If you had Romero's ear?

[MoonSylver]

To be fair, people on here who complain about social commentary have picked the wrong director to like. His films are not about the painstaking representation of real life outcomes, they're cinematic comic books with an agenda. That's just what he does, that's his trademark! If that changed, the films wouldn't be Romero. If you don't like social commentary, you should be following Zach Snyder instead of Romero. To play devil's advocate, though, I'm not sure if people are really complaining about social commentary insomuch as social commentary DONE WELL. As I've said before, the message was much more "in your face" in Land (the whole movie was pretty much thinly veiled metaphor) & Diary, the movie WAS the message, which was kind of the point, but still handled with the subtlety of a brick over the head. (And I LIKE both films mind you!) Others have taken me to task for claiming the original 3 were subtler in their message, but it's a claim I stand by. The messages were woven in there, they might have even been blatant, but they didn't overshadow/obscure the whole movie. I've never heard one person complain "Man, Dawn was SO preachy. It kept going ON & On about consumerism!" I think there's room for both in there, but there's no need to belabor the point. Slip the message in there in a few scenes, a few lines here & there, & those who are going to "get it" will, & those obtuse enough to miss it will still enjoy the story.

[J0hnnyReb]

Yeah, what we all want to see is another mindless zombie gutfest, right? To be fair, people on here who complain about social commentary have picked the wrong director to like. His films are not about the painstaking representation of real life outcomes, they're cinematic comic books with an agenda. That's just what he does, that's his trademark! If that changed, the films wouldn't be Romero. If you don't like social commentary, you should be following Zach Snyder instead of Romero. Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead.

[bassman]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead. That depends on who you ask. I've never enjoyed the mindless zombie films really. Never been a huge fan of the gore either. The first thing that attracted me to Romero's films was when I saw Day at an early age and realized that the zombies did nothing wrong. It was all the people. Yeah, the effects are cool in a try to figure it out sort of way, but the commentary has always been what's attracted me to Romero's films. You could argue that Land and Diary are heavy with the commentaries and in some areas I would agree with you, but on the other hand Night, Dawn, and Day can be just as heavy. Romero's never really made a straight forward, mindless horror film. Except for maybe Creepshow, but that's meant to be a romp.

[krakenslayer]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead. Fine, if that's your opinion you are welcome to it. But there are plenty of mindless trashy zombie flicks out there to satisfy your whatever your particular zombie fetish is. There is, however, only one Romero, and social commentary is such a major and integral feature of his movies that saying you don't like movies with political messages is pretty much the same thing as saying you don't like GAR.

[Edison Carter]

Bring back some siege and people/things going as Rog put it "apeshit". That seems to be what has been missing the last few films. Rich people in Land throwing brie and popping champagne corks at the zombies invading fiddle-faddle green is not cutting it. I believe Diary was completely lacking a siege of any type.

[MoonSylver]

Yes, you know why? Because mindless zombie gutfests are better than garbage like Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead. I don't have enough rolleyes emotacons for this... I love pure gorefests & mindless zombie flicks as much as the next guy, but c'mon...

[Mike70]

I'd like to see a zombie version of Alas Babylon, a '50s novel set in a small Florida town after a East-West nuclear exchange and how the town copes with a loss of commerce, infrastructure, and a break down in law and order. now that would be cool. hell, i'd take a straight up film version of Alas, Babylon without zombies. that is a novel that has several interesting themes interwoven throughout that could be explored and need not turn into mind numbing, pseudo-philosophical social "commentary."

[J0hnnyReb]

I don't have enough rolleyes emotacons for this... I love pure gorefests & mindless zombie flicks as much as the next guy, but c'mon... Roll your eyes all you want. Romeros last 2 film were really substandard quality. He used to set out to make cool scary movies with little behind the scene meanings, now he just has his battering ram of commentary with some weak story sewn around it. Period. He jumped the shark and its really too bad because I grew up on night, dawn, and day and his other works like creepshow and martin. And he always sought out to make the film good 1st THEN put commentary into it.

[Wyldwraith]

Said it before and will say it again, If the plot/story, pacing and characterization (as well as action scene choreography) isn't well done then it doesn't matter what message the director wants to convey, because the movie is garbage and no one cares. Night, Dawn and Day all had social commentary, and while I believe by the time Day came about he was beginning to emphasize it too heavily the movies are still good, so anything else is a bonus or at the very least a negligible minus. The problem comes in when GAR delivers CRAP like Diary, and THEN beats us over the head with social commentary. The viewer is already irritated by the substandard nature of the primary elements of the film, and the preachiness pushes them past distaste and on into disgust. The "back to basics" school of thought is really GAR's only chance as a vendor of survival horror/zombie flicks. Land was considered so-so by many, and Diary was a fiscal disaster. I don't believe the point can be intelligently argued that if GAR doesn't deliver the goods this time that anyone is going to be willing to hand him money to have another go at it. GAR wants to talk about the evils of consumerism? Then maybe he should understand the principles of what he's railing against. If a movie sucks, it doesn't sell tickets and DVDs, and lots of people in suits become very unhappy with the director who pitched their investments down the proverbial toilet. I'm also a strong believer that the no-win scenario is a dead horse. If 99.9% of major survival horror films end in the death of all the protagonists then how is the viewer supposed to root for them throughout the movie? Land is the ONLY zombie flick with a significant budget that I can remember being made in the last five years where more than three protagonists made it out alive. With the admitted exception of the RE sequels everyone seem to hate. The Man Vs Whatever is a basic plot device. If you KNOW without even glimpsing the opening credits that the characters lose that struggle then it loses all horror under the weight of tons of tired nihlist repetition. Yes, a zombie apocalypse should be a bloody and lethal environment for the characters. Yes, lots of people should die. Yet if there's no hope, and you KNOW there's no hope simply because it's a zombie movie, then what's the point? It would be like writing an episode of Star Trek and peopling it entirely with Redshirts. What's the motivation to care about individuals that you are certain no matter what they do or don't do are all going to perish? Dawn was great on a first viewing because of the suspense. The characters were constantly on the edge of disaster, and you had no idea which one was going to finally push the envelope a hair too far and pitch over into the abyss. Even when I watch that movie after a couple hundred times through I STILL feel some of that. Know it sounds crazy, but even though logically I know how it turns out, the emotional part of me can still go to the edge of my seat during their mad dash to secure the mall to wonder whose gonna get it and who'll make it. Zombie movies recently don't do that to me. The trend has become so overwhelming that all I can salvage suspense-wise is wondering in what order and exactly how each character will die. Is that really much compared to what Dawn offered us? Honestly? Hell, even Dawn '04 coulda been better if they'd just left the boat journey as an uncertain venture due to a necessary risk. No, they had to squeeze all-out disaster in during the end credits. I ask you: Is that all you really want from your zombie films? The certain knowledge the protagonists are doomed, and just watching to observe the exact details of how that doom manifests? Me...I want what Dawn had. Risk, uncertainty, boldness, hopes dashed and hopes realized.

[Debbieangel]

Said it before and will say it again, If the plot/story, pacing and characterization (as well as action scene choreography) isn't well done then it doesn't matter what message the director wants to convey, because the movie is garbage and no one cares. Night, Dawn and Day all had social commentary, and while I believe by the time Day came about he was beginning to emphasize it too heavily the movies are still good, so anything else is a bonus or at the very least a negligible minus. The problem comes in when GAR delivers CRAP like Diary, and THEN beats us over the head with social commentary. The viewer is already irritated by the substandard nature of the primary elements of the film, and the preachiness pushes them past distaste and on into disgust. The "back to basics" school of thought is really GAR's only chance as a vendor of survival horror/zombie flicks. Land was considered so-so by many, and Diary was a fiscal disaster. I don't believe the point can be intelligently argued that if GAR doesn't deliver the goods this time that anyone is going to be willing to hand him money to have another go at it. GAR wants to talk about the evils of consumerism? Then maybe he should understand the principles of what he's railing against. If a movie sucks, it doesn't sell tickets and DVDs, and lots of people in suits become very unhappy with the director who pitched their investments down the proverbial toilet. I'm also a strong believer that the no-win scenario is a dead horse. If 99.9% of major survival horror films end in the death of all the protagonists then how is the viewer supposed to root for them throughout the movie? Land is the ONLY zombie flick with a significant budget that I can remember being made in the last five years where more than three protagonists made it out alive. With the admitted exception of the RE sequels everyone seem to hate. The Man Vs Whatever is a basic plot device. If you KNOW without even glimpsing the opening credits that the characters lose that struggle then it loses all horror under the weight of tons of tired nihlist repetition. Yes, a zombie apocalypse should be a bloody and lethal environment for the characters. Yes, lots of people should die. Yet if there's no hope, and you KNOW there's no hope simply because it's a zombie movie, then what's the point? It would be like writing an episode of Star Trek and peopling it entirely with Redshirts. What's the motivation to care about individuals that you are certain no matter what they do or don't do are all going to perish? Dawn was great on a first viewing because of the suspense. The characters were constantly on the edge of disaster, and you had no idea which one was going to finally push the envelope a hair too far and pitch over into the abyss. Even when I watch that movie after a couple hundred times through I STILL feel some of that. Know it sounds crazy, but even though logically I know how it turns out, the emotional part of me can still go to the edge of my seat during their mad dash to secure the mall to wonder whose gonna get it and who'll make it. Zombie movies recently don't do that to me. The trend has become so overwhelming that all I can salvage suspense-wise is wondering in what order and exactly how each character will die. Is that really much compared to what Dawn offered us? Honestly? Hell, even Dawn '04 coulda been better if they'd just left the boat journey as an uncertain venture due to a necessary risk. No, they had to squeeze all-out disaster in during the end credits. I ask you: Is that all you really want from your zombie films? The certain knowledge the protagonists are doomed, and just watching to observe the exact details of how that doom manifests? Me...I want what Dawn had. Risk, uncertainty, boldness, hopes dashed and hopes realized. I wanted to put that in a quote because I could not have said any way shape or form better!! I love to see the suspense and how they will get out of the situation, you know the 'edge of your seat' drama that scares the crap out of you that you are totally forgetting to breathe. Then when the scare is over you take a big cleansing breath and a sigh of relief. Ii like those scares! It's not necessarily the gore that I like which I do but its how they attack and when and not knowing. Also, I want to really get to know the characters and not be sure of who will get killed. Maybe get snipits of their lives before the zombies and I do mean snipits. I like a lot of zombie action in zombie movies and a lot of zombies. They all don't have to have a bunch of gore dripping off of them either to scare me.

[MoonSylver]

Roll your eyes all you want. Thanks, I will! Romeros last 2 film were really substandard quality. He used to set out to make cool scary movies with little behind the scene meanings, now he just has his battering ram of commentary with some weak story sewn around it. Period. He jumped the shark and its really too bad because I grew up on night, dawn, and day and his other works like creepshow and martin. And he always sought out to make the film good 1st THEN put commentary into it. See, that's where I more or less agree with you! I do think the Land & Diary are the weakest of the series, & have always felt they were flawed.But to say that the mindless gore flicks are better or call them "garbage" is a bit harsh IMO. THAT'S the point I object to. They were made by someone who's still passionate about making movies, who's at least trying to make them about something, make them mean something. Even if he has lost his way a bit. I still think they stand well above most of the crap out there in the genre (& I'm a guy who LIKES bad movies!). Most of them have ZERO story, bad direction, weak acting & are made by folks who DON'T care, have NOTHING to say & are in it for a quick buck. Thus their movies aren't really about anything either & have nothing to say. Their just cheap blood & gore for it's own sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all! But it's really apples and oranges.

[J0hnnyReb]

Thanks, I will! See, that's where I more or less agree with you! I do think the Land & Diary are the weakest of the series, & have always felt they were flawed.But to say that the mindless gore flicks are better or call them "garbage" is a bit harsh IMO. THAT'S the point I object to. They were made by someone who's still passionate about making movies, who's at least trying to make them about something, make them mean something. Even if he has lost his way a bit. I still think they stand well above most of the crap out there in the genre (& I'm a guy who LIKES bad movies!). Most of them have ZERO story, bad direction, weak acting & are made by folks who DON'T care, have NOTHING to say & are in it for a quick buck. Thus their movies aren't really about anything either & have nothing to say. Their just cheap blood & gore for it's own sake. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all! But it's really apples and oranges. I'm sorry I don't give quality points to a bad film just because I like the maker. Land and Diary were crap. Dawn 04, was much better than either although not as good as the original dawn and day and night were. Romero needs to get back to basics and learn how to make a good scary movie again or hang it up and stop lessening the greatness of his legacy which are all the movies he made before Land and possibly Bruiser.

[MoonSylver]

I'm sorry I don't give quality points to a bad film just because I like the maker. Nor do I. My "like" or "dislike" of the film maker isn't the point. But as I said, I still think they're decent films, warts & all. Land and Diary were crap. Dawn 04, was much better than either although not as good as the original dawn and day and night were. Aaaannnnnd ya lost me again! Dawn '04?...forgettable characters, almost no story. Vapid. Shallow. An 1 1/2 hour MTV video w/ "zombies" in it. Wishes it could be 28 Days Later when it grows up. Nah...it's a decent enough action flick, but I still like Land & Diary better.

[triste realtà]

the zombies did nothing wrong. It was all the people. Yeah those fucked up people should have stopped shouting and started eating each other. On the other hand, you know it would all have been alright if Rhodes and his men just pulled a Miguel in the first place. Romero's never really made a straight forward, mindless horror film. Except for maybe Creepshow, but that's meant to be a romp. Creepshow is the best. Story eats it. It's all about setting, music and acting in that order.

[J0hnnyReb]

Aaaannnnnd ya lost me again! Dawn '04?...forgettable characters, almost no story. Vapid. Shallow. An 1 1/2 hour MTV video w/ "zombies" in it. Wishes it could be 28 Days Later when it grows up. Nah...it's a decent enough action flick, but I still like Land & Diary better. Id take a 90 minute MTV video with zombies over a crapfest like Land which put me to sleep due to all the boring dialog hammering home on how evil rich people are over and over again. At least the 90 minute MTV video satisfies my want for a good movie with lots of blood, scares, action and fun.