Are we all just blind?

[Fleshmunch]

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. That is usually true but not always... Frex, I liked the TCM remake about as much as the original. I thought they did a great job and I would feel torn if given a choice between watching the original and the remake, which is the same way I feel about NotLD '68 and NotLD '90. So sometimes remakes really do live up to the spirit and potential of the original even when the originals are certified classics. And sometimes remakes are better than the original, like Blood Diner is wayyy better than Blood Feast (even if it an unofficial remake).

[bassman]

And....What does land have to do with remakes, again?

[Fleshmunch]

I guess nothing! LOL. Okay, to make my point re: Land, I say that there's the original, right? And because you like that, you go to see the sequels, prequels, remakes, whatever, right? And you carry the delight you have for the original into the theater when you see the films that come after and measure them against the original. Examples of sequels that equalled or exceeded the originals (or were close enough despite some sucky parts): For A Few Dollars More, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Godfather II, Dawn of the Dead '78, Day of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead 3, Chinese Ghost Story 2 and 3, A Better Tomorrow 2 and 3, etc. Land fails compared to the original Dead films because it is too sucky and too different. It lets down the audience who loved what came before instead of building on that love. It just poops on it and says "this is what you get suckers." It's just a bad movie, plain and simple, even if Romero hadn't made it, but the fact Romero made it and intended it as a fourth Dead film is the worst. I like House of the Dead 2 better than Land for crying out loud!!!

[James]

One of the things I didn't like about Land was that it had too many characters. I liked the fact that Dawn and Day had fewer characters. It added to the atmosphere and made them more memorable. Land's shortish running time compounded this. Also, I'm sure this has been said a gazillion times already but I wondered why they seemed to have very advanced technology in Land.

[bassman]

I guess nothing! LOL. Okay, to make my point re: Land, I say that there's the original, right? And because you like that, you go to see the sequels, prequels, remakes, whatever, right? And you carry the delight you have for the original into the theater when you see the films that come after and measure them against the original. Examples of sequels that equalled or exceeded the originals (or were close enough despite some sucky parts): For A Few Dollars More, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Godfather II, Dawn of the Dead '78, Day of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead 3, Chinese Ghost Story 2 and 3, A Better Tomorrow 2 and 3, etc. Land fails compared to the original Dead films because it is too sucky and too different. It lets down the audience who loved what came before instead of building on that love. It just poops on it and says "this is what you get suckers." It's just a bad movie, plain and simple, even if Romero hadn't made it, but the fact Romero made it and intended it as a fourth Dead film is the worst. I like House of the Dead 2 better than Land for crying out loud!!! Let me ask you this: I don't know of your age, but if you had seen "Alien" in 1979 and REALLY enjoyed it.......would you have enjoyed it's sequel "Aliens" in 1986 even though it's a totally different film? True, these two films are directed by two different directors, but my point is this.....If you go by your past experiences of films that are related to a new film that you're seeing, you're always going to be let down. I consider myself lucky because I did my best to totally forget Romero's past Dead films as I was on my way to the theater. This isn't to say that "Land" doesn't have any faults.....it does. It has quite a few, actually. But being that I was able to temporarily erase my memory of the past Dead films and perceive the film that was being played before me.....I could see it's creator's intentions. As I said before, it had several flaws(the two biggest being Big Daddy and it's short time for character development), but I was still able to see the picture as a stand-alone film and not as a sequel that is supposed to live up to it's predecessors. And for me, that helped it to be a decent film. Would I consider it as good as the original three? No. How could I? Most of us have been watching the original three for quite some time. On the other hand, there are members here that don't like "Day". Maybe it's because: A)they just don't like it(which you may have the same feelings about "Land" and that's understandable because everyone has different opinions) or... B) they had such a strong feeling and a sort of "relationship" with the films preceding it that they just didn't want to see a different film.

[Fleshmunch]

I liked Alien, Aliens, and hell, even Alien 3 (not so much Alien Resurrection, but I'd still rather watch that than Land any day). I watched them all in order of release and carried my expectations from film to film. The aliens weren't radically different in any of them--they were pretty much the same threat--the only difference was the number of aliens combined with the politics and location of the humans facing them. The Queen was just a big alien that could lay eggs. I guess they were slightly smaller and faster in Alien 3 (and molten lava-resistant ), but they were still the same threat. The zombies in Land are smart and that's the problem. It changed the whole nature of the threat. Bub was an anomaly, an aberration, and early on in the timeline to boot. It doesn't make any sense for the zombies to be getting smarter, to be evolving, when their brains are decomposing... If anything, they should be getting dumber! And their bodies can't last for years and years--they have to fall apart sooner or later, otherwise we're talking about the supernaturally-animated skeleton warriors from Jason and the Argonauts or Army of Darkness, which zombies clearly aren't! The film was promoted and promised as the fourth installment of the Romero Dead series, not as a stand-alone project, so it's gonna get compared to the OT (original trilogy), just like the Star Wars prequels got compared, just like Star Trek: Enterprise got compared to Captain Kirk. They don't hold up and they insult the memory of the originals (to varying degrees). They were made for love of money, not love of art*, and are tainted as a result. If Romero made Land with good intentions, they were overshadowed, erased and destroyed by the time the film was completed, leaving only dogsh*t in their wake. I knew the film was gonna be crap the minute I saw the retarded zombie marching band in the opening credits, but I tried to like Land (oh, how I tried!), and found nothing of value in it. Nothing. I left the theater shaking with rage and feeling more than ripped-off, like a piece of my childhood had been raped and murdered, the same way I felt walking out of the Phantom Menace. This wasn't like some sh*tty Puppetmaster or Hellraiser sequel you know is gonna be crap, this was supposed to be a serious attempt to revive the franchise or at least get one more made. This was supposed to be for the fans, not AGAINST the fans. I'm not saying GAR is entirely at fault, but he's not off the hook by a longshot. His name is on it and it sucks--it spits in the face of the fans and says, "Screw you, suckers!" That's the feeling I get from it, anyway. I didn't get that from Aliens. Aliens simply changed the number of monsters and pitted them against badass space marines on a colony instead of wimps on a spaceship. It did nothing to change what had come before--if anything it built on it and said, "the original was a great horror movie, now let's make this new one a great action movie!" I can dig it. It was faithful. And I'm not trying to be a dick or start a fight or anything, I'm sorry if I give that impression. I'm trying to clarify my position and answer your questions, but I get kind of worked up and foaming at the mouth over Land because I see it as a betrayal of my love for the Dead films that came before... * I'm not so naive to think that movies (outside of some micro-budget independents) are made for art alone. They are made to make money, but the ones that have that love of art component too are the ones that become classics. Anything else, no matter how entertaining, is forgettable trash. YMMV.

[bassman]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion. But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today....

[Deaths_Shadow]

One of the things I didn't like about Land was that it had too many characters. I liked the fact that Dawn and Day had fewer characters. It added to the atmosphere and made them more memorable. Land's shortish running time compounded this. Also, I'm sure this has been said a gazillion times already but I wondered why they seemed to have very advanced technology in Land. I have to agree with you. Alot of different characters with there own agenda's (including big daddy) and the trilogy was easier to keep track of and you really knew each character's persona well, i didn't feel that as much in Land. It was there i know but i wasn't feeling it. But there were parts that felt romero'ish but not many at least for me. For the viewers who loved it, great. But with all things your going to have disagreements and there own oppinions and no one can change how you feel (unless you join a cult)

[Fleshmunch]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion. But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today.... And I'd rather he never came back if Land is all he has to offer. It's not better than most meaningless crap, which was not supposed to be any good in the first place. Land was supposed to have meaning and ended up meaningless crap. That's the difference. That's where the pain, the sense of betrayal, comes from. I can shrug off the junk, the drek, but when a "master" comes out with a new movie, it's supposed to be good and meaningful and important. But when it fails, it makes them look like desperate has-beens grasping at straws, trying to undeservedly rekindle past glories. Romero, Hooper, Carpenter, Argento, Lucas, Scorsese, etc. All rendered irrelevant, obsolete.

[bassman]

Like I said, difference of opinion. BUT, to say that Scorcese has been making bad films lately....well....All I have to say is "The Aviator" and "The Departed".

[Fleshmunch]

Like I said, difference of opinion. BUT, to say that Scorcese has been making bad films lately....well....All I have to say is "The Aviator" and "The Departed". I'll give you The Aviator, but Gangs of New York and The Departed were lackluster affairs at best. Gangs was too long and Departed was just an average, forgettable movie. I couldn't tell Matt Damon and Leonard DiCaprio apart for the first half of the movie, that's what he gets for casting two blonde leads. And that chick they were fighting over was not hot, I guess that makes her believable as a psychochiatrist but I'm not getting that special feeling in my pants over her. Nice headshots at the end but too little too late. Not Oscar-worthy, but maybe he will get it because they unfairly passed him over forever. But it's wrong to get a sympathy Oscar when you don't deserve it.

[bassman]

I would say you're in the minority with that opinion....

[coma]

Believe what you will.......everyone has their own opinion. But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today.... Me too, except I wasnt waiting. It was a triology and LAnd was a bonus that wasnt supposed to happen in the first place. And I loved Alien and AlienS. saw them both in orignal release.

[Arcades057]

But me, I'm happy to see Romero back after 20+ years of waiting. It's much better than most meaningless crap out there today.... Agreed with the first part, not so much with the second. It was good to see another offering in the series, even though it was not expected (by me at least). I went in with high expectations, and was disappointed. I saw it again in theaters, this time expecting to be disappointed and I liked it a little more. Subsequent watchings have not made me like it any more. I remain lukewarm on my reaction to the movie. I neither love it or hate. However, there are far more things which I hate about the movie than I like. On the second point, though, I'd like to remind you that Batman Begins came out aroundthe same time. Batman KILLED Land. I went to see Batman with low expectations, sitting there with a smirk telling my Batman-obsessed buddy how terrible it would be... I left that theater with a "WTF?!" look on my face, talking about how good it was. Then he ribbed me about wanting to take him to Land instead. I'd go so far as to say that the third installment of the Star Wars prequels was better, also released around the same time; same with Mr. and Mrs. Smith, another movie which I enjoyed more, and if I'm not mistaken, also made more at the box office. We're at a site devoted to GAR. This means that the majority of people here respect him; however, it does NOT mean that the majority of us will openly fawn over any tepid play he puts out that's plagued by terrible acting, worse character development, and a plot that would choke a donkey. I do believe those who would are in the minority. If you actually enjoyed the movie because of the plot, the characters, the setting, and all that jazz, bully for you; leave GAR out of the equation and see if it doesn't change your minds on it.

[bassman]

I do leave Romero out of the equation, as well as any past zombie films that I've seen. And I enjoyed "Land". I'm not saying that it's "awesome!" or "excelent!" or anything like that....it's just an entertaining flick. I'm not claiming that it has no flaws. No one can. It has several things that most of us would have changed(I think we're all agreed on Big Daddy and the length of the film, amongst others). The original three films have flaws. There's not as many as there is in "Land", but they're there. I guess the difference is that I'm able to look past those flaws and enjoy it for what it is.