joeharley666
18-Feb-2007, 07:29 PM
of us arguing to death and debating to death on wether Land is a worthy picture.
Myself, as a Romero fan since maybe 1975 and who has seen all of George's Dead flicks on the big screen, I didn't like the corny and cheesy script regarding big daddy.I thought it was the weakest in the series and had no atmosphere whatsoever, to me it bombed. I wanted something at least 2 hours long, NO smart evolving flesh eaters, and absolutely NO big daddy. I would have liked the element of surprise with some added tension that Romero used to supply. Instead he relied on alot of loud sounds and cheap gimmicks and bad cgi(zombie priest) to scare us. Like alot of what the terrible horror movies of today throws at us. I also felt George wanted us to get too close to recognizing and knowing these zombies on a personal level than the flesh eaters in his past flicks.
Anyway...I hear alot of how it was bad because of how the studio handcuffed Romero and wanted it filmed as quickly as possible and the whole thing with the MPAA and a few more others.
So I'm asking to those amatuer film makers or people who are more educated than I am in this field, because of those reasons given; if George was given more time and was not handcuffed and was not fighting with the MPAA....could this movie have turned out better?
I find it hard to say yes because I wouldn't think the studio has any say over the big daddy cheese fest of a character or the pathetic line that Riley spews at the end "they need a place to live too or they deserve to live also" or something stupid to that effect. I think with these examples still in the script we would still see the same movie only with more gore.
Does anyone think George made this picture to appease the MTV generation and just to make some big money?
Not that it's wrong to make some money for himself, because George has every right and deserves to do so...but...I really thought after a 20 year layoff he would have delivered the hard-core fans the goods. I feel this was a let down.
Anyway, was it Romero's intention to do so...or did the studio big wigs force him to write a cheese-ball? Because to me, that was where the movie failed.
And do we expect the same level of cornyness in "Diary"?
This was not a post to belittle or offend anyone who liked the film, I was just always curious to see if anyone felt the same as I did regarding the studios involvment and if this is the film George really wanted to make and if he's REALLY satisfied with it even after all this time.
Myself, as a Romero fan since maybe 1975 and who has seen all of George's Dead flicks on the big screen, I didn't like the corny and cheesy script regarding big daddy.I thought it was the weakest in the series and had no atmosphere whatsoever, to me it bombed. I wanted something at least 2 hours long, NO smart evolving flesh eaters, and absolutely NO big daddy. I would have liked the element of surprise with some added tension that Romero used to supply. Instead he relied on alot of loud sounds and cheap gimmicks and bad cgi(zombie priest) to scare us. Like alot of what the terrible horror movies of today throws at us. I also felt George wanted us to get too close to recognizing and knowing these zombies on a personal level than the flesh eaters in his past flicks.
Anyway...I hear alot of how it was bad because of how the studio handcuffed Romero and wanted it filmed as quickly as possible and the whole thing with the MPAA and a few more others.
So I'm asking to those amatuer film makers or people who are more educated than I am in this field, because of those reasons given; if George was given more time and was not handcuffed and was not fighting with the MPAA....could this movie have turned out better?
I find it hard to say yes because I wouldn't think the studio has any say over the big daddy cheese fest of a character or the pathetic line that Riley spews at the end "they need a place to live too or they deserve to live also" or something stupid to that effect. I think with these examples still in the script we would still see the same movie only with more gore.
Does anyone think George made this picture to appease the MTV generation and just to make some big money?
Not that it's wrong to make some money for himself, because George has every right and deserves to do so...but...I really thought after a 20 year layoff he would have delivered the hard-core fans the goods. I feel this was a let down.
Anyway, was it Romero's intention to do so...or did the studio big wigs force him to write a cheese-ball? Because to me, that was where the movie failed.
And do we expect the same level of cornyness in "Diary"?
This was not a post to belittle or offend anyone who liked the film, I was just always curious to see if anyone felt the same as I did regarding the studios involvment and if this is the film George really wanted to make and if he's REALLY satisfied with it even after all this time.