Land would make a good part 3

[Minerva_Zombi]

After watching Diary yesterday and Survival today. I popped in Land of the dead to find that it would make a great part three for the "New Trilogy". Think about it,

Chronologically it works.

It has some characters from Diary and Survival in it (Sarge and Tony). It would be a good way to show what happened to these two characters after Diary and Survival.

In Survival, they try to teach the Zombies to eat animals, well in Land they obviously are eating animals by then because when the guy asks "whats on the menu tonight cat or dog?" in Land, obviously, zombies have evolved to eating animals too.

Plus, in Survival they are also starting to develop intellegence.

So if you get a chance, watch these three in that order and tell me THAT doesn't feel like Romero's NEW trilogy.

[JDFP]

So if you get a chance, watch these three in that order and tell me THAT doesn't feel like Romero's NEW trilogy.

As far as I'm concerned, it IS. Since seeing "Survival" I've considered "Land" to be the third in the "new" trilogy as it fits in perfectly to first "Diary" then "Survival" and then "Land".

"Land" does not work with the original trilogy and I've never considered it to be in the same "zombie timeline" as the original trilogy for various reasons -- good to see I'm certainly not alone with this as you're saying the exact same thing I believe. It's exactly how I consider "Land" to work -- the last film of the new trilogy.

j.p.

[Yojimbo]

I agree with this timeline, but it occurs to me that this is exactly what Romero intended, especially considering the timeline he implicitly assigned to Survival, and Diary and Land.

The question I have is how one would put the entire series in order given the recent three - or does one just treat the recent three as separate animals from the first three?

JD it appears would fall into the category of those who consider the last three to be indepennden from the universe of the first three, and I am inclined to agree. how say the rest of you?

[Minerva_Zombi]

I say the first three are one universe. And the new ones are a completely different...

If you think about it, by Day Of The Dead, the world is pretty much over. It almost seemed like Land was a few years BEFORE Day.

So lets say Diary happened, then Survival was about a year later, and Land is maybe another year after Survival. Yes?

[CooperWasRight]

I agree with this timeline, but it occurs to me that this is exactly what Romero intended, especially considering the timeline he implicitly assigned to Survival, and Diary and Land.

The question I have is how one would put the entire series in order given the recent three - or does one just treat the recent three as separate animals from the first three?

JD it appears would fall into the category of those who consider the last three to be indepennden from the universe of the first three, and I am inclined to agree. how say the rest of you?

Land is according to George some years into the infection... It isnt till Survival that it is supposed to be a different universe.

As to Alan Van Sprang is not the same guy in land as he is in in the others.

All that said I like the re-ordering... Thematically I feel Land also works between dawn and day... In fairness alot of un used material in Day's script ended up being retooled into Land.

[Trin]

If you think about it, by Day Of The Dead, the world is pretty much over. It almost seemed like Land was a few years BEFORE Day.
I just don't get this opinion at all. Although Philly would be all over this. We had a very long winded thread about all this. I'll sum up my stance on this briefly.

Day - Still looking for survivors. Still trying to find a cure. Still adhering to prior jobs and social heirarchy. Still not believing that the old world is dead. Still frightened of and abhored by zombies. Zombies still shambling after humans.

Land - Society has rebuilt. New heirarchy established. Never look for survivors. Zombies have stopped caring about humans. Society is no longer frightened of them - using them for games, carnival attractions, and shooting ranges.

I just don't see how Land comes before Day given the complete acceptance of the zombie world in Land.

I do see some alignment of the Diary, Survival, Land trilogy as separate from the Night, Dawn, Day trilogy. I'll have to think that over some more.

[JonOfTheShred]

Diary, Survival, Land...seems to make perfect sense to me as well. And this is coming from someone that enjoyed the three new movies, despite being a bit disappointed by certain aspects of them. (Sure, they were no OT in terms of awesomeness, they were still pretty good zombie films...just not for GAR)

Now maybe he should do one final trilogy, perhaps depicting the outbreak in other parts of the world, and try to go back to the more serious tone of the OT. Maybe get Darabont to Produce and Kirkman to help with the script after he directs and ep or two of TWD.

[bassman]

Ah....the ol' timeline debate. It never dies.:D

Imo, all of the films are different. None of them are truly related, but if you want to put them in some sort of order, Land is part of the original series, while Diary and Survival are the new kids on the block.

When Romero went back to square one with Diary, that's when it switched over to a different "universe", if you will. Much like comics, these are all different universes, but just using the same character(The dead).

[JDFP]

I think the reason "Day" feels like the end of things (even if Romero may have 'intended' for "Land" to come after "Day") is because Romero was able to capture something in "Day" that he didn't in "Land" -- the sense of dread and hopelessness.

"Land" just didn't have a sense of hopelessness and almost complete despair like "Day" did. It didn't feel like the end whereas "Day" felt like it was truly the end of everything.

I chalk this up to the fact that "Day" was just extremely well-made as opposed to "Land" which is... ehhh...

Anyway, I'm with the others here that consider "Night" - "Day" as one trilogy and "Diary" - "Land" as a second trilogy. I think it just makes more sense and works better this way.

j.p.

[AcesandEights]

I just don't get this opinion at all. Although Philly would be all over this. We had a very long winded thread about all this. I'll sum up my stance on this briefly.

Day - Still looking for survivors. Still trying to find a cure. Still adhering to prior jobs and social heirarchy. Still not believing that the old world is dead. Still frightened of and abhored by zombies. Zombies still shambling after humans.

Land - Society has rebuilt. New heirarchy established. Never look for survivors. Zombies have stopped caring about humans. Society is no longer frightened of them - using them for games, carnival attractions, and shooting ranges.

I just don't see how Land comes before Day given the complete acceptance of the zombie world in Land.

I do see some alignment of the Diary, Survival, Land trilogy as separate from the Night, Dawn, Day trilogy. I'll have to think that over some more.

I agree!

Thank you for summarizing, Trin, as I was about to go look for the previous debates and start linking to them.

Day was the darkest hour, but not necessarily the end of the world.

Also, I'm not going to ascribe too much forethought to GAR on the timeline for the newest films, as it really seems as though he's proved he doesn't get hung up on that sort of thing the way his fans do.

Personally, I think Land makes a fine part 4 of the first series or part 3 of the second, if you're so inclined to view it that way.

[bassman]

I also agree with Trin's thoughts. Why is it that everyone thinks Land is supposed to be the end of the world? It's actually the opposite. They're re-building. They're starting fresh. Making their own little cage so they can ignore the problem and live their lives.

Fiddler's Green is on an upswing before Cholo and his gang fuck it all up. It's society starting over AFTER the dire situation we see in day. Things always get worse before they get better. Day was the worst, Land is the beginning of something better.

[Trin]

Day was the darkest hour, but not necessarily the end of the world.
Yes!! Exactly!!

And taking the thought a step further... how does someone justify the end of Land leading into Day? I get the whole notion that Day is the "end of everything" but how does Land set that up? At the end of Land the zombies have stopped attacking. They literally walk away from dinner. The humans are looking at rebuilding under Mulligan with the Kaufman regime ousted. Riley and crew have things so well handled that they feel safe driving off in DR. It's a pretty bright future.

It'd be like a historian looking back at the fall of man and considering today vs. the Dark Ages and contending that clearly the Dark Ages came later since they were, you know, darker. It's a terribly simplistic view of events.


Personally, I think Land makes a fine part 4 of the first series or part 3 of the second, if you're so inclined to view it that way.That's a pretty good way of putting it. It really could fit into either.

Survival is the one that gets me. I like the idea of all the movies in the same universe, and I can stand a few oddities that crop up between them. Land had some weirdo zombie behavior but given the later timeline and foreshadowing from Bub you can justify it. Diary threw a couple curveballs at us for zombies that were fresh, but nothing that couldn't be chalked up to zombies just being a bit more differentiated than we'd thought all along. But Survival just throws the rules out. Part of me wants to lump Survival into its own universe just to protect the other movies from it.

Ponder this everyone. Day and Survival are the two movies that share the whole "if we can feed them we win" theme. And it's a HUGE theme in both of those movies. The central theme, in fact. So far I don't see anyone putting Day and Survival in the same series.

-----------

Edit - I simo-posted with Bassman, but I couldn't have put it better. *claps* for Bassman's interpretation!!

[bassman]

So far I don't see anyone putting Day and Survival in the same series.

And you never will.:lol:

The further those two are seperated, the better.

[Trin]

And you never will.:lol:

The further those two are seperated, the better.
But it is odd though, purely from a theme stance.

Personally, I think Survival needs to go stand in the corner.

[rongravy]

...well in Land they obviously are eating animals by then because when the guy asks "whats on the menu tonight cat or dog?" in Land, obviously, zombies have evolved to eating animals too.

Ummmm, didn't they mean who was going to be thrown in the cage with the zombies to fight over: a man or a woman? I'm pretty sure...


Land is according to George some years into the infection... It isnt till Survival that it is supposed to be a different universe.

Even though a few people have been in more than one movie, I think each movie is a small peek into different parts of the same world. Diary was a prequel, Survival is nestled in there somewhere around/with/after Night, and the rest you could put in order after that as they are.
Geez.:sneaky:

And you never will.:lol:

The further those two are seperated, the better.
No one has ever posed this question to the man hisself?
I bet he might disagree with y'alls. It's HIS vision, not ours. We are just the ones who are lucky, or according to some here UNLUCKY, enough to get an occasional glimpse into HIS world.
Of course his movies are going to be different. Does everyone want him to do the same tired formula over and over?
Escape from ___ to ___, then hold out until ___, which doesn't work, then finally escape off in your ___ to ___?
I love the original trilogy, but geez. Let goooooo.
Dawn still pulls at my heartstrings, but man is it corny as hell to look at the styles of the time and often poor FX compared to today.
I'm still glad GAR still makes new ones, and although they don't always completely rock my world, I've not been disappointed yet.


Now, let the stoning begin...

[CooperWasRight]

Ummmm, didn't they mean who was going to be thrown in the cage with the zombies to fight over: a man or a woman? I'm pretty sure...


Even though a few people have been in more than one movie, I think each movie is a small peek into different parts of the same world. Diary was a prequel, Survival is nestled in there somewhere around/with/after Night, and the rest you could put in order after that as they are.
Geez.:sneaky:

No one has ever posed this question to the man hisself?
I bet he might disagree with y'alls. It's HIS vision, not ours. We are just the ones who are lucky, or according to some here UNLUCKY, enough to get an occasional glimpse into HIS world.
Of course his movies are going to be different. Does everyone want him to do the same tired formula over and over?
Escape from ___ to ___, then hold out until ___, which doesn't work, then finally escape off in your ___ to ___?
I love the original trilogy, but geez. Let goooooo.
Dawn still pulls at my heartstrings, but man is it corny as hell to look at the styles of the time and often poor FX compared to today.
I'm still glad GAR still makes new ones, and although they don't always completely rock my world, I've not been disappointed yet.


Now, let the stoning begin...

Uh...No... The cats or dogs literally meant cats or dogs... As confirmed by the fact that he say something new is on the menu...Meaning a human.

And again George himself said Survival was a new beginning... Different timeline.

And lastly I do agree with your final sentiment in the sense that Im glad George still gets to give us slices of HIS vision... To boil down some Machiavellian politics if leave when your on top and stay gone because if you come back your will be competing with your yourself and now matter what you do you can never win... Even if you win.

[rongravy]

Uh...No... The cats or dogs literally meant cats or dogs... As confirmed by the fact that he say something new is on the menu...Meaning a human.

You're right on that one. I had to go back and look. My bad. Toke, toke.



And again George himself said Survival was a new beginning... Different timeline.

But something still in the same universe surely, just a different timeline/slice of "what up" in the same world. I've seen alot of interviews of him talking about everything, even Survival. Do you know which one, or where to find it about where he said that? I've heard him say something about them evolving further in this movie, also surely meaning it is still in the same world with all the same evolving rules on those creepy crawlies. Not a different universe, but more of a "struggles happening oblivious to one another in differrent parts of the same realm."
Not trying to dispute it, but I like to see, and to mull it all over under me mullet...

[Minerva_Zombi]

No because remember when the guy asked that, he responded "I told you, tonight it's something new." Which obviously means he's talking about the girl.

[CooperWasRight]

You're right on that one. I had to go back and look. My bad. Toke, toke.


But something still in the same universe surely, just a different timeline/slice of "what up" in the same world. I've seen alot of interviews of him talking about everything, even Survival. Do you know which one, or where to find it about where he said that? I've heard him say something about them evolving further in this movie, also surely meaning it is still in the same world with all the same evolving rules on those creepy crawlies. Not a different universe, but more of a "struggles happening oblivious to one another in differrent parts of the same realm."
Not trying to dispute it, but I like to see, and to mull it all over under me mullet...

Im sorry I meant Diary.... Here is one quote..

"This one comes from my heart. It's not a sequel or a remake. It's a whole new beginning for the dead. "
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33225

Honestly he was beating this drum or one form or another during Diary left and right... I dont wanna spend too much time but If you check out the interviews form that time frame you will see many iterations that its a new timeline ... Not to mention Technologically it is obvious more modern.

[Trin]

I hate to say it, but GAR says stuff. It's just kinda whatever strikes his mood. New timeline, maybe bring characters from previous movies, technology... it's really just whatever.

Personally I feel like anything he's said to allude to the new movies being in a new universe is defensive to keep people from asking how it fits together.

[CooperWasRight]

I hate to say it, but GAR says stuff. It's just kinda whatever strikes his mood. New timeline, maybe bring characters from previous movies, technology... it's really just whatever.

Personally I feel like anything he's said to allude to the new movies being in a new universe is defensive to keep people from asking how it fits together.

Well do you have any other valuable insights on his mind and what he is thinking...? I tend to go with what he says... But maybe im going to the wrong source.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hate to be the killjoy, but LAND doesn't make a good anything.... part 3, 4, whatever. The DVD makes a great beer coaster though. :D

[AcesandEights]

Does everyone want him to do the same tired formula over and over?
Escape from ___ to ___, then hold out until ___, which doesn't work, then finally escape off in your ___ to ___?
I love the original trilogy, but geez. Let goooooo.

This is a pretty trite & tired defense I see regularly from ye olde defenders of the faith. I think people just want solid characterization, a good story and tension filled zombie horror from their zombie horror films (go figure); they mistakenly expect George to follow through on their expectations. He either does not want to, or lacks the ability at this point.

Personally, I just wish they'd stop billing his newer films as horror, they are the furthest thing from.

[bassman]

Hate to be the killjoy, but LAND doesn't make a good anything.... part 3, 4, whatever. The DVD makes a great beer coaster though. :D

But the HDDVD has some menu music that's perfect for formal gatherings!:lol:

Old DJ....still chugging down the tracks with that Land hate train.:)

[AcesandEights]

Old DJ....still chugging down the tracks with that Land hate train.:)

http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/EAG%20TSS%2002%20Train%20TAN-2T.jpg

[Trin]

Well do you have any other valuable insights on his mind and what he is thinking...? I tend to go with what he says... But maybe im going to the wrong source.
Have you paid attention to what he says?

For years everyone debated over his statement that all the movies are really in separate universes. Like his statement was gospel of the franchise. If you actually watch the interview, that statement was made when someone questioned how the technology could've changed so much between Night and Dawn and Day when they are set only weeks and months apart. He waves his hands and says you really just need to think of them in different universes, next question. The transcript of the interview doesn't really capture his dismissive attitude and lack of thought to the statement, and thus he has inadvertently laid down gospel.

In a later interview he mentioned how he couldn't make "Machete Zombie" actually just be Blades because the name was locked up in copyright/trademark with Dawn. Now why would he even consider that if the movies were in separate universes? Or did he just think it'd be cool for the tie-in between the movies that spanned 25+ years, and universes be damned? We don't really know.

In another he mentioned that he'd considered bringing back Peter for a part in a later movie but didn't think it would make sense because the actor aged 20 years when the character didn't. This statement is particularly interesting. It doesn't really prove he had always thought of them in the same universe, but it does prove that AT THAT MOMENT he was considering a "what if" that put them in the same universe.

The most recent is the LA Times Article...
"Even though they were made 10 years apart from each other or more, it's meant to be the same storyline. "

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-0530conversation-20100530,0,5331450.story

He's all over the map. His own concept of the way the movies fits together has changed over time, and that's not necessarily bad. Who says his movies are supposed to fit together just one way? I'd guess that he loves the notion that viewing his movies from different perspectives yields different little nuggets of truth. And we know that he likes to tinker with creative ideas for how to move the franchise in new directions, even if it causes some inconsistency.

So if you go with what he says, you have to be careful. You can find a lot of different statements and they can be interpreted a lot of different ways. You really have to pay attention to the context and mindset that birthed any particular GAR gospel.

[Minerva_Zombi]

Hate to be the killjoy, but LAND doesn't make a good anything.... part 3, 4, whatever. The DVD makes a great beer coaster though. :D

So does Deadlands. BURN! lol.

Its actually quite fun to watch a night of drinking...

[rongravy]

No because remember when the guy asked that, he responded "I told you, tonight it's something new." Which obviously means he's talking about the girl.
Maybe he thought Asia was a tranny...
I always thought he meant her too, but last night I watched that part and had to scratch my head. Then take another bountiful hit. Then scratch again...


This is a pretty trite & tired defense I see regularly from ye olde defenders of the faith. I think people just want solid characterization, a good story and tension filled zombie horror from their zombie horror films (go figure); they mistakenly expect George to follow through on their expectations. He either does not want to, or lacks the ability at this point.

Ha, I thought Land definitely had all of that. Back to where we were with opinions and such. I haven't seen Survival yet, but Diary was decent enough to me. Not a barn burner, mind ye...



Personally, I just wish they'd stop billing his newer films as horror, they are the furthest thing from.
I'm scared to ask what category you'd put them in...
:rolleyes:

[AcesandEights]

Back to where we were with opinions and such.

Agreed.



I'm scared to ask what category you'd put them in...
:rolleyes:

I don't really know how I'd classify them, to honestly answer your ellipsis. They don't really seem like horror films to me, though. Well, they seem like toothless modern day horror, so in that respect they do fit the genre, but they're really just drama or action adventure films with horror elements. I get scared of zombies, or at least let myself get scared and enjoy the idea of them, but I wasn't really scared, or felt for the protagonists fates in Land or Diary and I even actually somewhat enjoyed Land, so I don't completely hate the new stuff.

[darth los]

Hate to be the killjoy, but LAND doesn't make a good anything.... part 3, 4, whatever. The DVD makes a great beer coaster though. :D

Exactly what i use mine for dude. I use it as a coaster while I'm watching Dawn 04'. :D

High five! :thumbsup:

And as for his vision. Just because he thought of it doesn't mean it isn't dumb or a bad idea. All it means is that it is now officially canon.

:cool:

[JDFP]

And as for his vision. Just because he thought of it doesn't mean it isn't dumb or a bad idea. All it means is that it is now officially canon.

:cool:

The new films aren't canon if they aren't in the same zombie universe as the original trilogy (and I say they ain't, so there :p).

j.p.

[darth los]

The new films aren't canon if they aren't in the same zombie universe as the original trilogy (and I say they ain't, so there :p).

j.p.


Oh there's no doubt.

I don't even put those abominations in the same sentence as the original 3.

:cool:

[Trin]

They don't really seem like horror films to me, though. Well, they seem like toothless modern day horror, so in that respect they do fit the genre, but they're really just drama or action adventure films with horror elements. I get scared of zombies, or at least let myself get scared and enjoy the idea of them, but I wasn't really scared, or felt for the protagonists fates in Land or Diary and I even actually somewhat enjoyed Land, so I don't completely hate the new stuff.
I think they are horror. I think of things like slasher flicks, or ghost stories, or the early monster movies, or even movies like Day, and I wonder what the latest 3 are lacking that keeps them out of being horror? They may not be good horror, or effective horror, but that's not to say they aren't horror.


Exactly what i use mine for dude. I use it as a coaster while I'm watching Dawn 04'. :D

High five! :thumbsup:

And as for his vision. Just because he thought of it doesn't mean it isn't dumb or a bad idea. All it means is that it is now officially canon.

:cool:
If Land or Dawn '04 were both on TV at the same time I'd have a hard time choosing which one to watch. Sadly, I watch both of them the exact same way. I start off really into it and then I get to some point and the idiocy just overcomes me and I turn it off. Both movies had great starts, weird events in the middle, and monumentally, unforgivable, stupid endings. They are the same movie with a few details shifted around.


The new films aren't canon if they aren't in the same zombie universe as the original trilogy (and I say they ain't, so there :p).

j.p.It's ALL ONE UNIVERSE!!!
Some zombies can walk underwater through a flowing river while others cannot find their way out of a lighted swimming pool while even others will lie in wait underwater around boat docks!!! *gasp*
Some zombies will eat horses while others won't touch beef treat!!! *argh*
Some zombies can stand in the kitchen not caring about you in the next room while others stand outside the mall doors for months trying to get at you. *egads*
Some zombie children sit nicely in their cribs while other zombie children hang around airports flailing themselves on you. *shudder*

hahahaha, deal with that suckas!!

[bassman]

I don't even put those abominations in the same sentence as the original 3.


Ya kinda have to when mentioning Romero's name. Whether we like it or not, the latest three are forever attached to his name.

And to be brutally honest....I think NONE of Romero's films(past or present) deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Day. I love Dawn and Night, but even they don't reach the excellence that is Day of the Dead. Day was Romero at the top of his game. Sadly, we won't ever see that again.

[darth los]

Ya kinda have to when mentioning Romero's name. Whether we like it or not, the latest three are forever attached to his name.

And to be brutally honest....I think NONE of Romero's films(past or present) deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Day. I love Dawn and Night, but even they don't reach the excellence that is Day of the Dead. Day was Romero at the top of his game. Sadly, we won't ever see that again.

Nostalgically nothing tops dawn. Technically and acting wise. Day is the gold standard.

Now if only he could combine the epicness of dawn with what was kick ass about day...

:cool:

[JDFP]

Sadly, we won't ever see that again.

While I think you're right, I'm still holding onto blind faith (like George Michaels says, you gotta have faith).

There's always a chance (however slim it may be) that he can make another great flick.

I have the same faith with John Carpenter.

j.p.

[darth los]

While I think you're right, I'm still holding onto blind faith (like George Michaels says, you gotta have faith).

There's always a chance (however slim it may be) that he can make another great flick.

MAybe one day buddy.


If you can hold your breath that is! :lol:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/128/creep4.jpg

:cool:

[bassman]

There's always a chance (however slim it may be) that he can make another great flick.


At his age, I doubt he's got another good film left in him. I'm holding out hope that his episode of The Walking Dead will be a return to form.

[darth los]

At his age, I doubt he's got another good film left in him. I'm holding out hope that his episode of The Walking Dead will be a return to form.

Hopefully it will spark something in him.

It seems to me he has been in a bubble for quite sometime and developed a bunker mentality when it comes to "his" ghouls.

I put that in quotes because it's significant. Think about it.

How would Thomas edison react if someone tried to tell him about light bulbs?

He'd tell them to fuck off.

GAr invented the modern zombie and I don't think he'd be very receptive to constructive criticism.

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

MAybe one day buddy.


If you can hold your breath that is! :lol:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/128/creep4.jpg

:cool:

Oh I can hold my breath for a long, long time!

[rongravy]

I love Dawn and Night, but even they don't reach the excellence that is Day of the Dead. Day was Romero at the top of his game.


Agreed. It is the litmus test to which all others must face.


Sadly, we won't ever see that again.

Dang, ye of little faith, lol.


Nostalgically nothing tops dawn. Technically and acting wise.

All three are nostalgia to me. Zombies used to fascinate and scare the fuck outta me.
Actingwise? Ummmm......
Only if you like corn.
:sneaky:
(Which I do.)

[Trin]

So really, was the acting in Dawn worse than the acting in Day? I mean, I hear the acting in Dawn criticized all over the place but I don't think it was that bad. The main 4 were just spot on in my mind. Forget the bikers and the zombies. Were the rest that corny? Am I just seeing things through the Dawn nostalgia goggles?

I think Day had good acting too, but I'm surprised it never gets criticized. Fischer was the most wooden actor on record. Rhodes and Logan were both fun characters, and I can't imagine other actors in those roles, but were they really that well acted? They took their characters so over the top as to almost be comical. Most of the military guys are so unremarkable as to blend in with the scenery. Rickles was nothing more than a guy standing around looking lazy and aping Steele. Steele was pretty good. And no one can hold a candle to Bub of course.

Maybe looking at it another way. Was Sarah better than Fran? Was John better than Peter? Bill better than Roger or Flyboy?

[bassman]

Am I just seeing things through the Dawn nostalgia goggles?

Yes. :lol:

It's all opinion of course, but I find MOST of the acting in Dawn to be silly. So many areas where I kind of grind my teeth and think "really?". This includes the main four. Espeically Fran and Stephen.

Day also has a few bad eggs, but overall it's leap years ahead of Dawn in the acting department. I think most of the bad acting is the military guys, but the four main characters are all great. Pilato was very over the top and should probably be listed as one of the bad, but it just fits somehow. His character can be excused from it because he was so badass. Very OTT, though.

In the end both films don't have grade-a acting, but I suppose that's what you get with independent flicks. Dawn has the worst, Day has a few bad spots, and I love both of them regardless...

[Trin]

Wow. I can't even read most of your post because of my goggles. All I see is blah, blah, blah, military was bad, rhodes probably should've been bad, dawn was awesome. :p

[darth los]

I think it speaks volumes that the film can overcome acting and special effects issues (although I'm sure they weren't a glaring when it was made) and still be as classic as it is.

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

Seems like people have some Romero glasses on because questionable acting is a staple of all 3 of the original trilogy. Over and under acting you can take your pick because it can be found all through out.

[darth los]

Seems like people have some Romero glasses on.

Dude, does a bear shit in the woods?

So an intellectually honest conversation is not possible.

:cool:

[CooperWasRight]

Dude, does a bear shit in the woods?

So an intellectually honest conversation is not possible.

:cool:

Fair enough... But it does seem some can admit they got them glasses on... When it comes down to it I prefer glasses made in 78.

[bassman]

When it comes down to it I prefer glasses made in 78.

I only wear HD Wraparounds.

http://www.shopgetorganized.com/images/p33863_500.jpg

[darth los]

But it does seem some can admit they got them glasses on.

Exactly.


I only wear HD Wraparounds.


Foolish humans. We've come for your ray bans! :lol:

http://www.hotgossip.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/v-l.jpg

:cool:

[Trin]

Seems like people have some Romero glasses on because questionable acting is a staple of all 3 of the original trilogy. Over and under acting you can take your pick because it can be found all through out.

My Romero glasses must be spotty. Cause I don't see anything wrong with most of the GAR staples. Ben, Tom, Peter, Roger, John, Sarah, McDermott, Bub, Riley, Cholo, O'Flynn... I love those characters and thought the actors did very well. I was totally bought into those characters.

But I see serious problems with others... Judy, Barbra, every zombie in Dawn, Rhodes, Rickles, Fischer, Dr. Logan, Slack, Pillsbury, Big Daddy, everyone in Diary, Muldoon, Sarge, everyone else in Survival. Lots of over-acting. Some wooden acting.

I really think Diary and Survival suffered bad characters. I'm not even sure it was bad acting. I mean, it *was* bad acting, but I think the actors had a disadvantage going into it.

[Epidemic79]

Well I for one have always tried to put & place the Original Trilogy (& now Land) into the same timeline. Its a fun mental challenge after all. I even posted this notion not too long ago,but I guess either no one cared or just plain didnt want to touch it then,lol.

But I do this with everything,not just Zombie films,but most all movies,no matter the genre. Obviously theres still twists & turns in this ultimate all encomposing timeline,and theres always gonna be other unrelated universes floating around. And since I like to write Horror stories on the side as a hobby,all my junk takes place in the same timeline,Zombie related or not,I luv tying together loose ends.-(I like continuity!):D