Romero's introduction to Night of the Living Dead at Flashback Weekend...

[MinionZombie]

HQlHYdOmsjU&feature=player_embedded

Figured some of you might wanna see it.

[kidgloves]

Thanks MZ.
What a lovely guy Uncle George still is. He's in such good health for a 73 year old lifetime smoker, if ever so slightly frail.
I really must get off my arse and meet him somewhere so I can shake his hand, look him in the eye and say thanks.

LEGEND

[EvilNed]

Nice share. Thanks.

[Moon Knight]

Living Legend.

Thank you.

[ProfessorChaos]

i was there! got to meet the man himself, thanked him for the nightmares and cold chills i got as a youngster, shook his hand, and got an autograph. it was pretty awesome to see him in person, then later in the evening when this video was filmed, almost the entire audience was on their feet to give him a standing ovation. and he was truly humble and genuine throughout. probably the best nerd-moment of my life thus far!

[MinionZombie]

Sounds like it was a great experience, Prof - nice one. :thumbsup::)

[ProfessorChaos]

well, it was, until they started the film itself. if i recall, they said it was a 35mm print, which i'm assuming is pretty sharp and clear, or is supposed to be, at least. the picture was very grainy and choppy, which i guess is kinda neat given that's how it must have looked in theaters decades ago, but after sitting on my couch and watching the blu-ray (which is crystal clear), it was sort of disappointing. and the aspect ratio(?, i think this is the term i'm looking for, not even close to a film major or anything) was incorrect for the screen, as many scenes had the actors heads chopped off and all you could see was from their shoulders down, particularly the scenes leading up to the attempted truck escape....and the audio was crappy.

still neat to see it on the big screen, but it didn't look/sound nearly as good as it does on the millennium dvd or blu-ray.

[MinionZombie]

well, it was, until they started the film itself. if i recall, they said it was a 35mm print, which i'm assuming is pretty sharp and clear, or is supposed to be, at least. the picture was very grainy and choppy, which i guess is kinda neat given that's how it must have looked in theaters decades ago, but after sitting on my couch and watching the blu-ray (which is crystal clear), it was sort of disappointing. and the aspect ratio(?, i think this is the term i'm looking for, not even close to a film major or anything) was incorrect for the screen, as many scenes had the actors heads chopped off and all you could see was from their shoulders down, particularly the scenes leading up to the attempted truck escape....and the audio was crappy.

still neat to see it on the big screen, but it didn't look/sound nearly as good as it does on the millennium dvd or blu-ray.

Yeah, prints are always going to be a bit scruffy, particularly for an old film. During my time at uni we watched many films on archive prints - something I've grown to appreciate more as the years have passed - so I got to see films like The Maltese Falcon on a 35mm restored print. Naturally my DVD copy that I bought soon after looked and sounded better, but there is a certain feel that you get from a print - kind of like seeing an actual Picasso, rather than a photograph in a book, you know?

As for the presentation - hmmm - it almost sounds like it was the projectionist's fault - as if they didn't know what they were doing when it comes to framing, or using the correct lens on the projector ... I'm not versed in the ins and outs of projection - but it certainly sounds like someone buggered that one up. Did nobody complain and seek to get it fixed? :confused:

[ProfessorChaos]

^

nope, nobody really said anything, but there was one reel that was totally off-kilter and damn near half-way cut off, but that was fixed within a few minutes, and the audience immediately began applauding.

i rewatched the blu-ray the other day though, and i couldn't stop thinking that it's such a shame they had such a crappy copy to show on such a special occasion. i understand the novelty and nostalgia factor, but c'mon it's the 21st century and there are way better quality-viewing options out there.

[Philly_SWAT]

It was very cool to see this GAR Q&A!

The thing I found most interesting was his assertion that in Land he was going for "remembered behavior" as opposed to "learning". That seems to have some bearing on past discussions where some members on this board were arguing that the zombies were 'evolving' in land. At the least, clearly that was not the intent.

[MinionZombie]

It was very cool to see this GAR Q&A!

The thing I found most interesting was his assertion that in Land he was going for "remembered behavior" as opposed to "learning". That seems to have some bearing on past discussions where some members on this board were arguing that the zombies were 'evolving' in land. At the least, clearly that was not the intent.

Aye, I found that interesting too ... from what I remember though, that message was never quite so clearly and succinctly delivered when the movie was first being put out there. Nevertheless, it's cool to know precisely what his intention was in that regard ... although at the same time it's not strictly the truth in all instances during the movie - e.g. Big Daddy giving a gun to #9, although on the other hand she's not much cop with a shooter IIRC. I suppose people in general would be familiar with guns - particularly in America - so their zombie counterpart would potentially be able to recognise what it was and the basic function of one (and which end to point vaguely where), but they'd not know the proper operation of such a weapon as a former untrained civilian.

I think the 'zombies with guns' angle was balanced just perfectly in Day of the Dead ... it's a bit wobbly in Land, less effective in some ways (e.g. Bub hunting down Rhodes was a fantastic sequence), and while I always have enjoyed Land of the Dead, it could have used a few tweaks here and there to just improve a few things. :)

[bassman]

I don't seem to remember hearing that Riley was supposed to be a black man in Land. That's interesting. Also very upsetting that Universal is still thinking in those terms.

[MinionZombie]

I don't seem to remember hearing that Riley was supposed to be a black man in Land. That's interesting. Also very upsetting that Universal is still thinking in those terms.

Aye! :stunned:

I was quite taken aback by that ... and Hollywood has a reputation for being so 'socially liberal' ... well, perhaps more the artists, rather than the money men, but still ... wtf was/is up with that? :rockbrow::(

[Philly_SWAT]

Aye! :stunned:

I was quite taken aback by that ... and Hollywood has a reputation for being so 'socially liberal' ... well, perhaps more the artists, rather than the money men, but still ... wtf was/is up with that? :rockbrow::(

I took it not that they didnt want a black lead because they were racist, but because past experience showed they would make less money on the movie, especially internationally. I am sure if black leads meant more at the box office, then studios would want all the male leads to be black. So I think Universal was interested in the only thing movie studios are ever worried about, and thats the bottom line.

[bassman]

I took it not that they didnt want a black lead because they were racist, but because past experience showed they would make less money on the movie, especially internationally. I am sure if black leads meant more at the box office, then studios would want all the male leads to be black. So I think Universal was interested in the only thing movie studios are ever worried about, and thats the bottom line.

Well of course, but at the same time they were also pushing for "Night of the Living Dead" to be in the title. Which as we all know, features a black lead.

[krakenslayer]

I took it not that they didnt want a black lead because they were racist, but because past experience showed they would make less money on the movie, especially internationally. I am sure if black leads meant more at the box office, then studios would want all the male leads to be black. So I think Universal was interested in the only thing movie studios are ever worried about, and thats the bottom line.

I see what you're saying, but if the studio refuses to cast a black man in a role written for a black man, just because he is a black man, then the end result is still more or less racist. It's a black guy being denied a job because of his race. It's on the same lines as a landlord refusing to rent his apartment to black people, not because he hates black people, but because he thinks having minorities live there might force property prices down. It's racism driven by a profit motive, as opposed to hatred, but racism nonetheless.