and spend $100 expecting for a five minute show in which no one could sing?

To quote from Roger Ebert: "It's not what the story is about, but how the film goes about the story". I don't think it's beyond realistic expectations to expect obtaining the best from something that should be the best. That's just my opinion though.

j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

I didn't realize that setting a zombie on fire with a flaregun then lighting your cigarette on its glowing ember of a head was taking a stand for art! :rolleyes:

Art is what movies that no one likes are called.

You know, you don't really see people telling GAR what to make. There is room to tell him what is not striking a chord with fans without infringing on his artist vision. Good characters. Plausible plot. Sensible message. Can a director really hear those three statements and throw their hands up saying, "They won't let me do anything I want!"

Qualifying art as an external response seems to miss the point of art. Art is an is externalization of internal ideas and feelings... It is expression and does not matter if anyone likes it.

Art is art.

[JDFP]

Qualifying art as an external response seems to miss the point of art. Art is an is externalization of internal ideas and feelings... It is expression and does not matter if anyone likes it.

Art is art.

This is a very postmodern notion of art/literature/etc.

Shit is shit. You can take the shit and wrap it in something expensive, it doesn't make it something more than shit. You can't take a film that has poor dialogue, crappy writing, nonsensical plot and then call it a masterpiece of film-making by making it a black and white film instead of in color. It's still a terrible film in black and white except for color.

While aesthetics are generally subjective, there's an overarching objective nature to things -- there is merit in creating a product that can appeal to people based on the quality of it by cutting across cultural/social/etc. borders and senses.

Britney Spears is not a better singer than Maria Callas because "you like her more than Maria". There's something more to it than just subjective belief.

Again, this is my personal perspective, but I think it's short-sighted to judge things just on a strictly subjective level of being.

j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

I don't consider it "entitlement" to deserve something if you're spending money for it. If you're giving of your hard-work (money) for a product you expect to obtain your money's worth. An individual should get their money's worth in a good plot, good character development, and well done film. For example, when I go to see a Polanski film I expect a masterpiece of film-making. He hasn't let me down (yet). When I go to see a Romero film -- I expect the Godfather of Modern Zombies to present an exceptionally well crafted piece of horror film-making. Unfortunately, that's not what we've been given the last decade (generally speaking, much longer depending on who you ask). If you were to buy a Corvette you'd expect speed -- not a Corvette with a 4-cylinder engine. It's not entitlement to expect the best from known items/people that can provide the best.

I don't consider expecting the best from the best as a "strange sense of entitlement" at all but rather a valid expectation for a product that has delivered the goods in the past. How is it not practical to expect nothing but the best from the best? Would you spend $5K on a Rolex for the watch to stop working a week later?

You say "you are not owed a good film simply because you spent money to see it". Why else would someone spend money (especially with high ticket prices at a theatre) to go see a film if they didn't expect it to be worth the money they spent for it? I suppose there are people who spend money for a subpar product and are happy with it -- I'm certainly not one of them.

I understand what you are saying about "subjective" interpretations as to what good is or is not, but based upon a proven track record you should certainly come to appreciate something by the value/craftsmanship/proven ability of the item. Otherwise, what use is it? Would you go to an opera and spend $100 expecting for a five minute show in which no one could sing?

To quote from Roger Ebert: "It's not what the story is about, but how the film goes about the story". I don't think it's beyond realistic expectations to expect obtaining the best from something that should be the best. That's just my opinion though.

j.p.

Im trying to not be insulting but your analogy doesn't hold any water... And you prove to not be objective in your analogies. You are not paying to see a great film when you see a film.... You are paying to see a film.... Nothing more and nothing less. A corvette cost more because there is a bit more objectivity in industry.. One can use objectively better quality parts when building products. That is simply not very translatable in art.

I could start understand this out pour if you were paying some sort of premium for a Romero films... Again I cant stress it enough... When you go to the theater you are not paying for a great film... Sure you can hope the film you are about to sit down and watch is great... Your ticket entitles you to very few things... That you get to watch the film and that you get to finish the film with a reasonable level of comfort.

---------- Post added at 02:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------


This is a very postmodern notion of art/literature/etc.

Shit is shit. You can take the shit and wrap it in something expensive, it doesn't make it something more than shit. You can't take a film that has poor dialogue, crappy writing, nonsensical plot and then call it a masterpiece of film-making by making it a black and white film instead of in color. It's still a terrible film in black and white except for color.

While aesthetics are generally subjective, there's an overarching objective nature to things -- there is merit in creating a product that can appeal to people based on the quality of it by cutting across cultural/social/etc. borders and senses.

Britney Spears is not a better singer than Maria Callas because "you like her more than Maria". There's something more to it than just subjective belief.

Again, this is my personal perspective, but I think it's short-sighted to judge things just on a strictly subjective level of being.

j.p.


This has nothing to do with the post modern art movement... This has to do with the literal term and intrinsic definition of art... Art exist externally of commerce. And im not even gonna touch your shit..argument.

[JDFP]

Im trying to not be insulting but your analogy doesn't hold any water... And you prove to not be objective in your analogies. You are not paying to see a great film when you see a film.... You are paying to see a film.... Nothing more and nothing less. A corvette cost more because there is a bit more objectivity in industry.. One can use objectively better quality parts when building products. That is simply not very translatable in art.

I could start understand this out pour if you were paying some sort of premium for a Romero films... Again I cant stress it enough... When you go to the theater you are not paying for a great film... Sure you can hope the film you are about to sit down and watch is great... Your ticket entitles you to very few things... That you get to watch the film and that you get to finish the film with a reasonable level of comfort.

I understand what you're saying and I don't find you to be insulting in the least. You're stating your perspective on the matter and I'm simply disagreeing with your premise.

There are objective qualities to a film that make it a good film:

1.) Writing (i.e. dialogue for example)
2.) Character Development
3.) Plot

The same can be said about literature. While directors can be subjective in how they go about presenting these things in their film/story/etc., these are objective principles above this subjective interpretation.

I don't expect the same type of quality in watching an amateur making a film as say someone like Polanski or Bergman who have proved they know these objective principles and how to present them in their own subjective way in their films. But, when a director has proven they can master these fundamentals of film-making, it's nothing short of insulting when they make something that is below their ability to create a film. This, to me, is why there is such anger directed towards Romero's newest zombie films -- we know the man can do far superior in presenting the story but has chosen not to do so.

I'm a big fan of Norman Rockwell's art for example. But, it's a certain quality in Rockwell's work that I appreciate. If Rockwell were to spend five minutes in creating a work even though he had a mastery of making a much finer piece of art but just didn't because he didn't feel like it then it would be short-changing not only himself but those who come to expect a certain aesthetic and well-crafted piece from him.

Of course quality is translatable into art just like it is in the quality of making a car. You can tell the difference between a Corvette and a Taurus because of the craftsmanship that went into making the former. Likewise, you can tell the difference in quality in a Polanski film versus a film by an amateur that has no idea what they are doing or a work by Caravaggio vs. my drawing a stick figure. It's a matter of mastering your work -- no matter what the work may be.

j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

I understand what you're saying and I don't find you to be insulting in the least. You're stating your perspective on the matter and I'm simply disagreeing with your premise.

There are objective qualities to a film that make it a good film:

1.) Writing (i.e. dialogue for example)
2.) Character Development
3.) Plot

The same can be said about literature. While directors can be subjective in how they go about presenting these things in their film/story/etc., these are objective principles above this subjective interpretation.

I don't expect the same type of quality in watching an amateur making a film as say someone like Polanski or Bergman who have proved they know these objective principles and how to present them in their own subjective way in their films. But, when a director has proven they can master these fundamentals of film-making, it's nothing short of insulting when they make something that is below their ability to create a film. This, to me, is why there is such anger directed towards Romero's newest zombie films -- we know the man can do far superior in presenting the story but has chosen not to do so.

I'm a big fan of Norman Rockwell's art for example. But, it's a certain quality in Rockwell's work that I appreciate. If Rockwell were to spend five minutes in creating a work even though he had a mastery of making a much finer piece of art but just didn't because he didn't feel like it then it would be short-changing not only himself but those who come to expect a certain aesthetic and well-crafted piece from him.

Of course quality is translatable into art just like it is in the quality of making a car. You can tell the difference between a Corvette and a Taurus because of the craftsmanship that went into making the former. Likewise, you can tell the difference in quality in a Polanski film versus a film by an amateur that has no idea what they are doing or a work by Caravaggio vs. my drawing a stick figure. It's a matter of mastering your work -- no matter what the work may be.

j.p.

Qualities that make a great film differ from person to person.

For some may say it is:

1)Direction
2)Acting
3)originality
4)cinematography

This list can really go on and on... The are no objective checklist of rules as to what make a good film and as long as you check x amount off you have a great film.. And certainly if we were to use your criteria that would all but through out many works by Lynch, Kubrick, Tarkovsky amongst genres such as art film, surreal film, Most of short film, Documentaries among other things.

While the varies "qualities" you mention can be debated on a somewhat objective manner.. Example... "The plot was under developed" ..... But there are many examples of art that simply does not fit into a nice little box.

And again the corvette has absolute quantifiable factual qualities such as alloys used, horsepower, aerodynamics, top speed gas mileage.

The quantifiable elements that go into film do not have any hard causal links to whether the film is a masterpiece... If so hollywood would be crank in em out left and right... Because time and money and the talent involved which are the counterparts to the car analogy do not guarantee greatness.

I will certainly grant you that there can be a consensus on if a film has many qualities that are generally considered good or bad... But honestly this thread is rooted in the most recent works of films that there are "mixed" feelings on and some people are acting as if these films have been universally branded not good... And this is simply not so.

[Trin]

Qualifying art as an external response seems to miss the point of art. Art is an is externalization of internal ideas and feelings... It is expression and does not matter if anyone likes it.

Art is art.
I expect GAR shares this opinion. It's quite evident in both Diary and Survival. And maybe he deserves to be applauded for not selling out to the interests of his financial backers or fans.

But just like his movie's focus on message has been detrimental to the plot, his focus on art has undermined his film's viability as a business. And ultimately he has limited his ability to create more of his art by making it financially unattractive to financial backers.

[CooperWasRight]

I expect GAR shares this opinion. It's quite evident in both Diary and Survival. And maybe he deserves to be applauded for not selling out to the interests of his financial backers or fans.

But just like his movie's focus on message has been detrimental to the plot, his focus on art has undermined his film's viability as a business. And ultimately he has limited his ability to create more of his art by making it financially unattractive to financial backers.

Well Land got him his creative freedom to do a movie independent of the studio system... And Diary got him is quickest turn around with yet again more freedom... And Last I heard he has been making more personally off his last couple films due to him directly has more direct ownership on em as apposed to a studio funded project.. Sound like a win win for George.

His newer films say Romero/Grunwald productions.

[rongravy]

I beg your pardon? I don't think I care for that word -I hope I have misunderstood you.

You did. Someone even posted on where I got it from. Backing up a buddy is fine, just please don't try to make me something I am not. Meant it in no way like you might have taken it, and my past posts can attest to that. I live and work in a place extremely diverse: Northwest Arkansas, if you can believe that. One of my best friends is from the Sudan. I'm married to an awesome El Salvadorean woman, meaning my kids are Hispanic. And I love the shit outta them. I speak Spanish, and a bit of a few other languages like Laotian, Marshallese, and French(which I learned in high school.)
I'm all about the love, man...



EDIT: Glad that I misunderstood. Will promise to read the whole thread more carefully from now on before posting. Cheers.
Yes, billlyboy, I agree. We can all chill.
I'm chill. Let's all be chill. Not trying to hate. Give me the same?
That's all I ask...



Not trolls, it's just the agressive language lately that's disturbing.
There's no need for it. We're all intelligent people, with differing opinions yes, who I'm sure can make their points without insults or namecalling.
And it seems there's been a spike in that sort of activity lately.

I'm down with that, and offer an olive branch.
I like new Dead films, and you don't. I can live with that.
This place seems hostile at times, and it kind of rubs off, admittedly.
You've seen proof that, although it was obscure to you, my quote was nothing more than a reference to a kickass cartoon. I'm cool if you're cool. If you're not, at least I tried...

[Trin]

And Last I heard he has been making more personally off his last couple films due to him directly has more direct ownership on em as apposed to a studio funded project..
Can anyone on the forums comment on this statement with facts/numbers? If Romero made more money personally on Diary than Land, and more on Survival than Diary, then it does become a win/win. A lose for us, but a win/win for him.

All I can see is Diary got a limited distribution and Survival never showed in my city. Romero appears to be one step from making home movies and releasing them on Youtube. Compare that to what might have been if Land had been released to critical and fan acclaim. We might be sitting pretty as GAR gets handed a huge budget for a truly epic Dead finale.

I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls.

[CooperWasRight]

Can anyone on the forums comment on this statement with facts/numbers? If Romero made more money personally on Diary than Land, and more on Survival than Diary, then it does become a win/win. A lose for us, but a win/win for him.

All I can see is Diary got a limited distribution and Survival never showed in my city. Romero appears to be one step from making home movies and releasing them on Youtube. Compare that to what might have been if Land had been released to critical and fan acclaim. We might be sitting pretty as GAR gets handed a huge budget for a truly epic Dead finale.

I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls.

George has made it clear he made an active choice to go back to making indi films... He was not forced out. He prefers creative freedom to big budgets. He pretty much has always been that way. As he puts it he prefers the 2 dollar betting window.

Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's.

[rongravy]

I'm not sure what his stake was in Diary or Survival, but it seems pretty clear that he drops everything if a studio calls.
We all gotta eat. Who doesn't want their shit to get a wide release. Hard to be relevant when you're starving.
Ok, I can see how purists can't like anything new. Believe me, I've unfortunately thought about it...
I'm old school, but I like new schnizz. I can see how people might not like Diary, but geez.
I saw Diary(twice) a week after Jennifer's Body, which got alot more publicity.
Ask me which one I'd see again and I'd ask you what drug you were on.
Blind?
No.
Who doesn't have their daydream of the perfect apocolypse? Give me, sayyy 300 million, and I'd hand-fucking-deliver the best EPIC, STAR WARS-LIKE, zombie saga you ever did seen...
;)
What I lack in charm, let alone my moonspeak, I make up for in forthrightedness. :shifty:

[Trin]

George has made it clear he made an active choice to go back to making indi films... He was not forced out. He prefers creative freedom to big budgets. He pretty much has always been that way. As he puts it he prefers the 2 dollar betting window.

Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's.
I don't buy it. After Land he was all stoked to do Land 2 when Universal was going to offer it. It was in every interview how much he was on board. Then Land didn't do as well as everyone hoped and no one was offering and all of a sudden he was all about the creative freedom of indie. That's called finding a silver lining. It's a very far cry from "he pretty much has always been that way." Nope, not buying it.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the man for finding a creative way to continue to make movies, and if he's making good money and has his artistic freedom, all the better for him. But I don't see him turning down the 50 Million budget if a studio came offering "World of the Dead" ya know?

[CooperWasRight]

I don't buy it. After Land he was all stoked to do Land 2 when Universal was going to offer it. It was in every interview how much he was on board. Then Land didn't do as well as everyone hoped and no one was offering and all of a sudden he was all about the creative freedom of indie. That's called finding a silver lining. It's a very far cry from "he pretty much has always been that way." Nope, not buying it.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the man for finding a creative way to continue to make movies, and if he's making good money and has his artistic freedom, all the better for him. But I don't see him turning down the 50 Million budget if a studio came offering "World of the Dead" ya know?

I can only assume...And I may be wrong... But I can only guess you dont know much about George's history in film making.

1) Land of the dead was a financial success...
2) he was beating the drum of a sequel after land was out.
3) his entire career except for Land has been outside the traditional studio setting
4) George could have had double the budget he had on Day but he would have lost creative freedoms so he opted to do it small and and keep the tone of the film...

George's history as a independent film maker and reputation far exceeds the niche of devoted zombie fans. George's independent spirit and integrity is why he is respected by film makers of all walks of film.

[SymphonicX]

This thread is way too deep.

[EvilNed]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we, the fans, are the cause of his demise? With our increasing demands for better films, yet we are constantly disappointed with what we get? A self-fulfilling prophecy!

[SymphonicX]

That is a far better example of irony than anything Alanis Morisette came up with

"A traffic jam when you're already late
A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break"

I mean, they're nothing but inconveniences really

[DjfunkmasterG]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we, the fans, are the cause of his demise? With our increasing demands for better films, yet we are constantly disappointed with what we get? A self-fulfilling prophecy!

We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing as I see it,
You cannot make a pure "The artist is entitled to 100% creative license, and it's up to the audience to find value in what the artist chose to produce" when you are using SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY to produce your art.

If GAR was giving his movies away, or holding an auction to sell one single copy of a movie he made, which is the ONLY copy of that movie produced, you could make an art argument.

Fortunately or unfortunately however you view it, modern cinema draws revenue by appealing to large audiences which are willing to spend substantive amounts of money to gain access to the finished product of the Director.
This being the case, the Director/Artist has departed from a purely artistic methodology and begun to engage in commerce when he seeks to gain revenues via the profits generated by the movie-going audiences paying for access to that movie.

Yes, "good" is a subjective concept, but QUALITY as it is "commonly understood" is not. The definition of Quality in a commercial venture is: A product enticing enough to the planned-for consumer to spend some of their limited supply of money on. That's OBJECTIVE in principle, but it CAN BE *Subjective in application* at times, for example if a movie is blacklisted due to its content by a large portion of the potential consumer base, or conversely, if a wide portion of the consumer base automatically makes the decision to purchase based on "brand recognition."

When it comes to movies, if a director wants to be EITHER commercially or artistically successful their product (the movie) has to be enticing to enough fans to make the picture a financial success, and thereby provide financial backers with the confidence to invest in the director again so they can CONTINUE to make movies.

Whatever your feelings about GAR's more recent offerings, it's inarguable that if the profits of his finished movies falls below X level and remains there, where X is the minimum profit margin to ensure the production of another movie. The fact that there are significant numbers of fans now subjectively questioning GAR's future offerings is BOUND to have a negative effect on X.

Just basic commercial principles.

[EvilNed]

We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks

What is there to explain? You didn't even pose a question.

[rongravy]

Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's.

I used to talk to Nick Swardson around the time that Grandma's Boy came out. When it didn't do so well at the box office, he said that was fine and that they'd make their money off the dvds. So yeah, I think you're right there.
I prefer to see everything first on the bigscreen. I guess some people are happy to view things in the privacy of their homes which is fine.

[CooperWasRight]

Here's the thing as I see it,
You cannot make a pure "The artist is entitled to 100% creative license, and it's up to the audience to find value in what the artist chose to produce" when you are using SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY to produce your art.

If GAR was giving his movies away, or holding an auction to sell one single copy of a movie he made, which is the ONLY copy of that movie produced, you could make an art argument.

Fortunately or unfortunately however you view it, modern cinema draws revenue by appealing to large audiences which are willing to spend substantive amounts of money to gain access to the finished product of the Director.
This being the case, the Director/Artist has departed from a purely artistic methodology and begun to engage in commerce when he seeks to gain revenues via the profits generated by the movie-going audiences paying for access to that movie.

Yes, "good" is a subjective concept, but QUALITY as it is "commonly understood" is not. The definition of Quality in a commercial venture is: A product enticing enough to the planned-for consumer to spend some of their limited supply of money on. That's OBJECTIVE in principle, but it CAN BE *Subjective in application* at times, for example if a movie is blacklisted due to its content by a large portion of the potential consumer base, or conversely, if a wide portion of the consumer base automatically makes the decision to purchase based on "brand recognition."

When it comes to movies, if a director wants to be EITHER commercially or artistically successful their product (the movie) has to be enticing to enough fans to make the picture a financial success, and thereby provide financial backers with the confidence to invest in the director again so they can CONTINUE to make movies.

Whatever your feelings about GAR's more recent offerings, it's inarguable that if the profits of his finished movies falls below X level and remains there, where X is the minimum profit margin to ensure the production of another movie. The fact that there are significant numbers of fans now subjectively questioning GAR's future offerings is BOUND to have a negative effect on X.

Just basic commercial principles.

While you logic is sound and certainly applies to most cases in hollywood it just isnt one size fits all.

A few things that seem to be missing in this equation:

1)There is a market for what George has been doing... It is pretty much a lock that whatever he does on a small budget there will be an audience for which buys him artistic freedom.

2)His films turn a profit... Again Just because there are some loud people on this board with negative opinions does not make his films objectively .

3)I can not 100% say for certain but as the recent films has his and Peter Grunwald's production companies name attached then George does indeed own stock in the film.. He has money in his own film.

4) Independent cinema works a very differently then Hollywood... The point of being indi is so you can do your film with artistic control. Now there has been some shift over the recent years but that is the "independent" in independent cinema.

[Trin]

Here's my final take.

GAR has limited himself, both financially and artistically, by being resolute in his pursuit of his message driven vision. While he may have stuck to his artistic guns, and he may be making the movies he wants to make, he has closed doors for himself which diminished his ability to get financial backing, and in turn diminished his ability to explore his artistic vision.

I am not asking for GAR to give the fans or studios what they want to the exclusion of all else. His vision is important for his movies to be GAR movies. I believe that if GAR were to chase nothing but financial success it would be just as detrimental as his current path. A steamy pile of boxoffice bliss would surely be just as disappointing as what we're seeing today.

However, I think GAR needs to stop being so resolute in ignoring the criticisms. There is room for GAR to deliver his vision while integrating the thoughts of the critics.

Consider this - it used to be that the fans disagreed with the critics. Now we're making the same points as the critics. That's the kind of thing I would think GAR would care very much about.

GAR needs to get back to some simple things:
Realistic characters, realistic motives, sensible decisions.
Plausible plot.
Message that works with the story rather than in spite of it.

The studios have no desire to take creative freedom away. All they want is return on investment. If GAR delivered a movie with market and fan success it would open the doors for him to make something big budget with creative freedom.

Dubious has said that no one has the follow-through to leave GAR. But how many of us didn't spend a dime on Survival? If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone.

[rongravy]

Here's my final take.
If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone.
OK, then why are you still here?
Bitch, bitch, bitch...
this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo...

[CooperWasRight]

Here's my final take.

GAR has limited himself, both financially and artistically, by being resolute in his pursuit of his message driven vision. While he may have stuck to his artistic guns, and he may be making the movies he wants to make, he has closed doors for himself which diminished his ability to get financial backing, and in turn diminished his ability to explore his artistic vision.

I am not asking for GAR to give the fans or studios what they want to the exclusion of all else. His vision is important for his movies to be GAR movies. I believe that if GAR were to chase nothing but financial success it would be just as detrimental as his current path. A steamy pile of boxoffice bliss would surely be just as disappointing as what we're seeing today.

However, I think GAR needs to stop being so resolute in ignoring the criticisms. There is room for GAR to deliver his vision while integrating the thoughts of the critics.

Consider this - it used to be that the fans disagreed with the critics. Now we're making the same points as the critics. That's the kind of thing I would think GAR would care very much about.

GAR needs to get back to some simple things:
Realistic characters, realistic motives, sensible decisions.
Plausible plot.
Message that works with the story rather than in spite of it.

The studios have no desire to take creative freedom away. All they want is return on investment. If GAR delivered a movie with market and fan success it would open the doors for him to make something big budget with creative freedom.

Dubious has said that no one has the follow-through to leave GAR. But how many of us didn't spend a dime on Survival? If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone.

In your words he "closed the doors on himself" years ago... Another page in George's history.

He consistently did films his way and back in his hay days in the 80's turned down numerous projects offered and it is for that reason we have Day the way we had it. If he would have sold out many of people's favorite entry in the series would have been watered down in tone,violence and language.

It was those choices the made it hard for him to get the backing on a 4th film. Precisely the same independence that gave us the original trilogy.. You really don't cant have it both ways.. If George was not the (hate to use this term for obvious reasons) maverick film director he is we wouldn't have the great films we got out of him.

[C5NOTLD]

4) George could have had double the budget he had on Day but he would have lost creative freedoms .

In all fairness, he did lose some creative freedom on Land as he wasn't allowed to hire his choice of John Carpenter to compose the soundtrack.



.

[DjfunkmasterG]

In all fairness, he did lose some creative freedom on Land as he wasn't allowed to hire his choice of John Carpenter to compose the soundtrack.

.

There is more than just that my friend. Romero had ZILCH in his freedom on LAND. The producers had their nose in everything every step of the way.

---------- Post added at 06:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 AM ----------


What is there to explain? You didn't even pose a question.

Yes I did... I guess you need the question mark.

So here is my original post with the added question mark or do I have to speak Nedenese to get the point across to you?


We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks? (<--- see I added the question mark :) Now can you answer it? )

More or less what I am asking is how can the man who is known for doing a lot on a small budget, have the same budget as a british studio produced zombie film like SHAUN not be able to re-create or even surpass it on the same money? I mean he is after all George A. Romero.

Look in all the negativity surrounding George's new flicks and my utter distaste for Land of the Dead, I have to admit I still think George can make another great zombie film. I definitely will not turn my back on him because he made three of the best zombie films ever made, and has been an inspiration to all of us at some point in our lives.

While I can understand people wanting to give up on him.... I am just not ready to throw in the towel.. I was, but I think about it more and I think the man can do another great film. I don't know all of his hurdles and other issues, but I am sure once the bugs are worked out we may actually get another great zombie flick from George.

[EvilNed]

But you pose no dilemma and no real question. Explain what? That Shaun and Survival had the same budget? What's there to explain about that? They did, that's all there is to it. What more do you want?

If you want us to explain why you dislike Survival, I hope you realize that's something you'll have to do on your own.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ok let me spell it out

Two filmmakers given the same budget - $4,000,000

One group turns in a fantastic zombie flick with comedic elements great characters and a good amount of the wet stuff.

The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement.

So explain why (here is the question) a couple of Romero fans from the UK can use the same amount of money and make a better film than the masters last 3 attempts?

I guess you Swede's need everything spelled out for you :p

You can't seem to grasp the simple concept of comparison without some extra wording eluding to the same point posed in the original question.

[Legion2213]

OK, then why are you still here?
Bitch, bitch, bitch...
this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo...

Haters? We are the people who have supported his projects financially and morally since we found his films, for me,that's knocking on two decades, for others, it's a lot longer.

I bought his videos
Then I bought the same movies on DVD
Then I bought the special/uncut/ultimate editions on DVD
Then I bought the same movies AGAIN on Blu-Ray

I think people who are unhappy with his recent offerings are entitled to comment on them, be they positive comments or negative comments...especially when said people have put their hands in their pockets and bought his products over the years and decades.

[EvilNed]

Ok let me spell it out

Two filmmakers given the same budget - $4,000,000

One group turns in a fantastic zombie flick with comedic elements great characters and a good amount of the wet stuff.

The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement.

So explain why (here is the question) a couple of Romero fans from the UK can use the same amount of money and make a better film than the masters last 3 attempts?

I guess you Swede's need everything spelled out for you :p

You can't seem to grasp the simple concept of comparison without some extra wording eluding to the same point posed in the original question.

With all due respect, you're posing a situation relevant to you, and not me. So I feel no need to explain anything. As I said earlier, if you're trying to get an explanation out of anyone of why you didn't like Survival, then you're going about it the wrong way.

Nobody can answer why you didn't like Survival as much as you liked Shaun. Why would you even pose a question like that? There's really nothing to explain, and I don't get why you seem to think there is. Get it?

Consider this statement:


Titanic cost 200 million dollars. Halloween cost 250,000 dollars. EXPLAIN THAT!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Consider this statement:

Titanic cost 200 million dollars. Halloween cost 250,000 dollars. EXPLAIN THAT!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

Because James Cameron can command higher budgets for films people my have an interest in opposed to Halloween which has limited marketability and a limited fan base.

And yes Ned, it can be explained, but I never asked you directly to explain it, not until you jumped in with your unwanted opinion.

You still don't seem to get the question. It is a very simple one you are just trying to make it complicated because you happen to Enjoy Survival so to you there is no question when comparing the same budget on two separate zombie films.

So you can run along now... bye :lol:

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------


Haters? We are the people who have supported his projects financially and morally since we found his films, for me,that's knocking on two decades, for others, it's a lot longer.

I bought his videos
Then I bought the same movies on DVD
Then I bought the special/uncut/ultimate editions on DVD
Then I bought the same movies AGAIN on Blu-Ray

I think people who are unhappy with his recent offerings are entitled to comment on them, be they positive comments or negative comments...especially when said people have put their hands in their pockets and bought his products over the years and decades.

AMEN BROTHER LEGION! AMEN! :D

I am one of those going on 3 decades of support, although I was very young when I saw Dawn of the Dead but if I remember correctly MonroeZombi has me beat... I think he had seen it when he was 3 if I remember the story correctly.

[EvilNed]

Because James Cameron can command higher budgets for films people my have an interest in opposed to Halloween which has limited marketability and a limited fan base.

And yes Ned, it can be explained, but I never asked you directly to explain it, not until you jumped in with your unwanted opinion.

You still don't seem to get the question. It is a very simple one you are just trying to make it complicated because you happen to Enjoy Survival so to you there is no question when comparing the same budget on two separate zombie films.

So you can run along now... bye :lol:


Sorry, not how it works. No matter how you twist and turn it, what you said just doesn't make any sense. I know what you're trying to say, but it's just a clearcut case of doing it wrong, as Hellsing would (probably) say.

So both of the films have the same budget. You don't like one of them. So what? Nobody can explain that one but yourself. And let's not forget, it was an explanation you wanted. Well, do some soul searching, come back and then make sense.

Wether I liked the film or not (I thought it was Okay) is irrelevant anyway, because we're all bias as fuck. So what does it matter? You're bias as well. You didn't like it. Does that suddenly invalidate your argument, as my opinion did mine? No, because your argument was based on two faulty assumptions to begin with: That Survival is a shitty film (Which it isn't, because that's a subjective opinion) and that budget = quality. Sorry, we all know that's not true.

[DjfunkmasterG]

and that budget = quality. Sorry, we all know that's not true.

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. :p

I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans.

And yes Ned... Survival is a shitty movie, not as shitty as Land, but it is a shitty movie nonetheless.

[JDFP]

The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement.


Gary, I personally find your attack of New Coke to be offensive and completely out of line. When I was five years old I remember when New Coke came out, and if I remember correctly I quite enjoyed that drink at 5 years old.

Comparing New Coke to Romero's new films is just flat out insulting. How dare you compare a fine American beverage to such subpar films! New Coke deserves better than comparing it to Romero's newest films, buddy. It's just beyond offensive that you could insult the Coca-Cola Corporation in such a way to me. :rant:

If zombies ever did rise, I would tell Joan Crawford what you said about Coca-Cola and tell her where you live. :elol:

I think they should bring New Coke back on a limited basis say one month of every year -- I would love to try it again and I think if it was a "special collector" thing where it's only released one month a year it could do well -- just like special seasonal beers by Sam Addams.

On a side note, I think Surge was the best cola ever created in the history of sodas -- and I miss it. Surge was like the heroin of sodas. That shit didn't mess around! :D

j.p.

[Trin]

OK, then why are you still here?
Bitch, bitch, bitch...
this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo...
Did you understand what I said at all? The way we back GAR's films is by going to see them in theaters and by purchasing the DVDs. Posting on this site is in no way shape or form providing Romero with backing. So my point is that anyone who didn't pay money for Survival has already left GAR.

And yes I bitch. But I'm not a hater.


If George was not the (hate to use this term for obvious reasons) maverick film director he is we wouldn't have the great films we got out of him.
But why must it be maverick or sell out? Is there no room between being so hard to work with that it takes 20 years to get a deal and complete loss of artistic freedom? His artistic freedom isn't giving us great movies anymore anyway.

[darth los]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. :p

I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans.

And yes Ned... Survival is a shitty movie, not as shitty as Land, but it is a shitty movie nonetheless.


You're argument has facts and numbers on it's side deej.

It SHOULD be embarrasing to GAr that a film that basically amounts to fan fiction made on the same budget blows his last 3 films out of the water.

:cool:

[C5NOTLD]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. :p

I am not trying to get on that budget dictates quality, I am just trying to fathom how $4,000,000 is exceptionally well spent on one film, and squandered on another. Both in the same genre... one by the Zombie Maestro himself the other by fans.
.

It comes down to what it always does on any film - the people.
Budgets don't squander themselves.

The fans had a better group around them spending the money than the zombie maestro did. Spending the $ not only what would be seen on screen but on the selecting the people to get that vision on screen. Same formula for the original versions of NOTLD and Dawn (which contributed to their success) and Titanic - vast differences in budget from NOTLD/Dawn to Titanic but Cameron knows how to spend the $ on what matters. He did it with the massive Titanic budget and he did it with the smaller budget of the first Terminator film.



.

[Trin]

The fans had a better group around them spending the money than the zombie maestro did. Spending the $ not only what would be seen on screen but on the selecting the people to get that vision on screen.
This is something that has always bugged me about Land. Did no one think to spend some money having someone just go through the script and identify potential WTF moments? How much would that've cost anyway? Assuming it wasn't just free since so many people would love to contribute.

[CooperWasRight]

Did you understand what I said at all? The way we back GAR's films is by going to see them in theaters and by purchasing the DVDs. Posting on this site is in no way shape or form providing Romero with backing. So my point is that anyone who didn't pay money for Survival has already left GAR.

And yes I bitch. But I'm not a hater.


But why must it be maverick or sell out? Is there no room between being so hard to work with that it takes 20 years to get a deal and complete loss of artistic freedom? His artistic freedom isn't giving us great movies anymore anyway.

You seem to be skipping over the essential point I made... Let's try this again shall we... You don't get the films that made him the master is you don't give George the freedom to be George... Also the issue of him getting funding wasn't and issue of him being difficult.

The industry has changed... Up to the about 90's getting money for independent genre films was viable with people like Dino DeLaurentis and Moustapha Akkad willing to fund genre pieces expecting a modest return. Even the studio system was run much differnly then it has been since the 90's...

The demise of the studio system started in the 70's when the studio's started being sold off and there was a mass exodus of people who were at the top positions in the industry whom were actually worked in film and were in one way or another part of the craft... Fast forward to the late 80's and 90's by this time the studio system was run by stock holders and corporations who simply bought up the film industry... These are for the most part guys whom have never held a camera or acted a day in there life... Ironically it was because of this mass change in the system that gave people like Martin Scorcese ,Lucas, Coppola and many others there break.

The point is is that the reason Romero had to wait for so long is the industry has changed since the 80's and The people who hold the purse strings would rather give a Zach Snyder 28 million dollars because they can tell him what to do with it because he is a new guy and is happy for the break... Now I use that as an example... I cannot not say what happened on Zach's set. George has a reputation for getting with people that want to help facilitate George's movie... And Thank god for people like George, Kubrick and Carpenter... You have to be willing to follow your vision... Thats were the classics come from and sometimes the reviled.

[EvilNed]

Well yes it is, if Shaun of the Dead cost the same money and is a much better film, it shows that Romero fans can make a better movie the man himself given the same budget. :p

It show that, indeed. It shows that to you.

Get it?

You speak of this as if it were fact that Survival was a shittier movie than Shaun. I know you couldn't possibly think it is, because there's no such thing as "fact" when it comes to opinions of movies.

[Wyldwraith]

Something I consider an erroneous attempted application of logic,
The notion that Romero's unwillingness to accept any creative input, or alter his style and the overall presentation of his films are the source of the Original Trilogy's greatness holds less water than a sieve.

Further, I don't accept the entire "It's Indie film, so commercial principles don't apply" argument. To craft another example of where I believe that argument departs from reality, consider the following:

If Romero was making a movie entirely with his own money, or money DONATED to his movie-making with no expectation of its return, and GAR subsequently finished and displayed his film at the hundreds of film festivals where TRUE Indie-Films are shown free of charge, the Indie Firm Argument would hold water.

Reality: Romero DOES accept financial backing in part or whole from investors who demand a profitable return for their investment. Romero DOES present his Dead films primarily via the Commercial Theater and/or Back End DVD Sales in order to generate the aforementioned profit.

Its been said that we can't have it both ways. That GAR's stubborn unwillingness to deviate from his long-established Message > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere is the cornerstone of what brought us the greatness of the Original Trilogy of Dead films.

Bullshit!

In reality, two oft-unmentioned factors played a huge part in determining the quality of the finished product the Original Trilogy. 1) GAR's Message/Preaching/Social Critique > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere Method coincidentally did not work at cross-purposes beyond a minor level with his first three films. The late 60's/mid-70s was a time when a huge and VERY VOCAL counter-culture was just as intent on preaching against the evils of modern society as GAR was. In that setting, and against the backdrop of the Rising Baby-Boomers, a fully engaged civil rights movement and general commonality of the activist mindset, it was only natural that the factors which have combined to detract from GAR's last three films were not nearly as discordant or out-of-step with the subjectivity of the target audience.

2) GAR's Original Trilogy predated all this "Godfather of the Modern Zombie Genre" crap, and all the rest of the hype which has come to surround Romero. At the time of Night/Dawn & Day's making, GAR did NOT see himself as a massive success with a huge following of die-hard fans. Absent this later hype, the man concerned himself simply with NOT BLOWING HIS CHANCE. That's where the cherished relish and crafting of the first 3 Dead films comes from. However, once GAR bought into the perception that he'd become "big enough" to automatically generate a successful film by slapping his name on any old 2nd-rate hack job that the downward spiral began?

As evidence I offer the ever-increasing alignment of the concerns of critics and fans, where once the two very different groups COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been further apart in their views of Romero's body of work.

It doesn't make sense that Romero is continually being misunderstood and underappreciated only now. Much more likely, and what I believe to be the case, is that GAR has fallen out of step with the delicate harmony that collectively makes up a great survival horror film.

Finally, GAR ***DOES*** commercially market his work on a large scale. For this reason alone, the commercial principles I detailed in my last post carry much more weight than the Maverick Indie Director argument.

***ROMERO*** can't have it both ways either. Commercial success requires serious consideration of the current pulse, ie: tastes, of the movie-purchasing audience. Creative License is not a sacrosanct shroud to enfold subpar work and deflect honest criticism of the movie's faults.

What do the rest of you think?

[CooperWasRight]

Something I consider an erroneous attempted application of logic,
The notion that Romero's unwillingness to accept any creative input, or alter his style and the overall presentation of his films are the source of the Original Trilogy's greatness holds less water than a sieve.

Further, I don't accept the entire "It's Indie film, so commercial principles don't apply" argument. To craft another example of where I believe that argument departs from reality, consider the following:

If Romero was making a movie entirely with his own money, or money DONATED to his movie-making with no expectation of its return, and GAR subsequently finished and displayed his film at the hundreds of film festivals where TRUE Indie-Films are shown free of charge, the Indie Firm Argument would hold water.

Reality: Romero DOES accept financial backing in part or whole from investors who demand a profitable return for their investment. Romero DOES present his Dead films primarily via the Commercial Theater and/or Back End DVD Sales in order to generate the aforementioned profit.

Its been said that we can't have it both ways. That GAR's stubborn unwillingness to deviate from his long-established Message > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere is the cornerstone of what brought us the greatness of the Original Trilogy of Dead films.

Bullshit!

In reality, two oft-unmentioned factors played a huge part in determining the quality of the finished product the Original Trilogy. 1) GAR's Message/Preaching/Social Critique > Story/Characterization/Pacing/Atmosphere Method coincidentally did not work at cross-purposes beyond a minor level with his first three films. The late 60's/mid-70s was a time when a huge and VERY VOCAL counter-culture was just as intent on preaching against the evils of modern society as GAR was. In that setting, and against the backdrop of the Rising Baby-Boomers, a fully engaged civil rights movement and general commonality of the activist mindset, it was only natural that the factors which have combined to detract from GAR's last three films were not nearly as discordant or out-of-step with the subjectivity of the target audience.

2) GAR's Original Trilogy predated all this "Godfather of the Modern Zombie Genre" crap, and all the rest of the hype which has come to surround Romero. At the time of Night/Dawn & Day's making, GAR did NOT see himself as a massive success with a huge following of die-hard fans. Absent this later hype, the man concerned himself simply with NOT BLOWING HIS CHANCE. That's where the cherished relish and crafting of the first 3 Dead films comes from. However, once GAR bought into the perception that he'd become "big enough" to automatically generate a successful film by slapping his name on any old 2nd-rate hack job that the downward spiral began?

As evidence I offer the ever-increasing alignment of the concerns of critics and fans, where once the two very different groups COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been further apart in their views of Romero's body of work.

It doesn't make sense that Romero is continually being misunderstood and underappreciated only now. Much more likely, and what I believe to be the case, is that GAR has fallen out of step with the delicate harmony that collectively makes up a great survival horror film.

Finally, GAR ***DOES*** commercially market his work on a large scale. For this reason alone, the commercial principles I detailed in my last post carry much more weight than the Maverick Indie Director argument.

***ROMERO*** can't have it both ways either. Commercial success requires serious consideration of the current pulse, ie: tastes, of the movie-purchasing audience. Creative License is not a sacrosanct shroud to enfold subpar work and deflect honest criticism of the movie's faults.

What do the rest of you think?

I never said nor made an argument that money has ever been just given to him with no expectation on return... I believe I said modest return.

And again up through the 90's independent genre film's were made with modest expectations on returns.. Horror was considered in the 80's a slam dunk for modest return... This very principle launched the careers of John Carpenter, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, amongst others.

Your opinions have nothing to do with the FACT the Romero is considered an Indi director and the vast majority of his films are FACTUALLY independent films.

Simply because his films have been distributed by film studios has NOTHING to do with whether a film is a studio film or indi.

I urge you to do a little research on the history of the film industry. It is highly probable the vast majority of the films you will ever see have had financial backing.

Before I ever decided to seriously engage in this conversation I thought this thread was kind of a joke. Im sure to not win any popularity contest with some of the things I have said and certainly wont with this but... Some folks here actually have studied film as a art form and have studied the industry as a business... Others just open there mouth(or typed) what ever comes into there mind with no thought of objective understanding of what they speak about... And hey lets face it that's part of the internet.

Most people in general have NO flushed out concept of what it takes to make a film. It easy to sit by and say ... "I could do better!" and not put anything up... and sit by a tear down from the comfort of there own home.

Some have and I would think being as they live in a glass house they might be more careful with there wording but I guess there is some comfort that there friends on the board have been very kind and will continue to do so.

Im frankly tired of it... Some people have brought up this board may be in trouble and honestly it's not getting mouthy and distasteful pictures being posted... The thought that this thread exist on a board that would not be around if it were not for Romero's work.. And that people continue to go on and on... JUST LEAVE ROMERO ALREADY.... I remember when I 1st migrated over here from ATZ forum I thought this board had it jokers and it's silliness but I remember thinking it was also filled with thoughtful people whom didnt always agree about certain things but it was pretty clear on what is objective and what was up for debate... It hasn't taken long to start to change my mind and with some but some of the baseless opinions being peddled as fact and this thread is why things around here are in trouble... I guess it's a double edge sword... But most forums would have locked a non-sense thread like this long ago... On one hand its nice that this isn't that kind of forum... But how can anyone look at the thread title with a serious face?

If that's the bottom line then GO... It reminds me of a feeble attempt from a partner trying to gain leverage in order to manipulate. If someone want to be gone then they go. Anything else is simply showboating for whom? Does someone really believe Romero is gonna read there threat of leaving and that's gonna make a difference?

[MikePizzoff]

This thread is getting really heated...

I'm going to go ahead and say that I feel George has lost touch with his last three films. Well, Land is tolerable if you ask me; it was his first taste of having a big budget for a zombie film. So, he really lost touch with his previous two films.

HOWEVER, this does not mean I'm giving up on him. He's still got time to redeem himself and I'm certainly hoping he does.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It show that, indeed. It shows that to you.

Get it?

You speak of this as if it were fact that Survival was a shittier movie than Shaun. I know you couldn't possibly think it is, because there's no such thing as "fact" when it comes to opinions of movies.

No NED.... I bet 90% of Living Dead fans would say Shaun is better than SURVIVAL and I am stating that as FACT! Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

What you regard as opinion, I can flat out say is fact because any sane person would look at both films and agree with me 100%. :D

---------- Post added at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------


This thread is getting really heated...

I'm going to go ahead and say that I feel George has lost touch with his last three films. Well, Land is tolerable if you ask me; it was his first taste of having a big budget for a zombie film. So, he really lost touch with his previous two films.

HOWEVER, this does not mean I'm giving up on him. He's still got time to redeem himself and I'm certainly hoping he does.

I agree with Mike, the thread is getting heated and that Romero has lost touch with the last three movies.

After going back and forth with Ned I decided to pop in my Survival Blu-Ray and re-watch the movie. I still firmly believe it is crap, but crap that had potential to be great. I like it better than Land, but not more than Diary.

I like Mike am still a fan and still willing to watch what Romero puts out in the zombie genre. I will admit that other than Martin and Creepshow his non zombies films are not very good, but I still support his zombie flicks, maybe not to the extent some hard core fans do, but I have bought my fair share of re-releases and posters for all 3 films.

My belief is this... Once he lets go of that social message hype and all the other crap that surrounds him and just sits down with a real, and I mean, real back to basics approach, the Romero we all fell in love with will be back to form. [NED Notice I said my Belief :moon:]

I also can't believe that as a filmmaker he isn't thinking about the criticisms being lobbed at him over the recent three entries. I mean I am sure he or his assistant probably reads over this place and other message boards and when you start getting a majority of negative reaction from even your devout fan base... that would be a wake-up call to re-examine your approach. I am hoping and believing that is what he is doing at the moment.

Supposedly another Dead film will be coming from him in the next year or two so lets see what happens with that... I am not giving up on George, but my expectations of him have dropped drastically since Land of the Dead.

[CooperWasRight]

No NED.... I bet 90% of Living Dead fans would say Shaun is better than SURVIVAL and I am stating that as FACT! Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

While I would agree it is probable to guess more fans may give it to shaun..
As a film maker myself I would have to say DJ you are either have a massive scotoma in your logic or you have massive balls to lay out public opinion dictates which film is better... I personally would not like to say take a poll on whether any my work is considered better then survival... By the way you speak maybe you wouldn't have a problem doing so... It's seems clear you think your work would be preferred over survival.

Also public opinion differs by location/time.... recent examples, Anchorman did something like 95-99% of it's business stateside... People loved it over here.. The rest of the world at least theatrically didn't.

M night recently talked about how different parts of the world have different favorites of his work.

And there is the factor of time... Anyone whom is old enough or have read the reviews knows the FACT that when day came out it was universally panned by audiences and critics for a number of reasons including but not limited to:

Acting, No real plot, dialog, heavy handed anti military message, over reliance on special effects. The list could go on and one but that fact is that when the film came out it was not well received.... And look at it now... Many claim it is one of the best if not the best zombie film.

Now im not claiming in 25 years people will by in large think Survival is Romero's best work... But in 85 not many people would have made that argument for Day... They would have been fools to do so.

I just finished watching "Zone of the dead" and it makes me glad that I haven't left Romero.

[DjfunkmasterG]

While I would agree it is probable to guess more fans may give it to shaun..

As a film maker myself I would have to say DJ you are either have a massive scotoma in your logic or you have massive balls to lay out public opinion dictates which film is better... I personally would not like to say take a poll on whether any my work is considered better then survival... By the way you speak maybe you wouldn't have a problem doing so... It's seems clear you think your work would be preferred over survival.

No Scotoma in my Logic, I do a lot of reading and research on his films and I do it for a few reasons, one being as a film maker who does zombie horror I want to see what fans focus on the most.

Now, dragging my work into this is really pushing it because I never said nor hinted or even thought my work would be preferred over Survival nor would I ever put it to the test against it and only for a couple of reasons... the biggest being it doesn't have the modern day film look, while it looks more film than most shot on DV features... I know without the specific depth of field glass gives the picture, people will automatically dismiss because it doesn't look like film. Say it anyway you want, but this is a cold hard fact.

However, here is a statement I will make plain as day and you can laugh at me, joke or even dismiss me for it...

Give me $1,000,000 and I bet I could out do what Romero has done since LAND, and get a much larger appreciation from it. I don't need his $2-$15 million budgets... I will do it on One Million and I guarantee it would be a better film than Land Diary or Survival... if Zombie fans didn't agree I would give up film making and put Deadlands 1 & 2 in public domain for people to do with as they choose once all distribution contracts expire.

So since you brought my work into this, there is the statement I am willing to make and believe in... but I would not put Deadlands 1 or 2 against any of Romeros current stuff (Land through Survival) simply because of the technical limitations... because an average movie watcher cannot see past that aspect of movies... it's sad but true.

Might I also add for future reference.. if you want to be taken seriously don't bring up stupid fucking movies like Anchorman... it's garbage. Also M. Night hasn't turned out anything decent since Signs, and some people would argue that with me as well, but it is what it is.

[Wyldwraith]

I never said nor made an argument that money has ever been just given to him with no expectation on return... I believe I said modest return.

And again up through the 90's independent genre film's were made with modest expectations on returns.. Horror was considered in the 80's a slam dunk for modest return... This very principle launched the careers of John Carpenter, Peter Jackson, Sam Raimi, amongst others.

Your opinions have nothing to do with the FACT the Romero is considered an Indi director and the vast majority of his films are FACTUALLY independent films.

Simply because his films have been distributed by film studios has NOTHING to do with whether a film is a studio film or indi.

I urge you to do a little research on the history of the film industry. It is highly probable the vast majority of the films you will ever see have had financial backing.

Before I ever decided to seriously engage in this conversation I thought this thread was kind of a joke. Im sure to not win any popularity contest with some of the things I have said and certainly wont with this but... Some folks here actually have studied film as a art form and have studied the industry as a business... Others just open there mouth(or typed) what ever comes into there mind with no thought of objective understanding of what they speak about... And hey lets face it that's part of the internet.

Most people in general have NO flushed out concept of what it takes to make a film. It easy to sit by and say ... "I could do better!" and not put anything up... and sit by a tear down from the comfort of there own home.

Some have and I would think being as they live in a glass house they might be more careful with there wording but I guess there is some comfort that there friends on the board have been very kind and will continue to do so.

Im frankly tired of it... Some people have brought up this board may be in trouble and honestly it's not getting mouthy and distasteful pictures being posted... The thought that this thread exist on a board that would not be around if it were not for Romero's work.. And that people continue to go on and on... JUST LEAVE ROMERO ALREADY.... I remember when I 1st migrated over here from ATZ forum I thought this board had it jokers and it's silliness but I remember thinking it was also filled with thoughtful people whom didnt always agree about certain things but it was pretty clear on what is objective and what was up for debate... It hasn't taken long to start to change my mind and with some but some of the baseless opinions being peddled as fact and this thread is why things around here are in trouble... I guess it's a double edge sword... But most forums would have locked a non-sense thread like this long ago... On one hand its nice that this isn't that kind of forum... But how can anyone look at the thread title with a serious face?

If that's the bottom line then GO... It reminds me of a feeble attempt from a partner trying to gain leverage in order to manipulate. If someone want to be gone then they go. Anything else is simply showboating for whom? Does someone really believe Romero is gonna read there threat of leaving and that's gonna make a difference?

First,
I'm NOT one of the people going on about "Leaving GAR." I have serious doubts which I BELIEVE to be reasonable that concern the negative trend surrounding Romero's more recent work. Something that's true for any director is just as true for GAR. Namely, HIS actions have created the IMPRESSION he is indifferent to the reception his movies receive.

Second, I freely admit my knowledge of the Indie Film Culture and its practices is much less than some others here. HOWEVER, the main bone of contention (at least for me, and regarding your words Cooper) is you saying that Romero's body of work is Indie Film (which may very well be true), and that as an Indie film director, commercial principles and the perceptions of the target audience do not apply to GAR's work.

I cannot disagree more, and here's why. Even 30 years later, new reconfigurations and extras are put together to repackage Romero's Dead Trilogy once again. Additionally, it isn't in question that Romero's new films are heavily marketed in the DVD format. I don't have corroborated statistics to substantiate this next statement, but I feel it's simply common sense to understand that these large-scale DVD releases are a large part of the movie-making process.

This simply ISN'T about whether or not GAR is entitled to exercise his vision as an artist, and no matter how many times you repeat yourself CooperWasRight. It's just not that simple.

The very fact that this thread has become so heated is an example of what's really being debated here. Some people are happy with GAR's newer work and feel a need to defend it, or at least believe that GAR owes his fans nothing. Not even a high-quality product. Others (including me) are frustrated with the drop in quality that GAR's last three movies represent. Not because we didn't like a particular movie, but WHY we didn't like it.

Simply put, a significant fraction of the fans represented here believe that GAR prioritizes his heavy-handed social commentary, aka "The Message", to the detriment of his work as this trend has become more pronounced. Additionally, many in this camp believe that Romero is completely unwilling to so much as reconsider his priorities....or the reception his movies receive.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with this board. Members expressing negative thoughts, facts and feelings concerning Romero has NOTHING to do with the health of this board. If someone crosses the line and makes a personal attack instead of simply expressing their opinion, the Mods step in promptly to restore the peace.

In the years I have been a member here, I have NEVER seen a hegemony of thought concerning various directors and movies. Nothing I would even call a general consensus, because many board members feel quite strongly about the stance they take concerning this or that debate.

There's nothing wrong with that. Nothing, that is, except the thinly disguised demand that everyone and anyone cease expressing their position if that position is critical of Romero, under the auspices of "concern for the health of the board."

Zombie fans have always agreed and disagreed in approximately equal proportions for as long as they've gathered. Again, nothing wrong with this.

Honestly, I believe this to be a waste of time. Romero doesn't give a damn what any of us think about his movies, and no one is ever persuaded to forsake the position they entered such a debate with.

That said, I'm mystified how ANYONE can believe the last three Dead Films even come close to the quality of the Original Trilogy, or what GAR has done in say, the last 20yrs to indicate he's headed anywhere but down when it comes to making zombie movies.

Either the man is willing to try and return to the general formula that made his earlier films so successful or he is not. If he isn't, doesn't that mean things CAN'T go anywhere but down?

I just don't get how some people can believe that viewer satisfaction isn't one of, if not THE primary factor in movies. Does GAR have the right to spend his own money and the money of people who don't expect a return on their investment on making a movie exactly as he wishes? Of course he does.

Will GAR ever even come close to re-attaining fresh glory if he keeps making movies with no sign that he's paying attention to which elements are or aren't working with his fans?

THAT is the CORE division in the two intellectual camps here.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Very good counter Argument Wyld... You hit the nail right on the head with your last post.

Even as someone who dislikes his newer work I am not ready to give up on the man.

oh, to Cooper and Wyld... I think Wyld's point is more on the money in regards to what is and what isn't indie. The term indie really shouldn't be used when it comes to Romero's newer work. While the budgets are low, they really don't qualify as true indie status which changed drastically one Mini Dv 24p Cameras started hitting the market. Let us also not forget that His stuff is widely marketed and distributed which makes him a commercial success, I don't know of any indies that gets the type of exposure Romero gets, I am sure there are a few but not like his work. he is a name and a marketable name at that... well if the current trend keeps up his name won't be worth much anymore... anyway, the term indie being used in this argument doesn't suit the situation at all.

[Trin]

I'm gonna let you filmmakers debate the Indie vs. Studio angle. I'll just grab my popcorn. :)

As for creative freedom. If creative freedom were the only factor in GAR's early successes then Diary and Survival should be better movies.

I think Wyld made some excellent points - a ton of them actually - and I'll add to them. In the early days GAR sought more validation of his ideas because he was more worried about how they would be received. He didn't want to blow his chance. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. C5NOTLD says it's all about the people, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

So where are the people who could/should be helping GAR make great movies?

Take Land as an example. Did Land suffer from studio influence and lack of creative freedom as so many argue? The earliest scripts had all the same problems that the movie ended up with. Did the studio decide that the river was an impenetrable barrier for years and then easily crossed at the end? Did the studio decide zombies would evolve intelligence and Cholo would place greed over survival? More importantly, did none of the people associated with this movie ever just go WTF and ask GAR what he was thinking?

Can you imagine listening to the pitch for Diary and wanting to invest in it? "So you say Jason is going to die from the zombie mummy who he chose not to kill because he won't put down the camera."

No one wants to leave GAR. That should be plainly obvious to anyone. But if fans of the trilogy are feeling frustrated enough to make ultimatums about it, someone should care about that. And to my earlier point, if his fans aren't buying his products then they have stopped backing him. Fans that will buy anything/everything with the name "Dawn of the Dead" on it are looking at Survival and going, "Yeah, I'll wait till it hits Netflix." Someone should care about that too.

What people are really saying is that GAR could do better. And want him to do better. And want the next great zombie masterpiece to come from him, not from someone else. People are practically begging him to validate the years of homage he's earned with the trilogy. To prove why he was the best and still is. And when someone says they're leaving GAR what they really mean is that they're losing faith that he could do it.

And, if you read the OP closely, people are giving him the exact feedback he needs to do it.

[darth los]

I'm gonna let you filmmakers debate the Indie vs. Studio angle. I'll just grab my popcorn. :)

As for creative freedom. If creative freedom were the only factor in GAR's early successes then Diary and Survival should be better movies.

I think Wyld made some excellent points - a ton of them actually - and I'll add to them. In the early days GAR sought more validation of his ideas because he was more worried about how they would be received. He didn't want to blow his chance. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. C5NOTLD says it's all about the people, and that makes a lot of sense to me.

So where are the people who could/should be helping GAR make great movies?

Take Land as an example. Did Land suffer from studio influence and lack of creative freedom as so many argue? The earliest scripts had all the same problems that the movie ended up with. Did the studio decide that the river was an impenetrable barrier for years and then easily crossed at the end? Did the studio decide zombies would evolve intelligence and Cholo would place greed over survival? More importantly, did none of the people associated with this movie ever just go WTF and ask GAR what he was thinking?

Can you imagine listening to the pitch for Diary and wanting to invest in it? "So you say Jason is going to die from the zombie mummy who he chose not to kill because he won't put down the camera."

No one wants to leave GAR. That should be plainly obvious to anyone. But if fans of the trilogy are feeling frustrated enough to make ultimatums about it, someone should care about that. And to my earlier point, if his fans aren't buying his products then they have stopped backing him. Fans that will buy anything/everything with the name "Dawn of the Dead" on it are looking at Survival and going, "Yeah, I'll wait till it hits Netflix." Someone should care about that too.

What people are really saying is that GAR could do better. And want him to do better. And want the next great zombie masterpiece to come from him, not from someone else. People are practically begging him to validate the years of homage he's earned with the trilogy. To prove why he was the best and still is. And when someone says they're leaving GAR what they really mean is that they're losing faith that he could do it.

And, if you read the OP closely, people are giving him the exact feedback he needs to do it.

^^^^

This.

I couldn't have written my feelings down better than that trin.

Well done. :thumbsup:

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

Very good counter Argument Wyld... You hit the nail right on the head with your last post.

Even as someone who dislikes his newer work I am not ready to give up on the man.

oh, to Cooper and Wyld... I think Wyld's point is more on the money in regards to what is and what isn't indie. The term indie really shouldn't be used when it comes to Romero's newer work. While the budgets are low, they really don't qualify as true indie status which changed drastically one Mini Dv 24p Cameras started hitting the market. Let us also not forget that His stuff is widely marketed and distributed which makes him a commercial success, I don't know of any indies that gets the type of exposure Romero gets, I am sure there are a few but not like his work. he is a name and a marketable name at that... well if the current trend keeps up his name won't be worth much anymore... anyway, the term indie being used in this argument doesn't suit the situation at all.

This is exactly the kind of shit im talking about... Mixing subjective and objective.

If you are working outside the studio system you are FACTUALLY independent. Why do I need to take someone lack of knowledge into consideration when posting?

The term is not up for debate.

The marketing of the film by distributors has ZERO relevance on the films status of being independent. The blair witch projects release and dvd had HUGE marketing... Halloween ended up getting HUGE pr for it's theatrical release after picking up steam.

The camera you shoot with has nothing to do with whether you are indi or not. Studio films hav shot on dv and indie films have shot on 35mm.

Part of the reason for festivals like Cannes,Sundance Tff are so your "Independent" film will be picked up... And what the fuck do you think a studio is going to do once the own you independent film??????? Release it thinking it needs no marketing? Does anyone here know what Miramax was???

Im sure though as with other factually based arguments this will either be ignored or for some reason debated.

Again way to much opening of mouths with no real idea of objective reality for me.

[DjfunkmasterG]

This is exactly the kind of shit im talking about... Mixing subjective and objective.

If you are working outside the studio system you are FACTUALLY independent. Why do I need to take someone lack of knowledge into consideration when posting?

The term is not up for debate.

The marketing of the film by distributors has ZERO relevance on the films status of being independent. The blair witch projects release and dvd had HUGE marketing... Halloween ended up getting HUGE pr for it's theatrical release after picking up steam.

The camera you shoot with has nothing to do with whether you are indi or not. Studio films hav shot on dv and indie films have shot on 35mm.

Part of the reason for festivals like Cannes,Sundance Tff are so your "Independent" film will be picked up... And what the fuck do you think a studio is going to do once the own you independent film??????? Release it thinking it needs no marketing? Does anyone here know what Miramax was???

Im sure though as with other factually based arguments this will either be ignored or for some reason debated.

Again way to much opening of mouths with no real idea of objective reality for me.

Dude... When you start living in the real world and not fantasy land you will understand the simple concept behind it. Artfire, while maybe a small indie studio operates and uses the same exact model as a major. The fact is Artfire produces films, Universal produces films... they are studios, therefore Romero's work with Artfire can not be considered indie because the model the studio is built on is the same as a major.

The only difference in all of this is that Artfire gives the filmmakers creative freedom that Universal doesn't, or because of Romero's name in his contracts he demands it.

Either way, ARTFIRE operates like Universal without big Universal money, but they are making money off George so the ultimate goal is to grow and grow.

Cannes is barely indie anymore, there are more studio flicks playing at Cannes then indies any more... truly sad, but that is how it is. Venice... that is closer to an indie fest but again... there seems to be the constant rule of name behind the project before it screens. TIFF is almost the same way.

What INDIE was 5-10 years ago and what INDIE is now are two completely different things. If you honestly believe different you're being naive about the situation and the big picture.

Seriously, ARTFIRE, MIRAMAX are no more indie than Focus Features (a division of Universal)

Back in the day MIRAMAX was indie, but when Disney took over... that went out the window... Lionsgate was indie at one time too but are now a MAJOR. When you consistently release product with a name behind it in the film industry you have become a major.

If these guys are truly indie they would be open to almost anything within reason... that is not the case. Nor do I, as an INDIE filmmaker would ever consider them INDIE.

Cooper, you as an indie film maker should realize this... that fact that you don't will make you naive to the biz for the rest of your life. You have to think differently than you have been programmed. I originally thought like you until i watched their business models, then it hit me... they are no different than WB, UNI, FOX whatever... Because they don't put $100,000,000 into a film the industry labels them as INDIE's... and their budgets are about the only thing that makes them INDIE by Hollywood standards. Otherwise their entire operation is the same as a major.

EDIT: Coop, not trying to fight with you on this nor am I talking down to you... what I am telling you is cold hard fact. What film schools teach and what the real world is.... two different things man. Fuck that shit of spending $100K for film school to be a PA for 12 years before you move to grip. Spend that $100K and make a fucking movie market it and just keep going.

Ted Turner said it best and real INDIE Film makers should live by this quote. "“Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and advertise”

That is his motto and I live by it and it has worked for quite well. It is out of the box thinking and hard work that gets you where you need to go, not some 4 yr BS degree on Film making that at best gets you a 20K a year job bringing some dick head director his fucking Soy Moca Latte with Foam

[C5NOTLD]

If Romero was making a movie entirely with his own money, or money DONATED to his movie-making with no expectation of its return, and GAR subsequently finished and displayed his film at the hundreds of film festivals where TRUE Indie-Films are shown free of charge, the Indie Firm Argument would hold water.


And how many theaters did Survival play in? 20
Independently produced.
And that's not Indie?

Indie films expect returns on their investment.





---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------




At the time of Night/Dawn & Day's making, GAR did NOT see himself as a massive success with a huge following of die-hard fans. Absent this later hype, the man concerned himself simply with NOT BLOWING HIS CHANCE. That's where the cherished relish and crafting of the first 3 Dead films comes from. However, once GAR bought into the perception that he'd become "big enough" to automatically generate a successful film by slapping his name on any old 2nd-rate hack job that the downward spiral began?

?

Not a massive success? - Romero's name was slapped on the original Dawn poster (George A Romero's Dawn Of The Dead) and the original Dawn trailer had his name mentioned twice in the first 11 seconds alone.

Dawn of the Dead was marketed as "George A. Romero's Dawn Of The Dead" in 1978.

And even the first Day of the Dead trailer in 1985 relied upon GAR's name for marketing.



.

[CooperWasRight]

Dude... When you start living in the real world and not fantasy land you will understand the simple concept behind it. Artfire, while maybe a small indie studio operates and uses the same exact model as a major. The fact is Artfire produces films, Universal produces films... they are studios, therefore Romero's work with Artfire can not be considered indie because the model the studio is built on is the same as a major.

The only difference in all of this is that Artfire gives the filmmakers creative freedom that Universal doesn't, or because of Romero's name in his contracts he demands it.

Either way, ARTFIRE operates like Universal without big Universal money, but they are making money off George so the ultimate goal is to grow and grow.

Cannes is barely indie anymore, there are more studio flicks playing at Cannes then indies any more... truly sad, but that is how it is. Venice... that is closer to an indie fest but again... there seems to be the constant rule of name behind the project before it screens. TIFF is almost the same way.

What INDIE was 5-10 years ago and what INDIE is now are two completely different things. If you honestly believe different you're being naive about the situation and the big picture.

Seriously, ARTFIRE, MIRAMAX are no more indie than Focus Features (a division of Universal)

Back in the day MIRAMAX was indie, but when Disney took over... that went out the window... Lionsgate was indie at one time too but are now a MAJOR. When you consistently release product with a name behind it in the film industry you have become a major.

If these guys are truly indie they would be open to almost anything within reason... that is not the case. Nor do I, as an INDIE filmmaker would ever consider them INDIE.

Cooper, you as an indie film maker should realize this... that fact that you don't will make you naive to the biz for the rest of your life. You have to think differently than you have been programmed. I originally thought like you until i watched their business models, then it hit me... they are no different than WB, UNI, FOX whatever... Because they don't put $100,000,000 into a film the industry labels them as INDIE's... and their budgets are about the only thing that makes them INDIE by Hollywood standards. Otherwise their entire operation is the same as a major.

EDIT: Coop, not trying to fight with you on this nor am I talking down to you... what I am telling you is cold hard fact. What film schools teach and what the real world is.... two different things man. Fuck that shit of spending $100K for film school to be a PA for 12 years before you move to grip. Spend that $100K and make a fucking movie market it and just keep going.

Ted Turner said it best and real INDIE Film makers should live by this quote. "“Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell and advertise”

That is his motto and I live by it and it has worked for quite well. It is out of the box thinking and hard work that gets you where you need to go, not some 4 yr BS degree on Film making that at best gets you a 20K a year job bringing some dick head director his fucking Soy Moca Latte with Foam

Dude... Look up the term independent film... You are mixing your opinion with incontrovertible fact. There is low budget indi and no budget and because you fall into the 2nd you seem to have a problem counting the 1st. I live in the real world and your bias apparently blinds you.

You also seem to have a problem or a chip on your shoulder when it comes to those whom have educated themselves in the field which is just weird.

There is no one size fits all on how to get into and be successful in the film industry... Some people are a Frank Darabont whom did work in humble ways like set designer... Some go to school... Some grab a camera an shoot.

Studios don't simply put money into films* They MAKE films... Meaning the exercise creative control and have final cut on a film... They are on the set a great deal of the time or all of the time. You have to run everything by somebody when making choices.

.


*unless you are Stanley Kubrick or Christopher Nolan at this point which happen to be exceptions to the rule.

[Trin]

Honestly, I believe this to be a waste of time. Romero doesn't give a damn what any of us think about his movies, and no one is ever persuaded to forsake the position they entered such a debate with.I don't know if I wholly agree with this, although I can totally understand why you might say it.

Personally, I've had a couple points brought up that I find challenge my thinking on the topic.

1) CooperWasRight mentioned that GAR personally makes more money off of movies like Diary and Survival because he is more closely attached to them than off of big studio movies that might have higher total profit. I'd really like to know if that's true or not. I think the answer might change my feelings about GAR's motivations for continuing his current path.

2) I've always believed that Dawn and Day were in the same category of studio film as Land. I'm interested to hear more about what our filmmakers are thinking because the level of creative freedom is a focal point.

3) Many posts in this thread have caused me to really think about just exactly what has led to the movies decline in quallity.

While overly heated in places, I think the thread is not a waste of time, and I agree with Wyld that it's certainly not tearing the forum apart. We're nowhere near the "Why Land sucks" thread, or whatever it was called. :P


I couldn't have written my feelings down better than that trin.

Well done. :thumbsup:

Thanks for props darth!!


My belief is this... Once he lets go of that social message hype and all the other crap that surrounds him and just sits down with a real, and I mean, real back to basics approach, the Romero we all fell in love with will be back to form.I kinda missed this statement in the first read through. I sooooo totally agree with this (and the rest of this post which I removed for brevity sake).

[C5NOTLD]

There is no one size fits all on how to get into and be successful in the film industry... Some people are a Frank Darabont whom do start in humble ways like set designer... Some go to school... Some grab a camera an shoot.

Very true. Film Schools can benefit people as can going out and shooting a film on your own. Different paths for different people. Going to film school didn't hurt John Carpenter or Robert Zemeckis. :)


.

---------- Post added at 05:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------


Ted Turner said it best



Really - Ted Turner? He's creepy.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Really - Ted Turner? He's creepy.

He may be creepy but you can't argue that quote versus his success

[CooperWasRight]

He may be creepy but you can't argue that quote versus his success

I hate to be a dick ... But yes you can. People that make it like to think that they know exactly why the succeeded... But the truth is is there is the infinitesimal and so many variables. Not many people want to admit luck or right time right place has much to do with success.... Truly the only thing that is not debatable about your Ted Turner statement is that he said it... Because he either did or didn't... Everything else is indeed speculation... If it were as simple as "X" is the secret of my success there would be a whole lot more success... eventually everyone would be a success... Word of mouth travels and if there was a proven formula most people would eventually hear about it.

One could certainly argue that is what Ted Believes made him a success... That is a sound argument. One can not argue with any certainty that is what made him a success or that it is a proven formula.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The point is is that the reason Romero had to wait for so long is the industry has changed since the 80's and The people who hold the purse strings would rather give a Zach Snyder 28 million dollars because they can tell him what to do with it because he is a new guy and is happy for the break... Now I use that as an example... I cannot not say what happened on Zach's set. George has a reputation for getting with people that want to help facilitate George's movie... And Thank god for people like George, Kubrick and Carpenter... You have to be willing to follow your vision... Thats were the classics come from and sometimes the reviled.

Your statement here is such BULLSHIT. This coming from a film student? Where the fuck did you go to film school? and did they teach a class called marketing and name recognition and if they did ... did you bother showing up?

The Reason DAWN 04 got funded is/was because of the films following and success. Richard Rubinstein is no fool, he dumped Day and Creepshow, but kept the one's he knew would continue to make him a shit load of money and had potential to be future money makers.

He then hooked up with the right producers at Strike, and unleashed this film in the early stages of the remake era which in turn made him tons of money, and continue to make him money.

Richard now makes money off both the original and remake because he owns the rights.

It wasn't because they could boss around Zack Snyder, shit Romero got more flak on the set of Land then I witnessed Zack getting, in fact during my visit Zack got no flak at all that I could see and the producers were very open to his take and suggestions... plus Zack could have easily walked off and said fuck it if the task was too difficult he was offer a bunch of films before DAWN 04, but the problem was they were all PG-13 BS fodder and he wanted to do something R-Rated his first time out.

All in all, the only reason DAWN 04 was made was money money money. I am sure Zack and producers had the best intentions through the whole project and it is a decent film, not as good as the original, but still good in my opinion, but its sole purpose was money money money.

Saying that makes me think of the bank scene in Dawn 78... money money money.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------


I hate to be a dick ... But yes you can. People that make it like to think that they know exactly why the succeeded... But the truth is is there is the infinitesimal and so many variables. Not many people want to admit luck or right time right place has much to do with success.... Truly the only thing that is not debatable about your Ted Turner statement is that he said it... Because he either did or didn't... Everything else is indeed speculation... If it were as simple as "X" is the secret of my success there would be a whole lot more success... eventually everyone would be a success... Word of mouth travels and if there was a proven formula most people would eventually hear about it.

Ok come back to reality. You went to fantasy land again.

HARD WORK WILL GET YOU EVERYTHING... This formula you talk about its out there but some people are too fucking lazy, and/or to fucking stupid to follow it. HARD WORK and a DESIRE to take something all the way to the top and be a success with it. That is what makes it in the world... Yeah... maybe some dumb luck plays the part, but you ask a majority of CEO's and EXEC's and they will tell you in order to be the success they are today was through dedication and hard work.

Dave Mott brought the company I work for from a hole in the wall one office complex, to a Multi Billion dollar corporation within 13 years.. in 2004 it became even larger spreading across 3 campuses in Gaithersburg and Frederick, MD alone... in 2007 was sold to Astra Zeneca for $15,000,000,000 and why is that... HARD WORK and COMMITMENT

In 2007 over $500,000,000 in new construction was added to the corporate headquarters adding more lab and office space. When I started there in 2004 they had a total of 670 employees 2010 over 7000... why... once again the hard work from everyone in the company is what made us grow and grow.

[EvilNed]

No NED.... I bet 90% of Living Dead fans would say Shaun is better than SURVIVAL and I am stating that as FACT! Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.

What you regard as opinion, I can flat out say is fact because any sane person would look at both films and agree with me 100%. :D

Unfortunately, you're getting your "facts" mixed up. This is a trivial thing, tho so what the hell. The point? Passing off an opinion as a fact is lame and childish. Which I'm sure you agree with.

[C5NOTLD]

Consider this statement:

Titanic cost 200 million dollars. Halloween cost 250 thousand dollars. EXPLAIN THAT!


Makes no sense whatsoever.


Let's see:
- Titanic made in 1997 and Halloween in 1978.
- Halloween about a masked killer in an average neighborhood in an average
town and the most important prop is a mask and a knife.
- Titanic about the largest ship in it's day to sink in 1912 which required a
lot of state of the art special effects and period pieces/set design including
a ship set nine-tenths the size of the original. Not to mention the biggest
water tank ever constructed (17 million gallons of water).
- Titanic 160 day shooting schedule. Halloween 21 day shooting schedule.

:)

[EvilNed]

Yeah, so?

Explain the dilemma I posed. Explain the situation.

[C5NOTLD]

That said, I'm mystified how ANYONE can believe the last three Dead Films even come close to the quality of the Original Trilogy.

I agree - they definitely don't come close to the quality of the Original Trilogy. But I also don't think GAR's future is bleak. The man has talent and I look forward to seeing what he does next. He just needs the right circumstances and people around him.


.

[CooperWasRight]

You statement here is such BULLSHIT. This coming from a film student? Where the fuck did you go to film school? and did they teach a class called marketing and name recognition and if they did ... did you bother showing up?

The Reason DAWN 04 got funded is/was because of the films following and success. Richard Rubinstein is no fool, he dumped Day and Creepshow, but kept the one's he knew would continue to make him a shit load of money and had potential to be future money makers.

He then hooked up with the right producers at Strike, and unleashed this film in the early stages of the remake era which in turn made him tons of money, and continue to make him money.

Richard now makes money off both the original and remake because he owns the rights.

It wasn't because they could boss around Zack Snyder, shit Romero got more flak on the set of Land then I witnessed Zack getting, in fact during my visit Zack got no flak at all that I could see and the producers were very open to his take and suggestions... plus Zack could have easily walked off and said fuck it if the task was too difficult he was offer a bunch of films before DAWN 04, but the problem was they were all PG-13 BS fodder and he wanted to do something R-Rated his first time out.

All in all, the only reason DAWN 04 was made was money money money. I am sure Zack and producers had the best intentions through the whole project and it is a decent film, not as good as the original, but still good in my opinion, but its sole purpose was money money money.

Saying that makes me think of the bank scene in Dawn 78... money money money.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------



Ok come back to reality. You went to fantasy land again.

HARD WORK WILL GET YOU EVERYTHING... This formula you talk about its out there but some people are too fucking lazy, and/or to fucking stupid to follow it. HARD WORK and a DESIRE to take something all the way to the top and be a success with it. That is what makes it in the world... Yeah... maybe some dumb luck plays the part, but you ask a majority of CEO's and EXEC's and they will tell you in order to be the success they are today was through dedication and hard work.

Dave Mott brought the company I work for from a hole in the wall one office complex, to a Multi Billion dollar corporation within 13 years.. in 2004 it became even larger spreading across 3 campuses in Gaithersburg and Frederick, MD alone... in 2007 was sold to Astra Zeneca for $15,000,000,000 and why is that... HARD WORK and COMMITMENT

In 2007 over $500,000,000 in new construction was added to the corporate headquarters adding more lab and office space. When I started there in 2004 they had a total of 670 employees 2010 over 7000... why... once again the hard work from everyone in the company is what made us grow and grow.


Dude I wish you all the luck in the world with your endeavors... I think you are the one whom is hopelessly naive when you think all it takes to make it in the film industry is "Hard work"... Im sure if you do experience any success you will no doubt attribute it to all you hard work... But the reality is for every success the are thousands equally up to the job whom worked just as hard if not more that never got the brake.

Hollywood is filled with stories of people getting into the biz with a idealistic notion that doesn't come close to living up to the reality.. Im sure if you get there you may be surprised on how the studio system really works.

[EvilNed]

Hard work is part of the equation. But it won't get you everything.

[Legion2213]

I agree - they definitely don't come close to the quality of the Original Trilogy. But I also don't think GAR's future is bleak. The man has talent and I look forward to seeing what he does next. He just needs the right circumstances and people around him.


.

The right people being folks who are prepared to say "George, that is a totally shit idea, what the Hell are you thinking?" when he starts proposing "Big Daddy" type characters or hatefull dickheads who film their friends being brutally ripped apart by zombies.

For all the bad, negative things I've said about him and his last pathetic offerings, I would LOVE the master to give us one last epic zombie movie, genuinely love it...but I honestly don't hold much hope of him actually delivering. :(

[JDFP]

Don't really care about the stuff the rest of you are going on, but still bitter about no response to my comment to Gary about the New Coke insult. :D:p

I'm still calling up Joan Crawford when the dead walk to have her come visit you Gary for insulting the Coca-Cola Corp. in such a way in insinuating the fine company could produce anything as dreadful as Romero's "Survival" and "Land" (I'll exempt "Diary" as at least being decent).

I put lots of drunken thoughts into that post, and no responses? It hurts man, it hurts.

j.p.

[Legion2213]

Don't really care about the stuff the rest of you are going on, but still bitter about no response to my comment to Gary about the New Coke insult. :D:p

I'm still calling up Joan Crawford when the dead walk to have her come visit you Gary for insulting the Coca-Cola Corp. in such a way in insinuating the fine company could produce anything as dreadful as Romero's "Survival" and "Land" (I'll exempt "Diary" as at least being decent).

I put lots of drunken thoughts into that post, and no responses? It hurts man, it hurts.

j.p.


Never mind all that. Did make "a lonely girl" less lonely...enquiring minds wish to know... :D

[JDFP]

Never mind all that. Did make "a lonely girl" less lonely...enquiring minds wish to know... :D

You know, I had every intention of going to that site or the site that is also advertised here for looking for the Asian girlfriend as well and ended up passing out last night (disappointed, I might add, at my well-constructed post being ignored) before I could find the right "lonely" girl for me. I'm hoping to soon find me several Asian girlfriends and I will certainly post updates for all the inquiring minds here. :D

j.p.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dude I wish you all the luck in the world with your endeavors... I think you are the one whom is hopelessly naive when you think all it takes to make it in the film industry is "Hard work"... Im sure if you do experience any success you will no doubt attribute it to all you hard work... But the reality is for every success the are thousands equally up to the job whom worked just as hard if not more that never got the brake.

Hollywood is filled with stories of people getting into the biz with a idealistic notion that doesn't come close to living up to the reality.. Im sure if you get there you may be surprised on how the studio system really works.

If you believe that Hard Work isn't a factor then it is you who is naive my zombie loving friend. Hard work and advertising getting your name out there with a quality product is what does it, and how do you get the quality product... HARD WORK.

You west coast hippie liberals actually believe in some magic rainbow that delivers success to you.... that is :lol:

When you start to learn that your hard work in making movies, which amounts to everything from shooting to doing your PR and making sure you stay on top of everything, you will then understand the concept.

Luck or even DUMB luck plays a very small role if any at all. Seriously I don't know you're age... I assume 20's although I could be wrong, but if so it would explain your fundamental and very wrong opinions that hard work gets you nowhere.

Yeah, good luck with that. :D

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------


Gary, I personally find your attack of New Coke to be offensive and completely out of line. When I was five years old I remember when New Coke came out, and if I remember correctly I quite enjoyed that drink at 5 years old.

Comparing New Coke to Romero's new films is just flat out insulting. How dare you compare a fine American beverage to such subpar films! New Coke deserves better than comparing it to Romero's newest films, buddy. It's just beyond offensive that you could insult the Coca-Cola Corporation in such a way to me. :rant:

If zombies ever did rise, I would tell Joan Crawford what you said about Coca-Cola and tell her where you live. :elol:

I think they should bring New Coke back on a limited basis say one month of every year -- I would love to try it again and I think if it was a "special collector" thing where it's only released one month a year it could do well -- just like special seasonal beers by Sam Addams.

On a side note, I think Surge was the best cola ever created in the history of sodas -- and I miss it. Surge was like the heroin of sodas. That shit didn't mess around! :D

j.p.


Don't really care about the stuff the rest of you are going on, but still bitter about no response to my comment to Gary about the New Coke insult. :D:p

I'm still calling up Joan Crawford when the dead walk to have her come visit you Gary for insulting the Coca-Cola Corp. in such a way in insinuating the fine company could produce anything as dreadful as Romero's "Survival" and "Land" (I'll exempt "Diary" as at least being decent).

I put lots of drunken thoughts into that post, and no responses? It hurts man, it hurts.

j.p.

I am sorry JDFP... I was busy trying to school someone on the fundamentals of HARD WORK... they seem to think HARD WORK gets you nowhere... and that luck or even dumb luck is what makes people successful. I was trying very hard to get them out of fantasy land but they seem to like it so much I decided to let them stay and find out for themselves.

Ok, so New Coke... mad because I dissed the worst idea since the invention of bad ideas. Sorry I offended you and you tell Zombie Joan she can come by and discuss it all she wants... I have a 9mm Hollow Point ready to sear right through that zombie decayed brain to end her poor misery within seconds.

Hope this makes you feel better... I didn't want to think I forgot about you... I didn't I just was having fun with someone else. I had a new friend for a few minutes who probably thinks I am now the biggest douche in history... but that is ok... when he realizes the error of his ways he will look back and say "You know... Djfunk is a dick, but... HE WAS RIGHT! Damn i should have listened to him."

:lol::lol:

I of course say the above with a huge grin and laughter

[CooperWasRight]

If you believe that Hard Work isn't a factor then it is you who is naive my zombie loving friend. Hard work and advertising getting your name out there with a quality product is what does it, and how do you get the quality product... HARD WORK.

You west coast hippie liberals actually believe in some magic rainbow that delivers success to you.... that is :lol:

When you start to learn that your hard work in making movies, which amounts to everything from shooting to doing your PR and making sure you stay on top of everything, you will then understand the concept.

Luck or even DUMB luck plays a very small role if any at all. Seriously I don't know you're age... I assume 20's although I could be wrong, but if so it would explain your fundamental and very wrong opinions that hard work gets you nowhere.

Yeah, good luck with that. :D

---------- Post added at 07:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------





I am sorry JDFP... I was busy trying to school someone on the fundamentals of HARD WORK... they seem to think HARD WORK gets you nowhere... and that luck or even dumb luck is what makes people successful. I was trying very hard to get them out of fantasy land but they seem to like it so much I decided to let them stay and find out for themselves.

Ok, so New Coke... mad because I dissed the worst idea since the invention of bad ideas. Sorry I offended you and you tell Zombie Joan she can come by and discuss it all she wants... I have a 9mm Hollow Point ready to sear right through that zombie decayed brain to end her poor misery within seconds.

Hope this makes you feel better... I didn't want to think I forgot about you... I didn't I just was having fun with someone else. I had a new friend for a few minutes who probably thinks I am now the biggest douche in history... but that is ok... when he realizes the error of his ways he will look back and say "You know... Djfunk is a dick, but... HE WAS RIGHT! Damn i should have listened to him."

:lol::lol:

I of course say the above with a huge grin and laughter

At this point I just think up have serious issues. You just say whatever comes to mind... I NEVER said that work has nothing to do with success.

Another thing you mentioned earlier in defense of your films is just simply not fact.

There are many films shot on dv without DOF that have had no problem finding and audience.

Also you can pick up any of the latest HDSLR's and use pretty much any type of glass you want... Oh wait that's right you are waiting for a camera that natively shoots in a anamorphic ratio....

[DjfunkmasterG]

At this point I just think up have serious issues. You just say whatever comes to mind... I NEVER said that work has nothing to do with success.

Another thing you mentioned earlier in defense of your films is just simply not fact.

There are many films shot on dv without DOF that have had no problem finding and audience.

Also you can pick up any of the latest HDSLR's and use pretty much any type of glass you want... Oh wait that's right you are waiting for a camera that natively shoots in a anamorphic ratio....

What film titles would they be? If they find an audience and are so successful why haven't I heard of them? I watch a ton of movies and without the film look and DOF you're screwed because the majority of the movie going public will just write your stuff off as crap... Even if it isn't.

Luckily with Dead 2 we have DOF where it counts and for the budget a good movie with action and gore and a decent story... not a great story but something better than some of the indie zombie stuff out there. I realize I have a weakness as a writer and I am trying to work through that, but until I do I had someone else work on Deadlands 3's screenplay with me... just to make sure everything is covered.

In regards to HD SLR's

Well it just so happens they make an Anamorphic glass kit for the HD SLR's... However, I want to shoot on film, I will only do SLR as a last resort, but if I can shoot Super 35... fuck it I am shooting super 35. However I did see some footage off a Canon 5D from a DP I know and I was very impressed and he was the one that informed me about the 2.35:1 glass for the HDSLR's

So if that is true and it looks good I will use one, but film is my first choice.

On and so you know... 2.35:1 is a preferred aspect ratio now a days because 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 became the new FULL SCREEN. Have you noticed the increase in films shot in 2.35:1... it is the only thing other than IMAX theaters can tout over home cinema... home cinema 2.35:1 still loses 20% of the image and when some dumbasses who shot 2.35:1 decide to covert to 1.78:1 for TV they lose even more... Why int he fuck would anyone do that? Makes no sense.


oh and your other point...

"I NEVER said that work has nothing to do with success. "

Ummm yes you did Coop Yes you did. Work hard work whatever, you said it. Maybe you should re-read your posts.

Here is an example where you attribute it to Dumb Luck or the alignment of the stars sun and uranus... or whatever


I hate to be a dick ... But yes you can. People that make it like to think that they know exactly why the succeeded... But the truth is is there is the infinitesimal and so many variables. Not many people want to admit luck or right time right place has much to do with success.... Truly the only thing that is not debatable about your Ted Turner statement is that he said it... Because he either did or didn't... Everything else is indeed speculation... If it were as simple as "X" is the secret of my success there would be a whole lot more success... eventually everyone would be a success... Word of mouth travels and if there was a proven formula most people would eventually hear about it.

That pretty much writes off the hard work ethic from your POV

[CooperWasRight]

What film titles would they be? If they find an audience and are so successful why haven't I heard of them? I watch a ton of movies and without the film look and DOF you're screwed because the majority of the movie going public will just write your stuff off as crap... Even if it isn't.

Luckily with Dead 2 we have DOF where it counts and for the budget a good movie with action and gore and a decent story... not a great story but something better than some of the indie zombie stuff out there. I realize I have a weakness as a writer and I am trying to work through that, but until I do I had someone else work on Deadlands 3's screenplay with me... just to make sure everything is covered.

In regards to HD SLR's

Well it just so happens they make an Anamorphic glass kit for the HD SLR's... However, I want to shoot on film, I will only do SLR as a last resort, but if I can shoot Super 35... fuck it I am shooting super 35. However I did see some footage off a Canon 5D from a DP I know and I was very impressed and he was the one that informed me about the 2.35:1 glass for the HDSLR's

So if that is true and it looks good I will use one, but film is my first choice.

On and so you know... 2.35:1 is a preferred aspect ratio now a days because 1.78:1 and 1.85:1 became the new FULL SCREEN. Have you noticed the increase in films shot in 2.35:1... it is the only thing other than IMAX theaters can tout over home cinema... home cinema 2.35:1 still loses 20% of the image and when some dumbasses who shot 2.35:1 decide to covert to 1.78:1 for TV they lose even more... Why int he fuck would anyone do that? Makes no sense.


oh and your other point...

"I NEVER said that work has nothing to do with success. "

Ummm yes you did Coop Yes you did. Work hard work whatever, you said it. Maybe you should re-read your posts.

Here is an example where you attribute it to Dumb Luck or the alignment of the stars sun and uranus... or whatever



That pretty much writes off the hard work ethic from your POV

First off most films are actually not shot in true anamorphic... They are matted to 2:35... There are actually many cinematographers who do not like to work with anamorphics.

I can give you a long list of anamorphic adapters that you may want to look into.

And again I made the point even in your copy of my post that success in the industry is not simply a matter of hard work, and it does not guarantee anything.

When speaking of the varies anamorphic ratio's this comes down to glass. 2:35 is a ratio that does not come naturally... And if you are not using a anamorphic adapter or lens you will not achieve anything that is real anamorphics... You can take any footage and matte it to that ratio..Regardless of camera used.

This business you talk about full screen is 4:3 is not accurate... 4:3 was to accommodate and there fore film makers would have to when preparing for tv release would have to totally crop and then pan and scan there film.. 1:78 and 1:85 it the native frame of 35/16/super 16 and so on....Anamorphics is the process of through optics squeezing more image into your sensor(digital) or negative(film) and re stretching in post for more peripheral (vista) vision.

I can not stress enough how misguided and arrogant the notion that simply if you work hard you will succeed in film. Because whether you admit it or not you are in fact stating that those whom don't make it simply didn't work hard enough and it self bolsters the notion that if you do succeed you deserve and single handedly earned it.

I repeat if success was as simple as personal discipline then someone could simply imitate that and would be guaranteed success... Life is just simply not that way.

[Mr.G]

The right people being folks who are prepared to say "George, that is a totally shit idea, what the Hell are you thinking?" when he starts proposing "Big Daddy" type characters or hatefull dickheads who film their friends being brutally ripped apart by zombies.

Where are these people? Would producers be the ones to have more control or someone else? Who worked on the original 3 that had the power to change script/plot/etc?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Where are these people? Would producers be the ones to have more control or someone else? Who worked on the original 3 that had the power to change script/plot/etc?

Normally a studio exec or producer does this.. but from what I have seen and witnessed from his loyal followers who work on his movies with him either are afraid to say something or just go with the flow.

I had read the LAND screenplay,as I have mentioned before, and what I had read versus what i had seen int he final product was way off base.

I still firmly believe all this hype and talk about George and his social messages has gone to his head and he is trying to make films geared toward that image of george fans have in their mind... but in all reality, george has admitted interviews when Night was getting the social commentary feedback that it wasn't his intention... they just wanted to make a monster movie, but it seems they kept saying something about it and with each film the messages got stronger... I don't believe the social message in Dawn is really everything people make it out to be... He has also said in interviews that the mall idea was from a tour he took of it, and he thought it would be a good place to hold up in a zombie take over.

After Day his fan base grew more and more and the social commentary quotes from reviews and articles just kept pouring in and after 20 years of hearing that you may start to believe it and then you write another zombie flick that is so heavy handed in regards to the commentary people were upset the movie didn't live up to the 20 year hype.

Seriously... Hire me to review his scripts :D I will tell him whether or not the idea works or sucks. I just want violent zombie horror films again. I want the zombie to be the monster he originally created not the fucking parody it has become.

(Sorry if this is a little all over the place the new meds for my pneumonia are codeine based and I am a little hungover from the after effects from last nights cough syrup dose.)

[bassman]

The right people being folks who are prepared to say "George, that is a totally shit idea, what the Hell are you thinking?" when he starts proposing "Big Daddy" type characters...

That's the thing with Big Daddy. It was a great idea. The idea of the character was nothing more than an extension of Bub and it could have worked out great. BUT....the execution of that idea fell flat. Should've had better casting...

[DjfunkmasterG]

That's the thing with Big Daddy. It was a great idea. The idea of the character was nothing more than an extension of Bub and it could have worked out great. BUT....the execution of that idea fell flat. Should've had better casting...

Yes, but no. The smart zombie idea is just fucking stupid. I will allow for bub because Logan coached him along, but zombie in land had no human teacher... therefore their actions were way to stupid to be taken seriously and Eugene Clark was seriously miscast in the role of Big Daddy... Big Daddy was just a plain old bad idea, but the screenplay didn't have him nearly as smart as he was in the movie which makes no sense to me.

[bassman]

Well....it's all opinion of course. I personally think it's a great idea. It makes perfect sense to me that eventually these things could start learning. Yeah, Bub learned because of Logan, but that doesn't mean others can't learn without a teacher. We know from the previous films that they remember things from their past lives, so why not rebellion?


BD is a great idea. The character could've been the new Bub, but the actor just didn't have it.

[DubiousComforts]

I was busy trying to school someone on the fundamentals of HARD WORK... they seem to think HARD WORK gets you nowhere... and that luck or even dumb luck is what makes people successful.

Say WHAT?

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6i66h3iDJ1qd1z7lo1_r1_500.jpg

Congrats on elevating the buffoonery in this thread to a completely new level of failure. :thumbsup:

[bassman]

Congrats on being the usual insulting dickweed that nobody likes. :thumbsup:

[DubiousComforts]

Congrats on being the usual insulting dickweed that nobody likes. :thumbsup:

Look, bassman made it on You Tube...
b0GjKiy3nSI

[bassman]

That makes absolutely no sense....

[DjfunkmasterG]

Say WHAT?

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l6i66h3iDJ1qd1z7lo1_r1_500.jpg

Congrats on elevating the buffoonery in this thread to a completely new level of failure. :thumbsup:


Congrats on being the usual insulting dickweed that nobody likes. :thumbsup:

I second that. Seriously Dubs... Other than your hard core love for Romero, which is cool, you are an asshole, and quite frankly anything you want fans to get behind is going to be tough because of your dick head attitude. It is ok to be a dick it is your right...

But a dick who promotes living dead related stuff like fests and cons... You may want to change your approach a bit.

Just saying... Everyone loves a smart ass, because they can be funny and entertaining... Nobody likes a dick head or asswipe because they are ignorant, rude and not worth doing anything for/supporting because they still insist on treating people like shit.

No matter how much NOTLD info you provide us, if your attitude stays the way it does you will get no support from the community.

I like to help people out I believe in and support... Like MZ, not just because he is a cool guy but also because I enjoy his work so i have no problem throwing his short flicks about zombie man on my DVD release to get him extra exposure... I also am doing the same for the NOTLD: TPS people... extended them an offer as well and they accepted just waiting on materials.

you on the other hand are such a dick I would talk people into avoiding anything you're involved because you don't know how to treat people with respect. People think I have an ego... shit your ego over shadows mine, and you have only been a semi active member in the HPotD community, compared to my tenure here.

Seriously dude, sometimes it is fun to take jabs at each other, but when you become a total dick in everything you do or say... people will just write you off as an asshole.

Cooper probably feels I think he is a nut job for his posts, but I respect Coop, even though I think his ideas and beliefs are off kilter, but he presents a good argument and is up to debating his stance at every turn. I respect that even if I don't subscribe to his beliefs and ideals.

Coop is productive at the site and offers something to the community... what I can't figure out is... what do you do other than take up valuable Hard Drive space on the HPOTD server?

[DubiousComforts]

That makes absolutely no sense....
I love you, man!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSM86Et-KPEuvYQEurFhSZJk_misKJ8jcsbdk_s8NED7HuCYyo&t=1&usg=__zrtkFQHD5ISd5ABOBpMLQ06Ui2I=

[bassman]

No matter how much NOTLD info you provide us

I wouldn't go that far. He interviewed a bunch of has beens trying to relive their glory days and packaged it in a shit "documentary" with quality close to those local sunday morning church services you see on cable access....

[DjfunkmasterG]

I wouldn't go that far. He interviewed a bunch of has beens trying to relive their glory days and packaged it in a shit "documentary" with quality close to those local sunday morning church services you see on cable access....

Ouch... That is not good.

[BillyRay]

Let's simmer down for a second...




Alright , So (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) has the tendancy to lip off without thinking. And just because you don't agree with (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) is no reason to tear into them like a horde of rotting, cannibalistic monsters of some kind...

I'm under the naive impression that we're all friends here...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Let's simmer down for a second...

http://www.maxpower.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/mreinstein.jpg


Alright , So (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) has the tendancy to lip off without thinking. And just because you don't agree with (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) is no reason to tear into them like a horde of rotting, cannibalistic monsters of some kind...

I'm under the naive impression that we're all friends here...

I know you and I are friends... :D

I consider pretty much every member here at HPotD a friend, even if I haven't met them... however, 2 people definitely do not even make my acquaintance list. (Insert Names Here)

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,
People can drag all the semantics into the discussion, and use every bit of obfuscation at their disposal to blur the facts, but at the end of the day you won't find a majority of zombie fans in any given group of zombie movie fans who believe Land > Night/Dawn/Day. You WILL, on the other hand, find some contention among fans concerning Diary of the Dead, but again, few among them willing to say Diary holds a candle to Night/Dawn/Day.

As for Survival, I'll give the most forgiving, benefit-of-the-doubt oriented takes on this movie I can formulate, and simply say that a significant minority of Romero fans haven't see it yet, and that the "final verdict" on this movie has yet to be die-cast in the manner the Original Trilogy, Land and Diary already have been.

Moving beyond the overall movies for a moment, I would like to call attention to the extreme frequency that the Subjectivity Argument is used when people criticize the Plot, Characterization, Pacing, or even the SFX of the most recent 3 films by Romero.

Very seldom do you see one of those who wish to pretend nothing has gone wrong with GAR's movie-making respond in detail to such criticisms. Instead, they try to bury the specific/detailed criticism of one or more aspects of the film beneath the catch-all "What you're saying is subjective", with a setup for the unspoken "And thus your criticism is irrelevant because it is based in whole or part on personal taste/aesthetic sense."

Oh, to be sure they'll succinctly admit that the more recent movies don't rise to the level of the Originally Trilogy, but provide a detailed retort to criticism concerning, say, the heavy-handedness of the "message" in Land? Nope. Instead you'll receive the standby, stop-thrust response "That's just your opinion. Or "This is a subjective matter."

I ask you, opinion/emotion-based or not, exactly WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT than how the majority of fans are receiving a given film if one is engaged in a discussion concerning the relative quality of said movie? Isn't the ENTIRE POINT to make a film that will be enjoyed/considered "good" or "great" by the highest possible % of individuals who choose to spend money to see that movie?

Can call it subjectivity or opinion all you like, but when it's 20 people instead of 2 out of 20 who are referencing what they feel is the same failing in a movie, the criticism is a serious one. (And just so someone doesn't try and split hairs by saying 20 people saying anything when compared with the millions who view most movies ISN'T relevant, I'll be more specific and say "When 20 out of 20 people asked what they think about X movie cite the same 2-3 perceived flaws as their strongest impressions about X movie, that IS something beyond mere dismissable opinion, and certainly something a Director should concern themselves with.)

Is Romero simply too proud to admit his more recent changes in style have been less successful than they might've been, and that perhaps trying something else might yield better results?

I wonder.

[darth los]

Congrats on being the usual insulting dickweed that nobody likes. :thumbsup:


That makes absolutely no sense....


I second that. Seriously Dubs... Other than your hard core love for Romero, which is cool, you are an asshole, and quite frankly anything you want fans to get behind is going to be tough because of your dick head attitude. It is ok to be a dick it is your right...

But a dick who promotes living dead related stuff like fests and cons... You may want to change your approach a bit.

Just saying... Everyone loves a smart ass, because they can be funny and entertaining... Nobody likes a dick head or asswipe because they are ignorant, rude and not worth doing anything for/supporting because they still insist on treating people like shit.

No matter how much NOTLD info you provide us, if your attitude stays the way it does you will get no support from the community.

I like to help people out I believe in and support... Like MZ, not just because he is a cool guy but also because I enjoy his work so i have no problem throwing his short flicks about zombie man on my DVD release to get him extra exposure... I also am doing the same for the NOTLD: TPS people... extended them an offer as well and they accepted just waiting on materials.

you on the other hand are such a dick I would talk people into avoiding anything you're involved because you don't know how to treat people with respect. People think I have an ego... shit your ego over shadows mine, and you have only been a semi active member in the HPotD community, compared to my tenure here.

Seriously dude, sometimes it is fun to take jabs at each other, but when you become a total dick in everything you do or say... people will just write you off as an asshole.

Cooper probably feels I think he is a nut job for his posts, but I respect Coop, even though I think his ideas and beliefs are off kilter, but he presents a good argument and is up to debating his stance at every turn. I respect that even if I don't subscribe to his beliefs and ideals.

Coop is productive at the site and offers something to the community... what I can't figure out is... what do you do other than take up valuable Hard Drive space on the HPOTD server?


I wouldn't go that far. He interviewed a bunch of has beens trying to relive their glory days and packaged it in a shit "documentary" with quality close to those local sunday morning church services you see on cable access....

I'd like to add my signature to the DC is a dickhead list.

So let's see. That's 3 of the top 5 long time posters with pretty much the same sentiment.

When enough people keep telling you something there has to be a point where you have to consider there might be truth in what they're saying.

:cool:

---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------


Let's simmer down for a second...




Alright , So (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) has the tendancy to lip off without thinking. And just because you don't agree with (fill in the name of your fellow HPOTD'er) is no reason to tear into them like a horde of rotting, cannibalistic monsters of some kind...

I'm under the naive impression that we're all friends here...

Yes you are.

We're just tired of being talked to disrespectfully. We're men just like he is. we have a set of balls just like he does. A certain level of respect is required when dealing with other people and we're sick of it.

But this has been going on since long before you joined.

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

I second that.
Of course you do.

Rather than rambling aimlessly and pretending to be spokesman for the entire community, just cut to the chase and admit that 1.) you're pissed since I pointed out your assumption of thxleo kissing up to George Romero for being the delusional fantasy that it is, and 2.) you're also pissed because I think a dedicated forum to your movie is an inane attempt at attention-whoring which adds zero to HPOTD. Address the elephant in the forum, then we can move on and possibly live happily ever after.


He interviewed a bunch of has beens trying to relive their glory days and packaged it in a shit "documentary" with quality close to those local sunday morning church services you see on cable access....
I'm just thrilled that you're familiar with Sunday morning cable access church services, cuddles. Please tell me more! :D


I'd like to add my signature to the DC is a dickhead list.

So let's see. That's 3 of the top 5 long time posters with pretty much the same sentiment.

We're just tired of being talked to disrespectfully.
Oh, please. After all the banal, disgusting banter that goes on between you assclowns, completely disrespectful of anyone else that visits here and all of a sudden, darth los has "feelings." :D

[BillyRay]

It was the "has beens" crack by Bass that got me typin'.

Are you dissing Kyra?

If so, I got a goon squad of Soft Butches that would have a word with you over there, where the others cannot see you...:elol:

[bassman]

It was the "has beens" crack by Bass that got me typin'.

Are you dissing Kyra?

If so, I got a goon squad of Soft Butches that would have a word with you over there, where the others cannot see you...:elol:

But it's true. A bunch of people still talking(most of which is useless information, btw) about something they did over 40 years ago. Some of them were even responsible for Night30, so explain that one as anything other than trying to re-live the glory days...

[darth los]

Some of them were even responsible for Night30

That in itself is a sin. :lol:

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

It was the "has beens" crack by Bass that got me typin'.
So which is worse: the "has beens" or the fool with over 9,000 posts in a forum dedicated to the work of said "has-beens"?

It's a good question.

[bassman]

So which is worse: the "has beens" or the fool with over 9,000 posts in a forum dedicated to the work of said "has-beens"?


Hey junior....look at the front page. "Dedicated to the work of George A. Romero". That kinda falls into more than one category, doesn't it? I'm here because of Day and I've made that quite clear in the past. Not only am I here for Day, but I'm here for the people. Most of which I consider friends. A luxury i'm sure you're not familiar with.

Not to mention Romero is the only one of the group to go on and do anything of value. The rest are still talking about that one time they got invited to participate.:rolleyes:

[darth los]

Hey junior....look at the front page. "Dedicated to the work of George A. Romero". That kinda falls into more than one category, doesn't it? I'm here because of Day and I've made that quite clear in the past. Not only am I here for Day, but I'm here for the people. Most of which I consider friends. A luxury i'm sure you're not familiar with.

Not to mention Romero is the only one of the group to go on and do anything of value. The rest are still talking about that one time they got invited to participate.:rolleyes:

Same here. I come here for the people. We also discuss a myriad of other subjects here in case anyone hasn't noticed.

We could never Mention GAr again and still have a great time here.

But I can't believe you're going back and forth with this guy. I think he gets off on this shit. It's almost as if he acts that way on purpose...

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

Hey junior....look at the front page. "Dedicated to the work of George A. Romero". That kinda falls into more than one category, doesn't it? I'm here because of Day and I've made that quite clear in the past. Not only am I here for Day, but I'm here for the people. Most of which I consider friends. A luxury i'm sure you're not familiar with.
Of course you'd be "sure" of that if your social interaction primarily comes from posting to a message board.

Look at the thread that you're contributing to; in case you haven't been keeping up on current events, the primary sentiment being expressed is "George Romero = has-been."

[bassman]

Of course you'd be "sure" of that if your social interaction primarily comes from posting to a message board.


yeah....I have no friends in real life. No family. No children. No interaction with anyone at all.:rolleyes:

Seriously....why do you even come to HPotD anymore? Just about everyone here would be glad to see you leave.

Good people like Mike and Capn are gone, while all the assholes are getting free reign. This place used to be great....

[JDFP]

17 pages in and I still can't figure exactly what it is we're arguing about here.

Whether or not Romero's newer films are as good as the original and whether we can objectively state that they are not as good as opposed to just subjective opinion? Really, we've spent 17 pages arguing about this?

And people get onto me for getting into it about politics here. :p

j.p.

[CooperWasRight]

the primary sentiment being expressed is "George Romero = has-been."

Another point to those who believe in this sentiment... Better to have been a has been then a never was.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Of course you do.

Rather than rambling aimlessly and pretending to be spokesman for the entire community, just cut to the chase and admit that 1.) you're pissed since I pointed out your assumption of thxleo kissing up to George Romero for being the delusional fantasy that it is, and 2.) you're also pissed because I think a dedicated forum to your movie is an inane attempt at attention-whoring which adds zero to HPOTD. Address the elephant in the forum, then we can move on and possibly live happily ever after.


#1: not an assumption... FACT! Now you can add yourself to list of SUCK-UPS because you seem to praise everything he does like he is the best filmmaker in the world. Both you and Lee are Knob Slobbers. Trust me Dubs I am not pissed about anything, and if I was really really pissed... I wouldn't argue it with you on a message board. I have balls enough to drive to whatever rock and hole you call home, and address it with you face to face. :D

#2: You actually think I give shit about what you think of my dedicated forum? HA HA HA... If you have issues with it, take it up with Neil and Andy. They offered it to me and I accepted.

The only elephant(s) in this forum are you and Lee, once both of you leave we won't have to worry about that problem anymore.


EDIT: To add... I don't really look at the cast as has beens. In fact I felt many of them contributed to what I consider to be some of the best horror films ever made (orig trilogy). I have met them at cons, been guests with them at cons, and have had lunch dinner and breakfast with them. One of the characters in Deadlands 3 is an homage to Kyra, right down to age and what myself and co-writer believed a modern day young Kyra would be. (speaking in terms of the NOTLD scenario and her character)