Which do you all dislike more.

**clanglee** · 06-Feb-2008

I dunno, I'm not a Land fan (as I'm sure we all know) but Land is better than MANY other zombie movies. Dawn04 is not one of them(IMHO), but Night3D sure as hell is.

**Trin** · 06-Feb-2008

Regarding accidental vs. intentional commentary.

As a follower of Romero's work for many, many years I've witnessed his story change over time, especially with the release of the recent films. It used to be that when interviewers would ask him about social commentary he'd wave his hands and tell them to stop reading so much into it. Nowadays he'll talk about it at length and it all sounds very planned. I don't know which is the truer account.

Romero has always said that his films are a reflection of the times. If I had to guess I'd say that he created the characters and events in Night & Dawn without a specific agenda of social commentary. However, his keen insights into the people and events around him made the characters such a good reflection of the times that in retrospect it is very easy to contend that the commentary was planned.

In contrast, it has been put forth many times that Romero didn't put as much social commentary into Day as he did with Night & Dawn. I believe he stuck to the same formula with Day, but it simply didn't tap into the general consensus of the times so well, so it isn't as easy to assign commentary in retrospect.

And for my final blasphemous remark, I also believe that Land was a departure from his previous style. In Land he preconceived the social commentary (likely because there was so much pressure for it to be there) rather than conceiving of the events and characters and letting them reflect the times. And because of that it seemed forced.

capncnut · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG

Those guys saying Night 3d is better than Dawn 04 is just BS in my honest opinion.

Sounds like the rantings of a Yawn 04 fanboy to me...

**Dead Hoosier** · 06-Feb-2008

We are all entitled to our opinons...but those dudes assailing Dawn 04 and praising Land to no end are...zombies -- pure, motorized, mindless, clueless instinct. It's because of people like them that we in the US have had to endure 8 years of GW Bush.

**clanglee** · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by Trin

Regarding accidental vs. intentional commentary.

As a follower of Romero's work for many, many years I've witnessed his story change over time, especially with the release of the recent films. It used to be that when interviewers would ask him about social commentary he'd wave his hands and tell them to stop reading so much into it. Nowadays he'll talk about it at length and it all sounds very planned. I don't know which is the truer account.

Romero has always said that his films are a reflection of the times. If I had to guess I'd say that he created the characters and events in Night & Dawn without a specific agenda of social commentary. However, his keen insights into the people and events around him made the characters such a good reflection of the times that in retrospect it is very easy to contend that the commentary was planned.

In contrast, it has been put forth many times that Romero didn't put as much social commentary into Day as he did with Night & Dawn. I believe he stuck to the same formula with Day, but it simply didn't tap into the general consensus of the times so well, so it isn't as easy to assign commentary in retrospect.

And for my final blasphemous remark, I also believe that Land was a departure from his previous style. In Land he preconceived the social commentary (likely because there was so much pressure for it to be there) rather than conceiving of the events and characters and letting them reflect the times. And because of that it seemed forced.

Trin, once again. I agree spot on with ya.

**MinionZombie** · 06-Feb-2008

I'm staggered by the fact that people can't accept that *gasps in terror* some people have alternate opinions to theirs. My God!!!

That's no good at all, we'd better round up all the Yawn-Haters and throw them in a concentration camp, eh?

Comments regarding stubborn-ness ... *ahem* pot ... kettle ... black?

While I don't agree with Land haters regarding Land, and evidently don't agree with '04 lovers regarding '04 ... but knowing it's all a matter of opinion, while I remain in disagreement, I fully understand that aspect and accept it.

OPINION - OPINION - OPINION!!!! JESUS-F*CKING-CHRIST!!!!

*goes Postal*

Waaaaaaggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

F*ck sake...

**Doc** · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by capncnut

Sounds like the rantings of a Yawn 04 fanboy to me...

Didn't know there would even be such a thing!

Also where are you all getting this "Yawn '04 is taking itself serious"......is there some page where Zack Snyder saying he created the best zed film ever? A link would be nice.

**MinionZombie** · 06-Feb-2008

Serious as in all those involved in Yawn04 were attempting their best and considered themselves part of something great - to them at least.

Whereas with Night3D not once do you ever get the sense that anybody involved could have seriously thought the film would be any good - at least they were most likely aware of that fact!

And yes, this assertion only goes so far as my side of the argument (and the side on which several others reside), but that's merely answering your question, so don't even bother bitching about it.

Once again I'll point a massive, comedy-size index finger at the title of the poll:

Which do YOU dislike more.

**Trin** · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by clanglee

Trin, once again. I agree spot on with ya.

Proof that gread minds think alike...

... and so do ours!!!

I totally blew off Night 3D along with all the other Night remakes. Of the ones I've seen I didn't get too excited over any of them. Now I feel like I need to go rent the various Night remakes just to be up to speed.

I did not like Dawn '04 - let me be very clear on that - but I believe it was a cut above the masses of non-GAR zombie horror. It was a serious attempt and had many successful aspects. I think the Dawn-04 haters biggest complaint seems to be that it is compared favorably to Land. My opinion is that I dislike Land far more than Dawn'04, but I find them to be about equal in terms of which movie is better.

**Mutineer** · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG

Whether they hate it or not, to saay they dislike it more that Night 3D is just bollocks. Seriously, there is no ****ing way anyone can like Night 3d more than Dawn 04. Night 3D does more name raping than Dawn 04 will ever do.

Those guys saying Night 3d is better than Dawn 04 is just BS in my honest opinion.

Wanna compare bad films compare Night 3D to Land of the Dead, and this is the one and only time I would vote Land being the better film.

Well said DJ

(Golf clap)

**jdog** · 06-Feb-2008

night of the living dead 3-d is horrible at least the dawn re-make was watchable.

**clanglee** · 06-Feb-2008

Originally Posted by MinionZombie

Serious as in all those involved in Yawn04 were attempting their best and considered themselves part of something great - to them at least.

Whereas with Night3D not once do you ever get the sense that anybody involved could have seriously thought the film would be any good - at least they were most likely aware of that fact!

And yes, this assertion only goes so far as my side of the argument (and the side on which several others reside), but that's merely answering your question, so don't even bother bitching about it.

Once again I'll point a massive, comedy-size index finger at the title of the poll:

Which do YOU dislike more.

So Minion, in your personal opinion, If you're making a movie and you don't give a crap about it or how it turns out or even put much effort into making it good, It is gonna turn out better than a movie that makes an attempt at being good. I'm sorry man, but that makes very little sense.

I respect your opinion man, I just don't trust your judgement.