What happened George?

[hawk44]

What the fuck is going on with Romero? His movies are getting worse. Land of the Dead wasn't that bad, but also wasn't that good by any means. Diary was ok, ans Survival of the Dead was a comedy, no? Give me Dawn or Day anytime:

[ProfessorChaos]

welcome. we've been scratching our collective heads about this one for the last handful of years, so you're gonna fit right in here.:D

[hawk44]

Thank you sir. Walking Dead made everything he has done over the past few years look silly. That show is sick. I think the only way he can be successful again is to get a 100 grand budget, no name actors, and avoid all this hollywood shit.

---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

Whats his next project anyway? Anything in the works?

[bassman]

We had heard that he has ideas for one or two more films continuing the diary/survival characters, but no word on whether they'll be made.

[blind2d]

I hope he makes more... But only if they're good... Hm, sounds familiar...

[Frankenstein]

A bigger budget does not always equate to a better film. Such is true in the case of Romero's latest zombie films. Hollywood always has a way of messing up a good thing. Let's see here, before Hollywood's involvement; Night, Dawn, and Day. After their involvement; Land, Diary, and Survival. Gee, thanks Hollywood!

[Danny]

time passes people change, peoples tastes and nuances in there artistic styles changed- and in my opinion the poor bastards sick of zombies but cant get work doing anything else.

[bassman]

A bigger budget does not always equate to a better film. Such is true in the case of Romero's latest zombie films. Hollywood always has a way of messing up a good thing. Let's see here, before Hollywood's involvement; Night, Dawn, and Day. After their involvement; Land, Diary, and Survival. Gee, thanks Hollywood!

Diary and Survival were independent films like the original trilogy. Land is the only real "Hollwood" film of the group.


and in my opinion the poor bastards sick of zombies but cant get work doing anything else.

QFT.

[Frankenstein]

and in my opinion the poor bastards sick of zombies but cant get work doing anything else.

I agree with this 100%. I think George has been pigeonholed as "the zombie film guy", and it has made it hard for him to do anything else. He has the passion & talent to do other types of films, but like they say, dance with the date that brought you, and the "Dead" films are what made him famous.


---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------


Diary and Survival were independent films like the original trilogy. Land is the only real "Hollwood" film of the group.



I stand corrected. I thought that Diary & Survival also had Hollywood dollars behind them. Thanks for the correction, bassman.

[bassman]

No problem. I remember everyone was so excited when Diary was announced because it was Romero "going back to his roots". Land had disappointed some, if not most(not me - I like it), so everyone thought Diary would be the true return to form for Romero after Hollywood interfered with Land. Then Diary was released. Two years later Survival came along. Turns out Hollywood wasn't the one preventing another excellent entry....

[Sammich]

I think something happened when he broke up with Christine.

[DEAD BEAT]

What the fuck is going on with Romero? His movies are getting worse. Land of the Dead wasn't that bad, but also wasn't that good by any means. Diary was ok, ans Survival of the Dead was a comedy, no? Give me Dawn or Day anytime:
It was the 60s & 70s...homeboy was probably hi half the time! ;)

[Moon Knight]

He just doesn't have his original crew anymore and times are different.

[rongravy]

Land was awesome. I can see how many would hate Diary and definitely Survival, but geez. Land is a polished gem. Finally, zombies done right.
As much as I love the original trilogy, it still has its fair share of cheese.

[Moon Knight]

Land was awesome. I can see how many would hate Diary and definitely Survival, but geez. Land is a polished gem. Finally, zombies done right.
As much as I love the original trilogy, it still has its fair share of cheese.

The main problem with Land is people just hate Big Daddy. He's no Bub.

[ChokeOnEm]

I think something happened when he broke up with Christine.

Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------


Thank you sir. Walking Dead made everything he has done over the past few years look silly.

I dunno. The first two episodes blew me away. Some of the other episodes were just as lame as Diary.

[Doc]

Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic.[COLOR="Silver"]


So, essentially just like George Lucas. Only our Georgie has tinkered with his originals.

[Neil]

welcome. we've been scratching our collective heads about this one for the last handful of years, so you're gonna fit right in here.:D

LOL! Got to be the best welcome to the board message ever :)

[Mitchified]

So, essentially just like George Lucas. Only our Georgie has tinkered with his originals.

It could be argued that Lucas is worse than Romero. Not only has Lucas failed to make many compelling characters in his new movies, he's hurt the image of some older characters in a lot of fans' eyes. I know that I personally don't look at Darth Vader the same way after the Emo Anakin trilogy. Where Lucas has Romero beat is that the new trilogy isn't all that bad if you don't look at them as "Star Wars" movies; the new Romero films are just bad no matter how you look at them.

At this point it seems as if Romero is making what he considers to be interesting zombie movies as opposed to what the majority of the fans think constitutes good ones. That's fine, really. He can make whatever kind of movies that he wants. He just shouldn't be surprised if his original fan base craps all over them when they're released. I hate to say it, but over time I've come to believe that the first three movies were nothing more than luck, or that he blew his (mental) wad on them and doesn't have any other compelling ideas to work with for new zombie films.

[MoonSylver]

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/helpless_will/deadhorse.jpg

[zomtom]

He moved on up to Canada and found a whole new crowd to pal around with. It's a shame he's no longer surrounded by the people he started out with. Or hell, maybe he's just getting old and doesn't have anything new to offer. Survival was a pathetic piece of crap (and I'm one of George's biggest fanboys) but I still want to know what the hell he was thinking when he made that mess. Was he thinking of reinventing himself as a comedic zombie director? Sorry, but it was done (and a whole lot better). The Walking Dead has reminded me what real zombie horror should be. Sorry George, but maybe you need to come onto this site and read some of these comments. I would still bow to George if I ever had the luxury of meeting him for all of the great frights and nightmares he's given me in the past, but if you don't have it in you anymore, than maybe it's time to retire.

[shootemindehead]

As I said before, Romero was never that great a director to begin with. Night, Dawn, Day and Martin and that's really it.

Perhaps there is a touch of the George Lucas malaise about him, as Doc has suggested. In much the same way that Lucas' films have seriously degraded since Gary Kurtz and he parted company, over the "teddy bear" issue in 'Return of the Jedi'. Maybe the influence of whomever it was on Gerorge was a good thing? A steadying hand? Someone there simply to say, "George, that's a really shite idea."

I can do that job.

[Neil]

As I said before, Romero was never that great a director to begin with. Night, Dawn, Day and Martin and that's really it.
Isn't that enough? :)

[thxleo]

I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival".


Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's.

[AcesandEights]

Maybe the influence of whomever it was on Gerorge was a good thing...Someone there simply to say, "George, that's a really shite idea."

I can do that job.

Oh, we know you can, Shootem'. We know you can ;) :D

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,
It isn't even about the fact that much of the fanbase (myself included) don't like Diary and Survival. It's about the fact that GEORGE thinks they're WONDERFUL. Stop the presses, WTF?!? If the man in innumerable interviews fails and continues to fail to recognize that Diary/Survival went over with all the welcome of a fart in a telephone booth, there is NO HOPE FOR CHANGE. It's like they say about addictions (of all sorts)...the first step is admitting you have a problem. George is clearly in denial, because in many relatively high-profile (in the horror fanbase world) interviews like Fangoria and Trade publications, he's positively embittered about OUR REACTION. He comes right out and states that the problem isn't with his movies, it's with what we want.

Uhh, again, WTF? I've said this a google of times, and I'll say it again. A director's FIRST responsibility (if their goal is to deliver a well-received, and perhaps significantly profitable film) is to figure out what will make for an enjoyable 90-110 minutes, and film that. A director who ENTERS the creative process saying "I don't give a damn what anyone will think of this movie. I'm just going to make what I want...even if I KNOW that the fans will LOATHE IT" has lost sight of the basic fact that directing is a job that is part of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Industry: Ie: The process of making a buck.

His job, so long as he chooses for that job to be directing, is to use his creativity to deliver movies that will be enjoyable to watch. NO, that DOESN'T mean I'm saying his job is to give us new derivations of Night/Dawn/Day...or anything else we're specifically demanding, but it DOES mean that he has to at least WANT TO deliver movies that a significant number of people will enjoy viewing.

Otherwise he's just the directing equivalent of a guy with a pen doodling on a napkin in a restaurant. Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do."

Need further convincing how out of touch with the reality of his recent work's true quality? The man is literate, and he's done a large number of interviews where the nature of the leading questions he was asked over and over accepted as a given/part of the question that Diary/Survival were considered to be major failures. So he HAS to have been exposed many times to the FACT that the majority of viewers aren't enjoying his newer Dead films, and certainly aren't rushing out to buy the basic DVD, the Extended DVD and the Director's Cut/whatever other slightly different copy of the movie gets released in the 4-5 waves of DVD release(s) that accompany any movie these days.

Yet he doggedly maintains he wants to continue in this vein, focusing on yet more loser characters no one gives a damn about from Diary. Meaning that he's as much as saying, over and over, "If you didn't like Diary/Survival, get ready not to like my next couple of movies...and BTW, just so we're clear fanboys, I don't give a damn whether you like them or not."

What hope is there when such is his demonstrable mentality whenever he's approached on camera about his more recent work?

In summation, he doesn't care if we like the movies he's made or the movies he yet intends to make, he's incapable of recognizing that Diary/Survival weren't the works of genius he considers them...and/or both.

[Mitchified]

Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do."

I was with you except for this part. Assuming that Romero didn't just blatantly lie to investors about what he was doing, he more than likely gave them a quick rundown of the movie and the plot that he had in mind. If they decided to give him the money after that, they were buying into his vision. They knew what they were getting, and if they didn't take time to research the market for the genre or ask about the specifics of the movie, that's their own fault. Romero isn't under any moral obligation except to give the investors what he said that he would.

[Moon Knight]

Creepshow was great and I fucking love Knightriders.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing,
It isn't even about the fact that much of the fanbase (myself included) don't like Diary and Survival. It's about the fact that GEORGE thinks they're WONDERFUL. Stop the presses, WTF?!? If the man in innumerable interviews fails and continues to fail to recognize that Diary/Survival went over with all the welcome of a fart in a telephone booth, there is NO HOPE FOR CHANGE. It's like they say about addictions (of all sorts)...the first step is admitting you have a problem. George is clearly in denial, because in many relatively high-profile (in the horror fanbase world) interviews like Fangoria and Trade publications, he's positively embittered about OUR REACTION. He comes right out and states that the problem isn't with his movies, it's with what we want.

Uhh, again, WTF? I've said this a google of times, and I'll say it again. A director's FIRST responsibility (if their goal is to deliver a well-received, and perhaps significantly profitable film) is to figure out what will make for an enjoyable 90-110 minutes, and film that. A director who ENTERS the creative process saying "I don't give a damn what anyone will think of this movie. I'm just going to make what I want...even if I KNOW that the fans will LOATHE IT" has lost sight of the basic fact that directing is a job that is part of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Industry: Ie: The process of making a buck.

His job, so long as he chooses for that job to be directing, is to use his creativity to deliver movies that will be enjoyable to watch. NO, that DOESN'T mean I'm saying his job is to give us new derivations of Night/Dawn/Day...or anything else we're specifically demanding, but it DOES mean that he has to at least WANT TO deliver movies that a significant number of people will enjoy viewing.

Otherwise he's just the directing equivalent of a guy with a pen doodling on a napkin in a restaurant. Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do."

Need further convincing how out of touch with the reality of his recent work's true quality? The man is literate, and he's done a large number of interviews where the nature of the leading questions he was asked over and over accepted as a given/part of the question that Diary/Survival were considered to be major failures. So he HAS to have been exposed many times to the FACT that the majority of viewers aren't enjoying his newer Dead films, and certainly aren't rushing out to buy the basic DVD, the Extended DVD and the Director's Cut/whatever other slightly different copy of the movie gets released in the 4-5 waves of DVD release(s) that accompany any movie these days.

Yet he doggedly maintains he wants to continue in this vein, focusing on yet more loser characters no one gives a damn about from Diary. Meaning that he's as much as saying, over and over, "If you didn't like Diary/Survival, get ready not to like my next couple of movies...and BTW, just so we're clear fanboys, I don't give a damn whether you like them or not."

What hope is there when such is his demonstrable mentality whenever he's approached on camera about his more recent work?

In summation, he doesn't care if we like the movies he's made or the movies he yet intends to make, he's incapable of recognizing that Diary/Survival weren't the works of genius he considers them...and/or both.

I agree, up to a point,
However, along with that "general rundown" there is a LOGICAL reason to believe that if a director approaches someone to be an investor for a film they wish to make, that the director INTENDS to produce a movie that, to the best of their ability, is crafted with the goal in mind being to persuade viewers, potential and actual, to part with hard-earned (especially these days) cash to view said movie. If, on the other hand, a director's intention is to make a movie that he himself will enjoy making, yet decades of movie-making experience and general experience with/exposure to the underlying principles of what a successful film is comprised of tells this director that the movie he'll enjoy making IS NOT one that potential viewers will enjoy, this cuts so deeply against the norm-grain of the movie-making process that I believe there IS an ethical obligation to disclose his Intentions.

Saying that Romero doesn't have a responsibility to point out he has no intention of taking anything along the lines of "What would make this a film people would enjoy watching?" into account when he's making his pitch to investors is like saying a realtor doesn't have an obligation to disclose the existence of a massive termite infestation to a potential buyer, and justifying that failure-to-disclose by saying "Hey, the potential buyer knows that such a thing as termites exist, they should've brought in a pest-control expert to assess the house's condition before making an offer. It isn't the realtor's responsibility."

Making a movie you don't intend to be a successful business venture, because you know that what you want to make is not what a significant number of people want to watch, is inherently dishonest if the individual(s) you approach as investors are treated by you as investors. Now, if Romero went to someone with money and said "Hey, I'd like you to give me a big briefcase full of cash as a gift because I'm George Romero and you thought my first three Dead films. Not as an investment, just as the means to allow me to make the movie I want to make" that'd be perfectly fine if someone wanted in on that.

But when you approach someone to persuade them to contribute and thereby facilitate your business goal(s), the only reasonable motivation that can be conceived of for such a person to contribute funds is the expectation of a return on their investment...or at the very least simple repayment of the sum they provided (as a loan repayment, you could say). Money provided you that comes with no expectations attached to the giving is called a gift, but for it to be a gift there has to be a gift-giving intent. Again, if someone wants to make such a gift to Romero, more power to them since it's their money. To my knowledge however, Romero hasn't and didn't approach anyone seeking a gift that would allow him to make Diary (but ESPECIALLY Survival). If I'm wrong about that, then everything else I've said is moot...If, however, his people contacted their people, a meeting was set up and a proposal was made....that sounds like a business venture and/or limited partnership to me.

So in closing, I do get what you're saying. Investors do have a responsibility to look into the prospects of those they're considering doing business with. However, unless otherwise disclosed, if you present something as a business venture, you are ACTIVELY doing what you can to convince an investor there will be benefits to them in exchange for their start-up cash. If you don't intend to take how viewers will perceive your film into account then it isn't a business venture, it's a personal project and should be pursued as one. However, I'm open-minded enough to admit that the line between a business and a personal venture can be vanishingly thin.

[thxleo]

I agree, up to a point,
However, along with that "general rundown" there is a LOGICAL reason to believe that if a director approaches someone to be an investor for a film they wish to make, that the director INTENDS to produce a movie that, to the best of their ability, is crafted with the goal in mind being to persuade viewers, potential and actual, to part with hard-earned (especially these days) cash to view said movie. If, on the other hand, a director's intention is to make a movie that he himself will enjoy making, yet decades of movie-making experience and general experience with/exposure to the underlying principles of what a successful film is comprised of tells this director that the movie he'll enjoy making IS NOT one that potential viewers will enjoy, this cuts so deeply against the norm-grain of the movie-making process that I believe there IS an ethical obligation to disclose his Intentions.

Saying that Romero doesn't have a responsibility to point out he has no intention of taking anything along the lines of "What would make this a film people would enjoy watching?" into account when he's making his pitch to investors is like saying a realtor doesn't have an obligation to disclose the existence of a massive termite infestation to a potential buyer, and justifying that failure-to-disclose by saying "Hey, the potential buyer knows that such a thing as termites exist, they should've brought in a pest-control expert to assess the house's condition before making an offer. It isn't the realtor's responsibility."

Making a movie you don't intend to be a successful business venture, because you know that what you want to make is not what a significant number of people want to watch, is inherently dishonest if the individual(s) you approach as investors are treated by you as investors. Now, if Romero went to someone with money and said "Hey, I'd like you to give me a big briefcase full of cash as a gift because I'm George Romero and you thought my first three Dead films. Not as an investment, just as the means to allow me to make the movie I want to make" that'd be perfectly fine if someone wanted in on that.

But when you approach someone to persuade them to contribute and thereby facilitate your business goal(s), the only reasonable motivation that can be conceived of for such a person to contribute funds is the expectation of a return on their investment...or at the very least simple repayment of the sum they provided (as a loan repayment, you could say). Money provided you that comes with no expectations attached to the giving is called a gift, but for it to be a gift there has to be a gift-giving intent. Again, if someone wants to make such a gift to Romero, more power to them since it's their money. To my knowledge however, Romero hasn't and didn't approach anyone seeking a gift that would allow him to make Diary (but ESPECIALLY Survival). If I'm wrong about that, then everything else I've said is moot...If, however, his people contacted their people, a meeting was set up and a proposal was made....that sounds like a business venture and/or limited partnership to me.

So in closing, I do get what you're saying. Investors do have a responsibility to look into the prospects of those they're considering doing business with. However, unless otherwise disclosed, if you present something as a business venture, you are ACTIVELY doing what you can to convince an investor there will be benefits to them in exchange for their start-up cash. If you don't intend to take how viewers will perceive your film into account then it isn't a business venture, it's a personal project and should be pursued as one. However, I'm open-minded enough to admit that the line between a business and a personal venture can be vanishingly thin.

Did you just respond to yourself?

[Neil]

Did you just respond to yourself?

He's lost it!

[Wyldwraith]

LOL,
Just quoted myself instead of who I was talking to. My bad.

[BillyRay]

It happens. Don't get nervous.

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------


It happens. Don't get nervous.

He's right, you know...

[Trin]

He agreed with himself at least... up to a point. :p

I agree with Wild up to a point to. But I see a potentially different, but similar, viewpoint.

Where I agree with Wild is that Romero has convinced himself it is the fans who don't get it, and not his movies that aren't giving it. That's a lack of self-awareness.

I disagree that he's blatantly and consciously doing something against fan wishes. In my view Romero became great by taking his brainchild and delivering it his way in spite of critics. So maybe he's trying to recapture that formula for success and has convinced himself that being swayed by the fans or critics would hurt his chances? If that's the case then we're not looking at a director that has ignored and abandoned his fans... just one that has lost the formula for success.

[Neil]

Land was awesome. I can see how many would hate Diary and definitely Survival, but geez. Land is a polished gem. Finally, zombies done right.
As much as I love the original trilogy, it still has its fair share of cheese.
Land is OK, but the script feels clunky in places IMHO...

[Doc]

Land is decent, but it contains many questionable scenes for me. And somethings that make no sense. Kaufman escaping with money? Ok, I can buy that. Him escaping without ammunition, food, or anything else essential? Don't buy it......not one...bit!

[ChokeOnEm]

Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's.

Ok, let me rephrase that…
I don’t mean to say that Savini or Rubinstein were literally typing right alongside George on his old manual typewriter. But film is a collaborative and often improvisational art form. The character of Ben wasn’t meant to be black in the original Night script. That was a fluke, which gave the film much more added resonance. It goes without saying that a film’s cast and crew can contribute ideas that can make a movie better – or worse (such as Eugence Clark’s suggestion that Big Daddy escape unharmed). Who’s to say that Savini or Rubinstein weren’t critical in reigning in George, and helping shape what’s up on the screen? If you prefer to think that the recent quality decline is due to carelessness or old age, go right ahead.

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------


Land is decent, but it contains many questionable scenes for me. And somethings that make no sense. Kaufman escaping with money? Ok, I can buy that. Him escaping without ammunition, food, or anything else essential? Don't buy it......not one...bit!

Big Daddy ruins the effort for me. He truly is the Jar-Jar Binks of the Romero universe. I can't believe the same director who oversaw the masterful, almost-moving portrayal of Bub in "Day", thought that Daddy's barking and grunting was acceptable. Night-Day are films you show your friends on Halloween and scare the crap out of them. Land is campy. I watch it alone.

[zomtom]

You can discuss this until you're blue in the face. The reality is GAR has a huge fan base but they are only going to stay loyal for so long. I'm a fanboy since 1968 and damned proud of it. HOWEVER, please do not take me for granted. Survival of the Dead sucked ASS!! Even tho it sucked, I went out and bought the damned blu ray tho I don't see myself watching it too often. Shit, I enjoyed Land and Diary ten times as much as Survival. What I'm trying to say is GAR; don't take your fanbase for granted. If you throw another piece of crap like Survival at me again; I will no longer be a fan. Please don't take me for granted or thumb your nose at me. I've been a fan for too long and I know what I like. George; you need to get back into the realm of "The Walking Dead". You're the master when it comes to this; now it's time to reclaim your throne.

[UndeadChicken]

I agree with this topic, Romero's recent films just aren't as good as his old ones. I think maybe it's because his first 3 films were purely horror films meant to scare viewers, but now it seems like he's trying to potray the zombie apocalypse as a sort of "Mad Max"-type world where colorful survivors live in well-protected settlements and find all sorts of creative-yet-cheesy ways to combat the zombies (like using fireworks or bow and arrows) instead of doing the practical stuff like destroy the brain with a bullet or blunt instrument.

Also for the record I haven't seen Survival of the Dead, but why the hell would you make a movie starring the asshole soldiers who robbed the main characters from the previous film and left them to die? Even if it was because the lead soldier was "looking out for his men", that makes it pretty hard to have any sympathy for those characters. And the fact that they were soldiers and the characters from Diary of the Dead were college kid civilians just makes the whole thing worse in my opinion.

[AngryNeighbour]

I liked Land of the Dead, but in Survival and Diary he tries too hard to make them a commentary of society rather than focusing on the character and vibe.

Diary would have been okay but it made no sense..."I'm going to put music and make it seem like an actual movie..." yaaa right, should have done it more cloverfield style, although who knows how good or bad that would have been...

[UndeadChicken]

I guess Land of the Dead isn't so bad if you try to think of it as an apocalyptic adventure film instead of a horror film. I did like some parts of it like how the scavangers were exploring the abandon zombie-infested city looking for supplies to bring back to their survivor settlement. Maybe the problem with Land of the Dead is that Romero's zombie films have always been known for being scary, and he tried a new approach with this one and it wasn't well-liked because everyone was expecting a traditional horror film about zombies?

My problem with Diary of the Dead is that too many things in the film were either silly or didn't make a lot of sense. Like the main character's choice of weapons: the old professor deciding to use a bow and arrow instead of a gun and the Texas girl going for one of those fancy cowboy revolvers (which I don't think she even got to use in the film). Speaking of the Texas Girl, I don't understand why she decided to abandon her friends in the end? She spent so much time with them helping them out and nothing in the film seemed to imply that she had any hostility towards them, then towards the end of the film just because of the one jerk who decided to film her getting attacked by a zombie instead of helping her, she steals their vehicle and leaves them behind, without even bothering to take any supplies with her (which was a pretty stupid thing to do). I just think that was completely anti-climatic and ruined a character who was likable in the beginning.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic.

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------



I dunno. The first two episodes blew me away. Some of the other episodes were just as lame as Diary.


Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's.

Speaking of YES MEN...

:elol:

Everyone knows I hate Land... Like another poster mentioned I had issues with Big Daddy and that the zombie infested world didn't see so zombie infested. The movie was more about the gore as opposed to characters and story. Tis a shame because George is one of the reasons I got into making movies.

[C5NOTLD]

I liked Land of the Dead, but in Survival and Diary he tries too hard to make them a commentary of society rather than focusing on the character and vibe.

Diary would have been okay but it made no sense..."I'm going to put music and make it seem like an actual movie..." yaaa right, should have done it more cloverfield style, although who knows how good or bad that would have been...



That is what made NOTLD so great - They were not worried about a social commentary in 1967 when they made it. As John Russo has said they just told a "good, honest, emotionally involving story." And allowed viewers to get their own social commentary out of the film.