That's the thing,
The only horror in Romero's last two offerings is in the realization that, according to GAR, Diary and Survival represent a much more desirable-to-direct end product than his previous films, which GAR seems to dismiss/devalue because other people own the rights.
I mean, I get the basic concept, and could agree with his point if we were talking about movies of relatively equivalent quality, but we aren't. I understand GAR can't do anything continuity-wise with the Original Trilogy because of lack of control over the intellectual property, but his interviews seem to portray his decision-making as only including the one non-viable alternative, and his choice to make sequels/character continuity movies using minor characters from Diary and Survival.
That's what drives me up a wall. If, as GAR has repeatedly said, the man didn't enjoy and never wants to do a big-budget movie affiliated with a major studio because of interference by the studio in his movie-making, great. Go the "more indie" (because GAR's last few films are NOT "true" Indie Films), and go back to the drawing board and come up with the basic storyboards, find something that works for the money you've got, and THEN begin figuring out how to work "the message" into the plot as a nuance instead of the overwhelming heavy-handed detraction from the movie "the message" has been of late.
Regardless of how you feel about any or all of GAR's movies, if you read all the interviews from say, Diary's release onward, Romero exhibits a serious resistance to even the IDEA of starting back at Square One and doing something completely new.
What's the deal with his attachment to the continuity/character progression of "minor characters" from these last two movies when he's never exhibited a serious/repeated desire (at least not one he's indicated openly in other than a fleeting/offhand manner) in such "Continuity Continuance" or character progression-based sequels?
I think the lack of information/explanation of GAR's (to many of us) maddening fixation on the worst of his Dead films is part of what makes frustration with the director's current stance so intense.
Of course that's my opinion. Not a mind reader certainly. The entire issue depresses me and is hard to let go of, because from my perspective it means there isn't even the remote possibility of a non-shit Romero zombie movie anytime in the next 7-10yrs (assuming GAR lives and remains working that long), and then only if the man has a significant change of perspective.
In a way, that's almost harder to deal with than hearing a favorite author/director has passed away or retired. At least in those cases you can ponder the Might Have Been Made movies had a favorite director/leading actor survived. AKA "Bruce/Brandon Lee Syndrome."
GAR doesn't even allow adherents to his classic work that simple pleasure, because he's told us so many times he wants to keep churning out Diary/Survival-esque puke, just in slightly different film styles.
Zombie Western, Zombie Noir. What's next, Keanu Reeves as lead for Zombie Cyberpunk? Anthony Hopkins (or maybe Morgan Freeman) in a Crime Drama with a zombie backdrop?
Sad thing is, I'm mocking him, but my "ideas" would probably make for better films than what he'll come up with.
Edit: Was just considering the concept of Minor Characters. If you think about it, such roles aren't nearly created equal. For example: R2D2 and C-Threepio are minor characters, but add a great deal to the Star Wars movies, even on a first viewing.
By comparison, we have say, some of the minor characters in the Star Trek movies. Without Wikipedia or extra viewings, can anyone even name 3 minor chars. from any of the 7 movies? (main antagonists are not minor chars.)
See what I mean? Get "minor enough" and a character essentially becomes a (theoretically) named extra, which is what I feel happened in GAR's last 2 movies.
|
Posting Permissions
Originally Posted by childofgilead
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks