George, you need to call it Twilight...

[darth los]

nobody on these boards are gonna appreciate romero. its not like land and diary are horrible little movies. compare them to other recent zombie flicks. they're fucking magical. he could make gone with the wind with zombies and these douchebags would bitch. "its just not as good as dawn of the dead! wah!" people on this board praise a piece of garbage like deadlands or zombie diaries. but land of the dead? oh! "thats just the most horrible piece of shit on the planet!" and diary? "fuck that shit! they're not even near a shopping mall!" no matter what, these people will bitch because they have nothing else better to do. There's definitetly a big difference between Gar's flick and the rest of the field. I'm going to assume that the people who are criticizing his films are doing so only when comparing them to other installments in the series. So, in that context I can definitely see where they're coming from. But as I said before, the least of the films in the GAR series is as least as good as what the rest of the field has to offer.

[clanglee]

And then we will bitch about the people that bitch!!!! And those people will bitch about being bitched about bitching!!!! And the seas will turn red with blood!!!!

[Cartma7546]

offended? haha i kid i kid

[darth los]

And then we will bitch about the people that bitch!!!! And those people will bitch about being bitched about bitching!!!! And the seas will turn red with blood!!!! While it's true that some people are never satisfied, when someone bad mouth's something that's obviously superior to the rest of the field one has to question their credibility on the subject.

[DjfunkmasterG]

nobody on these boards are gonna appreciate romero. its not like land and diary are horrible little movies. compare them to other recent zombie flicks. they're fucking magical. he could make gone with the wind with zombies and these douchebags would bitch. "its just not as good as dawn of the dead! wah!" people on this board praise a piece of garbage like deadlands or zombie diaries. but land of the dead? oh! "thats just the most horrible piece of shit on the planet!" and diary? "fuck that shit! they're not even near a shopping mall!" no matter what, these people will bitch because they have nothing else better to do. Ok, first off, their is a huge difference between a $10,000 Zombie film, and a $20,000,000 zombie film. When someone has $20 mil at their disposal and turns out a film like LAND on that kind of money, you can't help but stand up and notice things like, where the hell did you spend $20,000,000. Want a comparison, The DAWN remake cost $26,000,000 and look at that film, it outshines LAND in every aspect. Hell, SHAUN was done on $6,000,000 and that outshines LAND of the DEAD. Don't drag my films into your rants just to make a point. You cannot compare an apple to an orange, and if you're going to drag my film you better have an argument to back it up. And to clarify something, those who praise or like my films examine and review them from an indie low budget level, not a studio budgeted level. "Of the Dead" still has a budget of over $5,000,000 and from that teaser I had recently watched even I had to ask where the fuck did $5,000,000 go? that had to be one hell of a cocaine party. So don't be an asswipe?

[MinionZombie]

Erm, didn't Land of the Dead have a $15 million budget, and also - didn't Land of the Dead get a far poorer exchange rate deal when compared to what Yawn04 got? ... To be fair, we've not seen anywhere near enough of "of the Dead" to even start discussing "where the money went" ... and actually, from the clip that Clang posted (despite being dark due to it being filmed off a screen at a convention), it looked quite good with good coverage. So without seeing a proper representation of how "of the Dead" is going to turn out, we can't judge it - certainly not from that short 'crew trailer' clip which had no final effects added, no sound effects, no music, and no grading, nor any final editing...so to judge it now is far too harsh. Want a comparison, The DAWN remake cost $26,000,000 and look at that film, it outshines LAND in every aspect. Hell, SHAUN was done on $6,000,000 and that outshines LAND of the DEAD. In your opinion - let's make that clear. ... Agreed though, a film made for ten gee's in an indie fashion cannot be compared to a multi-million-dollar studio-led film, it's not the same league. It'd be like comparing a Formula Four driver to Schumacher.

[Minerva_Zombi]

well, frankly i was wondering where the 10,000 dollars went myself. lol. when i watched your film it looked like you spent way too much money on effects and make up when you should've hired some real actors. because the fat lady, the fat dude, the guitar store burnout, and the guy with the mullet was just painful to watch. my opinion. and the dawn remake outshines nothing. its mindless ass juice.

[krakenslayer]

"Of the Dead" still has a budget of over $5,000,000 and from that teaser I had recently watched even I had to ask where the fuck did $5,000,000 go? Could you pull of a set piece involving National Guardsmen stealing a large zombie infested ferry on a $10k budget? I suspect that scene alone would cost more than your budget. Honestly, what do you want for $5m? Yeah, you did a pretty decent job on $10k, I'll give you that, but don't think that means you're qualified to pass judgement on the budgeting of ...of the Dead, since as far as I am aware you have no experience of organising a full-scale, industry production. It's one thing making a movie guerilla-style with no permits and just a bunch of eager friends and film student acquaintances who're willing to work for nothing or thereabouts to help you see your project come to fruition, it's something else entirely to deal with a professional, unionised cast and crew, working within the tight regulation of the industry. If you think about the actors fees (including the 80-100 zombies, who will be getting paid a minimum of about $70 a day - that's all of Deadlands 2's budget in one day), licensed stunt performers' fees, car ferry purchase/hire, film permits (including permission to close roads and public places temporarily), hire of privately-owned property, building of sets, hiring of studio facilities, hire/purchase of cameras/sound/lighting equipment, full unionised film crew, transportation hire/fuel costs, hire/transportation of horses and other livestock, hire of animal handlers, prosthetic/practical effects guys' fees, pyrotechnics and pyrotechnician's fees, CGI/optical effects, armorers' fees, on-set security, on-set medics, production insurance, full catering facilities and up to three meals a day for every actor/zombie/crew member on set... Now of course, if you were making ...of the Dead, you wouldn't have to pay for half of this stuff (you'd call on favours, shoot without permits, buy lunch at MacDonald's, not bother with stunt doubles, etc.), but Romero doesn't have that luxury because he works within the industry.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Erm, didn't Land of the Dead have a $15 million budget, and also - didn't Land of the Dead get a far poorer exchange rate deal when compared to what Yawn04 got? ... To be fair, we've not seen anywhere near enough of "of the Dead" to even start discussing "where the money went" ... and actually, from the clip that Clang posted (despite being dark due to it being filmed off a screen at a convention), it looked quite good with good coverage. So without seeing a proper representation of how "of the Dead" is going to turn out, we can't judge it - certainly not from that short 'crew trailer' clip which had no final effects added, no sound effects, no music, and no grading, nor any final editing...so to judge it now is far too harsh. In your opinion - let's make that clear. ... Agreed though, a film made for ten gee's in an indie fashion cannot be compared to a multi-million-dollar studio-led film, it's not the same league. It'd be like comparing a Formula Four driver to Schumacher. I was referring to the AFM trailer that was posted on Bloody Disgusting some time ago. i haven't watched Clang's clip yet so my opinion my change. However, based ont he clip I had watched, "Of the Dead" looked terrible. In regards to Land's Budget, originally slated at $15,000,000 the film went over budget around XMAS 04, when Romero supposedly walked off the set due to creative differences with producers, which was all BS. it was the last day of shooting and there was no more money left. Because many shots were incomplete and a rough cut had a gap of over 40 minutes with no Zombies, UNIVERSAL ponied up an additional $3,000,000 to finance the zombies coming to the wooden wall, where the butcher chops at the wood, The gag where the zombies pull that guys head off his torso and you see his spine and everything come out in shadow, and some CGI shots and a reshoot of the zombies attacking the fence area, and the bridge scene. Before the films release Universal ponied up an additional $2,000,000 more to complete full post production to get it out for the summer release expecting it to be big because of the success of the DAWN remake. Universal however, did not invest the original $15,000,000. Land was indie financed by Atmosphere Pictures, with a distribution deal in place by Warner Brothers originally, but Universal picked it up later. My source is my contact in the marketing department at Universal whom I worked with through my DAWN 04 info gathering days. well, frankly i was wondering where the 10,000 dollars went myself. lol. when i watched your film it looked like you spent way too much money on effects and make up when you should've hired some real actors. because the fat lady, the fat dude, the guitar store burnout, and the guy with the mullet was just painful to watch. my opinion. and the dawn remake outshines nothing. its mindless ass juice. Where did $10K go? Well, I had to buy the equipment... $6,000.00 - 7,000.00. Which included Camera, Lights, boom mics, and other small things here and there. Get insurance to close the road to stage the traffic jam, $1000.00. Pay a rental fee to use the hall as a mini rescue shelter, $125 per night, 4 nights of shooting, and additional money to buy a LAPTOP to use a video playback system, not too mention the need to upgrade my PC to handle the video editing and finally $1200 for make-up FX and food to feed everyone. While yes I used friends, which was the best thing I had at the moment, and a choice I do not regret in the slightest, i was new to the Baltimore/DC indie film scene and only started meeting people after the fact. Once I put together a list of actors and what not, I planned casting calls for Deadlands 2, which outshinces in every aspect everything about Deadlands 1. However, again... Don't try to compare my films to studio budgeted projects. it makes you look like an ass and even shows you yourself do not have the slightest clue about the industry. While I may not be George Romero, he is one of my inspirations, and I am sorry I am not going to kiss his ass or anyone elses who makes a crappy film with $20,000,000 at their disposal. I am a true fan and I will call it as I see it. LAND was a piece of shit. a $20,000,000 piece of shit. Could you pull of a set piece involving National Guardsmen stealing a large zombie infested ferry on a $10k budget? I suspect that scene alone would cost more than your budget. Honestly, what do you want for $5m? Yeah, you did a pretty decent job on $10k, I'll give you that, but don't think that means you're qualified to pass judgement on the budgeting of ...of the Dead, since as far as I am aware you have no experience of organising a full-scale, industry production. It's one thing making a movie guerilla-style with no permits and just a bunch of eager friends and film student acquaintances who're willing to work for nothing or thereabouts to help you see your project come to fruition, it's something else entirely to deal with a professional, unionised cast and crew, working within the tight regulation of the industry. If you think about the actors fees (including the 80-100 zombies, who will be getting paid a minimum of about $70 a day - that's all of Deadlands 2's budget in one day), licensed stunt performers' fees, car ferry purchase/hire, film permits (including permission to close roads and public places temporarily), hire of privately-owned property, building of sets, hiring of studio facilities, hire/purchase of cameras/sound/lighting equipment, full unionised film crew, transportation hire/fuel costs, hire/transportation of horses and other livestock, hire of animal handlers, prosthetic/practical effects guys' fees, pyrotechnics and pyrotechnician's fees, CGI/optical effects, armorers' fees, on-set security, on-set medics, production insurance, full catering facilities and up to three meals a day for every actor/zombie/crew member on set... Now of course, if you were making ...of the Dead, you wouldn't have to pay for half of this stuff (you'd call on favours, shoot without permits, buy lunch at MacDonald's, not bother with stunt doubles, etc.), but Romero doesn't have that luxury because he works within the industry. Very true Kraken, however, Minerva is trying to compare a $10K flick to a $20M flick. My problem with OTD is that a teaser was released, with very crappy editing, sound mix and some other questionable elements. it is obvious you can tell the film needs tons of polishing work, but from what the trailer represents it doesn't look good. Now if I see the film and it turns out to be a good movie, fine I will eat crow, but from what i see it looks like shit. Most people hate Diary, and I thought that looked ten times better than OTD, and that only had a 2.5m budget, plus I enjoyed Diary, because it was more rooted in Romero's guerrilla style, ala NIGHT. Also be clear on something in regards to permits. For both Deadlands films, when permits were required I did get them. The only permit I could not get was the shots I did in Baltimore city from Federal Hill. Otherwise both productions were fully covered on every legal aspect in terms of shooting on location (traffic Jam in Deadlands 1, City block closed in Deadlands 2). Also, someone mentioned a tax break change? That didn't come in Canada until mid 2005, and LAND was shot by then. They received equal tax breaks as the DAWN remake. Speaking of the DAWN remake, that would have had a $40,000,000 budget had House of the Dead not tanked, or I should say turned out shitty. The original DAWN remake script by Michael Tolkin had them Carpet bombing major cities to deal with the zombie infection.

[clanglee]

I realise it's a bit dark, but trust me, the clip I posted in the other thread will make you feel a bit better about the new film.

[Edison Carter]

GAR has to milk u dummies! To make up for what he gave as bribe to the Canadian's to admit him as refugee. If you don't go see it he will be kicked out of Canada since he wont have $ to pay his cargo off.

[Minerva_Zombi]

i still feel you wasted money making deadlands. honestly i could've made that movie with 500 dollars. and frankly, if you had 20,000,000 dollars at ur disposal, im sure you would produce a giant turd as well. remember, the more money you have in hollywood, the more fingers you have in the pie and the more eyes you have watching you. its actually easier to make something interesting on a showstring budget than a large budget. See the film Primer for an example. i think they had like 10,000 at their disposal. its miles beyond your film. deadlands added nothing new to the genre and really had nothing going on through most of the film. land of the dead is a very interesting, well-written, and entertaining film with good concepts and ideas. deadlands... not so much.

[Neil]

See the film Primer for an example. i think they had like 10,000 at their disposal. I think it far less than that!?

[MinionZombie]

I realise it's a bit dark, but trust me, the clip I posted in the other thread will make you feel a bit better about the new film. Indeed. And Deej - if when you say the "AFM" trailer on BD or whatever, as the roughly-cobbled together crew trailer which had no effects, no sound, no music, no grading, and a vague assembly of disconnected footage ... then that's hardly at all fair to judge the final film on. But then you hated Land and Diary, so I'm not surprised you're blasting "of the Dead".

[DjfunkmasterG]

i still feel you wasted money making deadlands. honestly i could've made that movie with 500 dollars. and frankly, if you had 20,000,000 dollars at ur disposal, im sure you would produce a giant turd as well. remember, the more money you have in hollywood, the more fingers you have in the pie and the more eyes you have watching you. its actually easier to make something interesting on a showstring budget than a large budget. See the film Primer for an example. i think they had like 10,000 at their disposal. its miles beyond your film. deadlands added nothing new to the genre and really had nothing going on through most of the film. land of the dead is a very interesting, well-written, and entertaining film with good concepts and ideas. deadlands... not so much. So you can make it for $500.00 Ok Sir, you go and do that and I will PERSONALLY reimburse you the $500 once I see the film, as a remake, with the same exact set pieces. Including closing a 4 lane road and setting up a massive traffic jam. Since you have a big mouth, time to put up or shut up. You wanna act like Billy Badass, well lets see what you're made of man. Interms of bringing nothing new to the genre... it was not my intent to do so. My intent was to make a zombie film that paid homage to the genre, but shooting scenes not found in previous zombie films, like the traffic jam, so in essence, yes it did bring something new in terms of a location, but overall zombie theory, no, I found it better to cover a subject matter with what makes people comfortable. Everytime someone does something new people have a cow. Running zombies for example, while I did use them, people had a cow when that came about. So please get off your high horse and come back to reality. Just for you Minerva: http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...697#post179697 (MINERVA ZOMBIE DEADLANDS CHALLENGE) Indeed. And Deej - if when you say the "AFM" trailer on BD or whatever, as the roughly-cobbled together crew trailer which had no effects, no sound, no music, no grading, and a vague assembly of disconnected footage ... then that's hardly at all fair to judge the final film on. But then you hated Land and Diary, so I'm not surprised you're blasting "of the Dead". I did not hate Diary. I gave it an 8 out of 10 in my original review.