Why I'm leaving George Romero

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing as I see it, You cannot make a pure "The artist is entitled to 100% creative license, and it's up to the audience to find value in what the artist chose to produce" when you are using SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY to produce your art. If GAR was giving his movies away, or holding an auction to sell one single copy of a movie he made, which is the ONLY copy of that movie produced, you could make an art argument. Fortunately or unfortunately however you view it, modern cinema draws revenue by appealing to large audiences which are willing to spend substantive amounts of money to gain access to the finished product of the Director. This being the case, the Director/Artist has departed from a purely artistic methodology and begun to engage in commerce when he seeks to gain revenues via the profits generated by the movie-going audiences paying for access to that movie. Yes, "good" is a subjective concept, but QUALITY as it is "commonly understood" is not. The definition of Quality in a commercial venture is: A product enticing enough to the planned-for consumer to spend some of their limited supply of money on. That's OBJECTIVE in principle, but it CAN BE *Subjective in application* at times, for example if a movie is blacklisted due to its content by a large portion of the potential consumer base, or conversely, if a wide portion of the consumer base automatically makes the decision to purchase based on "brand recognition." When it comes to movies, if a director wants to be EITHER commercially or artistically successful their product (the movie) has to be enticing to enough fans to make the picture a financial success, and thereby provide financial backers with the confidence to invest in the director again so they can CONTINUE to make movies. Whatever your feelings about GAR's more recent offerings, it's inarguable that if the profits of his finished movies falls below X level and remains there, where X is the minimum profit margin to ensure the production of another movie. The fact that there are significant numbers of fans now subjectively questioning GAR's future offerings is BOUND to have a negative effect on X. Just basic commercial principles.

[EvilNed]

We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks What is there to explain? You didn't even pose a question.

[rongravy]

Also the real money for Romero flix are back end numbers like dvd's. I used to talk to Nick Swardson around the time that Grandma's Boy came out. When it didn't do so well at the box office, he said that was fine and that they'd make their money off the dvds. So yeah, I think you're right there. I prefer to see everything first on the bigscreen. I guess some people are happy to view things in the privacy of their homes which is fine.

[CooperWasRight]

Here's the thing as I see it, You cannot make a pure "The artist is entitled to 100% creative license, and it's up to the audience to find value in what the artist chose to produce" when you are using SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY to produce your art. If GAR was giving his movies away, or holding an auction to sell one single copy of a movie he made, which is the ONLY copy of that movie produced, you could make an art argument. Fortunately or unfortunately however you view it, modern cinema draws revenue by appealing to large audiences which are willing to spend substantive amounts of money to gain access to the finished product of the Director. This being the case, the Director/Artist has departed from a purely artistic methodology and begun to engage in commerce when he seeks to gain revenues via the profits generated by the movie-going audiences paying for access to that movie. Yes, "good" is a subjective concept, but QUALITY as it is "commonly understood" is not. The definition of Quality in a commercial venture is: A product enticing enough to the planned-for consumer to spend some of their limited supply of money on. That's OBJECTIVE in principle, but it CAN BE *Subjective in application* at times, for example if a movie is blacklisted due to its content by a large portion of the potential consumer base, or conversely, if a wide portion of the consumer base automatically makes the decision to purchase based on "brand recognition." When it comes to movies, if a director wants to be EITHER commercially or artistically successful their product (the movie) has to be enticing to enough fans to make the picture a financial success, and thereby provide financial backers with the confidence to invest in the director again so they can CONTINUE to make movies. Whatever your feelings about GAR's more recent offerings, it's inarguable that if the profits of his finished movies falls below X level and remains there, where X is the minimum profit margin to ensure the production of another movie. The fact that there are significant numbers of fans now subjectively questioning GAR's future offerings is BOUND to have a negative effect on X. Just basic commercial principles. While you logic is sound and certainly applies to most cases in hollywood it just isnt one size fits all. A few things that seem to be missing in this equation: 1)There is a market for what George has been doing... It is pretty much a lock that whatever he does on a small budget there will be an audience for which buys him artistic freedom. 2)His films turn a profit... Again Just because there are some loud people on this board with negative opinions does not make his films objectively . 3)I can not 100% say for certain but as the recent films has his and Peter Grunwald's production companies name attached then George does indeed own stock in the film.. He has money in his own film. 4) Independent cinema works a very differently then Hollywood... The point of being indi is so you can do your film with artistic control. Now there has been some shift over the recent years but that is the "independent" in independent cinema.

[Trin]

Here's my final take. GAR has limited himself, both financially and artistically, by being resolute in his pursuit of his message driven vision. While he may have stuck to his artistic guns, and he may be making the movies he wants to make, he has closed doors for himself which diminished his ability to get financial backing, and in turn diminished his ability to explore his artistic vision. I am not asking for GAR to give the fans or studios what they want to the exclusion of all else. His vision is important for his movies to be GAR movies. I believe that if GAR were to chase nothing but financial success it would be just as detrimental as his current path. A steamy pile of boxoffice bliss would surely be just as disappointing as what we're seeing today. However, I think GAR needs to stop being so resolute in ignoring the criticisms. There is room for GAR to deliver his vision while integrating the thoughts of the critics. Consider this - it used to be that the fans disagreed with the critics. Now we're making the same points as the critics. That's the kind of thing I would think GAR would care very much about. GAR needs to get back to some simple things: Realistic characters, realistic motives, sensible decisions. Plausible plot. Message that works with the story rather than in spite of it. The studios have no desire to take creative freedom away. All they want is return on investment. If GAR delivered a movie with market and fan success it would open the doors for him to make something big budget with creative freedom. Dubious has said that no one has the follow-through to leave GAR. But how many of us didn't spend a dime on Survival? If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone.

[rongravy]

Here's my final take. If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone. OK, then why are you still here? Bitch, bitch, bitch... this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo...

[CooperWasRight]

Here's my final take. GAR has limited himself, both financially and artistically, by being resolute in his pursuit of his message driven vision. While he may have stuck to his artistic guns, and he may be making the movies he wants to make, he has closed doors for himself which diminished his ability to get financial backing, and in turn diminished his ability to explore his artistic vision. I am not asking for GAR to give the fans or studios what they want to the exclusion of all else. His vision is important for his movies to be GAR movies. I believe that if GAR were to chase nothing but financial success it would be just as detrimental as his current path. A steamy pile of boxoffice bliss would surely be just as disappointing as what we're seeing today. However, I think GAR needs to stop being so resolute in ignoring the criticisms. There is room for GAR to deliver his vision while integrating the thoughts of the critics. Consider this - it used to be that the fans disagreed with the critics. Now we're making the same points as the critics. That's the kind of thing I would think GAR would care very much about. GAR needs to get back to some simple things: Realistic characters, realistic motives, sensible decisions. Plausible plot. Message that works with the story rather than in spite of it. The studios have no desire to take creative freedom away. All they want is return on investment. If GAR delivered a movie with market and fan success it would open the doors for him to make something big budget with creative freedom. Dubious has said that no one has the follow-through to leave GAR. But how many of us didn't spend a dime on Survival? If you guys are saying he makes his money on the backend through DVD sales then I can tell you that I already left GAR. And I think I'm not alone. In your words he "closed the doors on himself" years ago... Another page in George's history. He consistently did films his way and back in his hay days in the 80's turned down numerous projects offered and it is for that reason we have Day the way we had it. If he would have sold out many of people's favorite entry in the series would have been watered down in tone,violence and language. It was those choices the made it hard for him to get the backing on a 4th film. Precisely the same independence that gave us the original trilogy.. You really don't cant have it both ways.. If George was not the (hate to use this term for obvious reasons) maverick film director he is we wouldn't have the great films we got out of him.

[C5NOTLD]

4) George could have had double the budget he had on Day but he would have lost creative freedoms . In all fairness, he did lose some creative freedom on Land as he wasn't allowed to hire his choice of John Carpenter to compose the soundtrack. .

[DjfunkmasterG]

In all fairness, he did lose some creative freedom on Land as he wasn't allowed to hire his choice of John Carpenter to compose the soundtrack. . There is more than just that my friend. Romero had ZILCH in his freedom on LAND. The producers had their nose in everything every step of the way. ---------- Post added at 06:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 AM ---------- What is there to explain? You didn't even pose a question. Yes I did... I guess you need the question mark. So here is my original post with the added question mark or do I have to speak Nedenese to get the point across to you? We aren't the downfall. If the man can't put together something decent that is on him not us, and I refuse to believe it is our fault, especially since Survival of the Dead had the exact same budget as Shaun of the Dead... explain that one folks? (<--- see I added the question mark Now can you answer it? ) More or less what I am asking is how can the man who is known for doing a lot on a small budget, have the same budget as a british studio produced zombie film like SHAUN not be able to re-create or even surpass it on the same money? I mean he is after all George A. Romero. Look in all the negativity surrounding George's new flicks and my utter distaste for Land of the Dead, I have to admit I still think George can make another great zombie film. I definitely will not turn my back on him because he made three of the best zombie films ever made, and has been an inspiration to all of us at some point in our lives. While I can understand people wanting to give up on him.... I am just not ready to throw in the towel.. I was, but I think about it more and I think the man can do another great film. I don't know all of his hurdles and other issues, but I am sure once the bugs are worked out we may actually get another great zombie flick from George.

[EvilNed]

But you pose no dilemma and no real question. Explain what? That Shaun and Survival had the same budget? What's there to explain about that? They did, that's all there is to it. What more do you want? If you want us to explain why you dislike Survival, I hope you realize that's something you'll have to do on your own.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ok let me spell it out Two filmmakers given the same budget - $4,000,000 One group turns in a fantastic zombie flick with comedic elements great characters and a good amount of the wet stuff. The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement. So explain why (here is the question) a couple of Romero fans from the UK can use the same amount of money and make a better film than the masters last 3 attempts? I guess you Swede's need everything spelled out for you You can't seem to grasp the simple concept of comparison without some extra wording eluding to the same point posed in the original question.

[Legion2213]

OK, then why are you still here? Bitch, bitch, bitch... this site is ripe with haters. sad, but troo... Haters? We are the people who have supported his projects financially and morally since we found his films, for me,that's knocking on two decades, for others, it's a lot longer. I bought his videos Then I bought the same movies on DVD Then I bought the special/uncut/ultimate editions on DVD Then I bought the same movies AGAIN on Blu-Ray I think people who are unhappy with his recent offerings are entitled to comment on them, be they positive comments or negative comments...especially when said people have put their hands in their pockets and bought his products over the years and decades.

[EvilNed]

Ok let me spell it out Two filmmakers given the same budget - $4,000,000 One group turns in a fantastic zombie flick with comedic elements great characters and a good amount of the wet stuff. The other group takes the money... churns out the dumbest thing since New Coke, yet, this other group and its leader are responsible for the modern zombie movement. So explain why (here is the question) a couple of Romero fans from the UK can use the same amount of money and make a better film than the masters last 3 attempts? I guess you Swede's need everything spelled out for you You can't seem to grasp the simple concept of comparison without some extra wording eluding to the same point posed in the original question. With all due respect, you're posing a situation relevant to you, and not me. So I feel no need to explain anything. As I said earlier, if you're trying to get an explanation out of anyone of why you didn't like Survival, then you're going about it the wrong way. Nobody can answer why you didn't like Survival as much as you liked Shaun. Why would you even pose a question like that? There's really nothing to explain, and I don't get why you seem to think there is. Get it? Consider this statement: Titanic cost 200 million dollars. Halloween cost 250,000 dollars. EXPLAIN THAT! Makes no sense whatsoever.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Consider this statement: Titanic cost 200 million dollars. Halloween cost 250,000 dollars. EXPLAIN THAT! Makes no sense whatsoever. Because James Cameron can command higher budgets for films people my have an interest in opposed to Halloween which has limited marketability and a limited fan base. And yes Ned, it can be explained, but I never asked you directly to explain it, not until you jumped in with your unwanted opinion. You still don't seem to get the question. It is a very simple one you are just trying to make it complicated because you happen to Enjoy Survival so to you there is no question when comparing the same budget on two separate zombie films. So you can run along now... bye ---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ---------- Haters? We are the people who have supported his projects financially and morally since we found his films, for me,that's knocking on two decades, for others, it's a lot longer. I bought his videos Then I bought the same movies on DVD Then I bought the special/uncut/ultimate editions on DVD Then I bought the same movies AGAIN on Blu-Ray I think people who are unhappy with his recent offerings are entitled to comment on them, be they positive comments or negative comments...especially when said people have put their hands in their pockets and bought his products over the years and decades. AMEN BROTHER LEGION! AMEN! I am one of those going on 3 decades of support, although I was very young when I saw Dawn of the Dead but if I remember correctly MonroeZombi has me beat... I think he had seen it when he was 3 if I remember the story correctly.

[EvilNed]

Because James Cameron can command higher budgets for films people my have an interest in opposed to Halloween which has limited marketability and a limited fan base. And yes Ned, it can be explained, but I never asked you directly to explain it, not until you jumped in with your unwanted opinion. You still don't seem to get the question. It is a very simple one you are just trying to make it complicated because you happen to Enjoy Survival so to you there is no question when comparing the same budget on two separate zombie films. So you can run along now... bye Sorry, not how it works. No matter how you twist and turn it, what you said just doesn't make any sense. I know what you're trying to say, but it's just a clearcut case of doing it wrong, as Hellsing would (probably) say. So both of the films have the same budget. You don't like one of them. So what? Nobody can explain that one but yourself. And let's not forget, it was an explanation you wanted. Well, do some soul searching, come back and then make sense. Wether I liked the film or not (I thought it was Okay) is irrelevant anyway, because we're all bias as fuck. So what does it matter? You're bias as well. You didn't like it. Does that suddenly invalidate your argument, as my opinion did mine? No, because your argument was based on two faulty assumptions to begin with: That Survival is a shitty film (Which it isn't, because that's a subjective opinion) and that budget = quality. Sorry, we all know that's not true.