Land of the dead remake! omfg!!!

[MinionZombie]

lol, well made technically, but it's not really that good. Yeah, the whole non-Titanic-sinking story sucks chunks and then blows said chunks out of every orifice ... I guess it's a tad morbid making such an event picture out of a real tragedy...hmmm. Technically it is very, very proficient (what else would you expect from a Cameron flick?), but I don't think it's a very good movie on the whole. I remember at uni in the first year (Key Issues class - film course) we were discussing Titanic and it was almost unanimous that the film wasn't good. The only people who piped up in its defence were girls defending it as a good chick flick (which basically relates to said, chunk sucky story)... Now come on lads, back on topic, chop chop.

[bassman]

What is it with you mods? It's like people can't say anything that isn't directly related to the topic of the thread. I would imagine that if someone wants to throw it back into the main topic, all they would have to do is start talking about it again.... Instead, we get someone bawking at us that we're out of line or something ....

[Svengoolie]

I was bringing up Poopy Doo as an example of Gunn's previous writing So...by your rationale, does GAR's sophmore turd There's Always Vanilla have some sort of bearing on Dawn of the Dead's quality? I don't think so. And making a stack of cash doesn't mean the product is any good, look at Paris Hilton. I never mentioned anything about the overall cinematic quality of Scooby Doo. In fact, I haven't even seen it. Nor did I ever say that a film's quality is always determined by how much money it makes at the box office...although sometimes a film's quality can very well be reflected in those figures indirectly. Not all great films bomb at the box office...the same way all crappy films don't automatically succeed at the box office. For some reason, MZ...you and some of the other members of this forum seem hung up on that in regards to my posts, although it's not something I've ever maintained. I said that Scooby Doo was more successful than GAR's SK outings, and the numbers overwhelmingly reflect this. Try reading the posts before you respond.

[Bubdotd]

*sneezes* *Achu!*

[Maitreya]

Well in the LAND remake it will have Smauel L. Jackson fighting off zombies. Agreed... I am part of the sect that believes that Samuel L. Jackson deserves a place in a zombie movie (preferrably Romero).

[MinionZombie]

lol, just that we were talking about Land of the Dead and remakes, and now we're chitting the chat about Titanic. That's also the first time I've ever said to go back on topic as well I'll have you know. Bubdotd - Agreed...

[DVW5150]

He would be the survivor up till the end ... or go out unexpectedly , like in " Deep Blue Pee " Mr. Romero has a vision that few can match ...

[Brubaker]

So...by your rationale, does GAR's sophmore turd There's Always Vanilla have some sort of bearing on Dawn of the Dead's quality? I don't think so. I never mentioned anything about the overall cinematic quality of Scooby Doo. In fact, I haven't even seen it. Nor did I ever say that a film's quality is always determined by how much money it makes at the box office...although sometimes a film's quality can very well be reflected in those figures indirectly. Not all great films bomb at the box office...the same way all crappy films don't automatically succeed at the box office. For some reason, MZ...you and some of the other members of this forum seem hung up on that in regards to my posts, although it's not something I've ever maintained. I said that Scooby Doo was more successful than GAR's SK outings, and the numbers overwhelmingly reflect this. Try reading the posts before you respond. I'll bet that Stephen King was happy with the job Romero did on his work. That was probably the most important thing for GAR, more so than the money they made. I don't think George would be as happy if the films managed to make more money but King wasn't pleased with the finished product. Sure, the money would be nice but the last thing he'd want to do is insult his friend by compromising the films to make a little money. Ever hear how the original creators of Scooby Doo felt about the movie? Or will that question get swept under the rug once this thread reaches page 3? As for the LOTD remake, if they do it soon enough they could use the same actors, eh? Or explain how some of those chumpstains like Riley, Charlie and Slack survived the zombie outbreak for all those years. None of them would have lasted a day (dawn or night) with Rhodes, Roger, Peter or Ben.

[ssbib]

there going to make it eventually like in 10 years or so them unoriginol bastards!! Lol and who ever clicked this must of been like OMFG WHAT!?!?!? just wanted to get your attention. and btw tell me your thoughts if they remade this sooner then you think. lol would be utterly retarded but who knows so are they i dedicate my ass crack to the people responsible for the "dead" remakes Wouldn't surprise me if they did remake it. Although it is testamony to George's work that EVERY Dead film has been remade. Sweet man, go for it. lol

[deadpunk]

Wow! What's with all the Scooby Doo bashing? Actually, that film wasn't THAT bad. My kids, the demographic it was geared towards, enjoyed it. Not too mention, the film revitalized the interest in that much beloved character, which too me is worth it. As for remaking LOTD...count on it. 10 years? Mmmm...I'd give it longer. I think this is the one that will wind up waiting until Romero's passing, then they'll try and make it some ****ty tribute type thing that will backfire but revitalize sales of his original movies that will be released in special DVD format (or whatever they're putting movies out on by then). The whole remaking fad is interesting. True fans are disturbed by it, generally. Yet, it does bring new interest to classics that have been shelved for years. And, really, with improvements in FX and whatnot, why would anyone expect a verbatum remake? And who would pay to watch the EXACT same film, just with a different cast?! Sounds like a renter to me. :P

[CivilDefense]

I dont know why some people bitch about weather this zombie movie sucks or that movie sucks, some are good, some not so good. Im just glad to see someone making zombie movies again. Hell Id watch a zombie movie if there was ballet in it.

[deadpunk]

I dont know why some people bitch about weather this zombie movie sucks or that movie sucks, some are good, some not so good. Im just glad to see someone making zombie movies again. I'd say the majority of my problem with remakes, at least, is that it seems filmmakers spend so much time REMAKING films, when they should be spending time offering us up something new. And let me clarify "NEW". I want an original script. A unique plot. Something that hasn't been mass produced a million times over. Can a brother get surprised up in hyar?

[Adolf Kitler]

...it'd be retarded to remake Land a mere 10 years after it came out, not even Hollywood is that dumb. "The Last Man On Earth" was released in 1964..."Omega Man" was released in 1971...only a seven year gap. That's just one example of many. Yes, Hollywood IS that dumb.

[EvilFlyingCow]

I would jump for joy if Dawn was remade in the style of Night90.

[_liam_]

I dont know why some people bitch about weather this zombie movie sucks or that movie sucks, some are good, some not so good. Im just glad to see someone making zombie movies again. Hell Id watch a zombie movie if there was ballet in it. yeah but if people just churn out crappy zombie films, it tarnishes the commercial reputation of the sub genre and reduces the likelihood of other zombie flicks being made...