Why people hate LOTD

[AcesandEights]

DAWN 04 all the way baby. Hells yeah!

[kennethos]

Hi DJ and everybody else... As a more recent Romero Dead fan, I looked forward to seeing LOTD in theaters, to finally see a good zombie movie on the silver screen, especially after being reintroduced to the genre by '04's Dawn remake (which I loved). So I figured, LOTD would be fantastic...good budget, good FX, Romero in charge, what could go wrong? Now, I have no idea if there was any studio static going on. But what I saw didn't impress me. There were plot holes in LOTD big enough to drive Mac trucks through. Let's see, a couple of issues... In a world where people have survived a zombie holocaust, and presumably everybody knows how to kill them, why were there still people/soldiers firing into the mid-sections of zombies? Aiming and missing once or twice at the head, I understand. But firing at the head only as a last resort? Are they complete morons? If Kaufman is as wealthy as he claims, and outfitted Fiddler's Green with as much stuff as he said he did, why was there little, if any, surveillance equipment? Dead Reckoning had at least one camera on it. Part of the reason the city fell was because nobody knew the zombies were coming. Granted, the river crossing may not have been expected. But you'd think Kaufman and his crew would have been smart enough, if not competent, at least, to put up cameras to remote-monitor everything. Maybe even an intercom system, to talk to each other? Security, anyone? All those buildings in the city...did anyone live in them, besides the folks in the tower? If they did, it would have been too easy to survive even a zombie invasion of the city...just wait them out. But apparently, this didn't happen. These are a few things that come to mind. The biggest disappointment, in my mind, was that the writing/story was so poor. All of these things could have been in the story, and would have made a better, more interesting and involving plot and saga. Instead, we watch stupid people die at the hands of zombies, which is the key premise of waaay too many bad zombie films. I expect better from Romero and his crew, especially after the trilogy. Perhaps Diary of the Dead will be better, I don't know. I would just love to see an intelligently-written and well-directed zombie movie, even if it's a low-budget indie production.

[Dommm]

Dawn 04 was a better movie. That would have to be a matter of opinion. at the risk of Minion wrath I would say it was a great movie. But as for being a better movie. No Way The survivors are one dimisional planks, the Zombies arn't terrifying they are scary in the way that you simply fight to survive. The beauty of the orignal was the slow plodded pace the sense of horror that slowly overwhelmes you. Dawn 04 is a rollercoaster ride, you fight you survive you run, you fight some more. THE ORIGNAL LEAVES YOU WITH A SENSE OF DESPARATION. You feel for the survivors and you watch them, wanting them to survive. And there in lies the beauty.

[Griff]

A few things I learnt at the recent Festival of Fear. Just about everybody mentioned that LAND was a rough shoot. Roy Frumkes says that the budget was 14 million. Initially they were gonna get 20 million's worth by shooting up in Canada but has the exchange rate fell, it ended up only being about 15 million and stuff had to be jettisoned - quick. Romero said he was shooting so fast and furiously that he never really had any idea exactly how the movie was shaping up. He was grateful that he was able to knock together something workable after only a minor reshoot. Remember those rumours of Romero walking off the set? He said all during the shoot he was continually requesting additional units to get maximum coverage but Universal wouldn't oblige. Finally he gets five units - only on the very last day. He figured 'Well, you don't really need me then' and walked off set in quiet protest. Nicotero said that the schedule was so tight that he survived on only 3 hours of sleep a night. They shot the feasting-zombies-in-the-ammunions-dump on the very last night, presumably when those other units were also working. Without them, its conceivable that we may not have gotten that sequence at all, or at least a severely compromised version. Romero said he'd gladly spend a 100 nights out in the freezing cold if it meant he could get the footage he wanted. Ultimately Romero blames himself, reasoning that he should have done a complete script rewrite, ala DAY, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. In light of this, I think LAND deserves a bit of a break from some of you harsher critics, particularly those who've tried their hand at filmmaking and have an idea of what you can be up against. As for DAWN04, that was made for how much? 28 million? And on a much nicer exchange rate so perhaps up around the 40 million mark in value, if not beyond? And still it was a much, much bigger disappointment, despite the lowered expectations (indeed, when people say 'Hey, the remake was good' its usually because they thought it was gonna completely suck anyway). In closing: LAND wins. DAWN04 hangs its head in shame.

[MinionZombie]

Hooray for Griff! Damn straight, give Land a break, it still rocks! Filmmaking is a tough gig, and it sounds as if GAR took a rinsing. And Yawn04 still sucks.

[DruNewp]

Land will, in time, be accepted. When DAY came out, everyone hated it. Now it's, while maybe not a favorite in the saga, totally accepted. I also think a big part of the let down was the ending. The "they're just like us" line threw some people off, I'm sure. I didn't mind it.

[xopher]

Day, from what I understand Romero to have said, totally bombed in the theatres. People loved it at the premeire and were in fact cheering "Bub! Bub!" It just didn't take off from there. I know an awful lot of people who would say though that it IS there favorite. Land is similar, and I must say, I enjoyed watching it at the theatre. But I've got to admit, I wasn't scared by it at all. I remember thinking to myself throughout the movie and trying to convince myself that I was just too used to the new f***ed up psychotic horror, or that I had just watched too many zombie movies and was immune to it now. But that really wasn't it. I mean I still get a little freaked out by Night and Dawn. Come to think of it, Day wasn't as scary as the first two but it gives me the creeps a little as well because there's so many other elements, like the idea of being stuck under ground with a very limited supply of food. Something about the claustraphobia, the depressing music, and non-big name actors just really draws me into the older films. Land was too big budget to really please me as a horror flick, but just didn't go far enough with the violence and effects to be an action flick, which I felt it would have been more succesful as. Peace to all >:-)

[clanglee]

That would have to be a matter of opinion. at the risk of Minion wrath I would say it was a great movie. But as for being a better movie. No Way The survivors are one dimisional planks, the Zombies arn't terrifying they are scary in the way that you simply fight to survive. The beauty of the orignal was the slow plodded pace the sense of horror that slowly overwhelmes you. Dawn 04 is a rollercoaster ride, you fight you survive you run, you fight some more. THE ORIGNAL LEAVES YOU WITH A SENSE OF DESPARATION. You feel for the survivors and you watch them, wanting them to survive. And there in lies the beauty. I don't think anyone here would even begin to say that Dawn '04 was better than the original Dawn. They were arguing that Dawn'04 was better than Land. Which it was. By far. Talk about plank characters. . .sheesh Land had those in spades. The silliest characters ever. Don't get me wrong. . . I LIKE Land. . kinda. It was just too. . .goofy for me to really get behind. It was kind of like Romero was imitating a 14 year old immitaing Romero.

[kennethos]

While I appreciate LOTD's defenders trying to explain some the details of what happened (and granted, an exchange rate and studio interference rank high up on the problem-meter), my complaints are with the story and plot-holes. If the story is solid and working, then even poor filmmaking can survive, and critics and fans will be satisfied. Thus, I look forward immensely to Diary, to see if GAR in charge makes a difference....I hope it does.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The review at AIN.COM shows Diary being really decent. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33974

[SRP76]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid. Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it. Everything else in the movie follows that, so it's a downhill spiral, for me. And now the other thing: I'm not an idiot, and I don't give a damn about the campaign trail. In short, I do NOT need to be savagely beaten about the head and neck with your political "commentary". Such crap is fine, if it's disguised. Example would be Dawn. Now, I realize Romero was "sticking it to the man", so to speak. But, when I first saw it, I didn't realize that. Why? Because the "commentary" was hiding in a cool-ass movie, that was - dare I say it? - actually fun to watch. Having a movie like that makes it easy to ignore the politicking. But, Land was nothing like that. It seemed like an infomercial for Romero's soapbox preaching. The actual movie got lost. I can't stand that! I'm trying to watch a movie; be subtle with this stuff. Don't slam the viewer in the jaw with it every five minutes! It shakes the viewer out of the thrall. These are a couple of the reasons why I was not into Land.

[AcesandEights]

Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it. Choose to apply your imagination or suspension of disbelief at that point. You're also backing into a problem to see how it was solved, which is fine, but tends to always make problems and tasks appear all the more difficult and discounts (removes from the equation) happenstance and adaptation to independently evolving circumstances.

[bassman]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid. No, Brother. He doesn't think that we're stupid. He thinks that everyone else doesn't quite "get it". Being that we're fans, he knows that we see his ultimate underlying message that the human race is doomed, but he wants other generations to understand that the ending isn't so simple. I understand(with you) that we as a human race are doomed, but he's trying to portray to a new generation the same posibilities. I know that "Land" has it's flaws, but it still has the same message that we're biulding up to our own demise.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm a Land-hater. It seems to go against everything set forth in the previous films, and Romero now seems to think we're stupid. Number one, we've got Pittsburgh locked off. Yeah, right. People couldn't even defend one farmhouse, one mall, or an underground installation. Yet, they can lockdown and clean out about 2 million zombies, to make a major city "safe". I don't buy it. Everything else in the movie follows that, so it's a downhill spiral, for me. And now the other thing: I'm not an idiot, and I don't give a damn about the campaign trail. In short, I do NOT need to be savagely beaten about the head and neck with your political "commentary". Such crap is fine, if it's disguised. Example would be Dawn. Now, I realize Romero was "sticking it to the man", so to speak. But, when I first saw it, I didn't realize that. Why? Because the "commentary" was hiding in a cool-ass movie, that was - dare I say it? - actually fun to watch. Having a movie like that makes it easy to ignore the politicking. But, Land was nothing like that. It seemed like an infomercial for Romero's soapbox preaching. The actual movie got lost. I can't stand that! I'm trying to watch a movie; be subtle with this stuff. Don't slam the viewer in the jaw with it every five minutes! It shakes the viewer out of the thrall. These are a couple of the reasons why I was not into Land. You have made some excellent points about your thoughts on Land. While mine lie in the technical side (Acting, Directing, Editing) I could definitely see your point when looking at it like that. Well said. A few things I learnt at the recent Festival of Fear. Just about everybody mentioned that LAND was a rough shoot. Roy Frumkes says that the budget was 14 million. Initially they were gonna get 20 million's worth by shooting up in Canada but has the exchange rate fell, it ended up only being about 15 million and stuff had to be jettisoned - quick. Romero said he was shooting so fast and furiously that he never really had any idea exactly how the movie was shaping up. He was grateful that he was able to knock together something workable after only a minor reshoot. Remember those rumours of Romero walking off the set? He said all during the shoot he was continually requesting additional units to get maximum coverage but Universal wouldn't oblige. Finally he gets five units - only on the very last day. He figured 'Well, you don't really need me then' and walked off set in quiet protest. Nicotero said that the schedule was so tight that he survived on only 3 hours of sleep a night. They shot the feasting-zombies-in-the-ammunions-dump on the very last night, presumably when those other units were also working. Without them, its conceivable that we may not have gotten that sequence at all, or at least a severely compromised version. Romero said he'd gladly spend a 100 nights out in the freezing cold if it meant he could get the footage he wanted. Ultimately Romero blames himself, reasoning that he should have done a complete script rewrite, ala DAY, instead of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. In light of this, I think LAND deserves a bit of a break from some of you harsher critics, particularly those who've tried their hand at filmmaking and have an idea of what you can be up against. As for DAWN04, that was made for how much? 28 million? And on a much nicer exchange rate so perhaps up around the 40 million mark in value, if not beyond? And still it was a much, much bigger disappointment, despite the lowered expectations (indeed, when people say 'Hey, the remake was good' its usually because they thought it was gonna completely suck anyway). In closing: LAND wins. DAWN04 hangs its head in shame. the 28 million was after exchange. The original budget was $36 million then it was cut down to $18,000,000 when House of the Dead flopped and Universal lost faith in the zombie genre, which prompted a re-write to tone down bigger sequences. Once they watched a work print they dumped another $5,000,000 into it for a few reshoots to up the action and violence.

[xopher]

For some reason the money issues make me feel sick to my stomache. Romero seems to have had very little problem making good movies in the past on low budgets. I admit I watch older low budget movies with a certain affection but still... It seems like once you start getting into large sums of money the stakes are really high and it all depends on someone-over-you's ability to see the vision you're shooting for. As someone who did like Dawn '04, I don't think Universal has the ability to see Romero's universe as Romero sees it. I think Romero is a great independant film maker. I can say that I have tons of great ideas for movies that I'm hoping to make within my life time, but I could never work for a studio. I need the freedom to TAKE MY TIME. Rushing things together never works out well for me, I've learned this BIG TIME producing music. I used to make **** and recall it within weeks. I'm just the kind of person that needs to do what I'm feeling as it comes to me. Long live the indy film industry! Long live Romero!