Poll: Which do you prefer? Romero's last 3 dead films or The Walking Dead?

[ProfessorChaos]

okay, somebody just made a comment that had me scratching my head, talking about those who don't like romero's new films yet enjoy the walking dead needing to have their heads examined.

i know that many have said these 2 entries into the undead mythos aren't comparable, but i think that they are, and most of us can't help but draw comparisons between romero's works and TWD.

so, completely ignoring the original three (which are untouchable classics), do you prefer romero's latest dead films or the tv series the walking dead?

as for myself, i'd watch TWD any day of the week. while it's not perfect, it's the best zombies-on-filmstock thing i've seen in decades. if you ask me, romero's recent works are "meh" at best at downright fucking terrible at their worst. i know everyone's got their own opinion, but seriously, how can someone defend shit like survival and claim that it's as good, if not better, than what we've seen over the last 6 weeks?

[bassman]

No contest. TWD.

And I actually like Land...

[kidgloves]

Uh oh. I predict that this thread will not end well.

[Andy]

Why is this even a poll and what made you think this would be divisive?

Lol i havnt seen more of a garuanteed one sided poll since the 'NOTLD, original or 30th anniversary' topic :lol:

Edit, ive changed the first option on your poll to make it abit clearer what your asking.

[bassman]

Why is this even a poll and what made you think this would be divisive?

Lol i havnt seen more of a garuanteed one sided poll since the 'NOTLD, original or 30th anniversary' topic :lol:

I dunno man. I bet we'll get some people that choose romero's latest over TWD. After all....some people found Survival to be "smart and witty".:eek:

[ProfessorChaos]

there's a few posts out there in the TWD threads that strike me as pretty anti-TWD, i just wanted to see what the general consensus was. and, like bass mentioned, in the survival thread, somebody thinks that survival is a great film and romero's apparently at the top of his game, or some shit....

now that season 1 is done, i figured it'd be a good time to sit back and gauge everyone's thoughts about it, and since this is a GAR fansite and that's the reason most of us were initially drawn here, i wanted to get an official viewpoint on just how far the mighty RUHMEROOOOO! has fallen.

[darth los]

okay, somebody just made a comment that had me scratching my head, talking about those who don't like romero's new films yet enjoy the walking dead needing to have their heads examined.

i know that many have said these 2 entries into the undead mythos aren't comparable, but i think that they are, and most of us can't help but draw comparisons between romero's works and TWD.

so, completely ignoring the original three (which are untouchable classics), do you prefer romero's latest dead films or the tv series the walking dead?

as for myself, i'd watch TWD any day of the week. while it's not perfect, it's the best zombies-on-filmstock thing i've seen in decades. if you ask me, romero's recent works are "meh" at best at downright fucking terrible at their worst. i know everyone's got their own opinion, but seriously, how can someone defend shit like survival and claim that it's as good, if not better, than what we've seen over the last 6 weeks?

Simple.

They need their head examined.

Again, GAr's recent films are of the caliber of something you'd see as a sy-fy original at best.

TWD is the best the genre (Traditional shamblers) the genre has offered up in sometime. And what's more? It didn't disapoint!!

Unlike Gar's films we wait for years anticipating only to let out a collective, headscratching, "O.K. WTF was that all about.

:cool:

[Mitchified]

The Walking Dead. And it isn't even close.

To be fair, a colonoscopy would be preferable to watching Diary and Survival again.

[darth los]

Voted TWD. And it's not even close.

This mini series is something I'd be proud to show off to some friends or to those just getting into the genre as representative of what it has to offer.

Gar's films, out of respect for him, I'll just say not so much.

:cool:

[AcesandEights]

Yeah, no contest.

There'll be some dissenters, but it should still be an avalanche, I'd think.

[Andy]

I dunno man. I bet we'll get some people that choose romero's latest over TWD. After all....some people found Survival to be "smart and witty".:eek:

I Think the peple who found survival to be 'smart and witty' are all safely sedated in their cells by this time of the evening.

[ProfessorChaos]

while i'm not writing off romero's future works entirely, i think that when news breaks of his inevitable and unnecessary "fruitcake of the dead" or whatever dumbass name they come up with, i'm going to have an "aw, fuck, not again" reaction.

which is totally unexpected. as many have stated, if i would've known 7 years ago that romero was gonna release 3 dead films in about 5 years, i'd have been pretty excited. but then if they told me the story arcs or showed me the films themselves, i'd have been in denial. "no way those came from the same guy who did the big three....no fucking way!"

and now, like i said, i couldn't give a fuck if romero ever made another zombie movie. in fact, i kinda hope he doesn't. try something else, just no more zombie films with your brilliant commentary (which is feel is kind of a fluke anywho, i seriously doubt he intended those first 3 films to be interpreted in the way they were....he just ran with it and tried too hard to recapture that essence in his last films...and failed, miserably, all three times.

[BotOZombie]

Easy answer for me too. The Walking Dead wipes the floor with the recent trilogy even if it does have some faults here and there.

I really enjoyed Land as a stand alone but didnt like Diary at all, in fact I got nothing out of it what so ever. I have yet to see Survival.

[darth los]

try something else, just no more zombie films with your brilliant commentary (which is feel is kind of a fluke anywho, i seriously doubt he intended those first 3 films to be interpreted in the way they were....he just ran with it and tried too hard to recapture that essence in his last films...and failed, miserably, all three times.

Are you familiar with the term BINGO, At all?

:cool:

[ProfessorChaos]

glad somebody else feels that way.

while i'll concede that there are elements thrown in his older films that suggest he was thinking a bit along those lines, he's not the "legendary social commentary genius artist" or whatever title some drooling fan-boys adorn him with.

the way i see it, he heard and read that shit, was interviewed and questioned so much about it, that he actually started believing it himself...and then we get turds like land, diary, and survival, cuz all he wants to do is have a repeat of that magic and the sort of cult following/fan reverence most of his older films have.

people say he's not gonna try to make another night, dawn, or day, but i think that from all the years of chaps kissing his ass, he's gotten full of himself and actually tried to make another one of those films, or one close to it....only problem is that he's tried to hard, sacrificed plot, characters, etc for "THA MESSAGE!!!!!!!!" and fucked up his legacy big time.

[LouCipherr]

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

Do we even need a poll to express the superiority of TWD vs. the last three GAR films?

This is like asking me what I'd like to eat: bacon or a steaming mound of fresh dog shit. :lol: :lol:

[krisvds]

Exactly what I was expecting.

I'm the silly sod who actually prefers Land and parts of Survival over most of TWD. Diary, not really.
Stating that anyone who thinks along these lines is 'a drooling fanboy' raving over 'the social commentary genius' of GAR or should be in his 'cell' by now,... that's downright insulting.

But anyway: I really, really enjoyed TWD. I just don't understand all the hate Land etc is getting while so many of TWD's faults are ignored. I mean the 'Vatos' and 'CDC'-storylines are just plain silly. And some of the dialogue in TWD was just,... Well look at that initial dialogue between Shane and Rick in the policecar. Jesus, that was downright horrible.
The focus on character's psychology? Man, some of TWD played out like just another American soap with zombies thrown into the mix. The main conflict this series is riding on: a guy sleeping with his best friends wife. Pffffff. They're gonna stretch and stretch that one 'till there is nothing of the comic books original tone left. Mark my words.

But hey, if you guys want to live in your perfect black and white worlds, be my guest. Instead of spouting insults why not try nuance next time huh?

[krakenslayer]

Although, for me, Land was probably the weakest of Romero's new trilogy, and Diary has jumped considerably in my opinions after a recent re-watch, I pretty much agree with Krisvds sentiments on this one.

I haven't voted yet, though, because I am yet to watch the entire WD series.

[ProfessorChaos]

as neil would say, "oh dear"....

and all those criticisms aren't leveled directly at you. there's plenty of romero-worshipers around here who think everything the man does is pure gold. and the "social commentary = genius" thing isn't unique to you either...

but survival? dude, explain how that is better than any single episode of TWD...and what faults are you referring to? i said it wasn't perfect, but for fuck's sake, how can any thing make it worse than survival?!?!?

[krakenslayer]

Speaking from my own point of view (I think you were directing your question at the other fella, but here's my justification anyway), it's not so much a matter of TWD being worse than Survival, it's simply that I enjoyed Survival more. It was more bizarre and offbeat, and it was more interesting to watch.

I think it all boils down to being bored with that kind of straight-laced, square-jawed, survival horror thing. I understand, however, that this is exactly what most of you want. I only need to have a quick read at the fiction section, and the racks of zombie short-fiction books that are slowly taking over the shelf-space of the horror sections in bookshops, to see that. And that's absolutely fine; it just means I like zombie movies for different reasons than most others. It's doesn't mean I think it is in any way "worse than survival". Not in any absolute sense.

[Mitchified]

I only need to have a quick read at the fiction section, and the racks of zombie short-fiction books that are slowly taking over the shelf-space of the horror sections in bookshops, to see that.

You clearly haven't seen Cover My Ass, available now in the HotD Fiction Section!

Shameless self-promotion aside, I get where you're coming from. The zombie genre as a whole is becoming stale as most of the characters and plots these days are following the same formulas ad nauseum. That's why something like a Shaun of the Dead is so refreshing when it comes out.

As someone that is a big fan of the offbeat and quirky, however, I still didn't like Survival of the Dead. It was like when you listen to someone that thinks he/she/it is witty when he/she/it really isn't; it comes off hollow. Now, I'm certainly not sitting here trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy it; if you do, more power to you. It certainly isn't the worst movie in existence. I'm just saying that for me personally, the reason I voted for The Walking Dead is because, while its themes and characters are overused to death, the presentation is just so much more coherent and well-executed.

[Sammich]

It won't be long before people start to demand that any mention of George Romero be removed from the opening screen of Homepage of the Dead.

[AcesandEights]

Were I to make outrageous demands on the internet it would be for a cessation of all hyperbole :p

[darth los]

as neil would say, "oh dear"....

and all those criticisms aren't leveled directly at you. there's plenty of romero-worshipers around here who think everything the man does is pure gold. and the "social commentary = genius" thing isn't unique to you either...

but survival? dude, explain how that is better than any single episode of TWD...and what faults are you referring to? i said it wasn't perfect, but for fuck's sake, how can any thing make it worse than survival?!?!?

Dude, this is the same guy who said that anyone who disagrees with him should have their heads examined...

And I know for a fact i remember an interview with GAr bck in the day where he clearly says he didn't intend for the satirc aspect of the films to come out as much as they did. Now I won't go into it any further as I cannot provide to source at this time. However...

What part of " I just thought it would be a cool idea to shoot a zombie film in a mall", aren't people getting?

:cool:

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------


It won't be long before people start to demand that any mention of George Romero be removed from the opening screen of Homepage of the Dead.

Now there's an idea...:p

:cool:

[bassman]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/11/22/1n0n41ls8r.jpg

TWD should be added to this. And yeah....what it says is true. Now fight clean, boys!

[darth los]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/11/22/1n0n41ls8r.jpg

TWD should be added to this. And yeah....what it says is true. Now fight clean, boys!

Gold dude! :lol:

And why is cooper smiling? I always knew that dude was some kinda freak. :dead:

:cool:

[MikePizzoff]

Despite how much flakk I've given TWD, I think it's a superb work of zombiedom(?).

I still regret ever viewing Diarrhea Of The Dead (in theater, no less).

[sirjacktorrance]

I prefer last romero movies .even survival. at his best TWD is like survival. It´s not THAT good, it´s mostly boring and Lame in some parts. it´s suppose to be serious but it has parts of stupidity all over the first season.i could´n understand why people praise this with that blindness... oh don´t forget sitty cgi blood,explosions etc.. it´s not bad but lasGAR movs are solids pieces of old style zombie cinema

[darth los]

Because the quality of the zombie genre has fallen so far that when even mediocre offerings are shown they are praised as if they were the second coming because let's face it, it feels atleast that long since we been waiting for a pay off from this genre that's kept disapointing us, with big contributions from GAr in that dept., by the way.

:cool:

[rongravy]

TWD is better than the last two outings, but not Land.
Just my 2 cents worth...

[kidgloves]

I prefer last romero movies .even survival. at his best TWD is like survival. It´s not THAT good, it´s mostly boring and Lame in some parts. it´s suppose to be serious but it has parts of stupidity all over the first season.i could´n understand why people praise this with that blindness... oh don´t forget sitty cgi blood,explosions etc.. it´s not bad but lasGAR movs are solids pieces of old style zombie cinema

You must really dislike TWD then. I remember your thread about Survival and how shocked your were at how crap it was. Maybe your getting the shit edited version of TWD in your country like the Germans are.

[mpokera]

Have to agree with most of the posters here. TWD is far superior. I am in the minority it seems in that I actually somewhat liked "Diary". I found 'Land" to be rambling and pointless and as for "Survival" I have to think in the wee hours of the night when he is all alone, even GAR is ashamed of that turkey. TWD has flaws (everything does) but it is the best thing going on tv for some time!

[Andy]

Have to agree with most of the posters here. TWD is far superior. I am in the minority it seems in that I actually somewhat liked "Diary". I found 'Land" to be rambling and pointless and as for "Survival" I have to think in the wee hours of the night when he is all alone, even GAR is ashamed of that turkey. TWD has flaws (everything does) but it is the best thing going on tv for some time!

I Actually agree with you on diary, while its still not great its definatly the best of romero's new trilogy, its the only one thats coherant anyway.

[ProfessorChaos]

i also think diary is the best of the new 3....but that's not saying much. it's like, which sounds more appetizing: rotten eggs, spoiled chicken, or cottage cheese that is green with mold?

[MoonSylver]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/11/22/1n0n41ls8r.jpg

TWD should be added to this. And yeah....what it says is true. Now fight clean, boys!


Gold dude! :lol:

And why is cooper smiling? I always knew that dude was some kinda freak. :dead:

:cool:

You're welcome. ;)

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/moonsylver/GARTWD.jpg

[clanglee]

You're welcome. ;)

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/moonsylver/GARTWD.jpg

That was your work Moon? Shoulda known. I just about spit soda out of my nose on that one.

[MoonSylver]

That was your work Moon? Shoulda known. I just about spit soda out of my nose on that one.

:thumbsup:

May I direct Sir to something from our cellar?

HPotD GAR/Zombie Meme Thread (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?16453-The-HPOTD-quot-GAR-Universe-Zombie-quot-Meme-Thread...)

[JonOfTheShred]

Another vote for the Walking Dead.

HOWEVER...I still love Land just as much. Diary and Survival leave a lot to be desired, of course, but I'll always love Land. (Perhaps its Dennis Hopper? Or the excessive feasting? Or maybe it being the first zombie movie I got to see in theaters?)

[Legion2213]

Haha! some of the picture responses to this thread are pure gold! Brilliant! :lol:

I voted for TWD, "Land" was a let down, "Diary" was pure bilge and I can't even bring myself to watch "Survival".

[MikePizzoff]

oh don´t forget sitty cgi blood,explosions etc.. it´s not bad but lasGAR movs are solids pieces of old style zombie cinema

Really? Diary Of The Dead didn't have any shitty CGI? And it being filmed in documentary style, a la The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, makes it "old style zombie cinema" ???

[krisvds]

Guys,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I_oV0qd_IY

And once again: I really, REALLY enjoyed most of TWD. It's just not the second coming or anything.
Come to think of it: neither were GAR's last three ... of the dead films, but I did find them enjoyable films that were way more original than what most of the horror genre has to offer nowadays. I mean in a subgenre riddled with clichés the old man is still trying to be original. Even at his most flawed there is still really nothing like a Romero Zombie film.

And I never said that anyone disagreeing with me should have their heads examined, I just wanted to say that the blind devotion TWD is getting VS. the hatred directed at GARS's latest offerings are incomprehensible. I found faults with the dialogue in TWD and some of the (new) storylines like the Vatos-episode and the stuff in the CDC. The series isn't free of shitty CGI as well.
that explosion at the end of the season's finale

[MinionZombie]

Piss easy - TWD.

However, this is not to say I didn't enjoy GAR's latest.

I loved (but now "like") Land when it first came out.
I've had a tumultuous opinion of Diary, but I'm okay with it.
And I had a lot of fun with Survival.

None of them are perfect, and none of them are (or were ever going to be) 'another Night/Dawn/Day' ... to have expected such a thing is entirely unfair, for reasons I've stated numerous times before.

TWD though is the best thing to happen to the zombie - and shambler zombie to boot - since Day of the Dead. Nuff said. :cool:

[shootemindehead]

'Land of the Dead' isn't part of Diary or Survival. It's a continuation of the original series.

[DjfunkmasterG]

It won't be long before people start to demand that any mention of George Romero be removed from the opening screen of Homepage of the Dead.

Hey I am down with that... While George all lead us here, he isn;t what is keeping us here. Its the zombies.

[Legion2213]

Piss easy - TWD.

However, this is not to say I didn't enjoy GAR's latest.

I loved (but now "like") Land when it first came out.
I've had a tumultuous opinion of Diary, but I'm okay with it.
And I had a lot of fun with Survival.

None of them are perfect, and none of them are (or were ever going to be) 'another Night/Dawn/Day' ... to have expected such a thing is entirely unfair, for reasons I've stated numerous times before.

TWD though is the best thing to happen to the zombie - and shambler zombie to boot - since Day of the Dead. Nuff said. :cool:

Who leap over 7 foot fences... :sneaky:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Guys,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I_oV0qd_IY

And once again: I really, REALLY enjoyed most of TWD. It's just not the second coming or anything.
Come to think of it: neither were GAR's last three ... of the dead films, but I did find them enjoyable films that were way more original than what most of the horror genre has to offer nowadays. I mean in a subgenre riddled with clichés the old man is still trying to be original. Even at his most flawed there is still really nothing like a Romero Zombie film.

And I never said that anyone disagreeing with me should have their heads examined, I just wanted to say that the blind devotion TWD is getting VS. the hatred directed at GARS's latest offerings are incomprehensible. I found faults with the dialogue in TWD and some of the (new) storylines like the Vatos-episode and the stuff in the CDC. The series isn't free of shitty CGI as well.
that explosion at the end of the season's finale

VATOS, one episode out of 6 that was a little mediocre... vs LAND, DIARY and SURVIVAL 3 out of 6 GAR dead films that aren't mediocre... they are just shit!

Well Land and Survival are shit... Diary I dig, but Still the newer 3 GAR films are total and utter crap, and Darabont, seriously, the man walked all over GAR's latest efforts, whipped his dick out and pissed all over them while screaming MULLLLDOOOOOONNNNNNNN

[krisvds]

VATOS, one episode out of 6 that was a little mediocre... vs LAND, DIARY and SURVIVAL 3 out of 6 GAR dead films that aren't mediocre... they are just shit!

Well Land and Survival are shit... Diary I dig, but Still the newer 3 GAR films are total and utter crap, and Darabont, seriously, the man walked all over GAR's latest efforts, whipped his dick out and pissed all over them while screaming MULLLLDOOOOOONNNNNNNN

Eloquently put. Fantastic argumentation. I am convinced: Darabont for president!!!!!!!!!
And one more thing: if you dig Diary but also think it's utter crap and just shit does that mean that you dig shit?

Confusing.

I like both GAR's recent 'smaller' films AND TWD. They're quite different. Apart from the Ghouls that is. And boy do I like Ghouls

[MinionZombie]

Who leap over 7 foot fences... :sneaky:

There were certain shots that had problems in terms of shamblers, hehe, although they climbed it rather than leapt it ... but they were a smidge spry for that shot, in my view. ;)

Hopefully we'll see in further episodes a more core version of what their shamblers are, a tighter zone and rule-of-movement in which to work - I'm sure they were figuring all of that out on-the-hoof as they went along, but now that they've got more experience under their belt hopefully there'll be a tighter sense of consistency. It was only in rare shots that things got a little wide of the mark, but then also part of it is down to just dealing with so many people, and then if someone starts going a bit too swift, everyone else will do the same ... so I suppose some shots might cause trouble, especially in the beginning, but as I said, hopefully the 'zombie school' they have will seek to refine what they've learned so far. :)

Shoot - while Land is part of the original three, it's really more about just being on of GAR's recent zombie efforts, which is why these three have been put together ... plus some folks would never say that Land is part of the original trilogy ... certain Land Haters spring to mind. ;):lol::D

[babomb]

TWD!!!!
Everytime!!
Land wasn't that bad either. I thought it would be better than it was, but not nearly as shitty as 'survival of the dead'.
Diary had it's moments also.
But I'll take TWD anytime.
I'd rather watch TWD right now than Romeros original 3!
Not declaring that TWD is better overall than the original 3, just fresher.

[DjfunkmasterG]

TWD!!!!
Everytime!!
Land wasn't that bad either. I thought it would be better than it was, but not nearly as shitty as 'survival of the dead'.
Diary had it's moments also.
But I'll take TWD anytime.
I'd rather watch TWD right now than Romeros original 3!
Not declaring that TWD is better overall than the original 3, just fresher.

Well except for the rotting corpses... they aren't so fresh :lol:

---------- Post added at 09:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 AM ----------


No contest. TWD.

And I actually like Land...

The LAND dvd does make a great coaster for the Beer Stein don't it?

[bassman]

The LAND dvd does make a great coaster for the Beer Stein don't it?

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/oh_you.jpg

[fishfast41]

Wow, I guess I must be simple or something. I watch as many films in this genre as I can, simply because the idea of a zombie apocalypse scares the shit out of me. Although some are far superior to others, and I have my favorites like anyone else,I enjoy all of them on one level or another. Although I think that TWD blows away Romero's last 3 films,no contest, I dont hate any of them, even with all the thinly disguised, heavy handed socio-political messages contained within. Another thought for ya..The same thing wrong with Bambi, for example,is wrong with ANY zombie film... animals don't talk, and dead people don't walk. Talk abou willing suspension of disbelief. LOL

[kidgloves]

You're welcome. ;)

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/moonsylver/GARTWD.jpg

That's quality:sneaky:

[DEAD BEAT]

okay, somebody just made a comment that had me scratching my head, talking about those who don't like romero's new films yet enjoy the walking dead needing to have their heads examined.

i know that many have said these 2 entries into the undead mythos aren't comparable, but i think that they are, and most of us can't help but draw comparisons between romero's works and TWD.

so, completely ignoring the original three (which are untouchable classics), do you prefer romero's latest dead films or the tv series the walking dead?

as for myself, i'd watch TWD any day of the week. while it's not perfect, it's the best zombies-on-filmstock thing i've seen in decades. if you ask me, romero's recent works are "meh" at best at downright fucking terrible at their worst. i know everyone's got their own opinion, but seriously, how can someone defend shit like survival and claim that it's as good, if not better, than what we've seen over the last 6 weeks?

"YOU MEAN ROMERO HAS MADE MORE ZOMBIE FILMS SINCE THE BIG 3?" LMAO

dude i havn't even seen Survival just outta spite....TWD gets my freakin' vote....do i think he's more creative hell 2 the freakin' no!

If Romero was in his prime these days he would have ripped Darabont's cornhole from his rectum and spoon feed it to him!

GAR is a freakin' ground breaker for pete's sake....just like Elvis before them there was nothing! "groundbreakers" ;)

[bassman]

Is there any point in keeping this open? :lol:

28 to 3 pretty much says it...

[darth los]

YeAh bass, agreed.

That looks worse than the jets score from last night. (even though they lost 45-3 :dead:)

:cool:

[krisvds]

LMAO

So now not only are some of you are going completely bananas over TWD, some of you prefer the series over Survival WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT?
Sorry, that's too sorry for words.
Are there even any people around this romero undead fansite who can get it through their thick skulls that there are people out there who actually enjoy both TWD AND GAR's films? Comparing the two and making a silly (swearing) contest out of it? Pointless. They are very, very different. This debate? Well, it's almost like the O'Flynns VS the Muldoons.
Oh the irony...
(cue rants dealing with how utter shit GAR's films are and how utterly sublime TWD is)

[bassman]

Thems the breaks. One group takes it to an extreme and says the others are "going bananas" over how "sublime" TWD is, while the other group is shouting back "GAR fanboy!".

Welcome to HPotD. :)

[DEAD BEAT]

LMAO

So now not only are some of you are going completely bananas over TWD, some of you prefer the series over Survival WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT?
Sorry, that's too sorry for words.
Are there even any people around this romero undead fansite who can get it through their thick skulls that there are people out there who actually enjoy both TWD AND GAR's films? Comparing the two and making a silly (swearing) contest out of it? Pointless. They are very, very different. This debate? Well, it's almost like the O'Flynns VS the Muldoons.
Oh the irony...
(cue rants dealing with how utter shit GAR's films are and how utterly sublime TWD is)

"you can always count on conservatives to ruin the groove!" ;)

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------


YeAh bass, agreed.

That looks worse than the jets score from last night. (even though they lost 45-3 :dead:)

:cool:

"who are the Jets!" lmao

[krisvds]

Thems the breaks. One group takes it to an extreme and says the others are "going bananas" over how "sublime" TWD is, while the other group is shouting back "GAR fanboy!".

Welcome to HPotD. :)

That's just it. No breaks for me. I actually like BOTH.

BOOOHOOO? I'm sorry!!!!!

[bassman]

BOOOHOOO? I'm sorry!!!!!

Apology accepted.

[DEAD BEAT]

shit! i just voted! im surprised there is even a thread on this shit judging by those odd's! ;)

[LouCipherr]

That looks worse than the jets score from last night.


"who are the Jets!" lmao


Wait, Benny & The Jets scored last night? Whoa.... :lol:

*and lou hits a wild, fly ball to.. well.. somewhere* :shifty:

[DjfunkmasterG]

LMAO

So now not only are some of you are going completely bananas over TWD, some of you prefer the series over Survival WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT?

Well, Considering after a 20 year wait, GAr delivers us the utmost and shittiest zombie film ever made... I mean there is maybe 10 likable qualities in Land, but all of it is destroyed by BIG DADDY PIMPINSTEIN. Now I think the newer 3 GAR films are way below par for someone who invented the fucking genre... however, I like Diary more than LAND and SURVIVAL because Diary actually felt like a horror film, whereas the other two were just geekgasms (Meaning he made them for the hardcore fanboys)

No one hates LAND more than I do and believe me when I say I never wanted to hate it, in fact i was extremely psyched for it, but what i witnessed was just crap, and when I mean crap I mean creamy oozing green and brown doo doo from eating rotten chicken.


Thems the breaks. One group takes it to an extreme and says the others are "going bananas" over how "sublime" TWD is, while the other group is shouting back "GAR fanboy!".

Welcome to HPotD. :)

Have a Nice Day :fin:

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------




http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/oh_you.jpg

What??? you're actually shocked... anytime I can make a dig at LAND you know I will. :D

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------




*and lou hits a wild, fly ball to.. well.. somewhere* :shifty:

Put the fucking bong down and you might actually know where... :fin:

[Andy]

No one hates LAND more than I do and believe me

I could contend that :p

[krakenslayer]

I could contend that :p

I'll vouch for Andy on this one! :)

[DEAD BEAT]

I could contend that :p

I agree with ya dude, i've taken shit's that were more interesting than Land! lol

Sorry to be so blunt but waiting for 20 yrs for a new Romero flick and gettin' that.....need i say more.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I dunno Andy... I really hate LAND... I mean I really fucking hate it. if giving the choice of sucking cock and swallowing a load or having to watch LAND or I will be shot... I would suck dick first

[MoonSylver]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/08/dm5qxotadw.jpg

[krisvds]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/08/dm5qxotadw.jpg

Ok. I just spilled coffee all over my pc. Fantastic! LMAO

[MoonSylver]

Ok. I just spilled coffee all over my pc. Fantastic! LMAO

Lessee...I made Professor Chaos spit soda all over a relatives PC & desk, now I made YOU spill coffee on yours...my work here is done. :lol:

[Trin]

That is just about the best ever.

[Zombie Snack]

I voted for TWD.........Land was so-so, Diary and Survival are just terrible. TWD....Kickin it Old School

[darth los]

Imo, the bottom line of why Gar is getting crushed in this poll is because the fans are getting what THEY want to see out of the genre in the form of TWD. This is something Gar seems tone deaf on as he marches on his zombie evolution tangent he's gone off on. A very stubborn Bush-like, "Stay the course" mentality for a hippie liberal no?

It's like a relationship. If one person is not giving the other what they need they're gonna get it from somewhere else.

I hope the godfather is taking notes.

:cool:

[bassman]

It's just what we have always expected, actually. We've discussed it many times. That a fan(in this case, Kirkman and Darabont) would come along, take their love of the holy trilogy, and create something on par or at least close to par with what made us fall in love with the genre in the first place. I've got no deep hatred for Romero's latest trilogy, but he's dropped the ball with the fans.

[DEAD BEAT]

just dawned on me that we may no longer have these comparison 4ever...not if GAR should come on this site and read what his fans have become!

To GAR his fans are turning into raging blood hungry creatures ourselves! lmao

But sadly GAR is now only regarded as the godfather of the genre...as we all have seen with a younger generation!

Really hope GAR gets to crank out one last masterpiece b4 he checks out someday! ;)

[ProfessorChaos]

It's just what we have always expected, actually. We've discussed it many times. That a fan(in this case, Kirkman and Darabont) would come along, take their love of the holy trilogy, and create something on par or at least close to par with what made us fall in love with the genre in the first place. I've got no deep hatred for Romero's latest trilogy, but he's dropped the ball with the fans.

kinda makes you wonder what kirkman and darabont think of the new films....

[darth los]

kinda makes you wonder what kirkman and darabont think of the new films....

What they think and what they actually will say are 2 different things...

It'll probably be like republicans who are asked if sarah Palin is qualified to be president. No one really wants to say what they really think because she's a "giant in their industry" and they don't want to piss off the tea party, who are the reason they have any life at all, but we all know what the answer is.

:cool:

[shootemindehead]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/08/dm5qxotadw.jpg

Jesus moon. Beer has just come out of my nose and the rest is all over the flippin keyboard.

[ProfessorChaos]

MoonSylver: ruining fellow HPotD'er's keyboards since (uh, how long you been around these parts, moon?)

[darth los]

Well, atleast since march 06'. Was he around the old boards too?

:cool:

[JDFP]

Comparing GAR's new trilogy with TWD? God, what a joke...

TWD hands down. And it is a new trilogy, just filmed out of order (Diary 1st, Survival 2nd, Land 3rd). I refuse to have the abomination of "Land" associated with the Holy Trilogy (a.k.a. the original trilogy) no matter how many folks attempt to argue otherwise. It doesn't belong to the canon of the original trilogy as far as I'm concerned and never shall. It does make a good follow-up from "Survival" though.

While I don't hate "Land" as much as Andy or Gary (I think it's just slightly better than "Survival" -- Big Daddy didn't ride a Big Horse after all), I gasp anytime anyone mentions it in the same breath as the original Holy Trilogy.

This is how I would rank things (just comparing Romero to TWD):

1. Day
2. Dawn
3. Night
4. TWD
5. Diary
6. Land (just barely above "Survival")
7. Survival (just barely below "Land")

j.p.

[EvilNed]

About equal, but with a slight favour over towards Romero's latest. Survival excluded.

[MoonSylver]

Jesus moon. Beer has just come out of my nose and the rest is all over the flippin keyboard.

:thumbsup:


MoonSylver: ruining fellow HPotD'er's keyboards since (uh, how long you been around these parts, moon?)

It is my goal in life now to see how many liquids & other fluids I can get y'all to spill on your keyboards...

...three...

....two...

...one...


Well, at least since march 06'. Was he around the old boards too?

Yes. Original join date was...'01 or '02 I think? I lost my account to (2?) different board crashes...?

[DEAD BEAT]

Comparing GAR's new trilogy with TWD? God, what a joke...

TWD hands down. And it is a new trilogy, just filmed out of order (Diary 1st, Survival 2nd, Land 3rd). I refuse to have the abomination of "Land" associated with the Holy Trilogy (a.k.a. the original trilogy) no matter how many folks attempt to argue otherwise. It doesn't belong to the canon of the original trilogy as far as I'm concerned and never shall. It does make a good follow-up from "Survival" though.

While I don't hate "Land" as much as Andy or Gary (I think it's just slightly better than "Survival" -- Big Daddy didn't ride a Big Horse after all), I gasp anytime anyone mentions it in the same breath as the original Holy Trilogy.

This is how I would rank things (just comparing Romero to TWD):

1. Day
2. Dawn
3. Night
4. TWD
5. Diary
6. Land (just barely above "Survival")
7. Survival (just barely below "Land")

j.p.

Day first? "com on' bro!

[JDFP]

Day first? "com on' bro!

Trust me when I say it, I'm hardly the only person here who would easily rank "Day" as # 1 and quite a few others here would also rank "Day" not only as GAR's best but the best zombie flick ever made, hand's down. It's the best of the best of not only GAR's work but everything 'zombie' ever created, if you ask me. It's a shining beacon of pure awesomeness.

I had a dream once where a special "Extended Edition" of "Day" was released including another hour of cut footage (like the "Lord of the Rings" extended edition films) and it was better than most wet dreams.

j.p.

[MoonSylver]

and it was better than most wet dreams.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!!! :lol:

http://veganfreakradio.com/o-face.jpg

JD just came. :lol:

[ProfessorChaos]

It is my goal in life now to see how many liquids & other fluids I can get y'all to spill on your keyboards...

...three...

....two...

...one...

hrmmm. sounds like something she would say, amirite?!?!?!

[acealive1]

No contest. TWD.

And I actually like Land...


agreed. saw it in theaters, wasnt disappointed at all.

[MoonSylver]

hrmmm. sounds like something she would say, amirite?!?!?!

http://www.bufftees.com/images/thumbs/sheneversaidthat.jpg

:lol: :nana:

[Legion2213]

Imo, the bottom line of why Gar is getting crushed in this poll is because the fans are getting what THEY want to see out of the genre in the form of TWD. This is something Gar seems tone deaf on as he marches on his zombie evolution tangent he's gone off on. A very stubborn Bush-like, "Stay the course" mentality for a hippie liberal no?

It's like a relationship. If one person is not giving the other what they need they're gonna get it from somewhere else.

I hope the godfather is taking notes.

:cool:

This pearl of wisdom was brought to you by Darth Los Industries...signing off with a :cool: since time began. :D

Seriously though...the above hit the nail, right on the nose as far as I am concerned.

Oh somebody mentioned about folks like myself judging "Survival" without even seeing it, I made a value judgement based on watching his last two films and what I know about "Survival"...suffice to say, I can't be bothered watching any more of GARs recent crap at this point.

[bassman]

This place is going to implode if they actually get Romero, like rumored, to direct an episode next season. I know Romero said that he would rather "stick with his own thing", but IF they work something out....it's going to be interesting around here. :)

[Legion2213]

Directing is a bit different than actually producing the script, dialogue and dictating what happens though isn't it?

Now if GAR was to write an episode, dialogue, situation, what happens etc, I'd probably be very wary indeed.

I think of GAR like Lucas...they both brought us an original trilogy of movies that really hit the mark and will be remembered for many generations...then they did another trilogy that was "a bit shit" really.

Some of those "GAR vs TWD fans beating the shit out of each other" memes will probably be required at some point though. :D

[Thorn]

No contest. TWD.

And I actually like Land...

Like is a strong word ;)

No but really I did not hate land, I hated some portions of it but all in all I find it the best of last three Romero films.

I have to say I have enjoyed TWD a lot more than Diary, and a hell of a lot more than Survival.

[Legion2213]

Land certainly looked the best visually out of the two new GAR films that I've seen. Cholo was also a pretty good character. I've watched Land a few times and I can switch off and enjoy some parts of it.

Diary killed my tolerance of new GAR movies, I just hated it and everything about it. I own it on DVD and BD, I watched my DVD once and just can't be arsed watching it again on BD, not even sure why I bought it...loyalty I suppose. :(

[bassman]

Diary killed my tolerance of new GAR movies, I just hated it and everything about it. I own it on DVD and BD, I watched my DVD once and just can't be arsed watching it again on BD, not even sure why I bought it...loyalty I suppose. :(

Don't feel bad....I did the same thing with Survival...

[krisvds]

Imo, the bottom line of why Gar is getting crushed in this poll is because the fans are getting what THEY want to see out of the genre in the form of TWD. This is something Gar seems tone deaf on as he marches on his zombie evolution tangent he's gone off on. A very stubborn Bush-like, "Stay the course" mentality for a hippie liberal no?

It's like a relationship. If one person is not giving the other what they need they're gonna get it from somewhere else.




I hope the godfather is taking notes.

:cool:

Waddaya know? The old man isn't making films for his fans but following his own instincts... Regardless.
Isn't that what being an artist is all about? For better or worse that is.

[AcesandEights]

Waddaya know? The old man isn't making films for his fans but following his own instincts... Regardless.
Isn't that what being an artist is all about? For better or worse that is.

You bring up a good point we've touched on a few times before here and some of us get where you're coming from, some don't and a lot of people are in the middle ground, understanding GAR has a right and perhaps even an artistic need to do things his own way, but who nevertheless are still somewhat disappointed with not getting what we want out of Romero's recent efforts.

[Legion2213]

Well, if GAR wants to go his own, thats fine, but he is alienating a lot of his fanbase...don't know about you lot, but I've purchased several versions of every movie he has released (bar Survival)...VHS, several DVD versions and now Blu-Ray. I bet there are people reading this who have paid 1000's of dollars/pounds to support him over the years.

I like to think that folks like myself have enabled him in some small way to continue making films and supported him financially and generally been beneficial to his "art", but I won't buy products that I don't like. *shrug*

[AcesandEights]

I like to think that folks like myself have enabled him in some small way to continue making films and supported him financially and generally been beneficial to his "art", but I won't buy products that I don't like. *shrug*

Darth said it well earlier up the thread. Sometimes roads just split, GAR is going off in one direction and a lot of us in the other. :(

[Legion2213]

I think we need another "I'm leaving GAR and taking the kids" thread... :D

[MoonSylver]

Isn't that EVERY thread around here anymore? :rockbrow: :lol: :nana: :moon:

[Thorn]

I am even cool with him following his own instincts, following his own vision, and telling the stories he wants to tell... that does not mean however we all have to like them or enjoy them. Sadly in life there is a time when we are all past our prime. Or there are artists who produce an amazing work and go on to paint or compose other offerings that fall short of their magnum opus.

George is telling his stories and that is great, I reserve the right to be critical of them and it is okay. It is also okay that his best work is behind him.

I think he could return to form, I have not given up on him I have too much respect for him. That is why the last three films have bothered me so much.

[bassman]

George is telling his stories and that is great, I reserve the right to be critical of them and it is okay. It is also okay that his best work is behind him.


QFT. That doesn't only apply to the newer films, either. That can apply to any of them. Dawn has got some bad and laughable things sprinkled throughout, imo. That doesn't mean I'm going to "leave" Romero and tag a shit on his front porch. He should be able to take the criticism, and more importantly...take it into consideration.

Not voicing your concerns will only make it worse....

[darth los]

Waddaya know? The old man isn't making films for his fans but following his own instincts... Regardless.
Isn't that what being an artist is all about? For better or worse that is.


You bring up a good point we've touched on a few times before here and some of us get where you're coming from, some don't and a lot of people are in the middle ground, understanding GAR has a right and perhaps even an artistic need to do things his own way, but who nevertheless are still somewhat disappointed with not getting what we want out of Romero's recent efforts.

I can't believe we're here again but let's do it once more with feeling shall we?

Yes, an artist should ideally have unfettered artistic freedom in order to realize his vision.

Conversely, fans of said artist are just as free to criticize their work, which without fan support would be nothing. Once an artist takes one penny in exchange for their work they are no longer just an artist but a businessman as well. ( and for the life of me I can't think of a worse businessman than GAr who should by all rights have an empire rivaling that of lucas as we speak but that's for another thread.)

So now that that's established, a business person to some degree or another beholden to the wants of their consumer base. They ignore that base and less people will by their product and in turn it will be icreasingly more difficult to find investors willing to fund his "art".

Bottom line, it's bad business to be tone deaf on what your true fans want to see. If you want to be a true artist than fund yourself, be truly independant. That way you can go off on whatever ludicrous tangent you like without thinking about the people who put you in the position you are today.

However, when a product is dependent on fan and investor support those things must be taken into consideration.

:cool:

[SRP76]

Walking Dead by millions of miles. I actually enjoy it more than Day, too.

In defense of the movies though, you can do a lot more in 6 hours of airtime (first season) than in an hour and a half. But still, each individual episode is pretty damn great on its own.

[ProfessorChaos]

bass, wtf does gft mean? ghostbuster fan talking?

and darth, good points, amigo. and though you said it was for another discussion, i wanted to make a quick counter-point: i don't think romero's work could ever rival lucas's as far as imperialism or franchising or whatever you call it. there's too many locations, characters, history (even barring the new trilogy) to star wars for zombies and a few groups of survivors to even contend with....however, i will concede fact that romero has let a lot of bread slip through his fingers by not being a more astute businessman...but he is a filmmaker, after all. aside from that, though, great post, man.

[AcesandEights]

wtf does gft mean? ghostbuster fan talking?

Damn, that's a good theory!

I think he meant qft, as in quoted for truth, though. Could be wrong, though, as the Ghostbusters option is a very real possibility.

[krisvds]

I can't believe we're here again but let's do it once more with feeling shall we?

Yes, an artist should ideally have unfettered artistic freedom in order to realize his vision.

Conversely, fans of said artist are just as free to criticize their work, which without fan support would be nothing.

Have to disagree with you there. If it was the fan support only that would lend a work of art its legitimacy we'b be stuck with a lot of middle of the road crap.
Off course we, as fans, are free to disagree with an artist. Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Survival dvd's or anything?


So now that that's established, a business person to some degree or another beholden to the wants of their consumer base. They ignore that base and less people will by their product and in turn it will be icreasingly more difficult to find investors willing to fund his "art".

Bottom line, it's bad business to be tone deaf on what your true fans want to see. If you want to be a true artist than fund yourself, be truly independant. That way you can go off on whatever ludicrous tangent you like without thinking about the people who put you in the position you are today.

Art and capitalism. Or conformism in this case. If artists werent willing to take risks and go against the stream (their public who increasingly demand the same stuff over and over again) every museum nowadays would be devoid of expressionist and/or impressionist paintings. The early impressionists were kicked out of the académie Francaise. Van Gogh wasn't regarded as the genius he is today when he was alive. In fact most people back then thought his works were 'shit'.
Not that I want to draw any parallels between GAR's recent output and Van Gogh mind you.

:cool:

[Andy]

I Actually agree with alot of whats being said here with regards to GAR going off and doing his own thing, and to me personally thats a huge part of the problem with land. I waited all my life to see a GAR zombie in the cinema you know, i was born the same year as day came out so i missed the holy trilogy on release, to see a fourth dead movie, to finally see the great man returning to the zombie.. and going to the cinema and being presented with big daddy and a plot with more holes in it than one of rab c nesbitts tops.. it was outrageous.

Now after having seen land, diary and survival.. which are a completely seperate trilogy by the way, land is not ascioated by any means to the original trilogy. After seeing them, i think of romero as a once great artist who is now a humoured senile old hack.. the respect i had for him for the trilogy is still there, that can never been replaced, but at the other end of scale the damage to his reputation in my mind is also there and cannot be undone now. I Despise what romero has become, but that dosnt stop me reminiscing about what he once was.

Oh and DJ, sorry i never replied but i really do contend you for biggest land hater here, suck a guy off? i would rather suck bub while having burning hot battery injected into my eyes and have sex with a wasps nest than watch land again. i would sit through night 30th anniversary edition, children of the living dead, return of the living dead 1-5, day of the dead contagium and dawn of the living dead in a shit marathon locked in a burning hot room with no air conditioning, no food, no drinks and no toilet breaks than sit through 1 sitting of land. Nobody hates that movie as much as i do.

[MinionZombie]

Is GAR alienating a "lot" of his fanbase though? Every poll we've done here at HPOTD concerning his latest three flicks have shown that a clear majority of HPOTD members dig the movie, while the haters - the most vocal - are in the minority.

GAR has given us three superb zombie films, and created the genre as it exists today - the dude's done more than enough. Jesus Christ, give the chap a break, he's done plenty in his lifetime for the zombie genre. Besides, people change over time, their priorities change, their attitudes change, their filmmaking styles change, their approaches to life and work change - everything changes with time - and to just demand "yet another Dawn of the Dead, motherfucker!" out of the guy is ludicrously unfair.

He's provided 'the bible' for the zombie genre, depicted in three acts over three decades, and adored the world over by countless millions - surely it should be up to a new gang to give us 'the next best thing in zombies' - and indeed we've now gained that, in the form of Darabont/Hurd/Kirkman's The Walking Dead!

Were Land/Diary/Survival in the same league as Night/Dawn/Day? No. Were they abominations like you always hear from the particularly verbose complainers and haters? No. They are what they are and he's done what he wanted to do and many people the world over have continued to enjoy them - and no, the "they are what they are" comment is an opportunity for some smug-arse to say some pithy insult, so don't even bother.

Give GAR a fucking break, he's done more than his fair share, let the man do what he wants to do - and what he's doing now is still enjoyed by many millions globally, and liked-rather-than-hated by a majority of HPOTD members in all three of the recent examples ... get off the dude's back already. He's got an immortal God, he's a human being like everyone else ... sheesh-mageesh! :rolleyes::rant::rolleyes:

/rant

[ProfessorChaos]

Nobody's holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Survival dvd's or anything...

depending on the caliber of the weapon and where they were aiming at my dome, i'd say i'd rather take a chance and end up with a badass scar compared to paying for that shit movie.

i've repeated myself a time or two about this, but since you're newish (just now posting a lot, though you've been on board for a few years) i'll say it again:

i rented survival from a VoD service.... (after the bland land and diarrhea diary, didn't wanna risk wasting $ on another dud from the so-called-master) and actually had to turn it off less than 40 minutes after i started it, i was that disappointed in it. it was almost insulting how corny and hokey it was.

some call it a fun, witty, blah, blah, blah film, but i can't see how anyone can get past the shitty cgi, same crappy actor from romero's last 2 dead films, the other goof who looked like elmer fudd, the dumb lesbian, the cartoonish grenade at the shack incident, random guy fishing on the roof, stupid wise-ass kid who couldn't act for shit....i could go on and on about what was terrible (in my opinion) about survival....once the lesbian cracked a joke about zombies not being able to pass a driving test, i turned it off, and will never bother finishing it. ever.

from what i've heard (MULDOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!, romero's new boy toy lighting cigs of flaming zombie heads, and zombies riding horses) i'm not missing much.

[Doc]

Walking Dead by millions of miles. I actually enjoy it more than Day, too.

In defense of the movies though, you can do a lot more in 6 hours of airtime (first season) than in an hour and a half. But still, each individual episode is pretty damn great on its own.


I'll be gutted for this, but if Walking Dead keeps up most of the rate it's been going then it could possibly be better than anything Romero has ever done. Yes, even the original trilogy. But, like you said you can do a lot more in a show then an hour and half or two hour movie.

[ProfessorChaos]

i'll be right there with ya, doc. i posted almost exactly the same sentiment in the "i watched the pilot" thread that we were going bananas in when episode 1 was leaked.

changing of the guard FTW!!!

[Andy]

Strong words MZ.. I said i agree with what people are saying and i accept that GAR is doing his own thing now and cant be stopped, dispite my opinion, i also acknowleged the great things he has done for the zombie subgenre and the horror genre with the original trilogy which are amazing movies. and yes land did sell i was enjoyed by millions i acknowlege that too, but does that mean i have to recognise it as a good movie? No more than you have to accept dawn'04 as a good movie, so stick to your opinion, and ill stick to mine.

[krisvds]

I'll be gutted for this, but if Walking Dead keeps up most of the rate it's been going then it could possibly be better than anything Romero has ever done. Yes, even the original trilogy. But, like you said you can do a lot more in a show then an hour and half or two hour movie.

Not gutted. But I would like to hear what exactly it is in TWD that makes it 'possibly' better than say, day of the dead.
Just curious.

[darth los]

bass, wtf does gft mean? ghostbuster fan talking?

and darth, good points, amigo. and though you said it was for another discussion, i wanted to make a quick counter-point: i don't think romero's work could ever rival lucas's as far as imperialism or franchising or whatever you call it. there's too many locations, characters, history (even barring the new trilogy) to star wars for zombies and a few groups of survivors to even contend with....however, i will concede fact that romero has let a lot of bread slip through his fingers by not being a more astute businessman...but he is a filmmaker, after all. aside from that, though, great post, man.

Thnx prof.

I was thinking GFT=Get fucked tonight but that's just my dirtty mind i guess. :shifty:

And with the empire thing: The point I was trying to make was that let's say for example you, Professor Chaos invented what is known today as the vampire. You would be richer than god on royalties alone let alone intellectual property derived from that genre.

Imo, Gar has invented a movie monster on par with the classic Universal ones, namely Dracula, Frankenstien and Wolfman. I'd even argue that at this point in time, with the Ubiquity of zombies in todays media, that the ghouls GAr created are MORE popular than those aforementioned characters.

So how is he not rolling in it?

An artist who is not also atleast a decent businessman is not going to get what he deserves and is going to get raped by those like rubenstein.

One thing I will say is that gAr is such a pure "artist" that he'll sign away any rights he needs to in order to get his vision realized. Had he just stuck to his guns and just had the rights to night and dawn (And yes I realize Night was a copyright error) he would be richer than god right now.

I don't know if people have read my other posts on the subject for for those of us who are "noobish", i feel this way.

Gar is a fucking rock star. It pisses me off to no end that he has not reaped the fruits of his intellectual property. Had he been a better business man he would have virtually limitless capital to do whatever he wants and on a much grander scale.

This is the whole democratic/rupublican argument when it comes to patriotism all over again. If you dare criticize the obvious flaws this nation has then you're un american. Similarly, if you dare critique the work of the godfather then you are not a true fan which couldn't be more of base.

As citizens it is our right, nay, our duty to question our gov't. And as it is the right of fans of any artist to be able the disagree with what's put out thererwithout being kicked out of the "club".

:cool:

[Legion2213]

Have to say, if refusing to suck GAR's dick and praise the shite he's been releasing over the last decade makes me a hater, then so be it (and Diary was terrible IMO, total piece of rubbish.).

I've already said that I love his first three movies and feel the last two that I've are total gash. I can't even be arsed with his third...horse riding zombies...no thanks.

And hey, if TWD starts following the same pattern, I'll call that (and it's creators) out as well. As somebody who supports these artists buy buying their products and spreading the word about their stuff, I have right to say if I like or dislike their output. I also reserve the right to not buy their stuff if I don't like it.

[darth los]

Art and capitalism. Or conformism in this case. If artists werent willing to take risks and go against the stream (their public who increasingly demand the same stuff over and over again) every museum nowadays would be devoid of expressionist and/or impressionist paintings. The early impressionists were kicked out of the académie Francaise. Van Gogh wasn't regarded as the genius he is today when he was alive. In fact most people back then thought his works were 'shit'.
:cool:

Then again, paintings are not movies and are not viewed as such. There is, as I'm sure you know, a national endowment for the arts, which helps fund struggling artists. Traditional "art" such as paintings and sculptures have for a long time been viewed as, for lack of a better term, a public service/good.

Movies are not a public service. They are a product. And what's the purpose of a product? To sell it as much as possible and get the biggest return on the investor's money in Gar's case. Because without them there would be no "art" from him. That's the one point those who take your position are not adressing.

Why do know it all teenagers compelled to do what their parents say? Because the purse strings would get cut. Same thing here. This is not a medium where one can create something of great beauty and value with merely a canvas some paint and brushes. It's waaaaaay more expensive than that.

So,If an artist is dependent on the purse strings of others in order for them to realize their vision and produce and do what they love then at the same time they are beholden, atleast partially, to those whom without their money their vision would never see fruition.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

MULDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!

great smiley by the way.

:cool:

[Doc]

Not gutted. But I would like to hear what exactly it is in TWD that makes it 'possibly' better than say, day of the dead.
Just curious.

I think your directing that to SRP76. Day is my favorite of the original trilogy, and despite how great the original trilogy is one day Walking Dead might just be able to out do them. Doesn't mean we won't love them any less, but it's quiet a possibility.

Now, granted Walking Dead suffers from a lot of character and writing problems, but so far it's superior to a lot of the recent zombie stuff out today.

Though I'm surprised at the nitpickness at it? I mean jeez people....at this rate I'm surprised we haven't picked on the originals. I mean have seen the original Dawn lately? I can pick about 100 different things to complain about that film.

[darth los]

This pearl of wisdom was brought to you by Darth Los Industries...signing off with a :cool: since time began. :D

Seriously though...the above hit the nail, right on the nose as far as I am concerned.

Oh somebody mentioned about folks like myself judging "Survival" without even seeing it, I made a value judgement based on watching his last two films and what I know about "Survival"...suffice to say, I can't be bothered watching any more of GARs recent crap at this point.


Have to say, if refusing to suck GAR's dick and praise the shite he's been releasing over the last decade makes me a hater, then so be it (and Diary was terrible IMO, total piece of rubbish.).

I've already said that I love his first three movies and feel the last two that I've are total gash. I can't even be arsed with his third...horse riding zombies...no thanks.

And hey, if TWD starts following the same pattern, I'll call that (and it's creators) out as well. As somebody who supports these artists buy buying their products and spreading the word about their stuff, I have right to say if I like or dislike their output. I also reserve the right to not buy their stuff if I don't like it.

And if you judged it after seeing it you'd be an informed hater? :confused:

People are calling it art and that's fine. But with art is going to come criticism. It's part of the deal, live with it. Anytime one chooses put "put themselves out there" negative feedback is the risk you run.

How many times are ad executives sitting in a room floating ideas thinking they have the best commercial ever, only for it to bomb? It happens all the time. And i get that feeling with GAr here. He's sitting around," No really. He's going to construct an IED and blow up the limo. Genius right." And of course all the yes men around him nod their heads in agreement like good little bobblehead dolls. :rolleyes:

Sometimes negative criticism is isntrumental in making an artists work better, particularly when they choose to listen to it.

:cool:

[Trin]

GAR has gone his own direction, for good or for bad. He can call himself an artist if that makes the diminishing acclaim sit better. Maybe he believes his fans don't know what they want, and he believes he can totally wow them by giving them something they don't even realize they want (which is really what Dawn did)? Or maybe he believes that they've matured and progressed along the same lines as he has? Or maybe he's going after a completely different arthouse crowd that would never touch HPOTD or the zombie genre? I don't know.

Land is an extension of the original trilogy. You all know it. It's not the backwards timeline end of some new reverse trilogy. It can't be stuck in the cupboard like some mongoloid stepchild the family would rather not acknowledge. You just gotta take your lumps trilogy fans.

The Land/Diary yay/meh/boo poll showed less than a 50% yay rating for Land, with less than 45% yay rating for Diary (Survival not yet released). These are polls conducted of the GAR fanbase. The same fans who now show a 90% preference for TWD. I have a hard time seeing how the polls do not show a decrease in fans. Unless we believe that Dawn or Day would have less than a 50% yay rating?


It's just what we have always expected, actually. We've discussed it many times. That a fan(in this case, Kirkman and Darabont) would come along, take their love of the holy trilogy, and create something on par or at least close to par with what made us fall in love with the genre in the first place. I've got no deep hatred for Romero's latest trilogy, but he's dropped the ball with the fans.
This is it right here. Well stated Bassman. Someone finally did it. The only shame of it is that TWD has had such an easy time of it. I mean, really, should GAR be so easily trounced in ANY poll regarding zombie awesomeness?

[MoonSylver]

Is GAR alienating a "lot" of his fanbase though? Every poll we've done here at HPOTD concerning his latest three flicks have shown that a clear majority of HPOTD members dig the movie, while the haters - the most vocal - are in the minority.

GAR has given us three superb zombie films, and created the genre as it exists today - the dude's done more than enough. Jesus Christ, give the chap a break, he's done plenty in his lifetime for the zombie genre. Besides, people change over time, their priorities change, their attitudes change, their filmmaking styles change, their approaches to life and work change - everything changes with time - and to just demand "yet another Dawn of the Dead, motherfucker!" out of the guy is ludicrously unfair.

He's provided 'the bible' for the zombie genre, depicted in three acts over three decades, and adored the world over by countless millions - surely it should be up to a new gang to give us 'the next best thing in zombies' - and indeed we've now gained that, in the form of Darabont/Hurd/Kirkman's The Walking Dead!

Were Land/Diary/Survival in the same league as Night/Dawn/Day? No. Were they abominations like you always hear from the particularly verbose complainers and haters? No. They are what they are and he's done what he wanted to do and many people the world over have continued to enjoy them - and no, the "they are what they are" comment is an opportunity for some smug-arse to say some pithy insult, so don't even bother.

Give GAR a fucking break, he's done more than his fair share, let the man do what he wants to do - and what he's doing now is still enjoyed by many millions globally, and liked-rather-than-hated by a majority of HPOTD members in all three of the recent examples ... get off the dude's back already. He's got an immortal God, he's a human being like everyone else ... sheesh-mageesh! :rolleyes::rant::rolleyes:

/rant

Agreed on all of the above. I'd like to also add that the amount of hate, on the surface of it, SEEMS to outweigh the amount of like because, honestly, one gets tired of defending something they enjoyed & getting barked at for it withh a 500 page diatribe of why it sucked, how bad it sucked, why YOU suck for not AGREEING it sucks, etc. (And yes, I'm being facitious...I figured I'd channel the hyperbole that runs amok in these kinds of things...:rolleyes:)

It just gets sad, depressing, & makes me want to go back to being a lurker. Which is why I usually TRY to stay out of such discussions anymore. (yet, here I am again...:confused:). It sucks all of the joy out of coming here for me. Which is why I'd rather play the fool. :D


It sucks all of the joy out of coming

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!!! :lol:

[DEAD BEAT]

huh! yeah im sure we all noticed how the last 2 films arn't even part of this site! lol

Then again judgment could be off here because they do have Night 30th! lmao

[krisvds]

Then again, paintings are not movies and are not viewed as such. There is, as I'm sure you know, a national endowment for the arts, which helps fund struggling artists. Traditional "art" such as paintings and sculptures have for a long time been viewed as, for lack of a better term, a public service/good.

Movies are not a public service. They are a product. And what's the purpose of a product? To sell it as much as possible and get the biggest return on the investor's money in Gar's case. Because without them there would be no "art" from him. That's the one point those who take your position are not adressing.

Why do know it all teenagers compelled to do what their parents say? Because the purse strings would get cut. Same thing here. This is not a medium where one can create something of great beauty and value with merely a canvas some paint and brushes. It's waaaaaay more expensive than that.

So,If an artist is dependent on the purse strings of others in order for them to realize their vision and produce and do what they love then at the same time they are beholden, atleast partially, to those whom without their money their vision would never see fruition.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

MULDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!

great smiley by the way.

:cool:

Sure. Paintings aren't movies. Just like Resnais and Godard werent Hitchcock, or Kubrick isn't Michael Bay.
Just trying to say that if you follow your line of thought through you end up with a lot of movies catered towards a certain 'demographic'. No risk taking = no art.
Another nice analogy. The music bizz. Take it away Frank:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UAWqwLjN70

[MinionZombie]

Moon - *high five* - and yes, it does suck the fun out of it. As much as I hate restating - over and over and over - why I dug the movies, or why they are the abominations that the verbose haters say they are, something inside me forces me to keep coming back ... ugh.

Andy - I'm not asking any haters to suddenly like the movies, what I'm actually saying is just get off GAR's dick about it ... the haterade is far too concentrated amongst the haters, and a bit of perspective is sorely needed.

I refer back to my previous post again.

[Andy]

I don't think I'm on gars back too much, I respect him for what he has done with the original trilogy but that dosnt mean I think everything the man does is gold, while I personally think he's now lowered himself to the standard of a complete hack and whether you agree with us 'haters' or not, what this poll does show is theoverwhelming majority of people here do think the new gar trilogy dosnt hold a candle to the original trilogy.

Also I think my opinion of land is perfectly justified and I don't try and force people round to it, if you like land that's your choice but from my pov, well imagine how you felt when you saw dawn 04, now imagine if you were a snyder fan before dawn 04 and imagine you'd waited 20 years to see it, and imagine you saw it and big daddy was in it. The disapointment and hate would be 1000 times worse and I've seen you go on long rants about dawn as it is, so no I won't cool it over land, thankyou very much :)

[shootemindehead]

Now after having seen land, diary and survival.. which are a completely seperate trilogy by the way, land is not ascioated by any means to the original trilogy.

100% untrue. 'Land of the Dead' IS part of the original trilogy. It was always part of it, even when it was called 'Twilight of the Dead' and 'Dead Reckoning'.

'Diary of the Dead' is the beginning of what Romero himself calls a "reboot" of the series.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

It's funny. Some people are talking about Romero like he was some sort of misunderstood Orson Welles, or a Stanley Kubrick or something.

They guy is a hack. Really, he's a hack. A great one, but one none-the-less. He's NOT a great director in any sense of the word and I say that not in hate. Just truth. There's no ire in my opinion. But it's opinion based on watching every one of his movies.

He has produced 3 films (original zombie trilogy) that can be called great (4 if we include 'Martin', but that's a bit ropey IMHO). AND, "his" genre was ripped off (as he freely admits) from Richard Matheson. I'd also suggest that some fans got an watch the 1964 Vincent Price film 'The Last Man on Earth', based on Matheson's 'I am Legend'. I'd say Romero got a LOT of inspiration from that too for his 1968 classic.

The rest of his output has been generally awful ('There's Always Vanila', 'Knightriders', 'Season of the Witch', 'Diary of the Dead', 'Survival of the Dead' etc) to just ok ('The Crazies', 'Land of the Dead', 'Martin', 'The Dark Half').

So it really came as a disappointment, but no surprise, that his last two zombie efforts weren't all that great as his track record has more misses than hits. What's most upsetting about his recent entries is that he's lost touch with the zombies that brought him so much attention.

So, Romero may have some good movies left in him and we know he's capable of much better. But as long as he's keeps producing movies in the direction he's been going down, the chances are that his last truly great film will remain 'Day of the Dead'.

[bassman]

100% untrue. 'Land of the Dead' IS part of the original trilogy. It was always part of it, even when it was called 'Twilight of the Dead' and 'Dead Reckoning'.

'Diary of the Dead' is the beginning of what Romero himself calls a "reboot" of the series.

While I agree with you....you can't really say that Andy's statement is untrue. It's all opinion, really. In Romero's googly old eyes Diary IS the beginning of something new, going back to the start, but people can also choose to leave Land out of the grouping of the original trilogy. Hell....if you want to get really deep into it, NONE of the films up until Diary/Survival are related, anyway....

[shootemindehead]

Well, I can Bassy.

'Land of the Dead' was directed as part of his original series. That's the director's intention. It was never intended to kick start a new series. 'Diary of the Dead' was made with that in mind.

I agree, the original series is loosely connected, but they're still connected. Whereas Diary and Survival have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the original series. It's a completely different universe.

I know some people want to lump in 'Land of the Dead' with the last two, mainly because they think it sucked. Or, because there's so much time between 1985 and 2005. But that doesn't mean it's not part of Romero's original vision.

[bassman]

There's no connection between the original three to qualify them as a "series", anyway. That's just a fan thing to try and make them a connected trilogy, when in reality they're not related at all. Romero has said so himself. Different characters, different scenarios, different times, different owners, etc.... only one thing running through them all: the zombie phenomenon. That doesn't make them a connected trilogy. Just a series of films with a related subject. Would you consider Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan a trilogy? All three are directed by Speilberg and have the common setting of WWII, so surely they're meant to be a trilogy? :sneaky:

It's all fan opinion where you want to place the films, but in reality there's no relation until the last two.

[shootemindehead]

Your mixing apples and oranges here though.

Romero's original dead quad is clearly set in the same zombie apocalypse, even if it is with different characters. He said himself that his intention was to do one every decade to see how the basic story progresses. It's the same scenario taken a little further in each film, showing a different enclave of survivors. As I've said before, they're connected, if not definite sequels with the same characters etc. But a series of films about the same thing doesn't have to have the same characters. Romero's original quad is a series about the same event though. Also, the fact that they were called Night, Dawn, Day and originally Twlight suggests that a running series was in Romero's mind to some degree.

Diary and Survival are completely different kettles of fish altogether.

Also, Spielberg never once approached his war movies in as serial fashion, so the analogy doesn't really fit.

[bassman]

Romero's original dead quad is clearly set in the same zombie apocalypse, even if it is with different characters.

And Speilberg's WWII films are set during the same world war. Clearly they're a trilogy.:p

My point is that it all comes down to opinion. You can choose to have the original trilogy and the new trilogy, Night-Land, Night-Survival, or none connected at all. It's all opinion with no definitive answer. Some people even argue the time frame between the films and say that some are actually prequels, so go figure.

[JDFP]

Land is an extension of the original trilogy. You all know it. It's not the backwards timeline end of some new reverse trilogy. It can't be stuck in the cupboard like some mongoloid stepchild the family would rather not acknowledge. You just gotta take your lumps trilogy fans.



I don't see what's overly apparent to make you say "you all know it" as far as "Land" being an extension of the original trilogy. I certainly don't "know it". I don't see it at all. It doesn't seem at all like the same zombie universe to me. I actually agree with Bassman competely, there's not really a connecting element between even the 3 films of the original Holy Trilogy except that they all happen to have zombies in them. They all have a similar 'feel' to them though -- a horror like element that really unites them, me thinks. "Land of the Dead" is more of an action film that happens to have zombies -- doesn't feel like a horror film at all. Then again, maybe it's just because we're all older than we were in the 80's and have all become jaded about "horror". I don't know. I'm not saying you're 'wrong' to consider "Land" as part of the Holy Trilogy if you want -- but not for me and not for many others here.

You can take your lumps if you want them, I'll just take my Holy Trilogy as is without any unnecessary additives such as "Land" -- it's like being a kid again and trying to fit a square into a star slot on one of those boards for testing. It just don't/won't fit. No matter how you try to get it in there (yes, Moon, that is, indeed, what she said).

For me, and many others, it will always be the Holy Trilogy and then the second trilogy after it -- and we're not any more wrong about accepting it in that order than folks who want to accept that "Land" is a follow-up to the original trilogy.

j.p.

[Andy]

Thankyou JDFP and bass, your both exactly right.

[krisvds]

[/COLOR]It's funny. Some people are talking about Romero like he was some sort of misunderstood Orson Welles, or a Stanley Kubrick or something.

They guy is a hack. Really, he's a hack. A great one, but one none-the-less. He's NOT a great director in any sense of the word and I say that not in hate. Just truth. There's no ire in my opinion. But it's opinion based on watching every one of his movies.

He has produced 3 films (original zombie trilogy) that can be called great (4 if we include 'Martin', but that's a bit ropey IMHO). AND, "his" genre was ripped off (as he freely admits) from Richard Matheson. I'd also suggest that some fans got an watch the 1964 Vincent Price film 'The Last Man on Earth', based on Matheson's 'I am Legend'. I'd say Romero got a LOT of inspiration from that too for his 1968 classic.


While Romero will never be and never operated on the same level as Kubrick (i brought him up in an argument regarding artistry and consumerism and NEVER compared the two, but hey pulling arguments out of context = the internet), calling the guy who did the original 'trilogy' a hack is just plain wrong.
By the way; knightriders, Martin and Creepshow were pretty good genre films. In my opinion anyone creating three legendary films that influenced multiple generations of filmmakers and fans alike can be seen as a great director. No?

[darth los]

Okay, this is for all the land is part of the original trilogy folks:

Trilogy: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme.

So you see, by the use of the word three it is by definition impossible for a fourth film to be a part of that.

That is all.

:cool:

[DEAD BEAT]

100% untrue. 'Land of the Dead' IS part of the original trilogy. It was always part of it, even when it was called 'Twilight of the Dead' and 'Dead Reckoning'.

'Diary of the Dead' is the beginning of what Romero himself calls a "reboot" of the series.

---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ----------

It's funny. Some people are talking about Romero like he was some sort of misunderstood Orson Welles, or a Stanley Kubrick or something.

They guy is a hack. Really, he's a hack. A great one, but one none-the-less. He's NOT a great director in any sense of the word and I say that not in hate. Just truth. There's no ire in my opinion. But it's opinion based on watching every one of his movies.

He has produced 3 films (original zombie trilogy) that can be called great (4 if we include 'Martin', but that's a bit ropey IMHO). AND, "his" genre was ripped off (as he freely admits) from Richard Matheson. I'd also suggest that some fans got an watch the 1964 Vincent Price film 'The Last Man on Earth', based on Matheson's 'I am Legend'. I'd say Romero got a LOT of inspiration from that too for his 1968 classic.

The rest of his output has been generally awful ('There's Always Vanila', 'Knightriders', 'Season of the Witch', 'Diary of the Dead', 'Survival of the Dead' etc) to just ok ('The Crazies', 'Land of the Dead', 'Martin', 'The Dark Half').

So it really came as a disappointment, but no surprise, that his last two zombie efforts weren't all that great as his track record has more misses than hits. What's most upsetting about his recent entries is that he's lost touch with the zombies that brought him so much attention.

So, Romero may have some good movies left in him and we know he's capable of much better. But as long as he's keeps producing movies in the direction he's been going down, the chances are that his last truly great film will remain 'Day of the Dead'.

well in GAR'S defense he never claimed to be a great director, if you watch any of his interviews or even the documentary in the Dawn box set GAR was always more fasinated with editing!

People close to him have stated thats his niche and GAR himself talked about how thats his favorite part, cup of coffee, by himself and he begins his mad scientist mode! ;)

And to all fairness comparing the other versions of Dawn he really new what to leave out for the theatrical release cuttin' out the cheese for the masses!

The rest of your post is pretty true though! ;)

[bassman]

Okay, this is for all the land is part of the original trilogy folks:

Trilogy: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme.

So you see, by the use of the word three it is by definition impossible for a fourth film to be a part of that.

That is all.

:cool:

If Land was part of the original three, it would be called a Quadrilogy. DUUUUHHHH.

[Thorn]

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/12/08/dm5qxotadw.jpg

Wait.. am I Tom???

[bassman]

You're Helen. :p

[Thorn]

If Land was part of the original three, it would be called a Quadrilogy. DUUUUHHHH.

http://www.dotd.de/

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------


You're Helen. :p

GOD DAMN IT! I AM Helen...

*adjusts breasts awkwardly*

[bassman]

http://www.dotd.de/

After the Alien box set, i'm not surprised....

[darth los]

So it's a quadrilogy because they say so?

Uh, ok. :confused:

:cool:

[bassman]

I'm making fun of the whole "quadrilogy" thing, dude....

[JDFP]

I'm making fun of the whole "quadrilogy" thing, dude....

Y'know, I bet that the folks over at the "Alien" equivalent board to our board here probably have same type of squabbles about whether that God-awfully atrocious crime against humanity known as "Aliens: Resurrection" should be considered as part of the series/i.e. original 'trilogy' or just a terrible fluke. I remember trying to watch the whole series once back-to-back and made it into about 20 minutes of "Resurrection" before turning it off in dismay.

Of course, I wouldn't even bother with the "AVP" films...

j.p.

[Thorn]

So it's a quadrilogy because they say so?

Uh, ok. :confused:

:cool:

Nah, not because they say it. Though many sites refer to it as exactly that.

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Zombie for example.

and if that is not enough Romero links them together commenting on how the evolve through the series of films thus linking them together himself.


Romero's Zombies Evolve in "Land of the Dead:" "If you look at my other films, it begins at the end of 'Dawn.' The zombie drags a gun around for the whole movie and then at the very end grabs the hero’s gun and decides that’s better. He doesn’t even know it’s a gun. Then in 'Day of the Dead' there’s a zombie named Bub who actually shots the villain in the end. He’s this very sympathetic guy. It’s sort of following the same track. Now in this film when Big Daddy does it, there’s other zombies that come around and imitate the behavior. So all of a sudden, ooops, there’s a bunch of them out there."
http://movies.about.com/od/landofthedead/a/deadgr062105.htm

GEORGE A ROMERO

GEORGE A ROMERO
Well in the beginning I had this conceit between Night of the Living Dead, Day of the Dead and Dawn of the Dead. In this instance the movie is set roughly three years after the zombie phenomenon has started. Of course, the movies themselves are four decades apart. I like the idea that this is a continuing saga but nothing period-wise, like the cars, dates them. Yet I like the idea of trying to reflect a little bit about the decade. That's why I originally set Land of the Dead in the Nineties because I missed out on them in filmic terms.
http://madeinatlantis.com/interviews/george_a_romero.htm

[bassman]

Quadrilogy isn't a word.

And although I don't have the links on hand, Romero has also stated that none of the films are related. You can't trust what that crackpot says anymore. :lol:

[Thorn]

Quadrilogy isn't a word.

And although I don't have the links on hand, Romero has also stated that none of the films are related. You can't trust what that crackpot says anymore. :lol:

ROFL.

You sir are correct it is a bastardization of tetralogy , which IS proper.

[darth los]

Quadrilogy isn't a word.

And although I don't have the links on hand, Romero has also stated that none of the films are related. You can't trust what that crackpot says anymore. :lol:

Check and mate.

Now I know for a fact that most here know he's said that before.

So knowing that it isn't even a trilogy. :lol:

:cool:

[Thorn]

Check and mate.

Now I know for a fact that most here know he's said that before.

So knowing that it isn't even a trilogy. :lol:

:cool:

He has in fact said something to that affect before I remember the last time we had a major debate about this that went back and forth for like ever that someone posted something that supported that line of thinking. I however could not find it when I just looked.

[shootemindehead]

To Bass and JP.

Sorry lads. I ain't buying it.

In the nicest possible way of course. :)

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------


While Romero will never be and never operated on the same level as Kubrick (i brought him up in an argument regarding artistry and consumerism and NEVER compared the two, but hey pulling arguments out of context = the internet), calling the guy who did the original 'trilogy' a hack is just plain wrong.
By the way; knightriders, Martin and Creepshow were pretty good genre films. In my opinion anyone creating three legendary films that influenced multiple generations of filmmakers and fans alike can be seen as a great director. No?

Hmmm...no, not really. At that rate, Wes Craven would be counted as a great and as far as I'm concerned he's another chancer.

Romero hit the nail on the head with his zombie movies, no doubt. Although, to this day I am dumbfounded at the lack of respect 'Day of the Dead' recieved when it came out. It's clearly and by FAR the best thing he's ever done.

I just think his vision (the original vision) of the world gone to pieces with the living dead was spot on. But even so, some of the directing and editing is terrible in Night and Dawn. Night can be forgiven somewhat. But some of the stuff in Dawn is rubbish. I also think he got REALLY lucky with his dead stuff and people began to read into things into the film that he simply didn't set out to do. All this message nonsense wasn't there when Romero set out to do Night, or Dawn, or Day either. He simply set out to do a quick horror movie in 68. Revive his dead career in 78 and continue the franchise in 85.

The "message" thing is nonsense. But, now it's gone to his head and has ruined his output.

Day is his opus. He says so himself and I agree. But as I said, we all know he's capable of much better, so why continue to make utter rubbish?

A great director? No. A decent guy who happened to hit paydirt with a particular series of films? Yes.

If it wasn't for Night, Dawn and Day. Romero wouldn't figure on anybodys list at all.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------


well in GAR'S defense he never claimed to be a great director, if you watch any of his interviews or even the documentary in the Dawn box set GAR was always more fasinated with editing!

Hmmm, I'd go so far as to say he's that hot at editing either. There's a lot more in 'Dawn of the Dead' that should have hit the floor too. And some reshoots needed of certain areas as well.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------


Y'know, I bet that the folks over at the "Alien" equivalent board to our board here probably have same type of squabbles about whether that God-awfully atrocious crime against humanity known as "Aliens: Resurrection" should be considered as part of the series/i.e. original 'trilogy' or just a terrible fluke. I remember trying to watch the whole series once back-to-back and made it into about 20 minutes of "Resurrection" before turning it off in dismay.

Of course, I wouldn't even bother with the "AVP" films...

j.p.

Alien is a trilogy...simply because Resurection is a steaming pile of shite. :)

[Trin]

I know this will do nothing to change the closed minded opinions here... and this will be attributed as my own closed minded opinion, and not worth any consideration... however...

After following this discussion for literally decades there is a commonality that has shown itself. Everytime GAR is quoted to disassociate Night, Dawn, and Day as linked stories in the same universe he has done so in response to very pointed questions around things like technology, style of dress, and setting of the films. These answers get quoted as gospel without faithfully reproducing the leading question. Often these are questions he has no interest in answering to begin with since they're often nit-picky and irrelevant to what he's trying to get across.

Then those same quotes get compared to quotes where GAR has stated that the movies - Night through Land - are the same story in the same universe and people say that you can't trust what he says.

This is one topic where GAR doesn't disagree with himself if you take all his comments in context!!

[shootemindehead]

Nah, not because they say it. Though many sites refer to it as exactly that.

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Zombie for example.

and if that is not enough Romero links them together commenting on how the evolve through the series of films thus linking them together himself.


http://movies.about.com/od/landofthedead/a/deadgr062105.htm

GEORGE A ROMERO

http://madeinatlantis.com/interviews/george_a_romero.htm



Bingo.

[MinionZombie]

Andy - I wasn't specifically talking about you RE: haterade etc. I was speaking about haters generally. Mis-typed, or didn't type clearly enough I guess, so yeah - was speaking generally.

[Thorn]

I know this will do nothing to change the closed minded opinions here... and this will be attributed as my own closed minded opinion, and not worth any consideration... however...

After following this discussion for literally decades there is a commonality that has shown itself. Every time GAR is quoted to disassociate Night, Dawn, and Day as linked stories in the same universe he has done so in response to very pointed questions around things like technology, style of dress, and setting of the films. These answers get quoted as gospel without faithfully reproducing the leading question. Often these are questions he has no interest in answering to begin with since they're often nit-picky and irrelevant to what he's trying to get across.

Then those same quotes get compared to quotes where GAR has stated that the movies - Night through Land - are the same story in the same universe and people say that you can't trust what he says.

This is one topic where GAR doesn't disagree with himself if you take all his comments in context!!

I totally agree... and I strongly feel they are part of the same storyline simply due to progression. This of course leads some to debate that Land actually takes place before Day... so many of us have been over this ground of course.. .I still feel they are all part of the same progressive story line.

[krisvds]

Hmmm...no, not really. At that rate, Wes Craven would be counted as a great and as far as I'm concerned he's another chancer.

Romero hit the nail on the head with his zombie movies, no doubt. Although, to this day I am dumbfounded at the lack of respect 'Day of the Dead' recieved when it came out. It's clearly and by FAR the best thing he's ever done.

I just think his vision (the original vision) of the world gone to pieces with the living dead was spot on. But even so, some of the directing and editing is terrible in Night and Dawn. Night can be forgiven somewhat. But some of the stuff in Dawn is rubbish. I also think he got REALLY lucky with his dead stuff and people began to read into things into the film that he simply didn't set out to do. All this message nonsense wasn't there when Romero set out to do Night, or Dawn, or Day either. He simply set out to do a quick horror movie in 68. Revive his dead career in 78 and continue the franchise in 85.

The "message" thing is nonsense. But, now it's gone to his head and has ruined his output.

Day is his opus. He says so himself and I agree. But as I said, we all know he's capable of much better, so why continue to make utter rubbish?

Message thing? Yeah that's rubbish. Though there IS a certain train of thought in the original three films that lead the viewer to a better understanding of who the director is and where he is coming from. These aren't shallow, just playing it for the thrills horror films, there IS intelligence to it. Way more than in whatever Wes Craven film. This is why, of all his films, I dislike Diary the most, because there the central idea was too much in your face (that voice over, yuck).

And yes, I agree, Day of the dead is by far the best ... of the dead film. Perhaps the best horror film ever.

[darth los]

Well, it is the darkest day of horror the world has ever known so...

:cool:

[Andy]

Andy - I wasn't specifically talking about you RE: haterade etc. I was speaking about haters generally. Mis-typed, or didn't type clearly enough I guess, so yeah - was speaking generally.

I spent literally half an hour searching google for a picture of peter helping flyboy up after he aims his gun at him that i could caption 'WE'RE COOL' but i could not find one :(

[krakenslayer]

The original films did deal with interesting social themes. All films do, nothing comes from a vaccuum. Usually a writer is influenced by something they have seen/experienced in the outside world, and the end result is coloured by his opinions of that issue, even if it's not intentional. Unintentional themes can work well (i.e. Night) but most good writers will think about what their script is "saying" (even if they didn't intend the message from the very beginning) and aim to express that idea in a consistant, deliberate way. However, there is a downside to this. Sometimes, in doing so they lose sight of the original idea and get sidetracked, or they inflate the message and it becomes too obvious and clumsy.

If the message is subtle, or at least smoothly integrated into the plot, then the people who spit out the dummy over "social commentary" will not even notice it's there, and therefore be perfectly happy. Meanwhile the people that enjoy "reading" films can have the satisfaction of analysing the themes the writer/director is touching upon.

If the message is crowbarred in and then hammered home with a sledgehammer (i.e. Diary), then the anti-message crowd go nuts and everyone else feels like they are being patronized.

[MoonSylver]

Eh, I wouldn't say Romero is Orson Wells or Kubrick or whatever, but I certainly wouldn't say he's a "hack" either. Bruno Matti or Uwe Boll are HACKS. I'd call George a good-to-great low budge genre filmmaker & leave it at that. "Martin" & "Knightriders" are hampered by a LOT of factors, from budget to actors, but I've never felt that the DIRECTION was one of them. And Knightriders IMO is a beautiful film & one of my favorites ever. Don't agree about his editing either. I love the cuts in Dawn & think the running time is fine. Look at the Argento cut. Leaner, meaner & not as good IMO.

But then again Shootem doesn't like anything, so there is that...:lol:


Wait.. am I Tom???


You're Helen. :p


GOD DAMN IT! I AM Helen...

*adjusts breasts awkwardly*

Here, lemme help ya with that...:D

[DEAD BEAT]

Okay, this is for all the land is part of the original trilogy folks:

Trilogy: a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme.

So you see, by the use of the word three it is by definition impossible for a fourth film to be a part of that.

That is all.

:cool:

yeah yeah yeah, and the knee bone is connected to the dick bone! lol jk buddy ;)

[shootemindehead]

But then again Shootem doesn't like anything, so there is that...:lol:



Humph.

Well, I don't like YOU anymore!

Hmmmmm...Where's that "I don't like you" smiley?

[MoonSylver]

Humph.

Well, I don't like YOU anymore!

Hmmmmm...Where's that "I don't like you" smiley?

Right here :fin:

:lol:

s'ok, I still like YOU, even though I like things & stuff. :lol:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R8dd2AtLHv8/STDhb0aYyII/AAAAAAAAAJY/L2Wk7kljMeo/s400/untitledghh.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R8dd2AtLHv8/STDhuwC0p3I/AAAAAAAAAJg/s9lH5YY4ACA/s400/untitledghgfhhghjgh.JPG

[bassman]

Shootem can't deny it. Moon isn't the only one that's noticed. It takes a life changing event to impress Shootem...

the man likes NOTHING. Other than Day, of course. :lol:

[MoonSylver]

Shootem can't deny it. Moon isn't the only one that's noticed. It takes a life changing event to impress Shootem...

the man likes NOTHING. Other than Day, of course. :lol:

http://assets.creativity-online.com/images/work/large/l/i/f/life-cereal-mikey.jpg

"He won't eat it, he hates EVERYTHING!" :lol:

(yes I'm showing my age...and the folks abroad my not get it...*shrug*)

[DevilDog]

The OP's question is like asking, "Would you rather have your nuts sawed off with a rusty spoon, or a rusty spork?"

[shootemindehead]

Right here :fin:

:lol:

s'ok, I still like YOU, even though I like things & stuff. :lol:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R8dd2AtLHv8/STDhb0aYyII/AAAAAAAAAJY/L2Wk7kljMeo/s400/untitledghh.JPG

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_R8dd2AtLHv8/STDhuwC0p3I/AAAAAAAAAJg/s9lH5YY4ACA/s400/untitledghgfhhghjgh.JPG


HA HA...I like it! :D

















No, waitaminute.........I don't. :p

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------


Shootem can't deny it. Moon isn't the only one that's noticed. It takes a life changing event to impress Shootem...

the man likes NOTHING. Other than Day, of course. :lol:

Don't even like 'Ghostbusters' all that much. :fin: (<- Moon let me borrow this)




*runs away*

[MoonSylver]

HA HA...I like it! :D

No, waitaminute.........I don't. :p

:lol:

http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/moonsylver/LOLed.jpg

[Tom Price]

non-participation due to "framing" of the poll question

[Danny]

romeros trilogy, it was original content, the walking dead was a retelling of one of my favourite comics with a crappier tv friendly imitation of the comics plot. ill take a new story that was hit and miss over someone taking a good one and altering it for there own purpose.

[MinionZombie]

romeros trilogy, it was original content, the walking dead was a retelling of one of my favourite comics with a crappier tv friendly imitation of the comics plot. ill take a new story that was hit and miss over someone taking a good one and altering it for there own purpose.

Have you seen the TV adaptation? :rockbrow:

[bassman]

Have you seen the TV adaptation? :rockbrow:

:lol:

Yeah....I seem to remember Hells refusing to watch it.



This thread is a close call. Either one could win by a hair at this point. :p

[MinionZombie]

:lol:

Yeah....I seem to remember Hells refusing to watch it.



This thread is a close call. Either one could win by a hair at this point. :p

:lol:

Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed GAR's latest works (well, Diary I've had a rocky relationship with since its release), but The Walking Dead was the better of the two from this selection for me. And aye, I seem to recall Hellsing refused to watch the show out-right ... is this still the case, have you seen it at all, hells? :sneaky:

[Danny]

Have you seen the TV adaptation? :rockbrow:

yeah i caught up with it a while back and while the story on the whole was okay- but nowhere near as engrossing as the comics the final episode really blew chunks compared to the rest. its a group of people entering a building then leaving a day or so later just so they could kill off a few characters, even if you never read the comics as a stand alone series finale it was just kind of cheap.

[blind2d]

I thought so too, Hells, and chose Romero's films over TWD. Also because it had skateboarding in. And Dennis Hopper, who hated Heineken, RIP.

[Danny]

I thought so too, Hells, and chose Romero's films over TWD. Also because it had skateboarding in. And Dennis Hopper, who hated Heineken, RIP.

true, the walking dead did not have dennis hopper.

[bassman]

TWD also didn't have Eugene Clark. +1. :lol:

[Danny]

TWD also didn't have zombies eating a hor- :i

[MinionZombie]

I thought so too, Hells, and chose Romero's films over TWD. Also because it had skateboarding in. And Dennis Hopper, who hated Heineken, RIP.

Funnily enough I just watched Blue Velvet again last night. Awesome film! :cool:

[BillyRay]

TWD also didn't have Eugene Clark. +1. :lol:

They haven't cast Tyrese yet, so it could still happen.... :D

[Danny]

Funnily enough I just watched Blue Velvet again last night. Awesome film! :cool:

Hell yes it is.