What happened George?

[ChokeOnEm]

I think something happened when he broke up with Christine. Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic. ---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ---------- Thank you sir. Walking Dead made everything he has done over the past few years look silly. I dunno. The first two episodes blew me away. Some of the other episodes were just as lame as Diary.

[Doc]

Interesting theory. I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". As I've said before, if George couldn't knock "Land" out of the park with a moderate budget and decades of time to finalize the script, he ain't never producing another classic.[COLOR="Silver"] So, essentially just like George Lucas. Only our Georgie has tinkered with his originals.

[Neil]

welcome. we've been scratching our collective heads about this one for the last handful of years, so you're gonna fit right in here. LOL! Got to be the best welcome to the board message ever

[Mitchified]

So, essentially just like George Lucas. Only our Georgie has tinkered with his originals. It could be argued that Lucas is worse than Romero. Not only has Lucas failed to make many compelling characters in his new movies, he's hurt the image of some older characters in a lot of fans' eyes. I know that I personally don't look at Darth Vader the same way after the Emo Anakin trilogy. Where Lucas has Romero beat is that the new trilogy isn't all that bad if you don't look at them as "Star Wars" movies; the new Romero films are just bad no matter how you look at them. At this point it seems as if Romero is making what he considers to be interesting zombie movies as opposed to what the majority of the fans think constitutes good ones. That's fine, really. He can make whatever kind of movies that he wants. He just shouldn't be surprised if his original fan base craps all over them when they're released. I hate to say it, but over time I've come to believe that the first three movies were nothing more than luck, or that he blew his (mental) wad on them and doesn't have any other compelling ideas to work with for new zombie films.

[MoonSylver]

[zomtom]

He moved on up to Canada and found a whole new crowd to pal around with. It's a shame he's no longer surrounded by the people he started out with. Or hell, maybe he's just getting old and doesn't have anything new to offer. Survival was a pathetic piece of crap (and I'm one of George's biggest fanboys) but I still want to know what the hell he was thinking when he made that mess. Was he thinking of reinventing himself as a comedic zombie director? Sorry, but it was done (and a whole lot better). The Walking Dead has reminded me what real zombie horror should be. Sorry George, but maybe you need to come onto this site and read some of these comments. I would still bow to George if I ever had the luxury of meeting him for all of the great frights and nightmares he's given me in the past, but if you don't have it in you anymore, than maybe it's time to retire.

[shootemindehead]

As I said before, Romero was never that great a director to begin with. Night, Dawn, Day and Martin and that's really it. Perhaps there is a touch of the George Lucas malaise about him, as Doc has suggested. In much the same way that Lucas' films have seriously degraded since Gary Kurtz and he parted company, over the "teddy bear" issue in 'Return of the Jedi'. Maybe the influence of whomever it was on Gerorge was a good thing? A steadying hand? Someone there simply to say, "George, that's a really shite idea." I can do that job.

[Neil]

As I said before, Romero was never that great a director to begin with. Night, Dawn, Day and Martin and that's really it. Isn't that enough?

[thxleo]

I think in the earlier days, Romero wasn't surrounded by groveling "yes men" in awe of his genius. So maybe people like Rubinstein or Savini had a hand in shaping the script. The mature work of "Day" is light years above the juvenile dreck of "Diary" and "Survival". Neither Rubinstein nor Savini had anything to do with shaping any of Romero's scripts. Rubinstein told George what his budget parameters were and that was it. Savini came up with ideas for killing zombies and people and that was it. The scripts, except for Creepshow, were all Romero's.

[AcesandEights]

Maybe the influence of whomever it was on Gerorge was a good thing...Someone there simply to say, "George, that's a really shite idea." I can do that job. Oh, we know you can, Shootem'. We know you can

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing, It isn't even about the fact that much of the fanbase (myself included) don't like Diary and Survival. It's about the fact that GEORGE thinks they're WONDERFUL. Stop the presses, WTF?!? If the man in innumerable interviews fails and continues to fail to recognize that Diary/Survival went over with all the welcome of a fart in a telephone booth, there is NO HOPE FOR CHANGE. It's like they say about addictions (of all sorts)...the first step is admitting you have a problem. George is clearly in denial, because in many relatively high-profile (in the horror fanbase world) interviews like Fangoria and Trade publications, he's positively embittered about OUR REACTION. He comes right out and states that the problem isn't with his movies, it's with what we want. Uhh, again, WTF? I've said this a google of times, and I'll say it again. A director's FIRST responsibility (if their goal is to deliver a well-received, and perhaps significantly profitable film) is to figure out what will make for an enjoyable 90-110 minutes, and film that. A director who ENTERS the creative process saying "I don't give a damn what anyone will think of this movie. I'm just going to make what I want...even if I KNOW that the fans will LOATHE IT" has lost sight of the basic fact that directing is a job that is part of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Industry: Ie: The process of making a buck. His job, so long as he chooses for that job to be directing, is to use his creativity to deliver movies that will be enjoyable to watch. NO, that DOESN'T mean I'm saying his job is to give us new derivations of Night/Dawn/Day...or anything else we're specifically demanding, but it DOES mean that he has to at least WANT TO deliver movies that a significant number of people will enjoy viewing. Otherwise he's just the directing equivalent of a guy with a pen doodling on a napkin in a restaurant. Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do." Need further convincing how out of touch with the reality of his recent work's true quality? The man is literate, and he's done a large number of interviews where the nature of the leading questions he was asked over and over accepted as a given/part of the question that Diary/Survival were considered to be major failures. So he HAS to have been exposed many times to the FACT that the majority of viewers aren't enjoying his newer Dead films, and certainly aren't rushing out to buy the basic DVD, the Extended DVD and the Director's Cut/whatever other slightly different copy of the movie gets released in the 4-5 waves of DVD release(s) that accompany any movie these days. Yet he doggedly maintains he wants to continue in this vein, focusing on yet more loser characters no one gives a damn about from Diary. Meaning that he's as much as saying, over and over, "If you didn't like Diary/Survival, get ready not to like my next couple of movies...and BTW, just so we're clear fanboys, I don't give a damn whether you like them or not." What hope is there when such is his demonstrable mentality whenever he's approached on camera about his more recent work? In summation, he doesn't care if we like the movies he's made or the movies he yet intends to make, he's incapable of recognizing that Diary/Survival weren't the works of genius he considers them...and/or both.

[Mitchified]

Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do." I was with you except for this part. Assuming that Romero didn't just blatantly lie to investors about what he was doing, he more than likely gave them a quick rundown of the movie and the plot that he had in mind. If they decided to give him the money after that, they were buying into his vision. They knew what they were getting, and if they didn't take time to research the market for the genre or ask about the specifics of the movie, that's their own fault. Romero isn't under any moral obligation except to give the investors what he said that he would.

[Moon Knight]

Creepshow was great and I fucking love Knightriders.

[Wyldwraith]

Here's the thing, It isn't even about the fact that much of the fanbase (myself included) don't like Diary and Survival. It's about the fact that GEORGE thinks they're WONDERFUL. Stop the presses, WTF?!? If the man in innumerable interviews fails and continues to fail to recognize that Diary/Survival went over with all the welcome of a fart in a telephone booth, there is NO HOPE FOR CHANGE. It's like they say about addictions (of all sorts)...the first step is admitting you have a problem. George is clearly in denial, because in many relatively high-profile (in the horror fanbase world) interviews like Fangoria and Trade publications, he's positively embittered about OUR REACTION. He comes right out and states that the problem isn't with his movies, it's with what we want. Uhh, again, WTF? I've said this a google of times, and I'll say it again. A director's FIRST responsibility (if their goal is to deliver a well-received, and perhaps significantly profitable film) is to figure out what will make for an enjoyable 90-110 minutes, and film that. A director who ENTERS the creative process saying "I don't give a damn what anyone will think of this movie. I'm just going to make what I want...even if I KNOW that the fans will LOATHE IT" has lost sight of the basic fact that directing is a job that is part of the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. Industry: Ie: The process of making a buck. His job, so long as he chooses for that job to be directing, is to use his creativity to deliver movies that will be enjoyable to watch. NO, that DOESN'T mean I'm saying his job is to give us new derivations of Night/Dawn/Day...or anything else we're specifically demanding, but it DOES mean that he has to at least WANT TO deliver movies that a significant number of people will enjoy viewing. Otherwise he's just the directing equivalent of a guy with a pen doodling on a napkin in a restaurant. Unfortunately, to my knowledge Romero isn't ponying up the cash out of his pocket to make these "Whatever he wants them to be" movies...meaning that, on top of failing as a director, he's failing to meet his ethical obligation(s) to his investors, who I am SURE did not give him a couple hundred thousand dollars based on the following pitch: "Umm yea, I intend to make a movie that I have every reason to believe the vast majority of people who watch zombie movies will hate, but since it's the movie *I* want to make, that's what I'm going to do." Need further convincing how out of touch with the reality of his recent work's true quality? The man is literate, and he's done a large number of interviews where the nature of the leading questions he was asked over and over accepted as a given/part of the question that Diary/Survival were considered to be major failures. So he HAS to have been exposed many times to the FACT that the majority of viewers aren't enjoying his newer Dead films, and certainly aren't rushing out to buy the basic DVD, the Extended DVD and the Director's Cut/whatever other slightly different copy of the movie gets released in the 4-5 waves of DVD release(s) that accompany any movie these days. Yet he doggedly maintains he wants to continue in this vein, focusing on yet more loser characters no one gives a damn about from Diary. Meaning that he's as much as saying, over and over, "If you didn't like Diary/Survival, get ready not to like my next couple of movies...and BTW, just so we're clear fanboys, I don't give a damn whether you like them or not." What hope is there when such is his demonstrable mentality whenever he's approached on camera about his more recent work? In summation, he doesn't care if we like the movies he's made or the movies he yet intends to make, he's incapable of recognizing that Diary/Survival weren't the works of genius he considers them...and/or both. I agree, up to a point, However, along with that "general rundown" there is a LOGICAL reason to believe that if a director approaches someone to be an investor for a film they wish to make, that the director INTENDS to produce a movie that, to the best of their ability, is crafted with the goal in mind being to persuade viewers, potential and actual, to part with hard-earned (especially these days) cash to view said movie. If, on the other hand, a director's intention is to make a movie that he himself will enjoy making, yet decades of movie-making experience and general experience with/exposure to the underlying principles of what a successful film is comprised of tells this director that the movie he'll enjoy making IS NOT one that potential viewers will enjoy, this cuts so deeply against the norm-grain of the movie-making process that I believe there IS an ethical obligation to disclose his Intentions. Saying that Romero doesn't have a responsibility to point out he has no intention of taking anything along the lines of "What would make this a film people would enjoy watching?" into account when he's making his pitch to investors is like saying a realtor doesn't have an obligation to disclose the existence of a massive termite infestation to a potential buyer, and justifying that failure-to-disclose by saying "Hey, the potential buyer knows that such a thing as termites exist, they should've brought in a pest-control expert to assess the house's condition before making an offer. It isn't the realtor's responsibility." Making a movie you don't intend to be a successful business venture, because you know that what you want to make is not what a significant number of people want to watch, is inherently dishonest if the individual(s) you approach as investors are treated by you as investors. Now, if Romero went to someone with money and said "Hey, I'd like you to give me a big briefcase full of cash as a gift because I'm George Romero and you thought my first three Dead films. Not as an investment, just as the means to allow me to make the movie I want to make" that'd be perfectly fine if someone wanted in on that. But when you approach someone to persuade them to contribute and thereby facilitate your business goal(s), the only reasonable motivation that can be conceived of for such a person to contribute funds is the expectation of a return on their investment...or at the very least simple repayment of the sum they provided (as a loan repayment, you could say). Money provided you that comes with no expectations attached to the giving is called a gift, but for it to be a gift there has to be a gift-giving intent. Again, if someone wants to make such a gift to Romero, more power to them since it's their money. To my knowledge however, Romero hasn't and didn't approach anyone seeking a gift that would allow him to make Diary (but ESPECIALLY Survival). If I'm wrong about that, then everything else I've said is moot...If, however, his people contacted their people, a meeting was set up and a proposal was made....that sounds like a business venture and/or limited partnership to me. So in closing, I do get what you're saying. Investors do have a responsibility to look into the prospects of those they're considering doing business with. However, unless otherwise disclosed, if you present something as a business venture, you are ACTIVELY doing what you can to convince an investor there will be benefits to them in exchange for their start-up cash. If you don't intend to take how viewers will perceive your film into account then it isn't a business venture, it's a personal project and should be pursued as one. However, I'm open-minded enough to admit that the line between a business and a personal venture can be vanishingly thin.

[thxleo]

I agree, up to a point, However, along with that "general rundown" there is a LOGICAL reason to believe that if a director approaches someone to be an investor for a film they wish to make, that the director INTENDS to produce a movie that, to the best of their ability, is crafted with the goal in mind being to persuade viewers, potential and actual, to part with hard-earned (especially these days) cash to view said movie. If, on the other hand, a director's intention is to make a movie that he himself will enjoy making, yet decades of movie-making experience and general experience with/exposure to the underlying principles of what a successful film is comprised of tells this director that the movie he'll enjoy making IS NOT one that potential viewers will enjoy, this cuts so deeply against the norm-grain of the movie-making process that I believe there IS an ethical obligation to disclose his Intentions. Saying that Romero doesn't have a responsibility to point out he has no intention of taking anything along the lines of "What would make this a film people would enjoy watching?" into account when he's making his pitch to investors is like saying a realtor doesn't have an obligation to disclose the existence of a massive termite infestation to a potential buyer, and justifying that failure-to-disclose by saying "Hey, the potential buyer knows that such a thing as termites exist, they should've brought in a pest-control expert to assess the house's condition before making an offer. It isn't the realtor's responsibility." Making a movie you don't intend to be a successful business venture, because you know that what you want to make is not what a significant number of people want to watch, is inherently dishonest if the individual(s) you approach as investors are treated by you as investors. Now, if Romero went to someone with money and said "Hey, I'd like you to give me a big briefcase full of cash as a gift because I'm George Romero and you thought my first three Dead films. Not as an investment, just as the means to allow me to make the movie I want to make" that'd be perfectly fine if someone wanted in on that. But when you approach someone to persuade them to contribute and thereby facilitate your business goal(s), the only reasonable motivation that can be conceived of for such a person to contribute funds is the expectation of a return on their investment...or at the very least simple repayment of the sum they provided (as a loan repayment, you could say). Money provided you that comes with no expectations attached to the giving is called a gift, but for it to be a gift there has to be a gift-giving intent. Again, if someone wants to make such a gift to Romero, more power to them since it's their money. To my knowledge however, Romero hasn't and didn't approach anyone seeking a gift that would allow him to make Diary (but ESPECIALLY Survival). If I'm wrong about that, then everything else I've said is moot...If, however, his people contacted their people, a meeting was set up and a proposal was made....that sounds like a business venture and/or limited partnership to me. So in closing, I do get what you're saying. Investors do have a responsibility to look into the prospects of those they're considering doing business with. However, unless otherwise disclosed, if you present something as a business venture, you are ACTIVELY doing what you can to convince an investor there will be benefits to them in exchange for their start-up cash. If you don't intend to take how viewers will perceive your film into account then it isn't a business venture, it's a personal project and should be pursued as one. However, I'm open-minded enough to admit that the line between a business and a personal venture can be vanishingly thin. Did you just respond to yourself?