George A Romero presents Road of the Dead

[JDP]

It really I, I will always view George as a legend and a hero but this is just too much for me to deal with. I think that just by taking a look at Survival of the Dead was enough to know that Romero is a goner, cinematically speaking. So this new train wreck of a movie waiting to happen comes as no surprise. RIP 1960s-1980s Romero. PS: the only redeeming sequence in Survival was the grumpy old-timer handing a bundle of lit dynamite to a zombie (a la Wile E. Coyote vs the Road Runner) and the aftermath of such an action, but it was only as a comedic moment. The rest of the movie, specially those cheesier than a block of gruyère CGI "special effects", was rather forgettable. I think I have seen better "effects" in those low-budget SyFy channel movies! Lordy I miss the good ol' days when CGI was mostly restricted to movies like Tron (where they truly worked well) and most other movies used "conventional" special effects.

[LivingDeadGuy]

I agree. I hate the way that all new movies are drowned in obvious computer effects nowadays. I miss the old days when people used make-up and mechanical puppets.

[MinionZombie]

I agree. I hate the way that all new movies are drowned in obvious computer effects nowadays. I miss the old days when people used make-up and mechanical puppets. Have you seen "The Void"? 80s style horror, but modern day and using practical effects. Exceedingly spare use of 'CGI' (really more compositing and duplication of figures in a frame), which is imperceptible. I also agree, though, CGI needs to be used sparingly and in clever ways that don't draw attention to themselves. Practical is the best way to go in horror as the effects are so front-and-centre and drawing attention to themselves. CGI, no matter how good it is, is just pixels from a computer. We know it doesn't exist and we also know it wasn't present on the set. Practical effects, on the other hand, we still know they're not real events - but we do know that they physically existed on set with the actors to directly interact with. CGI isn't bad outright, and there's some types of movies where you simply couldn't achieve them without it. The key thing is making sure the effects blend in with the overall look of the film in a way that is acceptable to the human eye.

[LivingDeadGuy]

Have you seen "The Void"? 80s style horror, but modern day and using practical effects. Exceedingly spare use of 'CGI' (really more compositing and duplication of figures in a frame), which is imperceptible. I also agree, though, CGI needs to be used sparingly and in clever ways that don't draw attention to themselves. Practical is the best way to go in horror as the effects are so front-and-centre and drawing attention to themselves. CGI, no matter how good it is, is just pixels from a computer. We know it doesn't exist and we also know it wasn't present on the set. Practical effects, on the other hand, we still know they're not real events - but we do know that they physically existed on set with the actors to directly interact with. CGI isn't bad outright, and there's some types of movies where you simply couldn't achieve them without it. The key thing is making sure the effects blend in with the overall look of the film in a way that is acceptable to the human eye. Nope have not seen it. I'll have to check it out someday. And I think CGI can be good when used the right way but most movies now use nothing but CGI effects and it shows. Like you said there needs to be a kind of balance with special effects.

[ProfessorChaos]

yeah, i almost feel bad for mr. romero these days. he was a very nice guy when i met him but seemed a bit sensitive to the fact that his newer films have been met with lukewarm reception at best. given how ridiculous this concept sounds, i doubt it will even see the light of day. dude made three legendary films that are among my all time favorites of any genre, but wow.....why would he even think this is something worth putting his name on?

[Moon Knight]

Will always love George but no thanks on this. What kills me is he slams The Walking Dead yet comes up with silliness like this. Smh.

[shootemindehead]

He slammed 'The Walking Dead'?

[JDP]

He slammed 'The Walking Dead'? Yes, he did, in some interviews, he referred to it disparagingly as "a soap opera with zombies". Not only it's surprising considering that this TV show is much better in every respect (including plot, make-up and special effects) than all his post-80s zombie movie efforts, but a few years ago Romero was even actually a guest host for an AMC Halloween Special heavily promoting TWD!!!

[LivingDeadGuy]

I have to agree with Romero on that one. I pretty much think of the show as a "soap opera about zombies" too and I lost interest after the first few episodes. Plus I'm getting sick of these shows and movies that call zombies everything but zombies. Things like walkers, stenches, and other sily labels. Like seriously you mean to tell me none of these characters have ever seen a zombie movie before? Even calling them ghouls would work but there's just this silly rule about not calling zombies "zombies". I don't get why.

[JDP]

I have to agree with Romero on that one. I pretty much think of the show as a "soap opera about zombies" too and I lost interest after the first few episodes. Plus I'm getting sick of these shows and movies that call zombies everything but zombies. Things like walkers, stenches, and other sily labels. Like seriously you mean to tell me none of these characters have ever seen a zombie movie before? Even calling them ghouls would work but there's just this silly rule about not calling zombies "zombies". I don't get why. But Romero himself started that trend. He avoided the word "zombie" in his movies, but he slipped up in Dawn where the word does appear.

[LivingDeadGuy]

But Romero himself started that trend. He avoided the word "zombie" in his movies, but he slipped up in Dawn where the word does appear. In Night and Day he came up with better terms than Land or any other zombie movie. In Night they were called "ghouls" or not really called anything at all and in Day they were called "specimens" because they were being studied by scientists. But words like stenches and walkers just sound silly. They should just be referred to as zombies since everybody watching these movies and shows or playing these games knows that is what they are.

[MinionZombie]

The idea is that in the TWD universe the entire concept of a "zombie" doesn't exist whatsoever in their world and culture. If zombies happened in a world which knew a lot about zombies from their culture, the threat wouldn't be as severe. Personally, while not all alternative names work, it's nice to not have to hear the word "zombie" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. I quite liked "stenches" from Land of the Dead, and "walkers" is the TWD exclusive term, so I'm quite happy with that. It's like in any combat scenario where one side nicknames the other. I've always felt labelling TWD as a "soap opera with zombies" is pretty darn lazy, to be quite frank. Soap operas involve convoluted plots about someone's half-twin brother coming back from the dead to marry an enemy from a rival family to enact some intricate financial revenge before bumping off their newlywed with their mistress, who turns out to be an undercover cop hired by the father of the recently dispatched newlywed ... and then it all turns out to be a dream and the newlywed's actually taking a shower. That's soap opera, and TWD ain't soap opera. If you didn't give the characters in TWD something to live for, they'd be blank automatons and it'd just be hours of shooting walkers in the face over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If the characters didn't make mistakes or wrong moves from time to time, or act selfishly (like we humans do in real life on a day-to-day basis), then various exciting events wouldn't unfold (this isn't excusing certain actions that haven't been well written in the show, some of which took place in the bumpy seventh season). Real life doesn't unfold in a perfect and convenient manner, and nor should TV drama.

[JDP]

In Night and Day he came up with better terms than Land or any other zombie movie. In Night they were called "ghouls" or not really called anything at all and in Day they were called "specimens" because they were being studied by scientists. But words like stenches and walkers just sound silly. They should just be referred to as zombies since everybody watching these movies and shows or playing these games knows that is what they are. Before Land (where the word "zombies" is also used, BTW) Romero had already used many terms to avoid the word "zombie": "ghouls", "things", "creatures", "the dead", "monkey(s)", "pile(s) of walking pus", "rotten piles of garbage", "dumb-fucks", "bags of shit"... but then again in Dawn he had also used the very word he was trying to avoid in the first place.

[LivingDeadGuy]

Edit: messed up this post.

[JDP]

Yep he technically used the word in Land of the Dead too where in the zombie paintball shooting gallery in the entertainment area of Fiddler's Green had a sign that said "Shoot a Real Zombie" or something to that effect. Kaufman also says the line "Zombies, man... they creep me out!" And I wouldn't exactly call terms like "dumb-fucks" and "brainless monkeys" zombie labels because that was just soldiers insulting their enemy (the zombies). They could very well be calling their human foes those things. Be that as it may, they refer to the zombies as such, never as "zombies". It's as if the characters in Day had never heard that word before. But we know for a fact that that word must exist in Romero's universe since Peter had already referred to them as such in Dawn.