Day versus Land

[Danny]

how do you do a "vs" for these movies? aside from zombies they are completely different movies. One is about control, paranoia and cabin fever, the other is about greed corruption and social classes. They dont compare, dya and dawn sure, but land is far too different. its like comparing resident evil and 28 days later. theyve both got hissing raptor sick people in it but nothing else in common.

[Mike70]

how do you do a "vs" for these movies? aside from zombies they are completely different movies. One is about control, paranoia and cabin fever, the other is about greed corruption and social classes. They dont compare, dya and dawn sure, but land is far too different. its like comparing resident evil and 28 days later. theyve both got hissing raptor sick people in it but nothing else in common. i wondered that same thing. though i think what the OP was getting at is whether opinions of land will sweeten over time like they did with day. that isn't a vs. situation at all.

[Danny]

Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever. That may be good news for Land. It is more timeless than Dawn. Maybe a bit less so than Day. But the thing just doesn't stand on its own legs very well. The plot was ho hum and full of confusion. The intelligent zombies were largely not understood by general horror audiences. I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh. word dude. in 60 years we could all show our grandkids dawn and they will all just laugh at how wank it is, day on the other hand only has one major difference with land, its grainy look from how it was filmed. and as ive said before thats not denigrating to a horror film, in fact for most 80's horror flicks its quite the opposite, see ring as a fine example. ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ---------- i wondered that same thing. though i think what the OP was getting at is whether opinions of land will sweeten over time like they did with day. that isn't a vs. situation at all. that or a director thing, but in that case i should start a john landis thread because there was a supernatural bit in blues brothers as well as american werewolf in london -if you dont remember what i mean shame on you:

[Mike70]

word dude. in 60 years we could all show our grandkids dawn and they will all just laugh at how wank it is, no need to wait 60 years, there are already tons of people who think it is wank. dawn has not aged well and, in all likelihood, will continue not to age well.

[Legion2213]

Dawn has cult status, Land doesn't. That counts for a lot. Another few decades and Land will still be considered garbage, Dawn will be considered with warmth/fondness. Dawn also has charm. .

[Danny]

no need to wait 60 years, there are already tons of people who think it is wank. dawn has not aged well and, in all likelihood, will continue not to age well. aye, but thats by people who will watch it and go "this is stupid, there blue!, george romero ripped off james cameron!!!!1!!!!!" but at least they watch it and decide. right now theres people who will NOT watch a film if its black and white and like 60 years old. sometime for the general populous thats gonna be the same for pre turn of the century analogue filmed movies too, its a sad fact but one i predict, jaded, cynical guy with no faith in people that i am

[RustyHicks]

I agree, Dawn has attained a cult status, but really hasn't aged well. I showed the film to my niece and nephew back in 1995 and they laughed their butts off because they thought it was so cheesy, but to me Dawn will always remain special. Day is now a cult classic as well, although it took a long while to get up there, as for Land, who know, it may achieve that status or it may not. I personally don't favour the film, some of the characters, were a little too unbelieveable for my taste and that Big Daddy guy, poorly acted, just got on my nerves, trying to be like Bub. With Bub, you kind of felt sorry for him, with Big Daddy you wanted to shoot him in the head more than once. I think Diary will actually rise above Land.

[Trin]

another thing i totally agree with. ridiculous is a perfect word for it. the whole thing was retarded almost beyond words. after i spent the time reading the original script (on here), i remember thinking, "thank goodness that didn't get made." I'm glad to hear someone agree with this. I'm usually alone in this opinion. The more common opinion is, "I wish GAR would get the chance to make Day according to the original script." And I say, HELL NO!! I can only think those people are speaking from sentimental motives and have not really thought through that script. Or maybe they didn't even read it. Seriously, cowboy quick draw zombies? Walking human bomb? Gratuitous scenes of indulgence? Training zombies to attack anything not wearing certain colored vests? Wow.

[Mike70]

right now theres people who will NOT watch a film if its black and white and like 60 years old. sometime for the general populous thats gonna be the same for pre turn of the century analogue filmed movies too, its a sad fact but one i predict, jaded, cynical guy with no faith in people that i am that is sad because those folks are missing out some great flicks. the films made in 30s and 40s, particularly the horror stuff, are among some of the finest movies ever done.

[blind2d]

So true, Mike. But, unfortunately, the generations now... most don't hold for that sort of thing, being content with uppity remakes and shoddy-storied, special-effecty chasms of soul. Ah... I don't know. Maybe there will be a big renaissance in the near future...

[bd2999]

Day suffered more from not being Dawn than anything else. It did end up with more people liking it, but I am not sure Land will end up with quite the same following. I do not know of many fans of the series that disliked Day, it might have been the least favorite for them of the three, but they did not hate it. Land was a decent enough movie, if bland. It was better than Diary for sure but I just found Land to be very bland. Big Daddy was a bit annoying, just because Bub needed training for who knows how long to bring his memories out to the forefront and never really led other zombies around. As others I though Riley was bit of a extremly bland character. The others were not as bad overall and the gore was fine. I like Day better but that has to do with the more gritty style. As a rule I just usually like the general feel of movies shot in the 80's or 70's even if it is a bit grainy. It fits some movies.

[rongravy]

My only problem with Land wasn't that they, and especially BD, were too intelligent. It was how the guy acted the part, which was not very well. He sounded constipated. I also didn't like Riley's disfigured buddy. He was kind of annoying and I wanted him dead. Other than that, I thought it was more than decent enough. It almost seems like the Dead trilogy is treated like the original Star Wars Trilogy and Land and Diary are the Phantom Menace's of the new batch. I'd think more of Diary as The Clone movie and Land the Sith movie. I haven't seen one that sucked enough to be the Menace of it all... And yeah, when my kids saw Dawn they laughed their asses off at the fashion of the time. Who cares, I can't wait to show them how retarded their shit is when they get older.

[MaximusIncredulous]

The biggest problems I had with Land was the makeup, giving the zombies a "fresh" look for the most part and the rushed feel the zombie attacks had. Both those issues sucked alot of the horror out of the phenomenon that was experienced in the earlier films.

[Trin]

Land would be better if: 1) Hordes of undead ringed the city, pounding on fences and walls day and night, moaning to the point people are frayed, and causing difficulties for the scavengers to get in and out. Literally a sea of zombies. 2) Cholo points the guns at the defenses (walls and fences holding back the zombies) instead of the tower. If he doesn't get what he wants he'll topple the city from the outside. 3) Big Daddy can be intelligent, but he is a catalyst for the other zombies, not the sole intelligent zombie. For example, when they come to the plywood Big Daddy should stand confused looking at it and the butcher zombie figures out to chop at it. So what BD teaches them is that they can learn and think and then they each run with it in their own way. As opposed to BD doing all the thinking for them. Wouldn't that be far scarier? All the zombies infecting each other with the realization that they can think? 4) The zombies breach the city some other way. Some way that doesn't require the city be ignorant and the zombies be superhuman. Maybe they figure out how to dam the river or close the river locks or lower the bridges or something. Or figure out how to short out the electric fences. Something that takes actual intelligence that the humans would reasonably discount as beyond them.

[Danny]

Land would be better if: 1) Hordes of undead ringed the city, pounding on fences and walls day and night, moaning to the point people are frayed, and causing difficulties for the scavengers to get in and out. Literally a sea of zombies. 2) Cholo points the guns at the defenses (walls and fences holding back the zombies) instead of the tower. If he doesn't get what he wants he'll topple the city from the outside. 3) Big Daddy can be intelligent, but he is a catalyst for the other zombies, not the sole intelligent zombie. For example, when they come to the plywood Big Daddy should stand confused looking at it and the butcher zombie figures out to chop at it. So what BD teaches them is that they can learn and think and then they each run with it in their own way. As opposed to BD doing all the thinking for them. Wouldn't that be far scarier? All the zombies infecting each other with the realization that they can think? 4) The zombies breach the city some other way. Some way that doesn't require the city be ignorant and the zombies be superhuman. Maybe they figure out how to dam the river or close the river locks or lower the bridges or something. Or figure out how to short out the electric fences. Something that takes actual intelligence that the humans would reasonably discount as beyond them. i dont think that would make things better honestly, your first point seems like you just want the same scenario as the 3 films that preceded it, honestly a 4th film about stuck in a place with no visible escape would have been completely eyerolling. for your second point i dont think kaufman would have cared if the city fell, he'd have a contingency to further secure the tower, cholo was targeting his tower, his safehouse. when that towers blown so i kaufman. As for your 3rd and 4th points i can see what you mean adn there good points but you would just get pages on here of "NOW ONE, LIKE BUB, I COULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD, BUT ALL OF THEM LEARNING THINGS AGAIN?, THATS SHIT"