TWD: Racist and Dumb [Archive]

bassman

27-Nov-2010, 03:15 AM

Thought this was worth a laugh. A few truths sprinkled in there, though...

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/11/24/the-walking-dead-populated-with-racist-southerners-dumb-characters/

Let’s be clear about one thing: George Romero is a hack whose movies have gotten steadily worse over the years. His latest films are literally unwatchable – Land of the Dead is one of the stupidest, most boring movies not starring Ashton Kutcher. Its follow-ups are, astonishingly, even worse.

:lol:

JDFP

27-Nov-2010, 03:21 AM

Couple thoughts:

Romero isn't a hack.

And the follow-ups to "Land" weren't worse than "Land".

j.p.

bassman

27-Nov-2010, 03:46 AM

It's all opinion of course. I just thought it was funny how serious he took it all...

acealive1

27-Nov-2010, 03:49 AM

i still dont understand how thry can call a genre originator a "hack"

Trin

27-Nov-2010, 05:03 AM

Agree he's not a hack. I'm not sure what term applies. It's not a complimentary one. But "hack" isn't it.

And, yes, the follow-ups to Land were worse than Land. Very, very worse. Enough so that I find Land quite watchable now. Fire extinguisher zombie, flare gun zombie, acid face zombie, sickle through own head zombie... those things are giving Contagium a run.

The article is a little hard on Romero, but I also have a hard time really disagreeing with any of it. I believe Night and Dawn were more than luck, as he contends, but I agree with most of his sentiments. Especially the social commentary aspects. He avoids discussing Day, which I find odd. I'm not sure how you lump Day into a hack's body of work.

His thoughts on Dawn 2004 are absurd. He's got some rose-colored glasses going if he thinks those buffoons were intelligent characters making good choices. But alas...

The article really hits TWD squarely. I agree with virtually everything he says, although I disagree that the show is not good in general.

He's covering a lot of the nit-picky stuff we have here. And he puts it very well that the nit-picky stuff is distracting to the suspension of disbelief, and should not be covered under the suspension of disbelief. Bravo for him knowing the difference and calling TWD on it.

I don't think he gave Daryl a fair appraisal, but then it doesn't sound like he's up to date with the current episode.

JDFP

27-Nov-2010, 05:18 AM

And, yes, the follow-ups to Land were worse than Land. Very, very worse. Enough so that I find Land quite watchable now.

Fire extinguisher zombie, flare gun zombie, acid face zombie, sickle through own head zombie... those things are giving Contagium a run.

I was thinking of "Diary" as being much better than "Land" -- but, you're right, "Survival" is probably on equal pairing with "Land" -- it does suck. Actually, even though Gary and Andy may argue with me here, I thought "Survival" was possibly a little worse than "Land" (and I hate "Land"). Dennis Hopper (R.I.P.) was redeemable and somewhat interesting in "Land" -- "Survival" didn't have a single character I really gave a shit about.

What "Survival" didn't have was Big Daddy. But zombies on horseback are almost as bad.

j.p.

Sammich

27-Nov-2010, 05:23 AM

Bah. Movie and t.v. "critics" are just arrogant loudmouths that self-appointed themselves as judge to what is good and what is bad for everyone else. They are no different than those annoying mofos in highschool that would go around trashing people for not wearing the latest in fashion clothes.

bassman

27-Nov-2010, 06:07 AM

As I had figured....All the fun has been sucked out of this thread....

Please continue...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lalzuiuf0O1qe0eclo1_r1_500.gif

shootemindehead

27-Nov-2010, 04:37 PM

Have to say. Kind of agree with a lot of what he says.

Andy

27-Nov-2010, 04:50 PM

Let’s be clear about one thing: George Romero is a hack whose movies have gotten steadily worse over the years. His latest films are literally unwatchable – Land of the Dead is one of the stupidest, most boring movies not starring Ashton Kutcher. Its follow-ups are, astonishingly, even worse.

Before i even click the link, i like this guy. He speaks alot of truth.

EDIT - Ok ive read it all now, and my fondness for the guy has dropped, he's spot on about romero but when he's talking about TWD, he strikes me as right but for an outsider, not a deadhead or even a fan of the comics, he has a few good points (the inclusion of a redneck stereotype) but i think he's missed far more.

rongravy

27-Nov-2010, 05:04 PM

land was NOT bad. and TWD is what it is. a show.
although i disagree, i can see how ppl could not like the last 2 outings, but land is more polished, more big screen. ppl here bitch and whine too much.

Andy

27-Nov-2010, 05:29 PM

bassman

27-Nov-2010, 05:48 PM

I can't believe the guy didn't even mention Day. Probably because it's more about the people, so it's not a zombie movie. :rolleyes:

rongravy

27-Nov-2010, 06:08 PM

Polished and big screen isnt everything and is generally more of a negative than a positive with zombie movies, and land gets a hell of alot wrong. Give me curse of the cannibal confederates or zombie lake over land anytime.
ever seen redneck zombies? sorry, but i like bigtime FX. don't get me wrong, i love dawn. but it's time to move on up, Mr. Jefferson. while i can deal with people hating on the two new ones, land ain't such a bad deal. sure, it has its faults, but dayumn, it is above par with TWD. i love that show, too, but it has alot of inconsistencies...

AcesandEights

27-Nov-2010, 06:32 PM

The guy makes some decent points about TWD, but overstates his case and blows it a bit out proportion, in my opinion.

He's way off base on GAR, though I think he'd have been fair to simply point out how his recent efforts pale so.

Over all, internet hyperbole run amuck.

rongravy

27-Nov-2010, 06:36 PM

Over all, internet hyperbole run amuck.

troo dat.

Andy

27-Nov-2010, 07:55 PM

ever seen redneck zombies? sorry, but i like bigtime FX. don't get me wrong, i love dawn. but it's time to move on up, Mr. Jefferson. while i can deal with people hating on the two new ones, land ain't such a bad deal. sure, it has its faults, but dayumn, it is above par with TWD. i love that show, too, but it has alot of inconsistencies...

Yeah i have seen redneck zombies and a whole bunch of trashy zombie movies that i'll wager you've never heard of, let alone seen, and while redneck zombies is god awful, its not got big daddy in it.

I get what you mean about the bigtime FX but it just dosnt work for this particullar genre, we've seen countless big budget, big effects zombie movies which just never work on the scale that the classic, zero budget genius effect movies of yesteryear becuase when it comes to the zombie genre, less is always better budget wise and thats why Land dosnt work, it has the budget and the names, but absolutly nothing else. its the worse zombie movie ive ever personally seen but im not going into it here this is a TWD topic, i did once post my reasons in their entirity which if you want to see, its here (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?15195-My-thoughts-on-land.-As-Requested.&highlight=land+dead).

rongravy

27-Nov-2010, 09:48 PM

Yeah i have seen redneck zombies and a whole bunch of trashy zombie movies that i'll wager you've never heard of, let alone seen, and while redneck zombies is god awful, its not got big daddy in it.

I'll give you that, as I don't have the time to sit around and watch every home made crappy zombie flick someone poops out occasionally.
Big Daddy was the only thing I didn't like about Land. Other than that, I thought it was pretty damn sweet.
It just amazes me sometimes the hate here for GAR's new stuff, yet alot of love for TWD.
Anyway...

Ghoulman

28-Nov-2010, 03:01 AM

Okay, first we have to realize who Andrew Breitbart is; A conservative political opinion guy first and foremost. So literally everything in his article comes from that place. For me it’s just like any other review about any other film or show except that instead of coming from a left-winger, that most of the print press employs, this time it comes from a right-winger. My advice. Recongnize it for what it is-an attack on liberalism-and move on.

As far as Romero being a hack? I personally haven’t seen anything memorable from him since 1985. As for Romero being held atop this untouchable pedestal for so long? Let him down. He shone brightly decades ago and changed how many view and make movies. He’s no different than, say, Michael Jordan. He changed basketball forever, but put him on the court today and he flounders, at best.

bassman

28-Nov-2010, 03:27 AM

Oh damn. Now politics are being brought into the fold. Those guys will bring it into anyhting, won't they?

Ghoulman

29-Nov-2010, 12:43 AM

Sorry bass, it wasn't my intention to bring in politics but rather show this guy, and his review for what it was; Something that should be taken with a tremendous grain of salt because it is purely ideologically driven. (insert smiley here)

clanglee

29-Nov-2010, 01:50 AM

This guy would be at home here at HPOTD. Ive heard most of his arguments here before. Many times. Some of his points may be valid, but I feel that he is looking for the wrong stuff. He doesn't like the Walking Dead because it doesn't match his survivalist wet dreams. I used to argue about a lot of the same things. Land was a perfect example. All I used to do was bitch about how this would never have happened, and that character should never have done this. I forgot that NO zombie movie has ever been made with the survivalist in mind. In all zombie movies we have people making dumbass decisions and getting eaten. In the good ones we have realistic people making realistic decisions. The best zombie movies, to me, are the ones about people and how they do, or do not work together.

On a side note, I don't see the issue with Merle Dixon. He is a little stereotyped, but goddammit, stereotypes come from somewhere. You cut out all the stereotypes, and you run out of characters real quick. I live in the south. I've known many many rednecks in my time. Some are more rascist than others, but rascism is one of the defining characteristics of a redneck. You can't be a real redneck without being a bit rascist. It comes with the moniker. And Merle is just a rascist asshole, an ex con apparently, who doesn't have to care about anyone anymore. . .and is going a bit extreme. I just don't have a problem seeing this actually happening. And for the record, no I am not offended by the portrayal of a southerner as a rascist idiot, bucause they are out there, and Merle isn't the only southern character in the show. they are almost ALL southern. . . . . . .sigh. . .im done. :l

blind2d

29-Nov-2010, 06:34 PM

I was thinking of "Diary" as being much better than "Land" -- but, you're right, "Survival" is probably on equal pairing with "Land" -- it does suck. Actually, even though Gary and Andy may argue with me here, I thought "Survival" was possibly a little worse than "Land" (and I hate "Land"). Dennis Hopper (R.I.P.) was redeemable and somewhat interesting in "Land" -- "Survival" didn't have a single character I really gave a shit about.

What "Survival" didn't have was Big Daddy. But zombies on horseback are much worse.

j.p.

There you go, we all know what you meant to say there.
As for Contagium... how dare you, sir?! You simply cannot compare the two films to it! Contagium was a masterpiece, whereas I enjoyed Diary a fair amount (mainly thanks to Stephen King and Simon Pegg), it's apples and oranges!
Oh yeah, and Survival has maybe a full minute of non-blow in't. Happy trails!

Thorn

30-Nov-2010, 05:49 PM

So much of this is opinion, and while opinions can not "technically" be wrong sometimes people are so far off base their opinion can easily be discredited. Is that the case here? I do not think so. I find Survival to be one of the worst zombie films I have ever watched and that is sad, because I expected more. I did not expect another Dawn, but I needed it to be more than poorly motivated camp wrapped around kill gags. And I saw again the complete loss of any sense of dread or fear from these people as they run around the land of the living dead never puts you as a viewer into the moment. A horror movie without a sense of fear, dread, suspense, or uncertainty is what exactly?

Diary really let me down, it was heavy handed and preachy. In it I feel George tried SO HARD to make it a commentary on something he lost sight of making a good movie to carry that message and instead we got message and a forced story around it that was completely unbelievable, unrealistic and failed to live up to his fans expectations.

Land I like more, does it have issues? Sure it does and we talked them to death, but honestly it was of the three later movies.. sadly the best we have had in my opinion. There are some parts of it that are redeeming. Others fail miserably but unlike Survival it succeeds in SOME areas.

What is odd is that after Night there was a split in direction, one camp went humor with return one side went social observation and horror. George has turned around and it seems gone farther to the camp humor side than I will ever like.

The author was heated, and he was funny at times, and his observations were valid at times. But his attacks on George as a Hack are unjustified in my opinion. The man has done so much that was good, you can not call him a hack because the body of work he has produced is what you look at to gauge a man's worth. Not the end of his run.

A professional boxer like Mike Tyson for example, if you look at his last 4 fights you would say he was nothing special, he was no one of note. If you look at his body of work he is a terrible offensive juggernaut that changed the face of boxing. We all loose a bit at the end, but that does not take away what he "was" or what he "accomplished".

Michael Jordan won six rings with the Bulls, is he a nobody and a loser based on his run as a player with the Washington Wizards where he was a shell of his former self? No he is still the greatest player in the history of the game (arguably).

So, I am sorry but calling George a Hack because he put out three bad movies is not only unfair it is ignorant and short sighted.

Trin

30-Nov-2010, 06:46 PM

@Thorn - Great post there Thorn. Lots of great points. And I mean really great points. Bravo!!

@clang - Getting fired up there, huh clang ol buddy!!

On a side note, I don't see the issue with Merle Dixon. He is a little stereotyped, but goddammit, stereotypes come from somewhere. You cut out all the stereotypes, and you run out of characters real quick. I live in the south. I've known many many rednecks in my time. Some are more rascist than others, but rascism is one of the defining characteristics of a redneck. You can't be a real redneck without being a bit rascist. It comes with the moniker. And Merle is just a rascist asshole, an ex con apparently, who doesn't have to care about anyone anymore. . .and is going a bit extreme. I just don't have a problem seeing this actually happening. And for the record, no I am not offended by the portrayal of a southerner as a rascist idiot, bucause they are out there, and Merle isn't the only southern character in the show. they are almost ALL southern. . . . . . .sigh. . .im done. :l
The issue I have is not that Merle is stereotyped... it's that he's a walking caricature of the stereotype and nothing more. Daryl, in contrast, is the same stereotype, but he exceeds it with plenty of other character facets. And maybe they'll shape up Merle in future episodes. They did a good job with Shane. After the first couple episodes portrayed him as just a jerk, then he started to get some complexity. I really don't care if they embrace stereotypes so long as the characters are good, complex, solid characters. Merle just isn't.

And I agree with what you said about great zombie movies being about realistic people making realistic decisions. I'd add that watching how various people from various walks of life approach surviving the apocalypse is a big part of what makes or breaks movies. What would Dawn be without them blocking the mall entrances? It was a, "Wow, what a great idea" moment. TWD gives us spreading zombie stank on ourselves and shambling through the masses. That's a bit harder to stand up and cheer for.

I think there's a middle ground between survivalists wet dream and idiots with no common sense or survival instinct. TWD seems to fall somewhere in that middle.

Gemini

30-Nov-2010, 09:15 PM

clanglee

01-Dec-2010, 02:02 AM

[QUOTE=Trin;254695I think there's a middle ground between survivalists wet dream and idiots with no common sense or survival instinct. TWD seems to fall somewhere in that middle.[/QUOTE]

I'll agree with that. I think in real life most people fall somewhere in the middle of that too.

Danny

01-Dec-2010, 02:19 AM

clanglee

01-Dec-2010, 11:42 AM

How many here truly love the series for its content, and how many here love the series simply because of the genre it's representing? That's not rhetorical, I would love feedback on that.
?

Honestly. . if it wasn't a post apocalyptic zombie series. . I might not watch it. But really. . that's a silly speculation. How many people would watch dexter if it wasn't about a Serial Killer? How many people would watch Boardwalk Empire if it wasn't a 1920's organized crime drama? The genre brought me in . . . .the quality keeps me in. Just like the comic. Hell. . .just like anything else I like.

bassman

01-Dec-2010, 01:12 PM

Honestly. . if it wasn't a post apocalyptic zombie series. . I might not watch it. But really. . that's a silly speculation. How many people would watch dexter if it wasn't about a Serial Killer? How many people would watch Boardwalk Empire if it wasn't a 1920's organized crime drama? The genre brought me in . . . .the quality keeps me in. Just like the comic. Hell. . .just like anything else I like.

Good points all around.

Would I like it if it didn't have zombies? Most likely. I'm the type that really only likes Romero's dead films because they're about the people. Most other zombie films can fuck off. Except for the few good comedies like Shaun and Zombieland.

I still remember my first viewing of Day and even as a kid thinking, "This isn't even about the zombies!!", which I thought was very cool. That's exactly what TWD is doing. It's a drama at it's core, but with zombies in the background. It's exactly what I stated in DJ's "What do you want out of a zombie movie?" thread. And obviously genre and horror fans aren't the only ones liking this show. That small group of people wouldn't make up the record-breaking nearly six million viewers in the US.

Another thing to remember is that this show is insanely popular right now, so you're going to get people like the writer of this article who take their criticisms to the extreme. Of course there will be people who genuinely don't enjoy the show, but then you're also going to get the people that jump on the "It's cool to hate" bandwagon and do their best to disuade everyone else from tuning in. You'll also get the comic loyalists who refuse to watch the show because of their devotion to Kirkman's work and they believe that nothing new can come of it. But for anyone that's just seen Episode 5 - that's the furthest thing from the truth....

Thorn

01-Dec-2010, 01:58 PM

This article is sad but true.

How many here truly love the series for its content, and how many here love the series simply because of the genre it's representing? That's not rhetorical, I would love feedback on that.

Overall for me it's had its ups and downs but has dropped off steeply in terms of quality since the debut. They were not even planning for a second season when they filmed this first one. Maybe with a bigger budget and a better effort knowing it is a hit series, season 2 will knock our socks off?

I guess I do not understand how you separate the two? That said human dram DOES interest me, take Lost for example the relationships, the personalities, the conflicts really made that show amazing (in my opinion) that said the back drop and setting made the show what it was. Human dram is inherently interesting to me, but I wouldn't watch a soap opera the back drop and setting have little appeal.

The key here is that the end of the world and the threat of being eaten is a catalyst and it drives and motivates these character and it is one that fascinates me.

Danny

01-Dec-2010, 02:34 PM

The key here is that the end of the world and the threat of being eaten is a catalyst and it drives and motivates these character and it is one that fascinates me.

Thing is they have less and less interaction with the zombies as it goes on, during the prison arc you only saw them as squiggles and blurs in the background and it was all about the people, hell, the title of the comic and show has nothing to do with the zombies at all. This is a drama about people, not a never ending zombie survival wet dream many seem to be expecting.

That said the last episode deviated so damn far from the comics i wouldnt be surprised to see the usual "someones been bitten!" bullshit once ever few episodes between two grown men arguing behind a door for an episode.

Thorn

01-Dec-2010, 02:38 PM

Thing is they have less and less interaction with the zombies as it goes on, during the prison arc you only saw them as squiggles and blurs in the background and it was all about the people, hell, the title of the comic and show has nothing to do with the zombies at all. This is a drama about people, not a never ending zombie survival wet dream many seem to be expecting.

That said the last episode deviated so damn far from the comics i wouldnt be surprised to see the usual "someones been bitten!" bullshit once ever few episodes between two grown men arguing behind a door for an episode.

Actually as a fan of the comic I always thought the title referred to the survivors as much as the zombies.

Oh and great points Trin I couldn't agree more.

Trin

01-Dec-2010, 03:03 PM

I won't say I watch it because it's in the zombie genre. There are tons of zombie things I don't have any interest in. And I won't say I watch if for the characer interactions. Sure, they can make or break it, but if that's ALL it were about I could just as easily tape soap operas all day long.

I love it because it's post-apocalyptic survival. It scratches that "what would you do" itch of seeing the world collapse and the ensuing struggle for survival in an empty, dangerous world. It's the same thing that makes I Am Legend or 28 Days/Weeks or The Stand so intriguing. It's the situation that grabbed my attention and keeps me coming back.

clanglee

01-Dec-2010, 10:07 PM

Thorn

02-Dec-2010, 02:18 PM

Exactly. . . .although. . . .Zombies are my favorite of the "apocalypse" types of movies.

Agreed for sure. I have often tried to figure out why. Was it my initial fear as a child as I watched my first zombie movie? Is it the fear of humans being prey? Fear of death? The thought of an enemy that gets stronger as you get weaker and how that just seems so unbeatable? I am not sure, but I love me some zombies ;)

Trin

02-Dec-2010, 02:52 PM

I figure there are a couple of things driving this. First, the post apocalyptic feel was done very well by Night/Dawn/Day and some others like Return (which, yes, I hate). Take those movies out of the picture and ask yourself whether the zombie genre holds the same special place.

Second, look at the nature of the world in a zombie apocalypse. The world is essentially not any more dangerous today than it was yesterday. You don't have nuclear radiation or biological infection making you scared to leave your house. Those things would be too scary to place yourself in the situation. A lot of post-apocalypse survival is just too daunting to imagine.

Third, look at your competition in that world. You have a radically reduced population, near extinction levels, which results in free reign over anything and everything you can conquer. Who doesn't imagine having the entire city of resources and stuff for their personal playground? It's all right there if you can take it. Dawn tapped into that. So did some other movies like Legend. But plenty of smaller zombie movies didn't tap into that, and they are not scratching the itch.

And finally, the zombies. They are scary. But they are manageable. They aren't like vampires or a killer virus or high-tech space aliens where you just have no chance in a head-on fight. They are weak individually. They are stupid (or are supposed to be). They can be easily thwarted. It's the ultimate every-man opponent. You don't have to be Rambo to fight them.