gore in the directors cut

[kortick]

i was wondering why romero didnt really pump
up the gore level in the uncut version to the extreme

i mean he knew that there was gonna be 2 versions
one for the theatres and one for dvd

if he had really put in a lot more gore
the unrated version could have been shown at midnight shows
where the nc17 rating wouldnt matter
and there would have been a chance for the film to gain
a new level of cult appeal by showing the stuff GAR fans expect from him

does anyone else think he should have put in more gore knowing he was
putting out 2 versions?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Gore for the sake of gore doesn't save a medicore film dude. Why is it that everyone thinks that dead films are just about the gore. That level of thinking is the reason the man doesn't even try to turn in something decent. I thought the R cut was pretty gory and I really saw no reason to add anymore gore to the film.

That film needed to be re-shot period. Even if it would have had more and played at midnight it would have sank into oblivion like it has. Just chalk up LOTD as a failure. Making posts about adding gore to the film, or saying the film was great just for the gore means nothing in the mainstream of things. People want to watch his dead films because of films like DAWN 1978 and NIGHT 68. There is more to the films than watching a hundred zombies eat someone's intestines.

If gore is the only reason you like zombie films... than you should stick to the original DAWN & DAY and the slew of italian imitators. :rolleyes:

[EvilNed]

I think the gore is fine the way it is. When overdone, extreme gore can almost look silly. I mean, today it's actually quite amusing and sadistic when Torrez and Rickles get torn to bits in Day of the Dead.

[kortick]

well it is my fault in expressing the version i wanted to see

as well as gore i would have liked extra scenes of charecter development as well
you dont care about someone being torn apart if that person has no value
to you

i liked LAnd but i do recognise its shortcomings

the gore scenes would have been the more expensive parts to make
as opposed to the charecter parts

i was just thinking that it was shortsighted not to make a REAL
directors cut seeing that they were making one anyways

like i feel that cholo should have gotten to take a bite out of kaufman
before the explosion
and big daddy should have been seen eating SOMEONE at least

i think that the opportunity to make the real film was wasted
as the opportunity was provided

[Adrenochrome]

the gore was fine (in fact, it had more than the others) - I would rather have seen character developement with Pillsbury, Slack and Kaufman - also --- I still wanna know what happened to the son in the "Cholo/apartment scene with the hangman". (He was bitten when he was trying to cut the old man down.......no gunshot....no nothin'....just, "It's your mess, you clean it up.") -- (or something like that)
Too much gore in a Zombie Flick ruins it.....the true horror is surviving the problem, not watching a feeding frenzy.

[mista_mo]

DJ...Land wasn't a failure, not to the critics, not at the box office either. it made 44 million overall? and it cost 15million to make? I'd call that pretty good myself. It made 10 million or so in it's opening weekend. again I'd say thats pretty good. I loved it, it was and still is a great film. And please don't go using the excuse that I only like it cuz "i'm a stupid 17 year old" cuz, yes while i'm 17, I am incredibly far from stupid. I like the occasional action movies, but I hate steven segal or however you spell his name..

So yea..I think that is pretty good proof pointing otherwise. You don't like the movie, thats cool, just don't go calling it a waste of time and a failure, when so many people and film critics loved it. I'm one of em.

[MinionZombie]

We know what would have happened with the son - he'd have been shot and disposed of, no point showing it really, it's pretty obvious. And MisterMo - you make some excellent points, viva Land of the Dead!

[DjfunkmasterG]

DJ...Land wasn't a failure, not to the critics, not at the box office either. it made 44 million overall? and it cost 15million to make? I'd call that pretty good myself. It made 10 million or so in it's opening weekend. again I'd say thats pretty good. I loved it, it was and still is a great film. And please don't go using the excuse that I only like it cuz "i'm a stupid 17 year old" cuz, yes while i'm 17, I am incredibly far from stupid. I like the occasional action movies, but I hate steven segal or however you spell his name..

So yea..I think that is pretty good proof pointing otherwise. You don't like the movie, thats cool, just don't go calling it a waste of time and a failure, when so many people and film critics loved it. I'm one of em.


I don't think you're stupid.

Compared to his other Zombie films... LOTD is a failure. over 50% of his own fans find it medicore. When your own hardcore fans hate the movie, to me that would be a failure.

$44 million is nothing. It cost $18,000,000 to make. $10-$15 million to market. Thats $33,000,000 just to make a film. $44,000,000 is pathetic. Plus you have to remember they don't get all of that box office money. The average contract for LOTD box office return is 75% of the box office gross. Which is about $33,000,000 the cost to make the film with marketing.

LOTD's only profit came from DVD sales. DVD rentals were nil because most Blockbuster stores didn't even carry LOTD, and BB is the largest chain. If LOTD was a success, like everyone claims.... Universal would be jumping up to hand him $20,000,000 for a sequel with theatrical Distribution. Instead they wanna do a $5-$7 mil budget direct to video sequel.

Universal would rather finance a $40,000,000 Dawn remake sequel, than a LOTD sequel. I still have an inside contact at Universal and trust me, they aren't exactly jumping to get the sequel rolling for LOTD.

[glsjaw]

if i remember right there wasnt alot of advertising for Land and i know atleast in my area it was yanked about after a week of being in the theaters

[DjfunkmasterG]

During DAWN 04 I saw ads on Sci-Fi, TNT and many station 4 weeks before it's release. Including ads that ran during NBA games, infact one game was sponsored by Universal Pictures DAWN of the DEAD. Which I thought was strange...but still cool none the less. During every commercial break was a tv spot for DAWN.

For LOTD... I think i saw one or two commercials 3 days before it's release. Not even one commercial during ER for LOTD. DAWN 04 had 3 commericals during an ER episode. Universal dropped the ball on the marketing... plus surrounding the campaign around just the fans was a huge mistake. They needed to market it better. However, without being able to use the previous films screwed them. I think had they done TV and trailers using the original 3 dead films... it would have been better.

[MinionZombie]

Land got a good amount of advertising over here in the UK, I frequently saw TV ads for it. As for 50% of fans hate it - where are you getting your evidence from eh? lol.

And they still made a profit, a good amount at this early stage in its life. Big blockbusters get made and can come out with fudge all profit and they still get a sequel of the same magnitude. Hollywood is just run be retards. Besides, GAR's flicks are what would be classed as limited appeal - it's more of a cult thing.

LAND ROCKS! :cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hollywood is just run by retards.

Agreed! :D

[mista_mo]

Yea, I agree with you on that fact my good man...Hollywood is so shallow...it appeals to the lowest common denominater (in most cases..okay, 99% of the cases)..hell, most of the hollywood movies have unneccesary sex scenes that don't really need to be shown. Plus, most of the movies that come out are just junk..simple dialogue, mediocre acting, and they rely on intense action scenes and great FX. (I imagine someone who doesn't like LOTD will say something like that fits the film almost perfectly).

As much as I hate to admit it...most teenagers (and kids and young adults) have pretty bleh taste in movies. They like em just cause of the action and FX...I can't stand most action movies, and alot of people reveire Stephen Segal as a God cause of his films (come on, the guy can't act and the dialogue in the films is utterly horrible). There...thats my little Rant on hollywood films, and don't get me started on the "Stars" that the accursed land produces. It's BS.

And Dj, alot of people would type cast me into the mold of Teens that I just described up there. When people think of teens it's like: Drugs, sex, rebelion, stupidity, booze, etc. And I know I'd get typecast into that. Lets see, I stopped smoking, drinking, drugs a few years ago (It was going to kill me so I said enough is enough) I don't have sex, as I believe it should wait until marriage (yea, yea make fun of me if you will, but I got some morals that I choose to live by, and being a christian helps alot). Oh, and I do have a girlfriend...Neither of us wants a sexual relationship, as it would ruin what we have right now, which I wouldn't trade for the world. I like to think that i'm pretty far from stupid..again, I'd like to think so.

So yea..thats my little post. I know I got off topic a little bit, but couldn't help it. sorry for any spelling mistakes tho...my eyes are killing me so I can't stair at the screen for too long.

[EvilNed]

Most Hollywood films have already made their money back even before they are released from marketing deals and such. Land was definetly not a setback for any of the companys. It ran at a plus.

And the movie theather doesn't get 25% of the profits. I read a text somewhere where a former theather owner explained it: The first two weeks of the film, the company gets 100% of the cash, the next week 90% and the one after that 80% etc. etc. Movie theathers mostly get money from pop corn and soda (which is why A) they are over priced and B) they dont want you to bring your own).

So Land was definetly not a failure. And when saying that only 50% of your fans find it mediocre, then that's just your estimation. Alot of people don't like it. But alot of people wouldn't have liked it, no matter what Romero had cooked up! You cannot please everyone, it's hard enough to please the majority. It's safe to say that the majority find Land a good film, but lacking in some departments. Then there are some extremes who find it flawless and some who find it flawfull.

By the way, if you had it your way then the Star Wars prequels are the biggest mistakes since the dropping of the A-bombs... Of course, that I can agree with.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Although you have a point... The estimates of what a theater keeps is a little inaccurate.

In 1999, George Lucas signed a distribution deal with 20th century Fox. Fox then makes deal with the theaters. In his deal all theaters had to be equipped with Dolby Digital EX surround at a minimum, and 90% of all box office take had to be returned to Lucas Film. That 90% deal ran for 3 weeks, then decreased to 75% for 3-6, then to 49% for week 6 through 10. After 10 weeks it is a 25/75 split. Industry standard.

LOTD, not being the huge name Star Wars is was lucky to get a deal close to that. Of course a lot has changed since 1999 to 2005. However, there is no friggin way Universal was getting 100% of all the box office on LOTD for 2 weeks straight. Most Low Budget, non celeb driven films are lucky to get a 75/25 deal. Even an Adam Sandler film, which is guaranteed to make money, (only flop he had was Little Nicky) was distributed at a 70/30 split.

Land may have done well, but it was only DVD sales, and the last leg of the European release. US Box Office means jack, and any film released in the US will never make the studio their money back. The studio's only make back profit on Overseas distribution and DVD sales. The US market is a joke. The few films that make bank... Are because they are decent films. The majority are still in the red after their US release. They only hit black on the overseas Distribution and DVD sales. If the Studio's relied on the US film going public for their bread and butter... They would be bankrupt.

DAWN of the DEAD 2004 made $100,000,000 World Wide. Cost $26,000,000 to make and $20,000,000 to market globally. Do you know what the final profit margin was on the remake of DAWN after all the expenses? 20% (They made $20,000,000 profit) only because it was very successful overseas while doing its theatrical run. The current margin is probably 35-40% because of DVD sales.

Although Land cost less to make, and less to market. The profit margin was much smaller, but still made a profit which is why Universals Rogue division is willing to do DTV sequels, but at a price tage of $5-$7 million per film. In the studio system... Unless a film, like LOTD makes at least $30-$35 million in the US alone... They consider it a flop. They only become happy when the film goes overseas. However, history has shown Romero does better finanically with overseas dollars. The Original DAWN did better overseas, but there were contributing factors which is he refused to get it rated so his US take of $20,000,000 back in 1979 was decent, but the other $50,000,000 it made overseas, is because films are more profitable over there as opposed to here.

LOTD has many issues... Story, plot, characters, Running time, rushed Post Production... and poor marketing. However, i don't care how many critics praised or slandered LOTD... Word of Mouth, like on these boards and IMDB, and Rotten Tomato... Will make or break a film. Plus the biggest market for Horror is urban communities. Large Cities. Most Large Newspapers... hated LOTD.

If you think I am wrong on demographics... Do yourself this little test. Go into a shady neighborhood blockbuster, and check the action and horror sections of the shelves. take a look at the amount of titles they have. Then go into suburbia, a decent neighborhood and take a look at those same shelves. Horror isn't just marketed for Teens, it is marketed to the inner cities are urban areas because they spend the money. If they hear bad things they won't get their asses into the seats.

I live near Washington DC, literally 20 minutes by train, 40 minutes by car(Beltway traffic is a bitch). LOTD was showing in almost every theater in the DC metro area. Out by me, in Gaithersburg, MD within in 10 miles of my house it was on 3 screens. The Rio 18, The Regal 13 Rockville, and the Germantown 14. After week one the Germantown and Regal 13 pulled LOTD. The RIo crammed it in their smallest theater and letterboxed the film to play on a screen made for 1.85:1 films, and the theater had sh*tty ass sound.

In Baltimore, MD... In the city and not so desireable areas... it played on every screen. In Owings Mills, White Marsh and Bel Air, it played one of the 3. Allentown, PA. I bet the only lace it played was probably the Carmike 16 off Airport Rd. I was going to be in Allentown while LOTD was out... when I inputted the zip code of 18103 into Fandango, and MovieTickets.com After week 2 i couldn't find LOTD within a 30 mile radius. It played in a ****ty part of Reading PA.

I am getting off topic... anyway, This film was made for fans, marketed towards fans, and the rest of the public hasn't got a sh*t f*ck clue of who George Romero the man really is, infact ask any normal person if they know who George Romero is. I bet they stare at you blankly. The film should have been marketed based on horror not some mans reputation.

To get back on topic... I think the goire level in the R-Cut was fine and was quite a bit. I will admit I did expect a longer film in the URDC, so like most of you I was let down in that department. However, for me... I was let down twice.

[EvilNed]

While I doubt you are wrong on the demographic part, I'd like to see some sources on your Box Office break information. It's not that I don't trust you, but I've heard reliable sources state what I've heard. Besides, as I've said, most films already cover most of their budget before ever reaching the theathers. I doubt Land would get that kind of marketing deals, of course, but you could probably knock off 5-10 million right away. If it did get 100% the first few weeks or not is irrelevant, really, because the US box office was weak.

[MinionZombie]

Well I have to say mista_mo you're one of the good ones coming up behind the older generations. Sometimes I think "those damn kids" (and yet I'm not quite 22 myself!) and think they're all a bunch of bastards with no respect - but then I think that's probably what people five years older than me thought about me and my friends...but you sound like one of the good ones, good stuff.

As for the no-boom-boom-before-marriage, well done I say. Too many people having sex these days, lol ... but seriously, it's good that not all teenagers are the cliche used in comedy sketches.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The US Box office for all films is weak. The most famous successful box office failure is the film Ransom starring Mel Gibson. Here is a film which by all financial accounts was successful at the box office, home video and TV deals. Yet to this day, and many millions of dollars later... Ransom still remains in the red.

When I was younger I worked in a Blockbuster video and a Hollywood Video store, I also was friends with my local theater manager in Scranton PA because he lived next door to me. He used to tell me little details because I asked why I have to pay $5.00 for a 20 oz soda.

I found out about the Star Wars distribution deal at the Carmike 16 in Allentown, PA. I was dating a girl whose younger brother worked in the theater and he was telling us at dinner one night how the manager was frustrated over the Star Wars deal because they had it on 5 screens. I then asked other theater managers just out of curiosity which is how I found out how the system works.

Then when I was involved with the DAWn remake my contact at Universal explained the entire process in the marketing and distribution of major motion pictures. Thats how I ended up knowing a lot of information.

[Hawkboy]

The US Box office for all films is weak. The most famous successful box office failure is the film Ransom starring Mel Gibson.

Actually that film doesn't even register on the box office failure chart...

Look at films like Heavens Gate, Cleopatra, Hudson Hawk, Adventures of Pluto Nash,The Postman and so many others..

Ransom cost 80 million to make and grossed 135 million world wide.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Yep, but everyone had their friggin hands in the til... 300 million later the film is still in the red. In fact in 1998 there was big article in TV guide and TIME about it.

[EvilNed]

That sounds a bit extreme. If it cost 80 and had a marketing of 50 million, and then made 135 million then I would believe that. But if it cost 80 million total and then made 300 million then it's NOT in the red no matter what the newspapers say.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dude,

I am telling you this movie had some serious accounting errors. Because of royalties and Bonuses based on the final performance. They were totalling everything it cost to make the movie, plus the post payouts. Then comparing it to VHS sales and rentals plus Network TV rights. It still ended up in the red. A lot of execs at Disney got in deep sh*t over this. It is the Enron of films in Hollywood.

[EvilNed]

Alright, that makes sense I guess. Haha, never would have thought. That was an OK film, mediocre but nothing great. Nothing I would spend 80 million on.

[Hawkboy]

That's all great and good, but Ransom still does not equal the losses of the films I mentioned earlier. google all time box office losers and you won't see Ransom mentioned....

[EvilNed]

Even though Cleopatra is usually listed among the worlds biggest fiascos, it's actually in the plus these days.

[mista_mo]

Heh, thanks MinionZombie, glad to know I can get respect from my elders. I dunno, it's weird, I used to be like that, but I realized that I was going to end up killing myself if I kept doing what I was doing...I've come close but never have had sex..I dunno, whenever the situation came up, it's like something inside me said "no, your not doing this, leave now" and I did. Yea, I get made fun of by some of the people I used to hang out with (one said your 16 and still a virgin, what are you, f*cking gay). All I said was no, I don't wanna have sex with random people...Getting an STD isn't my idea of a fun time. And now that I have a girlfriend (who cares about me for who I am, and doesn't wanna change me) I have no urges to rip her clothes off and fondle her or anything like that..Respect her too much as the beautiful, sweet, loving, caring, intelligent person she is.

If I had been sexually active, I can guarrantee you that I wouldn't have half as much respect for her as I do now...I think it's quite good that I can keep my eyes to her head, not her breasts.

Again, thank you for the good words MZ, and hey..i'm turning 18 in like 11 days so I guess I'll be an adult eh? Pretty funkadelic. anyway, I's be out and this is my post, which has no bearing whatsoever on the topic at hand. heh, I'm terrible eh?

[erisi236]

Well, in terms of "word of mouth" take a look at the box office decline of Land and Dawn04

in it's second weekend Land went down 73.44% and in it's third weekend it went down another 65.62%

in it's second weekend Dawn04 went down 60.05% and in it's third weekend it went down another 57.06%

just by those number you can tell what film held onto the publics intrest more

[MinionZombie]

Yawn04 held on longer because it's brainless popcorn candy for the masses - it has big name stars, had a bigger budget, more advertising and more priveliges. But it's beyond crap in the script department.

Land is the art in comparison to Yawn's burger king advert.

[DjfunkmasterG]

That's all great and good, but Ransom still does not equal the losses of the films I mentioned earlier. google all time box office losers and you won't see Ransom mentioned....


They go by, Gross versus released production cost. I am sure there are some stinkers in there... Pluto Nash and Gigli have to be at the top of the list along with Basic Instinct 2

[Hawkboy]

Yawn04 held on longer because it's brainless popcorn candy for the masses - it has big name stars,

I'm guessing you are talking about the Dawn Remake (Which I quite like) but I'm not sure because Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames are hardly BIG names. One could argue they aren't even as well known as John Leguizamo, and certainly not as well known as Dennis Hopper.

[MinionZombie]

Ving Rhames is a pretty big name. Mekhi Pfeiffer - he's a big deal (apparently) etc. They're the sort of people that the typical Yawn04 audience would lap up. I saw a CAM version of Yawn04 when it had just come out in America and you could hear the audience lapping up every drop of Rhames as he cringed his way through the hideous "my black ass I will" style dialogue.

Yawn04 strokes the dick of the M.T.V.-A.D.D. audience.

That's my view anyway, I'm sure Dj knows it well, lol. I have the Director's Cut on DVD, even got it from America, but I wouldn't give it anything more than 4 out of 10. It has the attention span of a toddler and is just too brainless ... which is ironic for a zombie film.

[EvilNed]

Dawn 04 is as stupid as they come, but at least it had some cool scenes. As far as zombie adventures go, I'd rate it a 6 or 7. As far as zombie films go, it's a weak 3 or 4. It's way inferior to Land in everyway, of course.

[Hawkboy]

Ving Rhames is a pretty big name. Mekhi Pfeiffer - he's a big deal (apparently) etc. They're the sort of people that the typical Yawn04 audience would lap up.

Not really. Neither is a household name. Mekhi Pfeiffer is on 'ER' and hardly a big deal (Seen his name on a marquee anywhere in the last three years?), and I'm trying to think of the last movie Ving Rhames had a lead role in outside of a made for cable Don King movie (That is very good by the way). Sorry, but to the average joe, Ving is known as "the big guy from Pulp Fiction". In other words, some movie goers may know of him but he is certainly no draw at the box office.

I'm not arguing the merits of the Dawn remake (Although I hold it in much higher in opinion then yourself) but the the reasoning the remake did better than "Land" because it had "Big Name Stars" is simply not true, as it had no "Big name Stars".



Yawn04 strokes the dick of the M.T.V.-A.D.D. audience.


The movie is much more than that, at least to me. If it were your typical MTV flick we would have had 2 hours of strobe light, horrible heavy metal laden soundtrack tripe. I was sooo relieved when that wasn't the case (Sadly they let me down with the end credits....those more than anything resemble the movie you describe)

I thought the remake was thoughtfully done and not a retread of the previous film. The characters had a depth more prevalent than today's horror films and was really quite ambitious in expanding the scope of the zombie terror in terms of world wide chaos. Now it did some things I didn't like.... I missed the social satire and political mistrust of Romero's version and the lack of it makes the remake far inferior. But then again had they tried to redo that type of commentary/subtext it may have come off as cheap. I'm glad they went in a different direction with the film.

I didn't want to see a carbon copy of the original Dawn (I already have that on DVD) I think the film makers did a grand job and I welcome any attempt to re-work "Day" as that is my least fave of the Dead films.

Don't worry I'm not trying to make you like the remake, or saying you're wrong for hating it....... I'm just telling you why I liked it. (Theres a lot more reasons why I liked it but I am sooo tired =) )

By the way I LOVED Land of the Dead too.

[EvilNed]

Dawn 04 is a good film for when you're really tired and want to watch a no-brainer.

EDIT: I changed "perfect" to "good". I realized there's a ton of no-brainer films that I'd rather watch instead of Dawn 04, really, considering the writing is really horrible.

My favorite No brainer is Blade. :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Not really. Neither is a household name. Mekhi Pfeiffer is on 'ER' and hardly a big deal (Seen his name on a marquee anywhere in the last three years?), and I'm trying to think of the last movie Ving Rhames had a lead role in outside of a made for cable Don King movie (That is very good by the way). Sorry, but to the average joe, Ving is known as "the big guy from Pulp Fiction". In other words, some movie goers may know of him but he is certainly no draw at the box office.

I'm not arguing the merits of the Dawn remake (Although I hold it in much higher in opinion then yourself) but the the reasoning the remake did better than "Land" because it had "Big Name Stars" is simply not true, as it had no "Big name Stars".



The movie is much more than that, at least to me. If it were your typical MTV flick we would have had 2 hours of strobe light, horrible heavy metal laden soundtrack tripe. I was sooo relieved when that wasn't the case (Sadly they let me down with the end credits....those more than anything resemble the movie you describe)

I thought the remake was thoughtfully done and not a retread of the previous film. The characters had a depth more prevalent than today's horror films and was really quite ambitious in expanding the scope of the zombie terror in terms of world wide chaos. Now it did some things I didn't like.... I missed the social satire and political mistrust of Romero's version and the lack of it makes the remake far inferior. But then again had they tried to redo that type of commentary/subtext it may have come off as cheap. I'm glad they went in a different direction with the film.

I didn't want to see a carbon copy of the original Dawn (I already have that on DVD) I think the film makers did a grand job and I welcome any attempt to re-work "Day" as that is my least fave of the Dead films.

Don't worry I'm not trying to make you like the remake, or saying you're wrong for hating it....... I'm just telling you why I liked it. (Theres a lot more reasons why I liked it but I am sooo tired =) )

By the way I LOVED Land of the Dead too.


Hawboy is right. There really is no Big name stars in DAWN 04. There are known character actors. Sarah Polly is only big on the canadian indie circuit. Everyone else is just a bit player, but everyone did a fantastic job... except for that retard who went after the frigging dog. They should have just shot her and left her for Andy to feed on.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm...no brainer films...I duno which ones I'd go for, but one on my list of preferred no brainer entertainments is Van Wilder: Party Liason - as derivative as it is, it's still really silly and fun.

I've watched clips/snippets of Yawn04 on Sky Movies ... but haven't put the DVD in my player in a very long time ... probably been over a year, when I was doing my dissertation (one segment talked about Yawn04). It's a rather dusty DVD case. :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

I just watched it the other night. Holds up good too repeated viewings. Dawn 04 that is.

[Moon Knight]

Land of The Dead. Man, I loved this movie. However, it wasn't perfect and the thing I love most about the GAR films seemed to missing- Character Development. Slack even went the entire film without her name mentioned once. Aside from a few minor complaints, including the ending where the zombies are breaking into The green and some soundtrack issues, This movie was fun. Great dialogue, a healthy amount of gore, and a nice cast, really set this film apart from this sad wave of horror crap that keeps coming out.

Land a Failure? Maybe depends on how you look at it. Sure, profit wise, it wasn't impressive and yes, it was POORLY marketed. GAR even admits that Universal aint knocking on his door.

Was Day of The Dead a succuss at the box office? Hell no!
It was a complete dud, but you know, who cares. That film grew even bigger among GAR fans as years gone by and I love Land of The Dead a bit more every time I pop it in.
Like Minion said, these movies have a cult following and I love carrying these films around in my pocket.

[MinionZombie]

All of Romero's films have met with some sort of bugger up. Night was only successful after the French started raving about it. Dawn suffered the "X" rating debacle - but was ultimately very successful - Hungry Wives and The Crazies both did pretty much nothing (though I like them). Martin was small time I'd say, Knightriders didn't do at all well, Creepshow was his biggest success - a commerically bankable product. Day of the Dead flopped like a soppy pancake, Monkey Shines did alright, Dark Half was over-done, Bruiser was seen by about 3 people and Land ... well considering his track record he's done well.

GAR makes the movies he wants to make and they've all found cult success thanks to video (and now DVD), because there are hoardes of people like us swooning over his flicks.

[Adrenochrome]

Bruiser was seen by about 3 people

GAR makes the movies he wants to make and they've all found cult success thanks to video (and now DVD), because there are hoardes of people like us swooning over his flicks.
I must be one of the three. I liked Bruiser.

[MinionZombie]

Same here, got it on DVD. It's not great, but it's kinda cool. I especially liked the Misfits part *he says as he sits typing while wearing a Misfits t-shirt*.

[Ryan1]

I thought Land Of The Dead was pretty violent. Day is still the goriest for me,i saw it when i was pretty young and that scene of the guy getting his eye ripped out ****ed with me for a long time.

[Monrozombi]

I must be one of the three. I liked Bruiser.

alright i'm in the club of three woohoo, loved Bruiser.

GAR is one of those directors that he may not be successful financially or commercially wise compared to the Lucas', Spielbergs & Camerons but he's created a small set of films that have stood the test of time and although people may think of LOTD as a flop, it really wasn't, todays standards when it comes to films is set too high if you ask me. People pump too much money into a film and expect 10x the return. GAR made a decent film for 20mil give or take a few hundred grand, none of the actors probably got paid more then a million, so it goes to show that someone like GAR can make enjoyable films, that are remembered throughout the ages

[MinionZombie]

Actually it cost $15 million and it's done over $46 million worldwide.

[Monrozombi]

Actually it cost $15 million and it's done over $46 million worldwide.

I was rounding off...anyway, that shows you that with the right story, director, crew and cast a good film can come from a small budget. We're getting into the season of mega blockbusters starting next week. Could MI:III have been made for 20 million? probably if it wasn't all salary for Tom and Phillip Seymour Hoffman etc and the need for the over the top and all the marketing, some of these movies have marketing budgets 2x the amount that a GAR film would take to produce. If someone would just give GAR 10-15 million and the proper marketing people behind it, anyone of his films would gross over 50 million easily

[general tbag]

i think big budget movies are to much of a gamble. look at mi3 and how they considered it a flop at 45 mil opening weekend. it amazing how much crap gets big bucks, yet a small budgeted movie like land, which made it money back and then some cant get bank rolled again. yea holywood execs are idiots.

i think the part that stands about gar is he isnt willing to compromise his vision. something that is a rare quality in the cut throat market of making movies.

should there be another movie made, i think it will be in the rebirth of holywood going back to making less expensive movies with a moderate return. it sad when a big budget flop effects quarterly results for a movie company. that cant be said for any gar zombie flick .

[Brubaker]

Hawboy is right. There really is no Big name stars in DAWN 04. There are known character actors. Sarah Polly is only big on the canadian indie circuit. Everyone else is just a bit player, but everyone did a fantastic job... except for that retard who went after the frigging dog. They should have just shot her and left her for Andy to feed on.

Yeah, I don't understand why people assume those actors in Dawn 04' were box office draws. What movies are the rest of you watching? I've never heard of anyone on the cast list. None of them have done jack in the industry. You don't even have a washed-up or journeyman actor in the movie.

Regardless of whether or not the movie was "good", you can't make the case that anyone was cast to put asses in the theater seats. You can't even argue that Leguizamo or Hopper were cast to put asses in the seats. Hopper has always taken on a lot of movie roles that people might not necessarily expect from him, he's done it his whole career.

It could be said that Savini, Reiniger and Foree were placed into Dawn 04' to capitalize on people who enjoyed their work in the original.

[MinionZombie]

Hmmm ... well I always thought Rhames was a bit of a popular flick going audience draw tactic to be honest, what with Pulp Fiction, the Mission Impossible movies and he's bleedin' Kojak now isn't he?

Mekhi Pfifer (sp?) - ER, last time I checked that's a damn well known TV show, hehe ... so it'd be a case of "oh, it's the dude from E.R.", so while it might not be the reason for a lot of people to have gone to see the movie, maybe it was part of the reason.

Now with Land, Leguizamo isn't exactly box office gold and is more in the niche market (think "Spun") and yeah, Hopper, although a name, isn't exactly Michael "Blow the bloody doors off" Caine or Sean "I only do this voice" Connery...and Asia ... only us horror geeks really know who she is ... aside from the 13 year old kiddywinks who saw that awful xXx and recognised her...