George Romero Comments on Dawn '04 [Archive]

Khardis

27-Oct-2006, 04:26 PM

commercial success is now the barometer for artistic genius?

The Back-door Boys were WAY more commercially successful than Jimi Hendrix for example... Hendrix is a God, the Backstreet Boys are a GAP commercial...

Same with Romero compared to Snyder

I think your comparision is a little lame and it doesnt hold much water. Dawn 04 was commercially successful because it is an enjoyable horror film to watch.

Land flopped because it was a trite pretentious boring political tirade. The 1 saving grace is that Nicotero was there to keep it afloat. Other than that the film was a waste of time.

And who says the Backstreet Boys vs hendrix suck? I dont understand, who made you the final vote in whats considered good music vs what is not? Maybe the reason the BSB are commercially successful is because thier music (although not my favorite) is more mainstream acceptable. Ya know just because something is Indy or Cult doesnt means its actually more artistically genius. It just means it wasnt interesting enough at the time for investors to want to put money in. But I assume you think something like Lord of the Rings was a big piece of talentless crap too right? I mean it was well funded by Hollywood and all that.

First....I'm not a "fanboy"
Second, whether a film is a comedy or a horror makes no difference as long as it's original.
Third, (again) Yawn '04 was NOT "successful" it was accepted.
Fourth, Land did not "fail".
:rolleyes:

Yes it does matter, just because you dont want it to is irrelevant. GAR wont say anyhting nice about Dawn 04 because its a horror movie that performs better than his latest film which was garbage. 2nd Dawn 04 was successful, deal with it. 4th Land was a flop, in essence is failed. Deal with it. Come to grips.

Neil

27-Oct-2006, 04:31 PM

It was an action movie? A Video game? No George, it wasnt. If it was, then youre pretentious flop "Land of the dead" was a political ad. Its like the guy cant stand that someone elses zombie film was more successful commercially than his. I understand the title and concepts were ripped off, but George, its time to evolve baby.

http://www.homepageofthedead.com/baps/dawn2004.html

Land was far from perfect, but I'd hardly call Dawn 04 "evolved". It was shallow and it's only real merit was some of its action (most of the first 15 minutes was pretty good).

Personally I'd rather have less action and more plot and character than psychic ninja zombies that somehow know when to be quiet etc...

ps: Regarding the first 15 mins of Dawn 04... It of couse had a sex scene, which typically IMHO is an indication of poor writing. Oh look these characters really love each other cos they shag - Very weak!

coma

27-Oct-2006, 04:53 PM

Shaun of the dead was a comedy. not a horror film. and Dawn 04 was successful and probably one of the reasons why he was able to garner enough interest in doing more projects of his own.

And like I said if Dawn 04 was an action/video game then Land was a trite and pretentious political ad for the Democrats. Boooooring, I guess thats why it failed. Why is it so hard for fanboys to see this?

Someone asked his OPINION and he answered it. GAR can't give his Opinion? You seem to have no problem doing so and no one remade YOUR classic.

Its not like he said 'Its sucked". He said Zach did a pretty good job, but it lost its meaning and it's not his cup of tea. I wouldn't call it slagging.
And because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a fanboy. Honestly, you're the one doing the fanboy ranting here."If you don't agree with me, you must live in your mom's basement and drink jolt all day". C'mon, dude.:rolleyes:

The political references were heavy handed, but if your surprised at an artist being a humanist, you don't know too many.

Btw, I almost forgot,
Thanks for the post. would love to see more!

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 04:55 PM

...... if your surprised at an artist being a humanist, you don't know too many.

no truer words have ever been typed.:D

capncnut

27-Oct-2006, 05:22 PM

And because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a fanboy. Honestly, you're the one doing the fanboy ranting here.

You took the words right out of my mouth Coma.

DjfunkmasterG

27-Oct-2006, 06:25 PM

Well he didn't say it sucked. It just isn't his cup of tea. But he admitted Zack did a good job with it. So from the man himself the remake doesn't suck. Just not his style. Yet what i find Ironic is there was more character development in DAWN 04 than there was in LAND.

:moon: :lol:

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 06:30 PM

....what i find Ironic is there was more character development in DAWN 04 than there was in LAND.

ok, friend......please elaborate...because I fould (wtf is a "fould"??? I meant found) Yawn '04 boring and predictable. Land, I'll admit, I enjoyed because I am a GAR fan.....but, Yawn '04.....one scene stands out in my mind.......Sarah Polley's foot:D

Khardis

27-Oct-2006, 07:13 PM

http://www.homepageofthedead.com/baps/dawn2004.html

Land was far from perfect, but I'd hardly call Dawn 04 "evolved". It was shallow and it's only real merit was some of its action (most of the first 15 minutes was pretty good).

Personally I'd rather have less action and more plot and character than psychic ninja zombies that somehow know when to be quiet etc...

ps: Regarding the first 15 mins of Dawn 04... It of couse had a sex scene, which typically IMHO is an indication of poor writing. Oh look these characters really love each other cos they shag - Very weak!

LOL We agree on Land being far form perfect, far far faaaaaar. But Dawn is "evolved" in terms of contemporary themes and pacing. Land belongs in art school in the 70s when people were still callng the government "the man" which is basically what GAR is stuck in. The 60s/70's.

And I dont recall a SINGLE psychic ninja zombie in Dawn maybe you can point me to it.

I do recall however years old zombies working together as the good guys to defeat the evil humans in the mind puke that Land was.

And whats wrong with Sex scenes? Would you prefer that they spent 20 minutes explaining the 2 characters relationship? maybe if GAR showed more action and had less boring preaching about politics in his film it wouldnt have flopped.

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 07:16 PM

Yes it does matter, just because you dont want it to is irrelevant. GAR wont say anyhting nice about Dawn 04 because its a horror movie that performs better than his latest film which was garbage. 2nd Dawn 04 was successful, deal with it. 4th Land was a flop, in essence is failed. Deal with it. Come to grips.

Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put 'em together and what have you got
bippity-boppity-boo

Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
It'll do magic believe it or not
bippity-boppity-boo

Salagadoola means mechicka booleroo
But the thingmabob that does the job is
bippity-boppity-boo

Salagadoola menchicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo
Put 'em together and what have you got
bippity-boppity bippity-boppity bippity-boppity-boo

Khardis

27-Oct-2006, 07:16 PM

Someone asked his OPINION and he answered it. GAR can't give his Opinion? You seem to have no problem doing so and no one remade YOUR classic.

Its not like he said 'Its sucked". He said Zach did a pretty good job, but it lost its meaning and it's not his cup of tea. I wouldn't call it slagging.
And because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a fanboy. Honestly, you're the one doing the fanboy ranting here."If you don't agree with me, you must live in your mom's basement and drink jolt all day". C'mon, dude.:rolleyes:

The political references were heavy handed, but if your surprised at an artist being a humanist, you don't know too many.

Btw, I almost forgot,
Thanks for the post. would love to see more!

Can you please show me where I said that if you disagree with me youre a fan boy, likewise please show me where I said GAR wasnt entitled to his opinion? I simply stated that his opinion seems a little absurd considering his own film. He wants to somehow say that Dawn wasnt horror, which is rubbish. GAR is just being a bit egocentric in that sense because someone elses zombie film did better than his. So I said that if that film was a video game then GARs wasnt horror either, its a boring political ad. You cant have it both ways.

And I dont blame an artist for being anything. But if GAR wants to disparage other peoples work because they wont follow HIS rules then he should at least attempt to make a decent horror film 1st, then worry about finding his themes. The guy made a movie around his politics. The movie flopped. Case closed.

You took the words right out of my mouth Coma.

Who am I a fanboy of? I am not the one proclaming that GAR is the end all and be all of Zombie horror. I am his fan sure, but I wont turn a blind eye to his numerous mistakes.

backstreet boys, yeah, we'll see if they're considered gods 40 years from now...

it's all about making something great from nothing...

I got called a fanboy, yet I am not the one who considers GAR a "god". How ironic.

MikePizzoff

27-Oct-2006, 07:20 PM

Bravo, Georgie boy!

Khardis

27-Oct-2006, 07:20 PM

Land, I'll admit, I enjoyed because I am a GAR fan.....but,

I thought you said youre not a fanboy? I went ot see the film because I am a GAR fan, but I couldnt bring myself to like it because it simply sucked. That makes me a fan... liking a movie only because its made by someone and not on the films merit reeks of fanboydom.

Moon Knight

27-Oct-2006, 07:22 PM

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 07:23 PM

Khardis

27-Oct-2006, 07:29 PM

Okay, Land was a flop. Well, so was Day of the Dead. In fact, many hated that flick upon release. I admit, I like Dawn 04, I went in not expecting much cause the original is my Favorite movie of all time. However, I did find it entertaining and so did many others, that's why it was a success. I hate running zombies and that dumbass screetch for moaning, but it was a mindless action flick that is fun to watch, but it aint my cup of tea. :D

Land of the Dead is missing so much that i loved from GAR films but it still is not a horrible movie like some say it is.

So yeah, I agree with GAR's comments 100% :skull:

Day was a flop sorta, this is true. But dont forget it wasnt backed by a major studio either.

Ok, listen,....(or read)....Fan and "fanboy" are two different things.
Next,.....shhhh, go play...you bore me.

Yes I know...

Fan = someone who can appreciate the work AND be critical of it.

Fanboy = someone who sees all criticism of said artists work as offensive to them personally, and that said artist is perfect and can make no real big mistakes and if people do not like his work, its because they do not understand it to the same scope that the fanboy does.

Which one sounds like you and which one sounds like me?

For boredom you should watch Dawn 04 and give it a chance, while not perfect it is a very fun film to watch. I wouldnt suggest land though you may fall asleep, I have a number of times when watching it. Although I must admit it was mostly later at night so that may have been a factor.

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 07:49 PM

For boredom you should watch Dawn 04 and give it a chance, while not perfect it is a very fun film to watch. I wouldnt suggest land though you may fall asleep, I have a number of times when watching it. Although I must admit it was mostly later at night so that may have been a factor.

Dude, I am a Manos: Hands of Fate (non MST3K) owner - oh, and may I mention, a KILLDOZER owner!!!!
Oh, also, "the Terror of Tiny Town"
I can, and WILL laugh at any and everything!!
Funny thing, I LOVE theam all. I hate no movie.

EDIT: I tried to change the word "them" 5 times. Deal with it!

coma

27-Oct-2006, 09:06 PM

Can you please show me where I said that if you disagree with me youre a fan boy, likewise please show me where I said GAR wasnt entitled to his opinion? I simply stated that his opinion seems a little absurd considering his own film. He wants to somehow say that Dawn wasnt horror, which is rubbish. GAR is just being a bit egocentric in that sense because someone elses zombie film did better than his. So I said that if that film was a video game then GARs wasnt horror either, its a boring political ad. You cant have it both ways.

And I dont blame an artist for being anything. But if GAR wants to disparage other peoples work because they wont follow HIS rules then he should at least attempt to make a decent horror film 1st, then worry about finding his themes. The guy made a movie around his politics. The movie flopped. Case closed.

Who am I a fanboy of? I am not the one proclaming that GAR is the end all and be all of Zombie horror. I am his fan sure, but I wont turn a blind eye to his numerous mistakes.

I got called a fanboy, yet I am not the one who considers GAR a "god". How ironic.

Shaun of the dead was a comedy. not a horror film. and Dawn 04 was successful and probably one of the reasons why he was able to garner enough interest in doing more projects of his own.

And like I said if Dawn 04 was an action/video game then Land was a trite and pretentious political ad for the Democrats. Boooooring, I guess thats why it failed. Why is it so hard for fanboys to see this?
If I believe that Dawn04 was a shallow Action Film ( I do) and Not a Shill for the Democratic party (I dont) I (nad others) are fanboys. I see that in the context of "if you cannot see this, you are a mouthbreathing fanboy spaz". All right, I paraphrased:) . It seemed that was was you were saying, and on rereading, it still does.

I dont think Land flopped. It just wasn't a hit. I dont care if the whole world hated it. I liked it, flaws and all. I love Day and NOBODY saw it. I saw it twice in its original run and there was a total of 20 other people in both showings, but it wasnt promoted either. Neither was NOTLD 90, which I wasnt aware of in its release (damn!).

He didnt disparage the film. He just said that it wasn't his taste. You cant get any milder than that.

I've been watching his films for about 35 years. If he makes a mistep here and there I'm not going to say he blows. Anybody who makes films that I can see 80-90 times is not a God, but superior to most as far as my TASTE and OPINION are concerned. People cant hate Land all they want, in doesn't change my opionion or lessen my enjoyment of it. I, as mentioned, didnt lkike the hamhanded popltical commenteary either. Or Big Daddy. I guess that takes me out of fanboy territory, but merely a drooling geek:D

Neil

27-Oct-2006, 10:06 PM

Shaun of the dead was a comedy. not a horror film.

The interesting thing is, I found some of SotD darker and more thought provoking than Dawn04. Dawn04, was a good film, but just a little too shallow for me.

coma

27-Oct-2006, 10:16 PM

The interesting thing is, I found some of SotD darker and more thought provoking than Dawn04. Dawn04, was a good film, but just a little too shallow for me.
I agree. Particularly in that I really didn't want them to die. I actualy felt bad when Ed got bit. I thought the ending was pretty intense for that reason. The characterisation was broad and subtle at the same time. Not easy.
Those are some talented guys, I think they could make any kind of film well.

Adrenochrome

27-Oct-2006, 10:17 PM

I agree. Particularly in that I really didn't want them to die. I actualy felt bad when Ed got bit. I thought the ending was pretty intense for that reason. The characterisation was broad and subtle at the same time. Not easy.
Those are some talented guys, I think they could make any kind of film well.

The scene where Shaun had to shoot his mom.......man!...intense!!!

TwoGunBob

27-Oct-2006, 10:19 PM

Interesting opines to be sure. Really both films suffered from paper thin characters and plot holes you could drive an armored bus or converted Landmaster from Damnation Alley through.
Yes, Dawn of the Dead was a shallow action fest with little concern for characterization.
Yes, Land of the Dead had such heavy handed symbolism you felt like Romero himself was sitting behind you in the theater hitting you in the back of the head with a hammer.
Both films could have been much, much better but they could have been far worse as well.
Well, I think Land is truly the bottom of Romero's bucket and proof positive the guy doesn't work well with big studios but that's just me.

zombievsshark

27-Oct-2006, 10:45 PM

it's like a bunch of siblings fighting for approval from their father in this thread.

GAR has his take on things, if they are not in line with what you think the world isn't going to end....and it doesn't make him evil or wrong or stupid.

In fact the Dead series in the end was partly about tolerance and acceptance of different people and being rational in the face of irrationality. CALM....RATIONAL...things the internet needs help with.

Danny

27-Oct-2006, 11:20 PM

it's like a bunch of siblings fighting for approval from their father in this thread.

couldnt have said better meself, when it comes to choosing one particular film or book or wahtever over another its about 90% certain that you'll get a flame war, especially bout dawn 04' or land of the dead, but sadly its inevitable and when one stops another starts, which when you consider the age gaps between some flamers it is really sad.

as for georges view i agree with what he said in fangoria a while back that the first 15 minutes were great but it tapered out after that, that and the bloody a team monatage with the buses, that was just wrong.

coma

27-Oct-2006, 11:50 PM

couldnt have said better meself, when it comes to choosing one particular film or book or wahtever over another its about 90% certain that you'll get a flame war, especially bout dawn 04' or land of the dead, but sadly its inevitable and when one stops another starts, which when you consider the age gaps between some flamers it is really sad.

as for georges view i agree with what he said in fangoria a while back that the first 15 minutes were great but it tapered out after that, that and the bloody a team monatage with the buses, that was just wrong.
I didnt think this was a flame war, for the most part.
And by refering to the age gaps between "flamers" Are you refering to us mid 30s Plus fellas? That we are immature? If you are you will find that the main difference between being 19 and in your mid 30s is better dick control but the sad paradox of being less horny.:) . And possibly a deeper existential angst reinforced less by hormones and more by reality:)

Danny

28-Oct-2006, 12:11 AM

coma

28-Oct-2006, 12:30 AM

im not aiming at anyone in particular its just that this forum has a pretty varied age of its members and its just wierd that you get people who are like 35 bitchin with people in the early 20's, if you saw that kind of thing on the street it'd just be wierd, and when it comes to dawn and land its an argument with no winners or end, hence the reason it keeps coming up.
I would say thats one of the cool things about the internet.
and 35 aint dead. Somepeople are old at 25 and some people keep enjoying life.
I think adrenos song was pretty damn funny btw.
If I saw any 2 people arguing about that stuff on the street I would think it was wierd, but cool. Better than 10 dicks on the subway have 10 different conversations on those dumb ass walkie talkies talking about the shoes they're wearing to the "club" tonight.
When I was 18, 19 I thought 25 was old. When you get older you see that people aren't that different.
And also I point out that some of you younger fella have no idea what it was like for the years before the internet when you had NO ONE to discuss this stuff with. We used to travel hours to see a movie. I never take places like this for granted. I still regularly think "wow. the internets is really cool"
I think thats why many people my age here are soooo enthusiastic.
I act the way I want. I think age restrictions on discourse and levels of fun are dumb and you'll feel that way too when your my age. I guarantee it.

Maybe the inverse is you young whippersnappers not knowing your place:D

DjfunkmasterG

28-Oct-2006, 12:42 AM

I thought you said youre not a fanboy? I went ot see the film because I am a GAR fan, but I couldnt bring myself to like it because it simply sucked. That makes me a fan... liking a movie only because its made by someone and not on the films merit reeks of fanboydom.

This will be the single and only time we probably agree.

I wrote a scathing review of Land 2 days before it opened wide and was chewed out pretty bad about by a friend in the production. He said I thought you were a fan... My reply was because I am fan and appreciate the mans work over the year is the reason I am telling you it sucks. That wasn't a George Romero zombie film... I don't know what that was. As a fan i feel i should be honest and not blow smoke up someone's ass and praise a film I felt took his trademark zombie legacy down to a sub-par level.

I am eager to see Diary, I don't like the premise, but he is working out of the studio system and that alone is enough for me to have hope for Diary. However, if it sucks I will voice my opinion loud & clear.

I guess I am astickler for his under the radar style of filmmaking. When you don't have the $$$ at your disposal you have to be more creative, and with LAND he pretty much had Cartre Blanche. Take the man back to his WINO's wallet he did his best stuff then.

Danny

28-Oct-2006, 02:47 AM

I would say thats one of the cool things about the internet.
and 35 aint dead. Somepeople are old at 25 and some people keep enjoying life.
I think adrenos song was pretty damn funny btw.
If I saw any 2 people arguing about that stuff on the street I would think it was wierd, but cool. Better than 10 dicks on the subway have 10 different conversations on those dumb ass walkie talkies talking about the shoes they're wearing to the "club" tonight.
When I was 18, 19 I thought 25 was old. When you get older you see that people aren't that different.
And also I point out that some of you younger fella have no idea what it was like for the years before the internet when you had NO ONE to discuss this stuff with. We used to travel hours to see a movie. I never take places like this for granted. I still regularly think "wow. the internets is really cool"
I think thats why many people my age here are soooo enthusiastic.
I act the way I want. I think age restrictions on discourse and levels of fun are dumb and you'll feel that way too when your my age. I guarantee it.

Maybe the inverse is you young whippersnappers not knowing your place:D

you raise at least 3 or 4 very good points there i gotta admit, life before forums *shudders* now thats a scary thought.
thats like thinking about back in the 90's when you had just VHS so you got no film extras.:skull:

Griff

28-Oct-2006, 09:05 AM

Land flopped because it was a trite pretentious boring political tirade.

Pretentious? Boring? Tirade? You'd know all about that.

Jesus, could Romero have given a more humble, polite and sincere response? The man is a class act all the way.

Yessir, a few people around here could learn a thing or two from our man George.

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 02:57 PM

Pretentious? Boring? Tirade? You'd know all about that.

Jesus, could Romero have given a more humble, polite and sincere response? The man is a class act all the way.

Yessir, a few people around here could learn a thing or two from our man George.

Yeah. It was pure class to call the film an action videogame. That wasnt arrogance of any kind.Stop being a fanboy.

Mikey

28-Oct-2006, 03:47 PM

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 04:00 PM

jesus, i'm sick of hearing that faggot word fan-boy

It applies unfortunatly to some people here.

Adrenochrome

28-Oct-2006, 04:24 PM

It applies unfortunatly to some people here.

Kid, here's a bit of advice for you.....give the "fanboy bitching" a rest, or, move on to some other forum where people actually give a rat's ass about your weak attempt at opinions.
You've become very pretentious and boring, yourself.

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 04:44 PM

Kid, here's a bit of advice for you.....give the "fanboy bitching" a rest, or, move on to some other forum where people actually give a rat's ass about your weak attempt at opinions.
You've become very pretentious and boring, yourself.

I see you still have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. And calling me kid, then pretentious is ironic, dont you think? Heres an idea, if you dont like dissenting opinions, ignore them. Or keep going the way youre going for another ban. up to you son.

Adrenochrome

28-Oct-2006, 04:49 PM

I see you still have nothing constructive to add to the conversation. And calling me kid, then pretentious is ironic, dont you think? Heres an idea, if you dont like dissenting opinions, ignore them. Or keep going the way youre going for another ban. up to you son.

riiiiiiiiiiiiight.:lol:

http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Smell_Ya_Later-T-link.jpg

coma

28-Oct-2006, 06:12 PM

you raise at least 3 or 4 very good points there i gotta admit, life before forums *shudders* now thats a scary thought.
thats like thinking about back in the 90's when you had just VHS so you got no film extras.:skull:
I was thinking more of before 85/86 when a VCR was 250 dollars (A LOT of money), a tape was 50/100 bucks to buy (Betamax often) and a video Rental place charged 50 bucks plus just to get a card (not a deposit). So most people didn't have one. You would see a tiny ad in the newspaper for , say. Driller Killer, and you'd travel really really far to some awful neighborhood. Sticky Floors and Bums etc. If the Movie sucked you'd get super Pissed. There was Only Famous Monsters Magazine (basically sucky) before Fango (which used to rule). Forget learning about Ameteur film. You'd pick up bits and pieces and just experiment with the makeup and end up with weird rashes. 2 minuts of Super 8 was like 25 bucks with processing and sometimes youd have to mail it away. IF someone blew a take you'd wanna beat them brain damaged.
Off topic and I sound old like Abe Simpson
"Back them we used to carry an onion in our pocket, cause that was the fashion, y'know."

I think GAR is very gracious, cause I bet you he actually dislikes Dawn04 it but is loath to be rude and disparaging. Land wasn't awseome, but to me it's just a Bonus. He wasn't going to make anymore. I dont really consider it part of the trilogy. Its too different.

DeadCentral

28-Oct-2006, 06:51 PM

coma

28-Oct-2006, 07:13 PM

I think some are not using the word pretentious correctly, so I offer a definition
pre·ten·tious Pronunciation (pr-tnshs)
adj.
1. Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.
2. Making or marked by an extravagant outward show; ostentatious. See Synonyms at showy.
pre·tentious·ly adv.
pre·tentious·ness n.
ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj. 1. pretentious - making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction; "a pretentious country house"; "a pretentious fraud"; "a pretentious scholarly edition"
in poor taste, tasteless - lacking aesthetic or social taste
unpretentious - lacking pretension or affectation; "an unpretentious country church"; "her quiet unpretentious demeanor"
2. pretentious - intended to attract notice and impress others; "an ostentatious sable coat"
ostentatious
3. pretentious - of a display that is tawdry or vulgar

So GAR did not act
In poor taste
and he is totally deserving of recognition
He makes small films that are elevated ABOVE their status
No the other way around.
And the "Aw Shucks" attitude is the opposite of pretentious. And I never heard him claim to be anything other than a guy who makes movies.

Danny

28-Oct-2006, 07:14 PM

"irony":rolleyes:

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 08:10 PM

Khardis you are a character , 25 yrs old and calling a 40 yr old "son"...that's classic!! pretentious and arrogant as well....
You're opinion is duly noted, but true fans of Georges films respect the man for bring the genre to fruition, ...where would hacks like Zack Snyder,James Gunn or even the new Day remake writer Jeffrey Reddick & Steve Minor be without Georges films to base their weakly pathetic remakes on???
think about it, all these zombie films ...they are based on the mans work...not original ideas, so yes, the man can afford to be pretentious and/or arrogant ...he's earned the right, what can you & all these other wannabe's claim???
Have they brought anything new ?? NO, they've indulged themselves on predetermined ideas developed by another groundbreaking film maker some 40 years ago....
Fanboys my ass..... grow up kid.

I respect GAR's early work. I am a fan. I however realize that he has lost his touch. I think its because he listend to all his fanboys and started making films that only appealed to some 50,000 people world wide. His hard core base of fanboys. He may have started the genre (sorta, he didnt invent the ghoul, the ghoul is a longstanding tradition going back to the 1800s) but he hasnt evolved well. Instead of just making a good horror movie he wants to preach and preen at people politically. Which makes his films seem like the idle ravings of an aging man who is angry at life.

If GAR is unable to carry on in what he invented then others will, rightfully so. I will reserve final judgement though for when I see his next film. It seems like he is ignoring the fanboys and going back to what the rest of us want to see. If he ditches the political tirade too I will be glad. If he doesnt, he is basically finished. He will just have to eek out a living selling autographs and insulting other more active peoples work.

GAR, love your earlier work man, but c'mon... knock it off make horror films, not political or social crap. We go to the movies to see horror movies, not listen to you yell at us about how evil "the man" is.

Neil

28-Oct-2006, 08:59 PM

capncnut

28-Oct-2006, 09:37 PM

If GAR is unable to carry on in what he invented then others will, rightfully so. I will reserve final judgement though for when I see his next film. It seems like he is ignoring the fanboys and going back to what the rest of us want to see. If he ditches the political tirade too I will be glad. If he doesnt, he is basically finished. He will just have to eek out a living selling autographs and insulting other more active peoples work.

Sorry to be crude but that is the biggest load of old horse testicles I've ever read in my life! Have you actually followed this man's career? Have you ever studied his early works? Do you have any idea how political and social those films are? You sound like to me (no offense 'cos you're probably a nice guy) a little child throwing your dummy out of the pram because you want movies made your way. Who are you to say GAR will be finished if he doesn't make a movie you like? I'm not gonna get on my box and preach that Land is perfect because it's not, but it touched a lot of people and most of us 'genuine' fans are at least thankful he tried. As long as those early movies exist then GAR will always have a career, he will always have a following and he will always earn the right to slag off other peoples work just like you are doing now. George has made a few 'par' movies in his time and it's not done his career any damage so far has it? The above post was the least constructive I've ever read on a website dedicated to GAR's work, shame on you! :(

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 10:09 PM

Kardis, what on earth is this "political tirade" of Romero's you keep mentioning (almost as often as you use the word "fanboy")?

Land supposedly may have had some parallels, but if it was there, it was subtle.

Listen to Lands commentary track and youll hear George say it himself.

"This is supposed to be the Bush administration" etc etc. George doesnt like conservatives its pretty obvious watching the film.

Adrenochrome

28-Oct-2006, 10:23 PM

Sorry to be crude but that is the biggest load of old horse testicles I've ever read in my life! Have you actually followed this man's career? Have you ever studied his early works? Do you have any idea how political and social those films are? You sound like to me (no offense 'cos you're probably a nice guy) a little child throwing your dummy out of the pram because you want movies made your way. Who are you to say GAR will be finished if he doesn't make a movie you like? I'm not gonna get on my box and preach that Land is perfect because it's not, but it touched a lot of people and most of us 'genuine' fans are at least thankful he tried. As long as those early movies exist then GAR will always have a career, he will always have a following and he will always earn the right to slag off other peoples work just like you are doing now. George has made a few 'par' movies in his time and it's not done his career any damage so far has it? The above post was the least constructive I've ever read on a website dedicated to GAR's work, shame on you! :(

Don't let this Khardis kid get to you. He's already pissed off (alsmost) everyone here, his kind never last long.

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 10:26 PM

Sorry to be crude but that is the biggest load of old horse testicles I've ever read in my life! Have you actually followed this man's career? Have you ever studied his early works?

Why is it horse testcles? Because you dont like it? Yes I have followed his career, from Night of the Flesheaters to Land of the Dead. I own nearly everything he has put out. And I have met him in person and have several autographs from him amoung other horror icons. Feel better now? now that you know we are on equal foooting knowledge wise we can skip my credentials yeah?

Do you have any idea how political and social those films are?

Frankly I dont see it. I see a little bit, as is to be expected ANYTIME you make ANY story... but Night, and Dawn and even Day I would say there was no intentional inserting of themes. The "satire" was introduced by diehard fans who refused to just accept the movies are movies. They had to keep digging until they came up with silly theories. George, not expecting the fame went with it. listen to his old Laserdisc commentaries. He ADMITTED that the satire etc that people found was accidental. In Land and Bruiser he intentionally built a movie arond themes instead of building a movie with themes in it. Both films were giant flops. Coincidence? I think not.

You sound like to me (no offense 'cos you're probably a nice guy) a little child throwing your dummy out of the pram because you want movies made your way.

You mean I want him to make movies that are good? Guilty as charged. Why cant he just follow the OLD formula he used in the 70s and 80s when he made films to make films and not to make points? Those films were good films.

Who are you to say GAR will be finished if he doesn't make a movie you like?

I am a fan. A REAL fan. Definition? A real fan is not a yes man. A real fan is not afraid to say, hey George, I am a fan, but your last film was pure garbage. A Fanboy is someone who will find a reason for every film the man makes is genius regardless of if the film was crap or not.

I'm not gonna get on my box and preach that Land is perfect because it's not, but it touched a lot of people and most of us 'genuine' fans are at least thankful he tried.

This is why I call some of you fanboys. See what I am talking about? Apparently I cant be a geniuine fan unless I love every little thing he does. This is absurd. I am thankful he TRIED, yes. I am however not thankful that he made a substandard film. Land was an embarrassment. I shudder to put it into my DVD collection with the other GAR films. It almost doesnt seem worthy. Why does this anger some of you people? THe film was simply crap.

As long as those early movies exist then GAR will always have a career, he will always have a following and he will always earn the right to slag off other peoples work just like you are doing now.

Well, thats not entirely true now is it? He didnt make many films in the 90s because noone wanted to fund him. The only reason he GOT funding was because a sudden surge of interest in Horror films like Dawn 04 or Texas Chainsaw massacre. GAR even admitted this on the either Land or Day commentary track. If he cant find any more funding because his films dont make money and they keep flopping anticipate another decade without him making anything, except now that he is getting older a decade might not be too kind to us in terms of his own mortality. Also you say he gets to slag other peoples films and yet anyone who slags his obvious flops are somehow idiots and wrong? irony?

George has made a few 'par' movies in his time and it's not done his career any damage so far has it? The above post was the least constructive I've ever read on a website dedicated to GAR's work, shame on you! :(

George has made nothing but "par" movies since he began commercially anyway. However for those of us who love horror films and s ci fi films many of them are great. And the really bad flops he made contributed to 10 year gaps between productions. if thats not damage I dont know what is. I dont think he could take another 10 year gap, he'll be what 70 or 80?

And who are you to judge my posts as being constructive? Maybe if you could look at things constructively youd see I have excellent points that are largely ignored by people saying things like:

"OMG LYKE IF U DONT LIKE LAND U R A IDIOT LOLZ"

That may not have been said, but its the general gist of what I have seen.
I havent even seen 1 single person say anything good about Land other than "well it wasnt TOO bad" I mean my god... this is its best compliment?

GARs comments about Dawn 04 were reprehensible, smug, arrogant and absurd. I think he needs to stop listening to the fan boys and start listening to his fans. Because the big head he is forming is making his work suffer.

Again, if Dawn04 was an action movie (an arrogant claim that it wasnt horror) then Land was a political ad and not a horror film. You dont get to have it both ways. Sorry.

coma

28-Oct-2006, 10:27 PM

Listen to Lands commentary track and youll hear George say it himself.

"This is supposed to be the Bush administration" etc etc. George doesnt like conservatives its pretty obvious watching the film.

What a surprise, a foward thinking artist who doesn't appreciate the folks who would rather have him never had him make a film.:rolleyes:
Rambo films and much of Arnold films are a love song to thr right wing and I never hear anybody complain about them, because if they agree, it A OK.

Almost All of his films are social commentary. It's what gives them so much depth. Almost every great film ever made is a social commentary. Which includes Relationships, Politics, Class. If it was only about Zombie action it would be....
A Snyder film:p

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 10:28 PM

Don't let this Khardis kid get to you. He's already pissed off (alsmost) everyone here, his kind never last long.

Werent you recently banned?

And I seem to be pissing off fanboys. Yes I will give you that. But thats ok, us real fans who dont have our blockers on will keep hammering the logic home until you "get it".

You have done nothing but attack me personally, I assume this is the reason for your banning. You dont even offer constructive criticism of my points, just ad hom attack me, as a "kid" or an "idiot". If you're indeed 40, I can only assume you must have never grown up or we become less mature in our middle age.

What a surprise, a foward thinking artist who doesn't appreciate the folks who would rather have him never had him make a film.:rolleyes:
Rambo films and much of Arnold films are a love song to thr right wing and I never hear anybody complain about them, because if they agree, it A OK.

Almost All of his films are social commentary. It's what gives them so much depth. Almost every great film ever made is a social commentary. Which includes Relationships, Politics, Class. If it was only about Zombie action it would be....
A Snyder film:p

Again, youre mistaken. He admitted that the social commentary and satire were accidental. HIS words. not mine.

And as per the conservatives dont let him make movies etc whatever. Get real. Hollywood (the people who dont like to work with him) are 99% liberals.

GAR doesnt like conservatives because he was a bit of a hippy and a leftist in his day. Thats all. And thats fine with me, most filmmakers are. But Jesus, dont let it taint your films to a point where you alienate most of your audience. Its not New York city Bush hating activists that go to see his films, its regular people like me and you who do. And many of us are conservative.

Cody

28-Oct-2006, 10:38 PM

this thread really took off...

capncnut

28-Oct-2006, 10:38 PM

Why is it horse testcles? Because you dont like it? Yes I have followed his career, from Night of the Flesheaters to Land of the Dead. I own nearly everything he has put out. And I have met him in person and have several autographs from him amoung other horror icons. Feel better now? now that you know we are on equal foooting knowledge wise we can skip my credentials yeah?

Frankly I dont see it. I see a little bit, as is to be expected ANYTIME you make ANY story... but Night, and Dawn and even Day I would say there was no intentional inserting of themes. The "satire" was introduced by diehard fans who refused to just accept the movies are movies. They had to keep digging until they came up with silly theories. George, not expecting the fame went with it. listen to his old Laserdisc commentaries. He ADMITTED that the satire etc that people found was accidental. In Land and Bruiser he intentionally built a movie arond themes instead of building a movie with themes in it. Both films were giant flops. Coincidence? I think not.

You mean I want him to make movies that are good? Guilty as charged. Why cant he just follow the OLD formula he used in the 70s and 80s when he made films to make films and not to make points? Those films were good films.

I am a fan. A REAL fan. Definition? A real fan is not a yes man. A real fan is not afraid to say, hey George, I am a fan, but your last film was pure garbage. A Fanboy is someone who will find a reason for every film the man makes is genius regardless of if the film was crap or not.

This is why I call some of you fanboys. See what I am talking about? Apparently I cant be a geniuine fan unless I love every little thing he does. This is absurd. I am thankful he TRIED, yes. I am however not thankful that he made a substandard film. Land was an embarrassment. I shudder to put it into my DVD collection with the other GAR films. It almost doesnt seem worthy. Why does this anger some of you people? THe film was simply crap.

Well, thats not entirely true now is it? He didnt make many films in the 90s because noone wanted to fund him. The only reason he GOT funding was because a sudden surge of interest in Horror films like Dawn 04 or Texas Chainsaw massacre. GAR even admitted this on the either Land or Day commentary track. If he cant find any more funding because his films dont make money and they keep flopping anticipate another decade without him making anything, except now that he is getting older a decade might not be too kind to us in terms of his own mortality. Also you say he gets to slag other peoples films and yet anyone who slags his obvious flops are somehow idiots and wrong? irony?

George has made nothing but "par" movies since he began commercially anyway. However for those of us who love horror films and s ci fi films many of them are great. And the really bad flops he made contributed to 10 year gaps between productions. if thats not damage I dont know what is. I dont think he could take another 10 year gap, he'll be what 70 or 80?

And who are you to judge my posts as being constructive? Maybe if you could look at things constructively youd see I have excellent points that are largely ignored by people saying things like:

"OMG LYKE IF U DONT LIKE LAND U R A IDIOT LOLZ"

That may not have been said, but its the general gist of what I have seen.
I havent even seen 1 single person say anything good about Land other than "well it wasnt TOO bad" I mean my god... this is its best compliment?

GARs comments about Dawn 04 were reprehensible, smug, arrogant and absurd. I think he needs to stop listening to the fan boys and start listening to his fans. Because the big head he is forming is making his work suffer.

Again, if Dawn04 was an action movie (an arrogant claim that it wasnt horror) then Land was a political ad and not a horror film. You dont get to have it both ways. Sorry.

Thanks for the book man, I'll read it when I have a spare day. :D

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 10:44 PM

Thanks for the book man, I'll read it when I have a spare day. :D

Yeah I type a lot... I talk a lot IRL too. But I want to fully address all you points. At least we are having a dialogue though unlike that adronecomesomething guy who keeps calling me a kid and telling me how much noone likes me. I guess in his world that passes as discussion on some level.

Adrenochrome

28-Oct-2006, 10:48 PM

Werent you recently banned?

And I seem to be pissing off fanboys. Yes I will give you that. But thats ok, us real fans who dont have our blockers on will keep hammering the logic home until you "get it".

You have done nothing but attack me personally, I assume this is the reason for your banning. You dont even offer constructive criticism of my points, just ad hom attack me, as a "kid" or an "idiot". If you're indeed 40, I can only assume you must have never grown up or we become less mature in our middle age.

My recent ban is none of your (or anyone elses) business but mine and the mods. (Although, I promise you, it had nothing to do with you....so, give that a rest, Bucky McGripeAlot.:D )

I have actually never attacked you, I am responding to posts, just like you. :) Calling you "kid" is not an attack, I respond to childlike adults this way. Learn it. Remember it. Move on. Hell, you're "25"? Alrighty, then. Tell ya what....go out and run off all the "teeny years" you still have pumping through your viens....then get back with me. That is, if you can crawl from your mommy's house (leaping over many cats, I'll bet) and get some fresh air without stopping by McDonalds and the Comic Shop for a quick fix....:confused:
I don't owe you any "constructive critisism" as you do nothing but make posts designed to give you attention and a pathway to argument.:p Nothing to criticize. But, everything to laugh at.

Assume all you want, you're still very bratty and childlike.

Your kind are very short lived on all forums.

oh.....and here......you triggered this -
http://static.flickr.com/85/281642777_8ac21e8c6c_o.gif

I'm done with you now.....

coma

28-Oct-2006, 10:48 PM

Again, youre mistaken. He admitted that the social commentary and satire were accidental. HIS words. not mine.

And as per the conservatives dont let him make movies etc whatever. Get real. Hollywood (the people who dont like to work with him) are 99% liberals.

GAR doesnt like conservatives because he was a bit of a hippy and a leftist in his day. Thats all. And thats fine with me, most filmmakers are. But Jesus, dont let it taint your films to a point where you alienate most of your audience. Its not New York city Bush hating activists that go to see his films, its regular people like me and you who do. And many of us are conservative.

You write a script, song, draw somwthing whatever, intentional or not, your point of view is evident.
I was refering to censors not money men. Ratings board etc.
In NYC everybody hates Bush and has since the beginning. Garbage men, old ladies, everybody. My Mom and my Girlfriend likes LOTD better than I did and they are not into that kinda thing.
You can be a "regular blue collar guy" and think bush is a jackass. That NY bush hater activist crap is just stupid.
Talk about PROPAGANDA.
In light of the 65% of people who think B/sh is a botard makes lie of that.
The bigaboo of the "NYC bush hating acticist latte Volvo blah blah blah" is so far from reality it is offensive in its level of bigotry and total ignorance.
when you make art you make the things you want to see and say the things you want to say. You just hope other people like it. Somethimes they do, somethimes they don't. If you make a movies to jerk off the rightists you end up with a sea of Rambo 3.
I was interested more in his right to make his films his way. Sure, land was a mistep, but it's his movie.
Better to try and fail then go for lowest common denominator ala Dawn 04
And at least he had the nuts to speak truth to power when almost everybody else didnt say sh*t intil it was safe to do so.

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 10:54 PM

My recent ban is none of your (or anyone elses) business but mine and the mods. (Although, I promise you, it had nothing to do with you....so, give that a rest, Bucky McGripeAlot.:D )

I have actually never attacked you, I am responding to posts, just like you. :) Calling you "kid" is not an attack, I respond to childlike adults this way. Learn it. Remember it. Move on. Hell, you're "25"? Alrighty, then. Tell ya what....go out and run off all the "teeny years" you still have pumping through your viens....then get back with me. That is, if you can crawl from your mommy's house (leaping over many cats, I'll bet) and get some fresh air without stopping by McDonalds and the Comic Shop for a quick fix....:confused:
I don't owe you any "constructive critisism" as you do nothing but make posts designed to give you attention and a pathway to argument.:p Nothing to criticize. But, everything to laugh at.

Assume all you want, you're still very bratty and childlike.

Your kind are very short lived on all forums.

oh.....and here......you triggered this -
http://static.flickr.com/85/281642777_8ac21e8c6c_o.gif

I'm done with you now.....

Hmm, this kind of negative attack posting in which you claim to not be attacking people (while utilizing no points but silly inane childishness only) and then break into an immediate attack.

I will have to ask around if this is how you usually are, in which case I can put you on the pay no mind list. I generally dont pay mind to people who cant formulate a coherent thought. Know what I mean?

And I didnt say that your ban had anything to do with me, but the fact that you assure me that it doesn kind of piques my curiosity. Care to expand on it?

DeadCentral

28-Oct-2006, 10:56 PM

WOW ... I bet you get beat up a lot don't you?? with an attitude like yours and the way you present your arguements .....
unless you only do this in like fashion on the web where no one can confront you face to face and make you back your words...
you must have suffered a lot of pain at the response to your vocalization.

I find flaw in the mans work, I don't dis him on it, I deal with the flaws and look into the perfection of his craft, his editing,writing and belief in what he does. AND ...the fact he does it FOR the fans... not to make a buck like all these cheap ripoff artists who ride his shirt tails hoping to cash in on like minded but not as perfected films, with no merit but gore and lacking storylines ...again based loosely on Gerorges original concept back in 1968.

The man genuinely loves what he does...not because it makes him millions , which ANYONE on this board can tell you ,is NOT the case in Georges career,
but because he is loyal to those who watch his films and they are in turn , loyal to him.
I've met George myself and MANY, if not most of the people who have done films with him...
and have the interviews & Pictures as anyone here who knows me will verify, and all say the same things, they all love him for his dedication to the art of film making and his loyalty to his fans.
I watched him over a 6 hour period talking to fans, one by one, and taking a minimum of 6 minutes with each person, for the entire time without a butt break or bathroom break, simply because his fans wanted to say hi....
That is a man, not to mention a writer/director to be admired.
Due to his lack in arrogance and the humbleness of his actions on many occassions the man is stiffed, screwed over and manipulated by business associates,
yet he smiles pleasantly and gives the camera another shot, to keep the fans watching...and make them smile once more at the idea of a new film.
Khardis, stop being such a cynical, arrogant rude person and accept the man for what he is, a legendary film maker who set the rules in this genre and all others are simply followers and imitators, he paved the way. Give him the credit where it's due, he's a generous, kindly old man who managed to create an imaginary world that has spawned such a following that sites such as HOPTD, and my DEAD-CENTRAL.COM, along with countless others have popped up to discuss his creations. Not to mention the inspiration he's been on some sites members, in becoming film makers themselves...

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 11:00 PM

You write a script, song, draw somwthing whatever, intentional or not, your point of view is evident.
I was refering to censors not money men. Ratings board etc.
In NYC everybody hates Bush and has since the beginning. Garbage men, old ladies, everybody. My Mom and my Girlfriend likes LOTD better than I did and they are not into that kinda thing.
You can be a "regular blue collar guy" and think bush is a jackass. That NY bush hater activist crap is just stupid.
Talk about PROPAGANDA.
In light of the 65% of people who think B/sh is a botard makes lie of that.
The bigaboo of the "NYC bush hating acticist latte Volvo blah blah blah" is so far from reality it is offensive in its level of bigotry and total ignorance.
when you make art you make the things you want to see and say the things you want to say. You just hope other people like it. Somethimes they do, somethimes they don't. If you make a movies to jerk off the rightists you end up with a sea of Rambo 3.
I was interested more in his right to make his films his way. Sure, land was a mistep, but it's his movie.
Better to try and fail then go for lowest common denominator ala Dawn 04
And at least he had the nuts to speak truth to power when almost everybody else didnt say sh*t intil it was safe to do so.

I didnt find much "truth" to his film. Just ranting. While I dont like Bush myself at least officially (I think he would be a nice guy in person talking about sports or life etc) I dont think he is evil. He just does thing according to his values and his base values. My sister lives in Queens, shes a registered republican by the way. I always thought it was funny that such Blue states like NY and CT are sooooo blue until its time ot pick their Govoner.

And I think what was good about Dawn 04 was that it was what it was. A good horror film. the reason Land was a misstep is because it wasnt trying to be a horror film. And GAR IS entitled to make his movies his own way, but we also have a right to say there crap when they are.

coma

28-Oct-2006, 11:13 PM

I didnt find much "truth" to his film. Just ranting. While I dont like Bush myself at least officially (I think he would be a nice guy in person talking about sports or life etc) I dont think he is evil. He just does thing according to his values and his base values. My sister lives in Queens, shes a registered republican by the way. I always thought it was funny that such Blue states like NY and CT are sooooo blue until its time ot pick their Govoner.
or a mayor. It is wierd, but I think people aren't as black and white as "they" would try to make us believe

And I think what was good about Dawn 04 was that it was what it was. A good horror film. the reason Land was a misstep is because it wasnt trying to be a horror film. And GAR IS entitled to make his movies his own way, but we also have a right to say there crap when they are.
You're entitled to your opinion and to call it crap. And GAR saying a remake of hIS fim is not really his taste etc is also HIS right.
Gotcha:D

Neil

28-Oct-2006, 11:18 PM

And I think what was good about Dawn 04 was that it was what it was. A good horror film. the reason Land was a misstep is because it wasnt trying to be a horror film. And GAR IS entitled to make his movies his own way, but we also have a right to say there crap when they are.

You must surely realise the moment you describe "Land" as crap, any chance of your opinion being taken seriously is out the window. It shows your opinion can be so unfair that any information in your post is likely to be equality unfounded and unfair.

"Land" was not a crap film. It wasn't great, and could (& should) have been far better, but it certainly was not crap. I can pick numerous flaws in the film, and it is most likely my least favourite of the films, but it does not mean it's crap.

Similarly, I was frustrated to hell at times by "Dawn04". Does this make it a crap film? Of course not. It just makes it a film that was relatively well produced, not particularly well written (IMHO), but OK.

Please learn to be less polarised or binary. There are shaded of grey...

Khardis

28-Oct-2006, 11:20 PM

WOW ... I bet you get beat up a lot don't you?? with an attitude like yours and the way you present your arguements .....

Snore, useless ad hom nonsense. Proof of a lack of a real point.

unless you only do this in like fashion on the web where no one can confront you face to face and make you back your words...
you must have suffered a lot of pain at the response to your vocalization.

WOW ... I bet you get beat up a lot don't you?? with an attitude like yours and the way you present your arguements .....

Snore, useless ad hom nonsense. Proof of a lack of a real point.

I find flaw in the mans work, I don't dis him on it, I deal with the flaws and look into the perfection of his craft, his editing,writing and belief in what he does.

Unfortunatly saying he had a flaw in here is like opening up a hornets nest. All the anger and bizzarreness manifests itself. You get attacked from every direction from doezens of people who really have no point other than "how dare you critisize my idol!" Its almost like Kim Jong Il-ian Mind control.

AND ...the fact he does it FOR the fans... not to make a buck like all these cheap ripoff artists who ride his shirt tails hoping to cash in on like minded but not as perfected films, with no merit but gore and lacking storylines ...again based loosely on Gerorges original concept back in 1968.

I'd say theyre more based on Dawn rather than his original NOTLD since Night wasnt exactly fleshed out in what was happening. Dawn was much more fleshed out. And I am not so sure he does it for the fans. As you say. George is out to make money too, if he wasnt he wouldnt be taking 10 year breaks between films looking for investors, he would be out there with his camcorder and putting it on the web for free.

The man genuinely loves what he does...not because it makes him millions , which ANYONE on this board can tell you ,is NOT the case in Georges career,
but because he is loyal to those who watch his films and they are in turn , loyal to him.

Well I am not so sure of th at either, he clearly wants to make money off of his films and his style, and I agree he loves his craft. Like all Directors seem to, otherwise they wouldnt be directing. Thats not the kind of job you just happen to fall into. Loyalty is something you will have to explain for me. I dont feel any particular sense of loyalty from him... I felt actually kind of betrayed with Land because it was so far away from the good quality films he usually does. I felt like he was tired of making good horror movies and now wanted to just yell at people about politics. Which i was sad about.

I've met George myself and MANY, if not most of the people who have done films with him...
and have the interviews & Pictures as anyone here who knows me will verify, and all say the same things, they all love him for his dedication to the art of film making and his loyalty to his fans.

I am unsure of what this has to do with anything. I have seen and met him in person too. And while I was appreciative of his love of the work and his willingness to meet his fans, lets face it, if he was winning academies and living in a million dollar house you wouldnt be meeting him. And dont say he isnt rich because he doesnt want to be, he wants to be, he just cant get there because his concept of filmmaking is too old fashioned.

I watched him over a 6 hour period talking to fans, one by one, and taking a minimum of 6 minutes with each person, for the entire time without a butt break or bathroom break, simply because his fans wanted to say hi....
That is a man, not to mention a writer/director to be admired.

I admire him for his work, lets face it, we wouldnt care about him at all if it wasnt for his work. I admire the ordinaryness of his films and the down to earth language they use. Not because he goes to Comic and Horror cons. Dont forget that many times he gets $$$ for attending these things.

Due to his lack in arrogance and the humbleness of his actions on many occassions the man is stiffed, screwed over and manipulated by business associates,

Well form what I understand and have read it was arrogance that made everyone avoid working with him. It has to be Georges way, or no way at all. This contributed to his 10 year filmless gaps.

Khardis, stop being such a cynical, arrogant rude person and accept the man for what he is, a legendary film maker who set the rules in this genre and all others are simply followers and imitators, he paved the way.
WOW this one says it all doesnt it? Stop thinking khardis! stop being a pisser, just accept that he is the best and all he does is brilliance! Dont use your own mind, join BORG... no thanks.

Give him the credit where it's due, he's a generous, kindly old man who managed to create an imaginary world that has spawned such a following that sites such as HOPTD, and my DEAD-CENTRAL.COM, along with countless others have popped up to discuss his creations.

I dont see what him being a kindly old man has to do with anything. And I do give him credit for helping to invent an awsome genre. I say helping to invent, because he didnt invent the idea of a viral outbreak, nor did he invent the idea of the flesheater aka Ghoul. But he DID put them together and give us one hell of a fright. For this I will always admire him. But that being said it doesnt mean he is beyong criticism or that he cant lay a few rotten eggs.

And I dont recall GAR making either of those sites.

Not to mention the inspiration he's been on some sites members, in becoming film makers themselves...
This we can agree 100% on. I have read and re-read his script writing style and scripts again and again. GAR is 1 of the major reasons I went into Script writing myself and I want to make a film.

You must surely realise the moment you describe "Land" as crap, any chance of your opinion being taken seriously is out the window. It shows your opinion can be so unfair that any information in your post is likely to be equality unfounded and unfair.

"Land" was not a crap film. It wasn't great, and could (& should) have been far better, but it certainly was not crap. I can pick numerous flaws in the film, and it is most likely my least favourite of the films, but it does not mean it's crap.

Similarly, I was frustrated to hell at times by "Dawn04". Does this make it a crap film? Of course not. It just makes it a film that was relatively well produced, not particularly well written (IMHO), but OK.

Please learn to be less polarised or binary. There are shaded of grey...

The thing is...I generally thought it was a crap film. The only reason I didnt walk out on it was because I felt that I owed it to George as a fan to stick it through and because Nicotero did a phenominal job with the prosthetics. Outside of that though I was truly thrown for a loop. And I would say the majority of the people round here call Dawn (a film with far less flaws than land) a lot worse things than crap.

DeadCentral

29-Oct-2006, 12:01 AM

Khardis, your age is showing...25 and knows everything... funny boy...and I say boy in every sense of the word...whining because he didn't like the film, or because he doesn't like the points the users here are making...
Thats evident in how you break down every little section and comment on it individually...
what you didn't notice is ...I wrote my paragraphs on that last post with a seperate subtopic in each just to see if you were going to be so hell bent on making your points heard, that you'd break them down....and you did.
Know-it-alls have a tendancy to point out each and every statement and comment on it...any credibility your rant may have had here in my eyes ...just blew out the window...
as far as your comments on "no real point" ..oh but there is...my point being, you talk big in a forum, but in real life you're probably not as verbal, and if you were that way in my group of friends you'd probably wind up laying face down in the dirt after a short time due to your "intellect". Having an opinion is fine, trying to force feed it to a group of individuals is another....

An old proverb you should be privy too:

Allow others to view you as quiet and stupid,
or open mouth and remove all doubt.

coma

29-Oct-2006, 01:02 AM

I am unsure of what this has to do with anything. I have seen and met him in person too. And while I was appreciative of his love of the work and his willingness to meet his fans, lets face it, if he was winning academies and living in a million dollar house you wouldnt be meeting him.
I dont know if thats true. Ball Players always go out and sign..
For 20, 50, 100 bucks a pop. And they dont talk to you, usually. And he he was getting oscars, he would have more than just us slobs, he would have the nutjobs and the enquirer on his ass.

And dont say he isnt rich because he doesnt want to be, he wants to be, he just cant get there because his concept of filmmaking is too old fashioned.
Im sure he wants $$, who doesn't? He's just not willing to compromise his vision.
Just because he goes to cons doesn't mean he has to be nice. He could be a total dick and still get asked to go.

Well form what I understand and have read it was arrogance that made everyone avoid working with him. It has to be Georges way, or no way at all. This contributed to his 10 year filmless gaps.

I always heard the oppostie. Legions of actors, filmakers, crew who adore him and say lots of extremly nice and thourougly complementary things about him.
I thinks he has a problem getting investors is because he's too unique and not too interested in tools like Tom Cruise. Just because he can't ape styles of others and do the latest fad doesn't make him "old Fashioned". And if Old fashioned means Depth and purposeful style, then bring it on.

I have to point out the irony of you saying you can critique him in a hundred different ways (as is your perogative) but he can't make a mild comment or two about a remake of his OWN film classic?
It's a Paradox. And A COntraiction (ah, the redundancy)

Danny

29-Oct-2006, 03:10 AM

okay, see remember the bitchin' i was talking about earlier in the thread see a good slice of the above.:bored:

Griff

29-Oct-2006, 08:26 AM

Yeah. It was pure class to call the film an action videogame. That wasnt arrogance of any kind.Stop being a fanboy.

The DAWN remake is an action-orientated take on the genre with video game-like plot mechanics. The characters do not steer the story, as they do with the original, rather they perform largely task-based actions that are reactive to environmental situations they have little control over. Much like a video game.

How is it then arrogant to recognize this contrast in approaches, to identify how fundamental it is to defining one film from the other and then to address this when your opinion is sought?

I find your condemnation of Romero's innocuous comments unreasonable, indeed fanatical, in its level of fervour and blatant supposition. You portray yourself as being open-minded with a clarity of vision untainted by fanaticism yet you're clearly driven by obsession as much as anyone here. Quite arguably more so.

Since you quite obviously enjoy the attention you receive here and evidently jump at any chance to make your opinions known, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what answer Romero could have possibly given to placate you.

I suspect nothing short of branding himself a failure, a once-promising filmmaker that has fallen from grace, could satiate you. Sadly, I expect that the vindication (and, indeed, adulation) you so desperately crave will continue to elude you.

Neil

29-Oct-2006, 09:20 AM

The thing is...I generally thought it was a crap film. The only reason I didnt walk out on it was because I felt that I owed it to George as a fan to stick it through and because Nicotero did a phenominal job with the prosthetics. Outside of that though I was truly thrown for a loop. And I would say the majority of the people round here call Dawn (a film with far less flaws than land) a lot worse things than crap.

Anyone who describes Land or Dawn04 as "crap" is just plain daft. Maybe you didn't enjoy it... Maybe you thought the story was lacking... Maybe you thought the effects were poor... Maybe it wasn't what you were expecting... Maybe it simply just was not your cup of tea.

The thing is, just because you do not enjoy a film, it should not make it "crap". To dismiss a film so nonchalantly shows a lack of a reasoned opinion... Or as I like to term it, a binary opinion.

Thanks for letting me know me know that my assumption was founded... As such I won't be hitting my head against this brick wall anymore...

Brubaker

30-Oct-2006, 12:22 AM

Why is it horse testcles? Because you dont like it? Yes I have followed his career, from Night of the Flesheaters to Land of the Dead. I own nearly everything he has put out. And I have met him in person and have several autographs from him amoung other horror icons. Feel better now? now that you know we are on equal foooting knowledge wise we can skip my credentials yeah?

I am unsure of what this has to do with anything. I have seen and met him in person too. And while I was appreciative of his love of the work and his willingness to meet his fans, lets face it, if he was winning academies and living in a million dollar house you wouldnt be meeting him. And dont say he isnt rich because he doesnt want to be, he wants to be, he just cant get there because his concept of filmmaking is too old fashioned.

And I dont recall GAR making either of those sites.

Khardis,

I've combined a few of your posts, since I saw a few things I wanted to respond to.

So you have met Romero? How can you say such nasty things about a man who you've met and who you have received "several autographs" from? Whether he has been "successful" or not, in your eyes, he was nice enough to meet you and produce at least one autograph which you have in your collection. You've been running his name through the mud for five pages of this thread now, all because he gave an honest answer to a question about a remake. That is a disgrace. I'd have a very hard time facing the man again, at some convention or signing, if I ever slandered him to this degree on a board like you've been doing.

As for your last thing, about the web sites, it was in response to HomepageoftheDead.com and Dead-Central.com

Those sites and these types of discussions would not exist without movies like Land of the Dead, Day of the Dead or any other movie of his you want to refer to as "crap".

Do you mind if I ask you something?

Do you think Zack Synder or James Gunn get worked up into a lather or hit the message boards because Romero may not like their movie? They actually worked on that remake and seemed to handle all of the criticism well. I bet they heard a ton of it and I don't recall hearing those two gripe about "fanboys" all that often.

Why do you take it so personally? If anyone should, it would be guys like them who actually worked on Dawn 04. But I am sure they don't lose any sleep over what Romero or anyone else thinks, good or bad. The two of them wanted a project they could make a name for themselves on. In that respect, their version of Dawn was a success. They got what they wanted out of the film, a little career boost that might help them get some future work. Personally, I liked the film. It paled in comparison to the original but I think that is quite all right, since it was never meant to tie into that film or anything else of Romero's. I also liked Land. At least it inspired my user name here on the forums. Since you keep on saying it is boring and a good film to fall asleep to, though, you probably fell asleep before Brubaker made his brief appearance.

Deadman_Deluxe

30-Oct-2006, 02:50 AM

Five bucks says Khardis has never kissed a real girl :lol:

DeadCentral

30-Oct-2006, 02:53 AM

:D ;) :lol:

_liam_

05-Nov-2006, 05:22 AM

well, afraid i'm gonna have to take a dramatic, brave step here and talk about these two movies instead of khardis or whoever! :D

personally, i felt they were both a little bit of a let down, and although i will be no doubt stoned at dawn for this, i enjoyed dawn 04 a little bit more ( i ashamed to say that if it makes anyone feel better!). although i did like land, i just wasn't what i'd been waiting for all these years, everyone talks about romero's style being indie, but i felt it was a bit mtv tbh, very flashy and loud and not as consistently atmospheric as the others. thought dawn 04 felt a lot more gritty & less frivolous on the whole, despite the flat characters and occasional stupidity (baby zombie etc).

Khardis

05-Nov-2006, 03:39 PM

Khardis,

I've combined a few of your posts, since I saw a few things I wanted to respond to.

So you have met Romero? How can you say such nasty things about a man who you've met and who you have received "several autographs" from? Whether he has been "successful" or not, in your eyes, he was nice enough to meet you and produce at least one autograph which you have in your collection. You've been running his name through the mud for five pages of this thread now, all because he gave an honest answer to a question about a remake. That is a disgrace. I'd have a very hard time facing the man again, at some convention or signing, if I ever slandered him to this degree on a board like you've been doing.

As for your last thing, about the web sites, it was in response to HomepageoftheDead.com and Dead-Central.com

Those sites and these types of discussions would not exist without movies like Land of the Dead, Day of the Dead or any other movie of his you want to refer to as "crap".

Do you mind if I ask you something?

Do you think Zack Synder or James Gunn get worked up into a lather or hit the message boards because Romero may not like their movie? They actually worked on that remake and seemed to handle all of the criticism well. I bet they heard a ton of it and I don't recall hearing those two gripe about "fanboys" all that often.

Why do you take it so personally? If anyone should, it would be guys like them who actually worked on Dawn 04. But I am sure they don't lose any sleep over what Romero or anyone else thinks, good or bad. The two of them wanted a project they could make a name for themselves on. In that respect, their version of Dawn was a success. They got what they wanted out of the film, a little career boost that might help them get some future work. Personally, I liked the film. It paled in comparison to the original but I think that is quite all right, since it was never meant to tie into that film or anything else of Romero's. I also liked Land. At least it inspired my user name here on the forums. Since you keep on saying it is boring and a good film to fall asleep to, though, you probably fell asleep before Brubaker made his brief appearance.

You dont find it ironic that youre bitching about my complaints? I am complaning that fanboys are a little overzealous and they dont want to look at things for what they are because theyre too personally involved with thier obsession for GARs work. As such they cannot legitimately look at another zombie film or whatever without smashing it for not being GAR worthy. This is what I am addressing.

Then here you all come crying and stewing and stamping your feet that I would have the mere audacity to be so pugnacious, to be so... INSOLENT. I dont see you asking inane questions to all the Dawn 04 Bashers. Why to me? I am not taking this personally, you can tell because I dont freak out when someone challenges me and start attacking them personally and following them around the entire site looking to fight with them. Why dont you all look inward, when you point the finger remember that 4 are pointing back at you.

Five bucks says Khardis has never kissed a real girl :lol:

Way to enhance the discussion. Reported by the way.

well, afraid i'm gonna have to take a dramatic, brave step here and talk about these two movies instead of khardis or whoever! :D

personally, i felt they were both a little bit of a let down, and although i will be no doubt stoned at dawn for this, i enjoyed dawn 04 a little bit more ( i ashamed to say that if it makes anyone feel better!). although i did like land, i just wasn't what i'd been waiting for all these years, everyone talks about romero's style being indie, but i felt it was a bit mtv tbh, very flashy and loud and not as consistently atmospheric as the others. thought dawn 04 felt a lot more gritty & less frivolous on the whole, despite the flat characters and occasional stupidity (baby zombie etc).

I agree with you, I enjoyed Dawn 04 better than Land.

_liam_

05-Nov-2006, 06:33 PM

i also loved the sountrack to dawn 04, with the johnny cash number and the lounge singer's cover of that nu metal track (i seem to remember hearing his version of nine inch nail's "closer" in a club once, also very funny).

Brubaker

05-Nov-2006, 07:17 PM

You dont find it ironic that youre bitching about my complaints? I am complaning that fanboys are a little overzealous and they dont want to look at things for what they are because theyre too personally involved with thier obsession for GARs work. As such they cannot legitimately look at another zombie film or whatever without smashing it for not being GAR worthy. This is what I am addressing.

Then here you all come crying and stewing and stamping your feet that I would have the mere audacity to be so pugnacious, to be so... INSOLENT. I dont see you asking inane questions to all the Dawn 04 Bashers. Why to me? I am not taking this personally, you can tell because I dont freak out when someone challenges me and start attacking them personally and following them around the entire site looking to fight with them. Why dont you all look inward, when you point the finger remember that 4 are pointing back at you.

Yup, you've got it all figured out. Us raging fanboys need to learn to control our emotions and judge movies like Land of the Dead for what they really are. And since your word is the final word, I guess they're crap. I'm sorry some of us have been hitting our heads against the wall so long, instead of allowing you to "teach" us to think critically.

*winks at the rest of the forum members*

DeadCentral

06-Nov-2006, 02:06 AM

Adrenochrome

06-Nov-2006, 03:26 AM

hummph...."allowing you to "teach" us to think critically".....
Nice one Brubaker...:elol:

Troller to the extreme if you ask me...
This Khardis is simply here to stir the pot....
I'm refraining from commenting, as I have plenty to say to this self proclaimed guru of the genre, I think it's a waste of typing skills and mental effort to indulge him in another speech. It's obvious he is far superior to the rest of us meager fans ....... :rolleyes:

Surely he's on his way out....or close to it.....all he does is bait and whine.

I'm with Deadman,....I bet ole Khardis slobbers over his blowup doll nightly, "That's a good girl, I am King of all mankind.", coos Khardis in that 'oh so clever way' that woos all bow-up women.

I can be an ass at times, but this guy is, as you say DeadC, only here to stir the pot.

Danny

06-Nov-2006, 04:18 AM

I'm with Deadman,....I bet ole Khardis slobbers over his blowup doll nightly, "That's a good girl, I am King of all mankind.", coos Khardis in that 'oh so clever way' that woos all bow-up women.

now i aint one to be drawn into arguments but god damn thats funny:lol:

Khardis

06-Nov-2006, 02:39 PM

Yup, you've got it all figured out. Us raging fanboys need to learn to control our emotions and judge movies like Land of the Dead for what they really are. And since your word is the final word, I guess they're crap. I'm sorry some of us have been hitting our heads against the wall so long, instead of allowing you to "teach" us to think critically.

*winks at the rest of the forum members*

I havent seen any of you even try to debate as to why Land wasnt crap. All you do is attack the people who say it is. Wouldnt you say that not finding anything really redeeming about it and yet defending it is fanboyish? Not saying you are, but wouldnt you say that about someone?

hummph...."allowing you to "teach" us to think critically".....
Nice one Brubaker...:elol:

Troller to the extreme if you ask me...
This Khardis is simply here to stir the pot....
I'm refraining from commenting, as I have plenty to say to this self proclaimed guru of the genre, I think it's a waste of typing skills and mental effort to indulge him in another speech. It's obvious he is far superior to the rest of us meager fans ....... :rolleyes:

Never said I was superior or any kind of a guru. Just someone who is willing to take GAR off the pedistal and look at his work for what it is. Not what I want it to be. This angers people, why?

Surely he's on his way out....or close to it.....all he does is bait and whine.

I'm with Deadman,....I bet ole Khardis slobbers over his blowup doll nightly, "That's a good girl, I am King of all mankind.", coos Khardis in that 'oh so clever way' that woos all bow-up women.

I can be an ass at times, but this guy is, as you say DeadC, only here to stir the pot.

I am her eot have discussion. You apparently dont like to discuss things, you only want people to agree with you otherwise you stalk them around the site and tar them with your own filth and bile. Its really childish.

also

Reported. So quit stalking me and looking for a fight. I am not interested in talking to someone who has nothing to say.

Minerva_Zombi

06-Nov-2006, 07:44 PM

all i can say to defend my reasoning for liking land better than dawn is that it isn't mindless dialogue with running zombies. i can watch it over and over again. dawn, i can't stand watching it. and i liked it enough at first to buy it. now, it sits on my shelf collecting dust while i can watch land any day. its a better zombie movie with interesting new concepts and good performances. big daddy pisses me off, but other than that, its a smart zombie flick.

capncnut

06-Nov-2006, 08:58 PM

Brubaker

06-Nov-2006, 11:41 PM

I havent seen any of you even try to debate as to why Land wasnt crap. All you do is attack the people who say it is. Wouldnt you say that not finding anything really redeeming about it and yet defending it is fanboyish? Not saying you are, but wouldnt you say that about someone?

Here is why I don't think Land is crap, based on my point of view.

1. Save for Big Daddy, it is well-acted. More or less. I'm not going to sit here and debate character by character. While Charlie is my least favorite character in the movie, I think Robert Joy did a tremendous job of portraying him. Casting Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo was not a mistake.

2. The pacing is good. It doesn't move too slow, if anything it moves along fairly quickly and feels a little shorter than the actual running time.

3. As a whole, it isn't cheesy. Keeping Big Daddy out of the discussion, this film doesn't look dated. It is/was very viable for 2004. That is not a bad thing because you could have easily ended up with a movie that looked like it was shot/recorded in the 1980's.

4. The script wasn't a dog. The script may be a little better on paper than on the screen, but the movie had/has a good premise. There are people here who admit Big Daddy was a decent idea, just played by the wrong guy.

That's enough from me. I'm sure a few more posters will produce an avalanche of points much too heavy for you to combat.

rawrOTD

08-Nov-2006, 11:58 PM

When i first watched Dawn 04
I could not keep track of or remember the character names.
I didnt care about them, I didnt know anything about them, and when they died there wasnt even some sort of clever reason for it based on character traits. No these people were there just to provide cover for the lack of depth in the 4 central characters. Eventually i was just sitting there hoping gore would make htis film worth all $6 i spent buying it used on VHS.

In land
the characters all were so damn safe that they could eat a taco off of Big Daddy's bald head and he'd look up at them smiling and flutter his eyelashes

as soon as i saw characters in land i knew whether or not they would live in the end

However, land was tremendously satifying gore wise, legions of zombie wise, and a new fresh look at the genre. However, it missed the atmosphere presented by the other 3. There should have been some main chracters that died, some reason to be concerened .you know? Shoulda holed up in the barricaded tower of Fiddlers Greens. Shoulda killed big daddy simply cos it would have parralled Night and Ben's death. Except reversed.

i liked land better than dawn 04.
dawn 04 had more epic zombie parking lot footage though
i will give them credit for creating the hundreds of oodles of zombies that i wished attacked the building....but they didnt

and khardis or whatever your name is I agree with some of your ideas, in particular that GAR is getting a bit too into inserting social commentary , he went a bit overboard on land
it seemed a little too unnatural and forced

However, you sir are the biggest hypocrit on the forum

i beg for a rule against hypocracy so that i may report you

khardis when you're
reporting everyone like your the king of the zombies you are pretty damn lame.
Who the hell cares that some guy insulted you on a forum?
ITS THE FRIGGEN INTERNET!
nobody friggen cares! we're here to talk about zombies! I bet if you walked into a random house near by, or knocked on your apartment neighbors door
and you said

"hello stranger! I spend a portion of my free time perusing an internet Zombie movie forum!"
theyd laugh!
this is the place
where they dont laugh at you for loving zombie flicks

lets stop pretending we have importance, reputations, or authority
cos on the grand old unterwub
NOBODY GIVES A DAMN THAT YOU USE BIG WORDS AND YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO THINK UP WITTY REMARKS
we're supposed to have a bond/kinship here
and its to ramble about zombies online

speaking of which
why on earth did the party leave the mall in Dawn 04?
They didnt have a real reason. They had all the food in the world. Safety , shelter, you name it.
They just up and decided, "hey guys.....lets leave the mall"
i remember the statement was
thers worse things then dying, and one of them is staying here and waitin to die
what??
they decided to leave after the old lady and ghettoface/ zombie baby/ luna all killed one another
there was no zombie threat, just some retarded dude going insane

so the escape in big buses
it would have been so much better if they were under seige by zombies

bassman

09-Nov-2006, 01:13 AM

I really like this guy^^

:D :p

coma

09-Nov-2006, 02:26 AM

Ha Ha!
Me too!

The stupidest thing in Dawn o4 was the setup with lonely girl who wost her poor widdle parents. They telegraphed what was coming later in a lame set up for when she went to get the stupid dog because "its all she had left". I would've let her get ate up. Just for being a bone head. That was infuriatingly retarded. Yeah and the flying garage zombie.

I watched Land Agian last night and the gore is full on. Sure Cholo has too much make up on like someones trying to make a porfolio piece, but it still looks great and makes me cringe its so violent.

I never get tired of pissing on Snyder tour de force.

Brubaker

12-Nov-2006, 11:18 PM

Here is why I don't think Land is crap, based on my point of view.

1. Save for Big Daddy, it is well-acted. More or less. I'm not going to sit here and debate character by character. While Charlie is my least favorite character in the movie, I think Robert Joy did a tremendous job of portraying him. Casting Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo was not a mistake.

2. The pacing is good. It doesn't move too slow, if anything it moves along fairly quickly and feels a little shorter than the actual running time.

3. As a whole, it isn't cheesy. Keeping Big Daddy out of the discussion, this film doesn't look dated. It is/was very viable for 2004. That is not a bad thing because you could have easily ended up with a movie that looked like it was shot/recorded in the 1980's.

4. The script wasn't a dog. The script may be a little better on paper than on the screen, but the movie had/has a good premise. There are people here who admit Big Daddy was a decent idea, just played by the wrong guy.

That's enough from me. I'm sure a few more posters will produce an avalanche of points much too heavy for you to combat.

You like to call people, Son. Right, Khardis? I suppose that would make you "Dad." I see you haven't entertained a reply to my post stating why I liked Land. Care to attempt a reply, "Dad"? :D

Danny

13-Nov-2006, 11:14 AM

and khardis or whatever your name is I agree with some of your ideas, in particular that GAR is getting a bit too into inserting social commentary , he went a bit overboard on land
it seemed a little too unnatural and forced

However, you sir are the biggest hypocrit on the forum

i beg for a rule against hypocracy so that i may report you

khardis when you're
reporting everyone like your the king of the zombies you are pretty damn lame.
Who the hell cares that some guy insulted you on a forum?
ITS THE FRIGGEN INTERNET!
nobody friggen cares! we're here to talk about zombies! I bet if you walked into a random house near by, or knocked on your apartment neighbors door
and you said

"hello stranger! I spend a portion of my free time perusing an internet Zombie movie forum!"
theyd laugh!
this is the place
where they dont laugh at you for loving zombie flicks

lets stop pretending we have importance, reputations, or authority
cos on the grand old unterwub
NOBODY GIVES A DAMN THAT YOU USE BIG WORDS AND YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO THINK UP WITTY REMARKS
we're supposed to have a bond/kinship here
and its to ramble about zombies online

*applause* :thumbsup:

Brubaker

14-Nov-2006, 01:06 AM

:mad: *Roasting process completed!*

Stick a fork in Khardis, he's "done."

coma

14-Nov-2006, 04:42 PM

:mad: *Roasting process completed!*

Stick a fork in Khardis, he's "done."

reported, bitch!

:p

DVW5150

14-Nov-2006, 06:13 PM

Coma posted :" The stupidest thing in Dawn o4 was the setup with lonely girl who wost her poor widdle parents. They telegraphed what was coming later in a lame set up for when she went to get the stupid dog because "its all she had left". I would've let her get ate up. Just for being a bone head. That was infuriatingly retarded. Yeah and the flying garage zombie ."
Well , Coma we all come here not because we enjoy a particular film , but the spirit and audacity that GAR has provided for those that not just enjoy horror , but the "We're them , they're us." As for Max headrooms daughter , I think it was good to show that things get out of control and people do stupid things like have concern for a dog in the midst of psycho zombie hell .The zombie in the garage wasnt flying , he was grasping along a ceiling pipe , probably sprinkler system . I have a knack for accepting new things , an old saying " Without tradition , new things would die ."In this case we're talking about un-dead starving for warm flesh . Maybe you just dont like Zak Snyder . I watched it w/ the commentary and found some of his hollywood lingo irritatiing , like "He really sold that shot!"
But if this (nomoreroominhell) really happened , I bet my bottom dollar you'd do something either to help someone that was freaked out , or you would let them get eatin' , remember if they get eaten , theres one more one thier side . :skull:

Coma :......" if your surprised at an artist being a humanist, you don't know too many." RIGHT ON ! - D :skull:

I FRIGGIN LOVE THIS SITE !:skull:

capncnut

14-Nov-2006, 08:44 PM

As for Max headrooms daughter...

Funny you should say that DVW. When I went to see Dawn 04 at my local cinema and just as Ving blew the father away, some dude behind me stuttered "m-m-m-m-m-m-m-MAX!" Man, I nearly pissed myself. :lol:

The Alive Man

15-Nov-2006, 01:04 AM

I add my two cents:

Running Zombies. Beyond any resonable parameter. Don't let me even start on this, please.

Timeframe: one day (???) and the Zombies have already taken over the whole world. Beyond any reasonable parameter.

The characters (NOT technicians) are able to build an A-TEAM-styled truck, poorly conceived, far from DEAD RECKONING greatness. Beyond any reasonable parameter.

Dramatic, hypercinetic explosions and poorly directed action scenes far from LAND and its groove: totally out-of-context. Again, beyond any reasonable parameter.

Ending scene on the island beyond any reasonable parameter. CHEESE at its pinnacle.

Whole "atmosphere" stolen from a boring videogame ('Resident Trash') and that movie, '28 Days Later', fairly decent.

And I'm just beginning...:mad:

Neil

15-Nov-2006, 09:00 AM

Brubaker

15-Nov-2006, 04:00 PM

Why is it people always lump in the Dawn 04 movie, or the upcoming Day remake, with the "MTV Generation"? Last time I checked, MTV went on the air in 1981 and that isn't too far removed from a 1978 horror movie. 3 years. The original Day came out after MTV was already on the air.

The programming on MTV may not be the same now (or circa 2004) as it was back in 1981, but how many networks have the same type of programming (or audience) right now that they did 25 years ago?

Facts are facts. The network was around during the same period of time that the original Dawn came out. It already had a few years on air when the original Day came out. So you could say the ORIGINAL movies were enjoyed by, or made for (in the case of Day), the "MTV Generation."

The Alive Man

15-Nov-2006, 04:03 PM

MTV debuted in 1981.

DAWN was released in 1978.

At that time, 3 years meant much more in terms of social change and pop-culture. Now, things are different, trends last for a whole decade (HIP-HOP or the current fascination for the boring serial killer movies) and I can't see why an MTV follower of the early '80ies should have been attracted by DAY OF THE DEAD, an "outside" movie by all means.

Brubaker

15-Nov-2006, 04:25 PM

The "MTV Generation" is made up of people who were watching back in the 1980's or even the early 90's. I don't consider viewers of the network today to be part of the "MTV Generation", solely because most of them have no loyalty to the network and do not watch it all day, like people used to back in the 1980's. The fact they showed music videos all day back then helped.

I don't consider it a stretch that a 12-15 year old kid (or someone in any age group) who enjoyed Dawn in the theater back in 78' might have also been interested in MTV a few years later. Not everybody would have liked it but I'm sure some people tuned in.

DeadCentral

16-Nov-2006, 10:52 AM

......So you could say the ORIGINAL movies were enjoyed by, or made for (in the case of Day), the "MTV Generation."

Let me correct you Brubaker..we were known as the X generation ... or generation X ....

the MTV generation is based on the upcoming generation that relies exclusively on MTV for facts, fashion, film, trends etc etc ....

MTV was not as largely popular in 1985 as it is today, nor was it into film production it's only specialty show was Remote Control, with Kari Wurh..otherwise it was still in it's fledgeling stages in 1985....
I Am a Gen Xer, my first year of high school was 1979-81 & I graduated in class of '84...
My kids are Mtv generation....

ps.... Video Killed the Radio star- very first video ever played on MTv .....thought I'd throw that in.... :)

Brubaker

16-Nov-2006, 02:33 PM

Let me correct you Brubaker..we were known as the X generation ... or generation X ....

the MTV generation is based on the upcoming generation that relies exclusively on MTV for facts, fashion, film, trends etc etc ....

MTV was not as largely popular in 1985 as it is today, nor was it into film production it's only specialty show was Remote Control, with Kari Wurh..otherwise it was still in it's fledgeling stages in 1985....
I Am a Gen Xer, my first year of high school was 1979-81 & I graduated in class of '84...
My kids are Mtv generation....

ps.... Video Killed the Radio star- very first video ever played on MTv .....thought I'd throw that in.... :)

Are you sure? Generation X was a legitimate term used by publications, media and everybody else to coin a whole generation. I'll give you that. However, I never heard the widespread use of "MTV Generation", meaning I don't see it as an official tag for this generation. I see the term "Playstation Generation" and a bunch of other similar ones thrown around, but none of them appear to be a legitimate tag that a publication like Time Magazine would use (while the same magazine would make reference to "Generation X").

coma

16-Nov-2006, 04:02 PM

Are you sure? Generation X was a legitimate term used by publications, media and everybody else to coin a whole generation. I'll give you that. However, I never heard the widespread use of "MTV Generation", meaning I don't see it as an official tag for this generation. I see the term "Playstation Generation" and a bunch of other similar ones thrown around, but none of them appear to be a legitimate tag that a publication like Time Magazine would use (while the same magazine would make reference to "Generation X").

I have NEVER heard anyone say "Golly, were part of Generation X". To me it's just a BS media construct. As far as MTV, Cable was extremely expensive and considered a total luxury. Most people didn't have MTV in the Mid 80s in my formative years. In think I knew 2 people. More like Atari generation. or the "Home taping is ruining the music industry" generation. or even "Crack generation".

Also MTV generation refers to the quick annoying edits that came to dominate MTV "style" indicating a ADD lack of attention span. . that didn't happen until the early 90s. 80s videos are laconic for the most part.
Btw Generation was a book about "slackers". Thats where it came from. It was about us being apathtic.Which I'm not so they can eat me:D

Brubaker

16-Nov-2006, 10:12 PM

I have NEVER heard anyone say "Golly, were part of Generation X". To me it's just a BS media construct. As far as MTV, Cable was extremely expensive and considered a total luxury. Most people didn't have MTV in the Mid 80s in my formative years. In think I knew 2 people. More like Atari generation. or the "Home taping is ruining the music industry" generation. or even "Crack generation".

Also MTV generation refers to the quick annoying edits that came to dominate MTV "style" indicating a ADD lack of attention span. . that didn't happen until the early 90s. 80s videos are laconic for the most part.
Btw Generation was a book about "slackers". Thats where it came from. It was about us being apathtic. Which I'm not so they can eat me:D

Over the years, other networks have taken on that type of style. It used to be if you watched a movie on tv, they'd let the end credits run right until the end. Now stations will cut off right when the credits start or use a split screen to promote something else while it is running. Wouldn't want to let anyone know who starred in the movie.

Fox is a lot like MTV, especially if they are broadcasting a baseball game. Every 5 minutes they run crap at the bottom of the screen, promoting other (usually failing) shows on the network and this takes up valuable space on the screen and looks like crap. But hey, Fox doesn't care about 1000-1200 people who may be at home recording a World Series game for historical value.

coma

16-Nov-2006, 10:23 PM

Over the years, other networks have taken on that type of style. It used to be if you watched a movie on tv, they'd let the end credits run right until the end. Now stations will cut off right when the credits start or use a split screen to promote something else while it is running. Wouldn't want to let anyone know who starred in the movie.

Fox is a lot like MTV, especially if they are broadcasting a baseball game. Every 5 minutes they run crap at the bottom of the screen, promoting other (usually failing) shows on the network and this takes up valuable space on the screen and looks like crap. But hey, Fox doesn't care about 1000-1200 people who may be at home recording a World Series game for historical value.
Because you need their"express written permission".:confused:
I hate that 3/4 screen promos. And I also dislike the credit roll thing.
and about Fox baseball, their commentators suck. I was watching a Mets game and the 3 jerkoffs talked about Red Wine for AN HOUR. I'm sorry but most ball fans Drink BEER! I likes me some wine sometimes, but what a bunch of pretentious blowhards. Fox was great when they started the Simpsoms but now everything they touch turns to Sh!t.:)

Brubaker

17-Nov-2006, 02:31 AM

Because you need their"express written permission".:confused:
I hate that 3/4 screen promos. And I also dislike the credit roll thing.
and about Fox baseball, their commentators suck. I was watching a Mets game and the 3 jerkoffs talked about Red Wine for AN HOUR. I'm sorry but most ball fans Drink BEER! I likes me some wine sometimes, but what a bunch of pretentious blowhards. Fox was great when they started the Simpsoms but now everything they touch turns to Sh!t.:)

I'm sure they know some people tape the games, for whatever reason. They just don't want some knucklehead using it for anything.

Over the past couple of years, Fox has also gotten into the trend of planting "stars" from their programming into the crowd of sports games and pointing them out during innings, or even "interviewing" them. The sports reporters or broadcasters pretend they have no idea these stars from the network were there at the stadium and ask them who they want to win, even if they are already wearing a team jacket, just to provide an easy lead-in to shameless questions on their show(s). All to squeeze in a little promotion in case someone missed the commercials or promos at the bottom of the screen. I actually saw an article on the jerk from Fox that was behind these very "brainstorms" and read nauseating quotes from other execs saying that his ideas were genius and would become commonplace on sporting events.