Are we all just blind?

[Arcades057]

Wait, I'm still confused... What exactly stands out about Land of the Dead, besides the fact that GAR wrote it? I'm still hard pressed to find a favorite part or likeable character (exept for Pretty Boy; something about pigtails...) The whole plot consisted of a guy trying to get away from responsibility, and maybe that's why I disliked it so much. That and the fact that it has an emoting zombie in it, which is enough to turn me off of anything. A few other things about the movie that sucked: 1) The acting. There was supposed to be an implied love interest between Slack and Riley? Can anyone else say "stinted?" 2) The zombies. Every other Dead film had one zombie that stood out as scarier looking than all the others: The original Night had that first guy; Dawn had the torn up zombie in the lobby of that airport; Day had Dr. Tongue (for me it was the football-kid zombie); the Night remake had that messed up guy in the window, and just about every other zombie; what was the scariest zombie in Land? 3) The ending. I'm sorry, what was the ending again? 4) Emoting. Frickin. Zombie. Because we're all impressionable minds here and Andy likes the filter on, I can't really say what I want about Big Daddy. Let's just say I hate him and I want to find a way to go back in time to the time when GAR first got the idea for that character, kick him in the nads, and then take him to a remote location, Misery style. Really, I hate Big Daddy. The Jar Jar Binks of that movie, as if it really needed one. It's as though Romero said, "You know what I want to do? I want to make, like, the most idiotic zombie EVER and stick him in this movie. Then I'm gonna go around and see who actually likes him and talk smack about them!" Hope you're happy, he's talking about you behind your backs. 5) Fire discipline. Fact 1: Bullets are not in production anymore. Fact 2: Guns are not in production anymore. Fact 3: There are millions of damned zombies all around you. I know, let's give full-auto assault rifles to these momos who've never even seen a gun before! Yeah, and we'll teach them to shoot from the hip, and smirk as they fire off an entire round of precious bullets! Great idea! No, it wasn't. That's just a few things I can think of at 4:00am. Probably more after I wake up and remember just how much about that movie pissed me off. Like the SUPER DUPER ZOMG ADDED SCENES!!!111

[Fleshmunch]

All good points, Arcade! GAR made a worthless turd with Land. People need to accept that and move on. The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again.

[capncnut]

The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again. A tad harsh methinks. I can understand why some people are not as fond of Land as they are with others but c'mon. One or two bad movies don't spell the end of a person's career. The man might not be a god but he's definitely a LEGEND.

[bassman]

Like Capn said....I don't think I've seen anyone call Romero a god. He's just a legend in film making. Every director has a flick that isn't exactly their shinning star. Hitchcock, Cameron, Scott, etc.... It's pretty closed minded to say that the man is "too old and off his game" just because his last film didn't fit your liking. Land is the least of the dead saga but many people still see the good things to point out....

[coma]

The man's not a god, and the fact is, he may be too old and off his game to ever make a good movie again. Ridiculous because its not like he's 85. IN every interview I have read and heard with GAR he is totally on the ball. When I hear this sort of thing it seems like its written by a child or someone who is unaware that people can live to be 90 plus and still be on the ball creatively and productive right to the end. When I read that he is too old I always think the poster is just plain ignorant. So Big Daddy was stupid as hell. And I think he was dumber than than any zombie in the worst turd. Doesnt mean he's washed up. He is not a God. But he did make 4 of my top ten fav films.

[Fleshmunch]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that George MAY be too old and off his game. Not everybody gets better as they get older... Christ, look what happened to Lucas and Spielberg*, Carpenter and Hooper, ad nauseum? These guys all suffered variable amounts of creative brain damage as they got older and more (or much less, in the case of Hooper) successful. Part of the problem is when they have kids and start making crappy kiddie movies, like Lucas and Spielberg. It warps the creative process. Even worse is when you start listening to your kids and inserting their worthless ideas into your movies, like Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. See? There is a historical precedent for what I'm saying about GAR and I'm not being ignorant--I'm being cynical about his future films. It's a long-established fact that in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last picture (or, if you're smart and are signed to do another pic before the current one wraps, you're as good as your last two pictures). * Granted, Spielberg still turns out some nice pics like Catch Me If You Can in-between his usual smarmy crapfests, but his heyday was the 70s and early 80s: Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc.

[coma]

Hey, I'm just pointing out that George MAY be too old and off his game. Not everybody gets better as they get older... Christ, look what happened to Lucas and Spielberg*, Carpenter and Hooper, ad nauseum? These guys all suffered variable amounts of creative brain damage as they got older and more (or much less, in the case of Hooper) successful. Part of the problem is when they have kids and start making crappy kiddie movies, like Lucas and Spielberg. It warps the creative process. Even worse is when you start listening to your kids and inserting their worthless ideas into your movies, like Lucas did with the Star Wars prequels. See? There is a historical precedent for what I'm saying about GAR and I'm not being ignorant--I'm being cynical about his future films. It's a long-established fact that in Hollywood, you're only as good as your last picture (or, if you're smart and are signed to do another pic before the current one wraps, you're as good as your last two pictures). * Granted, Spielberg still turns out some nice pics like Catch Me If You Can in-between his usual smarmy crapfests, but his heyday was the 70s and early 80s: Duel, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. Understood. Carpenter has lost his luster for sure. He's on a cheese kick and a camp type thing for too long. I say, Get ugly again John. Real ugly. I like Saving Private Ryan the best, and Armistad was damn good. Speilberg has always been schmaltzy, nothing new. Lucas is a good producer and a crap director. The only good films he directed are Star Wars and American Graffitti. Thats it. Empire was the best cause HE DIDNT DIRECT IT. I think GAR may have been sapped of energy form his flirtation in the Hollywood system from the 90s until LAnd. I guess when I hear people are too old to make art (or it seems like someones saying that) I get annoyed at the glorification of youth, like if you dont explode by the time your 24 you should just get a civil service job and dissapear. I dont know how old you are but if you get over 30 you know exactly what Im talking about. I think it has more to go with getting that check as a motivation rather than creative hunger thats the issue. There have been a number of artists that fell off, then came back to triumph. Obviously you are not like some of the tards that have posted similar things, so thanks for the clarity. and welcome to the board, btw

[Todd Tjersland]

I think Fleshmunch could have stated it better in his original post, but the clarification makes a lot of sense. I think success can be an obstacle to creativity. Where creative hunger is lacking, quality suffers. When the paycheck is the prime motivator rather than the chance to make art, quality suffers. Age, in and of itself, has little to do with it--although I agree that becoming a parent can have a negative impact on creativity, as it tends to shift your focus away from where you were before. Age can often be an asset, as you have more experience (even if it is only life experience rather than professional experience). Age is especially important for writers. Raymond Chandler, creator of the Philip Marlowe novels, didn't begin his writing career until he was in his mid-forties, and he turned out some of the best detective fiction of the twentieth century. As with anybody, it's not how much time and money you have to play with, it's how much hunger you have fueling your talent. The minute money becomes the primary goal, art goes out the window. It's something every artist struggles with... I'm just saying this in general (it's more about the other guys mentioned by Fleshmunch), not specifically about GAR. But I do hope his next film is better than Land...

[bassman]

I can understand what you guys are saying, but do you really think that Romero is going for the cash? I mean, Romero has been trying to make his fourth "Dead" flick since the early nineties. Maybe money has taken him over(though I seriously doubt that), but don't you think that maybe he did what he had to do to make his next "Dead" flick with "Land"? Even though it was a DECENT flick in my mind and in some other fans, don't you think that maybe he did what he had to do to get one more film out to his fans? True, it wasn't his best, but I don't think that is what he really expected. I liked "Land"(as did other fans-some also hated it), but I think that Romero also felt like it wasn't exactly what he wanted.....and what did he do? He decided to go back and make his next "Dead" film independently with his new partner, Grunwald. All I'm saying is that the man didn't get exactly what he wanted with "Land"(this is going on the way I've seen him talk about the movie), and now he's sort of going back to his roots and making a film with a small group of his partners. Just give the man another chance. He still has what it takes(even though some hated it....you can still see what he had intended with "Land"), this is his other chance to show his fans that he's still the legend that is George A. Romero. If im wrong and "Diary" turns out to be bad, I will gladly retract my words. Romero diserves another chance from his die hard fans.....and who is that? WE ARE. Give the man the respect that he deserves because he gave us three films that we continue to discuss whether or not they were better than the others. He deserves our respect regardless of his studio produced, "Land". What do you say we join together and give him some love, huh? After all......It could be the "Day" remake.....

[capncnut]

Give the man the respect that he deserves because he gave us three films that we continue to discuss whether or not they were better than the others. I will most certainly high five that.

[Huescacho]

[QUOTE=HLS;67234]Wow. Chaos is banned. Is it permanent? Dang! Why was banned Chaos?. I'm sorry for him... I thinck that it's very difficult to do a zombi movie in this times. There are a lot, and copy some parts, is easy... We are very heavies with Romero...

[Fleshmunch]

Yeah, good thing I clarified my earlier post. Anyway, I'm glad Romero got paid the big bucks to do a studio film, he deserves a big pay day and all for what he's done in the past for us zombie fans. But I sure wish I hadn't wasted $10 to see Land in the theater or see it ever, even for free because it makes me so mad and taints my enjoyment of Romero's "real" Dead movies. I don't think of Land as a real Dead film and ignore it as much as possible. For me, there's the original trilogy and the NotLD '90 remake as "official" Romero Dead movies. Dawn '04 I liked on its own all right, but it sucked compared to the original because James Gunn's script was just not good enough and the film had nothing to say except "Look at me! I'm extreme!" I hope George makes another good movie, I really do. Him making Land to me was like Lucas making Phantom Menace and calling it Star Wars when it was brain-dead crap. And Big Daddy was Romero's Jar-Jar, who had none of Bub's charm. Why not bring Bub back instead of making a crap new smart zombie character? I liked Bub better as an anomaly, anyway, rather than as representing an evolution of all zombies into smarter ones...

[coma]

James Gunn's script was just not good enough and the film had nothing to say except "Look at me! I'm extreme!" Hahaha Word

[Fleshmunch]

Hahaha Word I ain't dissin' James Gunn. Well, not too bad. Rewriting a horror classic is a hard job. And to be fair, the director cut all the scenes that helped the movie make sense. I watched them on the DVD and heard the director bragging about how cutting these scenes was good for the movie but they were the scenes that answered all the questions everybody had while watching the goddamn movie! What a dumbass! Like how the people got in the mall (both times). But the changes in the new version's script were usually pretty generic "extreme" and didn't explain a lot of stuff, like how the little girl zombie got in Sarah Polley's house. No social commentary I could pick up on. Still, better than I thought it was gonna be. It was wayyy better than Land with wayyy more likable characters, dialogue, and fun stuff going on (shooting zombie celebrity look-alikes, Andy at the Gun Shop, etc.). There WAS good stuff in it, and I'm sure they tried hard, which is why it didn't suck. Anyway, James Gunn did Slither which was good and I liked the first Scooby Doo movie, too. So he's okay in my book. A miracle considering he came outta Troma, which never made a good movie and never will.

[bassman]

I guess if you watch films based on other films made in the past that you enjoyed, you're always going to be let down. I do agree with the Dawn04 comment, however.