George A. Romero's Survival of the Dead

[MinionZombie]

In the book the The Zombies that ate Pittsburgh, author Paul Gagne has an excerpt from Romero's shooting script for Dawn of the Dead and it reads as follows... "Stores of every type offer gaudy displays of consumer items - at either end of the concourse like the main altars at each end of a cathedral, stand the mammoth two story department stores, great symbols of a consumer society. The images are all too familiar, but in their present state they appear as an archeological discovery revealing the gods and customs of a civilzation now gone." Romero most definitely had a pre-conceived consumerism message with Dawn of the Dead. I don't understand why this is suddenly being debated? Damn straight.

[DubiousComforts]

Romero most definitely had a pre-conceived consumerism message with Dawn of the Dead. I don't understand why this is suddenly being debated? It's being debated because people would prefer it if Romero simply made DAWN over and over and over. That film has been placed on an unbelievably-high pedestal to where it couldn't possibly have an overt socio-political message like LAND or (gasp) DIARY. Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad." Of course, many people were disappointed when the film was released because they couldn't understand why the creator of NIGHT of the LIVING DEAD (a tough act to follow) would manipulate the previously dark concept to further some message... (read the letter in the first or second issue of Fangoria that laments the portrayal of the dead as "buffoons.") Now DAWN has become Romero's impossibly tough act to follow.

[krakenslayer]

The thing is, I think a lot of people just take Dawn at face-value, with their brains switched off. They see people wandering through the mall taking whatever they want and think "cool!", while totally ignoring the characters' gradual emotional collapse and all the other bad things that happen because of their greed. In other words - they see the movie and take from it the exact opposite message to what Romero intended.

[Mike70]

Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad." along that line, here is an article written by stephen harper from the university of glasgow about dawn, malls, zombies and consumerism. it is a relatively lengthy read but is well worth the time. http://www.americanpopularculture.co...002/harper.htm

[Cinerary]

[Monrozombi]

It's being debated because people would prefer it if Romero simply made DAWN over and over and over. That film has been placed on an unbelievably-high pedestal to where it couldn't possibly have an overt socio-political message like LAND or (gasp) DIARY. Of course DAWN has a HUGE message on display, which was apparent before the film was even released because at the time, the message was talked about. The release trailer even labels the excesses of consumerism as society "gone mad." Of course, many people were disappointed when the film was released because they couldn't understand why the creator of NIGHT of the LIVING DEAD (a tough act to follow) would manipulate the previously dark concept to further some message... (read the letter in the first or second issue of Fangoria that laments the portrayal of the dead as "buffoons.") Now DAWN has become Romero's impossibly tough act to follow. Not only has DAWN been placed on an incredibly high pedestool but so has Romero himself. Everything he's done after Day of the Dead people have had problems with for one reason or another. Romero has changed his style of filmmaking as well as the type of films he wants to make. People want the same George they've been watching for 20 years and alot of people don't realize that George has changed how and what he puts into his films to reflect the society we live in today.

[bassman]

Brains? For a Romero zombie?? Get out. That's it. Just get out of here....

[darth los]

Not only has DAWN been placed on an incredibly high pedestool but so has Romero himself. Everything he's done after Day of the Dead people have had problems with for one reason or another. Romero has changed his style of filmmaking as well as the type of films he wants to make. People want the same George they've been watching for 20 years and alot of people don't realize that George has changed how and what he puts into his films to reflect the society we live in today. That's fine and Dandy. As has been previously posted it's his franchise and he can do what he wants with it but it doesn't mean that we have to eat shit and like it. I love his older work and it's why I revere him so. But if he's going to change what made me feel that way about him that how can I be expected to feel the same? There are many people who disagree with the direction of the franchise and are not fanboys to the level of even if he comes out with less than quality work they'll still say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I am not one of those people. Make good films and I'll like it. Making crap while the whole time telling us how cool it is and if we don't like it we just don't "get" it is very condescending and very uncalled for.

[DubiousComforts]

Make good films and I'll like it. Making crap while the whole time telling us how cool it is and if we don't like it we just don't "get" it is very condescending and very uncalled for. Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations. The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices.

[darth los]

Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations. The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be enough room for both choices. But even you, although very articulately, are guilty of making the same type of comment that I'm talking about. I see it as crap, you don't, And as you said there's room for both. Why is it that you feel I'm not capable of grasping material and still determining that it sucks. Why is it that I lose all credibility? You love it yet you don't see me bashing you saying, "dude you actually like this crap"? You don't know what the hell you're talking about, you just don't get it". That's condescending. We can both listen to a song and agree it's country yet I'd probably not dig it and you'd be like don't you get it dude? Yes it's just not something I'm into. It sort of reminds me of the republican party purging people from it's own ranks because they don't follow the party line to a tee. Same thing with me. I love GAr yet i don't follow his party line to a tee. Sue me. I'm not going to lie about liking something just because it has GAr's name on it. Crap probably was a little strong. Allow me to rephrase: It's crap to me. With that said Just because I liked Michael Jackson's music in the 80's doesn't mean I have to like his latest offerings. He changed his style and I no longer could relate to it. Same thing with GAr's films. I used to dig them but it might as well be a different guy making them.

[MinionZombie]

Brains? For a Romero zombie?? Get out. That's it. Just get out of here.... Surely it should read "I can has Aunt Alicia?"

[AcesandEights]

Well, ultimately Romero should be making the sorts of films he wants to, but as it stands now, I’m starting to get the feeling he's reconciled himself to pounding out cheap work, like Diary, as though he were some penny-a-word pulp writer from the 30s. He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in. Otherwise, why put out films in this genre? He certainly didn't expand any horizons with Diary and though an argument could be made for Land (and I have made it in the past), sometimes Romero seems as though he's just treading on his name alone and putting out tepid little movies to pay bills and keep active. Hey, if that’s his hobby or retirement plan, far be it from me to give him a hard time about it, but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us. Now, I’m not saying Romero need to listen to his fans, but he should hear them, and--frankly--do the sorts of films he wants to and stop using people who have supported his endeavors in the past as an excuse for the poor work he’s churned out, of late.

[darth los]

Just the fact that you see Romero's change of direction as "making crap" and assume a condescending attitude on his part demonstrates that you don't get it. It's typical of artists that have long careers, such as rock bands, that many fans will fall by the wayside as the artist's tastes change and fail to meet fan expectations. The Hollywood mentality is that every film needs to be a big-budget risk while Romero is just trying to place his bet at the "$2 dollar window." Perhaps you're happier watching the blockbusters while I'm happier watching the smaller films. There should be enough room for both choices. Another example that I forgot about earlier is that of being a sports fan. I love Lebron James, he's the best player in the world. Yet he throws in a stinker ever so often and I'm gonna call him on it. Not that I don't dig him or that he's a bad player. He just played a bad game. Happens to greats all the time and GAr is one of them. Well, ultimately Romero should be making the sorts of films he wants to, but as it stands now, I’m starting to get the feeling he's reconciled himself to pounding out cheap work, like Diary, as though he were some penny-a-word pulp writer from the 30s. He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in. Otherwise, why put out films in this genre? He certainly didn't expand any horizons with Diary and though an argument could be made for Land (and I have made it in the past), sometimes Romero seems as though he's just treading on his name alone and putting out tepid little movies to pay bills and keep active. Hey, if that’s his hobby or retirement plan, far be it from me to give him a hard time about it, but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us. Now, I’m not saying Romero need to listen to his fans, but he should hear them, and--frankly--do the sorts of films he wants to and stop using people who have supported his endeavors in the past as an excuse for the poor work he’s churned out, of late. That I can Live with.

[shootemindehead]

Well, ultimately Romero should be making the sorts of films he wants to, but as it stands now, I’m starting to get the feeling he's reconciled himself to pounding out cheap work, like Diary, as though he were some penny-a-word pulp writer from the 30s. He also lays it at the feet of his fans, saying people just want him to replicate Dawn of the Dead etc., but what it seems to me that many people want out of a 'Dead' movie is some semblance of a zombie film that is engaging by way of character development and frightful due to the circumstances the characters are put in. Otherwise, why put out films in this genre? He certainly didn't expand any horizons with Diary and though an argument could be made for Land (and I have made it in the past), sometimes Romero seems as though he's just treading on his name alone and putting out tepid little movies to pay bills and keep active. Hey, if that’s his hobby or retirement plan, far be it from me to give him a hard time about it, but what I think a lot of people who like zombie films don’t want to hear is how we don’t get his work, when it’s really just a divergence of tastes for most of us. Now, I’m not saying Romero need to listen to his fans, but he should hear them, and--frankly--do the sorts of films he wants to and stop using people who have supported his endeavors in the past as an excuse for the poor work he’s churned out, of late. I began to seriously question Romero's direction with the idea to "re-boot" the living dead genre with 'Diary of the Dead'. When I heard it first, I just thought it was a bad move. Unlike some, I thought 'Land of the Dead' was pretty good. It's not up to the standard of the rest of the quadrilogy, but as a chapter in his original take on the zombie apocalypse it suited me fine and whetted my appetite for more. Unfortunately, I think that we've seen the last of the original series, as Romero seems to have scrapped that in favor of the this "re-boot" business. It's understandable to a degree, as such films are far cheaper to produce. Cheaper anyway, than continuing his original take on matters, where events have reached years after the first out break and just the scale alone requires a bigger budget than 'Diary of the Dead' or 'Survival of the Dead'. I kind of enjoyed 'Diary of the Dead' when I first saw it, though I felt that the lack of zombies on screen was a particular shortcoming and the "message" is waaaay overcooked (as has been previously discussed), but subsequent viewings just show it up to be a weak film in general. Hopefully, the next chapter in this "re-boot" will be more on the money, but I can't help but feel that Romero's best "dead" work is far behind him. I'll still pony up the shillings and go see it (assuming it even gets a cinema release in Ireland) and I'll probably still buy the DVD no matter how good/bad it is. I don't think it'll be as bad as 'Diary of the Dead' was, but I ain't hoping for a 'Day of the Dead'.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The title sounds retarded... Just call it ... Of the Dead