What does Z Snyder think?

[Adrenochrome]

Personally, DJ...I think the Rubenstein bashing is just as off-base as the Snyder/Gunn bashing. First off--he's a businessman. Plain and simple. He didn't get into the movie business for the artistic angle--he got into it to make money. And, in that respect, he did very well for himself--with or without GAR. In fact, when I look at some of the projects that Rubenstein and Laurel were attatched to after GAR left Laurel in 1985, it honestly looks like their relationship was holding Laurel and Rubenstein back...and, looking at GAR's post-Laurel track record, it shows that he needed them more than they needed him. Second--when Rubenstein met GAR in the mid-70s, GAR was a loser with nothing but a minor drive-in hit, three theatrical bombs in a row, and a half a mil in debt under his belt. Tricky Dick got him out of that hole, and got him a gig doing sports documentaries just so he could pay the rent. If it wasn't for Rubenstein, we wouldn't have any of the flicks that the fanboys at this site hold so dear--from Martin to Day of the Dead, it was all about Rubenstein finangling the cash. And, considering the fact that only two of those flicks actually broke even at the box office, I think he's a saint for carrying GAR that long. I'd like to hear of a Producer besides Rubenstein that would stick with a director through a long string of financial doldrums as that.... But, the fanboys will always look for something to knock and someone to blame for GAR's failures...so guys like Rubenstein and Snyder will always be on the chopping block. Not that they care... burny, go play somewhere else...you never make sense.

[zombievsshark]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills. But then you are new you can be a rabid GAR fan and still not hate Zack Snyder. You might even be able to like him a little. I do.

[Griff]

Blah, blah, blah, fanboys, blah, blah, blah, fanboys, blah, blah, blah... Oh, knock it off. Who do you think you are fooling? Just because you've got an attitude problem doesn't make you any better than any one of us in here. Wake up.

[Adrenochrome]

Oh, knock it off. Who do you think you are fooling? Just because you've got an attitude problem doesn't make you any better than any one of us in here. Wake up. it's just dcburny, what else do you expect? This kid is loathed all over the net.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Zack Snyder received stolen goods, a crime in and of itself. He was heard to muse at the time "Well, if I don't take them, someone else will". While true, this did not absolve him of his moral obligations. Actually, I don't care about all that wank. What upsets me is not that his film fails to be transcendant but that he doesn't even try. Further more, people use this as some sort of defense "Hey listen, I know its not this and that... it doesn't even try to be". Its like praising someone for doing nothing because the odds of success were too great, anyway. It worked in ANIMAL HOUSE when they got expelled and trashed the Homecoming Parade but it doesn't wash when it comes to doing justice to a legacy. Anyone can strive to under-achieve. I enjoy the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. I detest the mindset that made it. See Griff, that in and of itself is a poor excuse to hate Snyder, or detest even the mindset that made it. Where did he not try. If you enjoyed the Dawn remake then he did his job. He entertained you to the point you enjoyed it... That is part of the filmmaker job. Mission Accomplished. Personally, DJ...I think the Rubenstein bashing is just as off-base as the Snyder/Gunn bashing. First off--he's a businessman. Plain and simple. He didn't get into the movie business for the artistic angle--he got into it to make money. And, in that respect, he did very well for himself--with or without GAR. In fact, when I look at some of the projects that Rubenstein and Laurel were attatched to after GAR left Laurel in 1985, it honestly looks like their relationship was holding Laurel and Rubenstein back...and, looking at GAR's post-Laurel track record, it shows that he needed them more than they needed him. Second--when Rubenstein met GAR in the mid-70s, GAR was a loser with nothing but a minor drive-in hit, three theatrical bombs in a row, and a half a mil in debt under his belt. Tricky Dick got him out of that hole, and got him a gig doing sports documentaries just so he could pay the rent. If it wasn't for Rubenstein, we wouldn't have any of the flicks that the fanboys at this site hold so dear--from Martin to Day of the Dead, it was all about Rubenstein finangling the cash. And, considering the fact that only two of those flicks actually broke even at the box office, I think he's a saint for carrying GAR that long. I'd like to hear of a Producer besides Rubenstein that would stick with a director through a long string of financial doldrums as that.... But, the fanboys will always look for something to knock and someone to blame for GAR's failures...so guys like Rubenstein and Snyder will always be on the chopping block. Not that they care... This is where you and I differ on some avenues. I don't think Romero made that many bombs. DAWN was an international success, Day did better overseas, and Creepshow one was a success. Even Monkey Shines, did Ok. There seems to be the notion that GAR was or is a huge failure with Rubinstein.... That is not true. Just because most of the films aren't as remembered as his DEAD flicks doesn't automatically make them a flop. Exactly! James Gunn stole DAWN's title James didn't steal anything either. Look up the definition of theft and trust me... None of your arguments will apply. case closed.

[Tullaryx]

One thing that always bothered me about the hate for Snyder and his work with the remake is that if I substitute Snyder's name with someone else like Argento. People suddenly turn around and say that's fine. Argento helped produce the original so would understand the nuances Romero was trying to get at. People forget that Argento pretty much cut the original to the point it was a different film altogether; though Romero agreed to the cut as part of the deal for having Argento help finance the film. If Rob Zombie was tapped to do the Dawn remake after the critical-acclaim he received for the Devil's Rejects I think there'd be less outrage in the choice. The same if Aja was asked to do so. I think part of the hate for Snyder comes from the fact that he was an unknown in the horror community and never directed a full-lenght film, much less a horror one. Remakes of classic films have always been done far longer than anyone here has been alive. I'm a religious fan of Kurosawa's films and I wouldn't want them remaking any of his films, but I also know that most have been remade already and most of those remakes were done pretty well and could stand on their own. I'm not here to say that remaking a classic title should be done all the time, but if someone out there has a plan to do it and pull it off so that the finished product is an entertaining one then who am I to argue with that. For every person who hated the remake there's an equal number, if not even a majority amount, of people who enjoyed the film to differing levels of degree. It seems like the hate for the remake and for its director and writer stem now from finding a reason to continue hating it instead of actually pointing out concrete evidence that the film didn't entertain those who went to see it. This last part is hard to prove since what one person likes is different from the person sitting next to them. People seem to forget that for all the hate they give towards the Dawn remake. For the audacity of Snyder and Gunn in trying to redo something the Master GAR had already done, these same people turn around and hate the film that GAR did as a result of the remake's success. Really, if not for the success of the remake GAR would still be sitting in his home waiting for someone to give him a budget to make another zombie movie.

[Svengoolie]

This is where you and I differ on some avenues. I don't think Romero made that many bombs. DAWN was an international success, Day did better overseas, and Creepshow one was a success. Even Monkey Shines, did Ok. There seems to be the notion that GAR was or is a huge failure with Rubinstein.... That is not true. Just because most of the films aren't as remembered as his DEAD flicks doesn't automatically make them a flop. Let's take them film by film during GAR's relationship with Rubenstein: 1. Martin--failed at the box office and didn't even break even until 1983. 2. Dawn '78--a success that no one's disputing. 3. Knightriders--a box office disaster. 4. Creepshow--a success, but really a lukewarm one. Did well, but not well enough for an effort from "The Masters of Horror". 5. Day of the Dead--another box office disaster. According to Box Office Mojo, it's entire lifetime domestic gross was only 5 mil on a 3.5 mil production budget. So, taking into account the money spent on publicity, and both the theater's and the distributor's cuts...it was still in the hole when it went overseas, and I sincerely doubt that the overseas sales saved the film, or we would've heard it by now the way we did with Land. And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place...so I'm sure someone, by 1985, wasn't looking at GAR's track record with Rubenstein as a success. Actually, according to Box Office Mojo, Monkey Shines did only 344 large better than Day on a projected production budget of 7 mil...and you're calling that "ok"? BTW--was Rubenstein even involved in that project? News to me. Looks to me like GAR's batting average on the Rubenstein Rubbers is one home run, one double, and three strike outs...and he hit a little girl with one of his foul balls! As for his other flicks...you can't be denying that Jack's Wife, The Crazies, and There's Always Vanilla were bombs as well--are you?

[bassman]

Let's take them film by film during GAR's relationship with Rubenstein: 1. Martin--failed at the box office and didn't even break even until 1983. 2. Dawn '78--a success that no one's disputing. 3. Knightriders--a box office disaster. 4. Creepshow--a success, but really a lukewarm one. Did well, but not well enough for an effort from "The Masters of Horror". 5. Day of the Dead--another box office disaster. According to Box Office Mojo, it's entire lifetime domestic gross was only 5 mil on a 3.5 mil production budget. So, taking into account the money spent on publicity, and both the theater's and the distributor's cuts...it was still in the hole when it went overseas, and I sincerely doubt that the overseas sales saved the film, or we would've heard it by now the way we did with Land. And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place...so I'm sure someone, by 1985, wasn't looking at GAR's track record with Rubenstein as a success. Actually, according to Box Office Mojo, Monkey Shines did only 344 large better than Day on a projected production budget of 7 mil...and you're calling that "ok"? BTW--was Rubenstein even involved in that project? News to me. Looks to me like GAR's batting average on the Rubenstein Rubbers is one home run, one double, and three strike outs...and he hit a little girl with one of his foul balls! As for his other flicks...you can't be denying that Jack's Wife, The Crazies, and There's Always Vanilla were bombs as well--are you? Since when does box office success determine how good a film really is?

[Adrenochrome]

Since when does box office success determine how good a film really is? Never. But it does seem to sway the thinking of the simple minded.

[Tullaryx]

I've never subscribed to the notion that a film's was dubbed either good ro bad due to how much money it made. If that was the case then all of the films by Kurosawa, Bergman and Welles would be considered horrible. At the same time films by Michael Bay which made tons of cash would be considered good films. I for one think some of the best films this year will barely make double their budget at the boxoffice: [b][i]The Fountain[/i[]/b], Children of Men, Babel, and Pan's Labyrinth to name just a few.

[Svengoolie]

Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about here, Tull. Read the posts more closely--we're talking about GAR's lack of box office success during his business relationship with Richard Rubenstein...not whether or not those films were of good quality.

[Griff]

See Griff, that in and of itself is a poor excuse to hate Snyder, or detest even the mindset that made it. Where did he not try. If you enjoyed the Dawn remake then he did his job. He entertained you to the point you enjoyed it... That is part of the filmmaker job. Mission Accomplished. I should have said, "I can enjoy the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake." I can but I have to make concessions. I have to accept a certain level of goofiness, stupidity and sheer disregard for it to begin working for me. In otherwords, I feel as though I have to lower myself. And I don't appreciate that. I think that in this case, the filmmaker was obliged to do more than entertain its audience. I think should have challenged its audience. I mean, like it or not, a remake is a challenge to its predecessor. Its like a test of one's abilities against another's. It doesn't have to be 'better' or the same but it should at least be able to stand toe-to-toe with its assumed namesake as its own identity. At the very least it should aspire to. The best remakes are those that evolve the original story and infuse its re-telling with a certain level of sophistication. In the horror and the sci-fi realm, films such as THE FLY, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE THING always get heralded as successful remakes and I've got a fairly good idea why: they're transcendant. They, as the kids say, take it to the next level. You'd think it would be easy. You've got a great movie already as your template so how hard can it be to come along and just tweak things here and there, add a little bit of this and that, maybe twist this around and fold over that and elaborate on that thing over there? Very hard, evidently. Look at all the remakes that suck. I think the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake knows that. I think it knows how hard it is and rather than set itself such a challenge, it chose submission. Its a coward of film. It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead. I mean, you just know she's gonna put out anyway. Miss Purity Bush on the other hand... now there's some risk involved. But also the opportunity to accomplish something. Wouldn't that be great? Alas, the challenge fell unheeded. I can't imagine anyone considering the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake a true accomplishment. Sure, you can get your rocks off while watching it but you roll over feeling slightly guilty afterwards. Its fast food movie making and we all know what that means. And while I enjoy fast food, I rarely applaud it - espcially when it isn't what I ordered.

[darth los]

[QUOTE=Griff] It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead. what's wrong with fat chicks? As a matter of fact i think i'll go get me one right now.

[DjfunkmasterG]

And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place. Uhhh No, his refusal to bring the film in at an R was what got his budget reduced. They would have given him the full $7 million if he toned it down. Kudo's to him for sticking to his guns. This is common knowledge and mentioned in various DVD interviews. It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead. what's wrong with fat chicks? As a matter of fact i think i'll go get me one right now. Fat Chicks need love too right? Nailing the prom queen might be the fun thing to do... but sometimes the fat chick can give you as good a ride if not better than the prom queen... and the 1st ten minutes of DAWN 2004 was one hell of a ride... Sometimes 10 minutes is all you need.

[axlish]

Yeah...except you forgot to add "I wish I'd held on to the rights" to that. Remake rage often clouds the view of the hardcore fans to the point of ignoring the fact that Romero is still a silent partner in all(?) the Laurel films. Mr. Romero got a fat payday when the licensing for the remake was sold. I bet this new NECA license is paying nicely as well. I think part of the hate for Snyder comes from the fact that he was an unknown in the horror community and never directed a full-lenght film, much less a horror one. I think it all started with James Gunn. After that you could have named anyone. The hatred had already reached the boiling point by the time Snyder was hired.