Why people hate LOTD

[MinionZombie]

So you're dissing the story of Land because of Big Daddy's howling? At least with Land it opens you up for a lot of nerd-gasm style discussions into the practicalities of life in that world, how things were done, and dare I mention it, the discussions about currency that were inspired on this forum. But for the love of GAR, let's not have another currency thread people, just use the search button to read it ... but don't bring it back, it's dead & buried. I think Land is quite smart in the portrayal of the people, the haves and have-nots, the ignoring of the problem, the obsession with possessions and money, risking your life to feed those who sit on their butts all day, the cost of vices...it's essentially a microcosm of a dim-view of a capitalist society. What's Yawn04 got? Moronic nobodies, some don't even have a name, who just mope around or have an absolute blast, absolutely no thought is paid to consumerist subtext. It's just stuff happening, it's damn near a haunted house tour. Land got a raw deal during the production, very much like Day did - another film of Romero's which was decried as pish-tosh at the time, but which is now considered a genre classic. Yawn04 is a shiny thing flashed before the eyes of the dimwitted MTV audience, you aren't challenged to think further for yourself ... plus it's got Disturbed on the soundtrack. OO-WAH-AH-AH-AH!!!

[bassman]

Lets not talk about retarded decisions... you didn't see anyone in Dawn 04 saying "They're just looking for a place to go." Referring to the zombies. Am I the only one here that actually understands the meaning behind that??

[MinionZombie]

Am I the only one here that actually understands the meaning behind that?? I do. I thought that was a great aspect to the film - again, another element where the audience is called to think a bit further, consider things a bit deeper ... the lines of humans and zombies is blurred, a stale-mate war, the purpose of both 'species' and so forth.

[Trin]

At least with Land it opens you up for a lot of nerd-gasm style discussions into the practicalities of life in that world, how things were done, and dare I mention it, the discussions about currency that were inspired on this forum. But for the love of GAR, let's not have another currency thread people, just use the search button to read it ... but don't bring it back, it's dead & buried. I love the nerdtastic discussions as much as anyone, but Land is so messed up it defies discussion. How do we discuss the practicalities of a world where the people could maintain a GPS system but weren't bright enough to build a fence along the river? Where they had electric fences and didn't think to make a circuit breaker at the fence station? Where they offered no explanation for the lack of hundreds of thousands of zombie trying to get inside the protected area? I think Land is quite smart in the portrayal of the people, the haves and have-nots, the ignoring of the problem, the obsession with possessions and money, risking your life to feed those who sit on their butts all day, the cost of vices...it's essentially a microcosm of a dim-view of a capitalist society. Agreed. That aspect was very well done. I just wish it had put as much thought and intelligence into being a great zombie movie first. Romero's social commentary should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Both Night and Dawn '78 succeeded in being great zombie movies with an undercurrent of social commentary. Land consistently made plot concessions to facilitate the social commentary. Cart before the horse. No better example then Big Daddy. BD shouldn't have lasted through the first 5 minutes. "Hey look, that one's learning. He's communicating with the others." Blam. BD Drops. Drive off... But nooooo. We can't have our precious social commentary without Big Daddy leading the charge and dodging every bullet and walking off into the sunset at the end. Plot concession!! Dawn '04 was no better. It lost me when they all got bored and decided to go drive around the zombie-infested world with nothing but plot contrivance at the wheel. Lame!!

[Griff]

Big Daddy being a zombie who didn't feel any need to feed. I think that's very important element that gets overlooked. Man is an animal when his stomach is empty. Once he has satiated that basic desire, he is able to concentrate on bigger ambitions, to evolve behaviourally. In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal. It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Big Daddy just ruined Land, not too mention Romero's in your face commentary. I like his stuff to be subtle, not WHAM, with the force of a baseball bat to the head. It is obvious, much like me, he hates the Bush administration... that was so out there it overshadowed anything relevant in the film as far as a plot goes. Ooooo, we are greedy rich republicans, you liberal middle class get into your holes and grind out that paycheck while we relax off the sweat from your backs. I know he was trying to make a point and maybe this generation of movie goer needs that, but come on... That was the most pathetic display at social commentary... his use of being subtle.... went right out the ****ing window. Land has some shining moments, but the overall story just drags down whatever good is in there and just rolls it up into a huge ball of crap. I so wanted Land of the Dead to rock... I told everyone I knew if you think Dawn 04 was good wait til Land comes out... the master will show them how its done... instead he put on an excellent display of what not to do. Sorry to hurt the die hards, but Zack Snyder... and Danny Boyle ran circles around Romero's Land with their respective films. I don't care how many producers were up his ass... Day had a cut budget and that film is better than Land, so any excuses are void. I am not saying they didn't rattle his brain, but Land was not a Romero zombie film. Land missed a lot of points, over did the smart zombies and ruined a great screenplay that he himself wrote... tis a shame because the screenplay was way better in execution than the film. I still respect the man because the original 3 dead films are tops in my book. They define the zombie genre... no debate there. Period! Land is just a sloppy film, and whether or not DAWN 04 had an MTV thing going on matters nothing because it was still a far more entertaining film and is at least re-watchable. I don't know the last time I took my Land DVD off the shelf aside from dusting it off to do cleaning... My DAWN 04 HD-DVD gets constant play, hell even Shaun gets more play than Land.

[Griff]

Subtle? DAWN was anything but subtle.

[SRP76]

In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal. It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along... No, I'm not buying it. Big Daddy never ate anyone....on camera, that is. Big whoop. He sure had no qualms about killing every single living person he came in contact with. The only reason he didn't eat, is because he was in a hurry to attack Fiddler's Green. I'm not hearing the "zombies are a great bunch of guys, once you get to know them" theme. It's a straight lie. They are zombies. They are here to kill you. So, the "message" doesn't hold any water for me.

[acealive1]

land is a great movie,its somethin for my generation to enjoy. til now,we had to deal with the senseless romero knockoffs

[MinionZombie]

Subtle? DAWN was anything but subtle. Yeah, proper Dawn was quite clear in it's consumerist examination, the characters run around screaming and hollering with glee at all the stuff they can steal for free, there are montages with them taking guns, wearing fur coats, enjoying the toys, taking the food, they fill out their little home upstairs with expensive furniture, they gamble with money they've nabbed from the bank etc etc etc ... that's all pretty clear and up front. Like beaurocratic ineptitude, as a theme, is very clear and present in "The Crazies". Selling out, as a theme, is quite clear in "Knightriders". Identity, as a theme, is quite clear in "Bruiser"...and so forth. *high fives Griff & Bassman*

[xopher]

I think that's very important element that gets overlooked. Man is an animal when his stomach is empty. Once he has satiated that basic desire, he is able to concentrate on bigger ambitions, to evolve behaviourally. In a similar way, by ignoring that impulse to feed, it has enabled Big Daddy and his cronies to lead the way and take those first few steps towards forming some kinda zombie societal regime. They have a pursuit that extends beyond their mere individual hungers and towards a more unified goal. It all ties in with Romero's theme of revolution, of one society gradually overthrowing another, which he's been pimping since film one. Anyone who expected Romero to knock out a conventional zombie film hasn't been watching the same films I have. Either that or they were too spellbound by the fireworks to notice the subversion that had been going on under their noses all along... I like this perspective. Not everyone likes philosophy and religion as much as I do, but as for myself, I can make an analogy out of anything and meditate on it, so any time there's fresh fodder, I'm game. I've felt that from the begining there was something to be learned from his films. When I watched Night as a kid, man, there was something about that movie, something I had never thought or felt before. For the first time, the good guys didn't win, or maybe the zombies WERE the good guys. It really challenged my perspective. Now, I have to say the newer films are a little softer, and I would be willing to wager that it has something to with needing to keep the film at an R-rating. It has to. Even the "unrated" version of Land really didn't have that moch gore. There were no intestines or other guts being eaten. The lighting and what-not were just too glossy/Hollywood/I-can't-exactly-put-my-finger-on-it. You are right Griff, Romero never DID make a conventional Zombie movie, and now we've watched his movies and created within our minds a set of "rules" by which all zombies movies are supposed to operate. But George A Romero is a revolutionary. I don't think he likes to stick to "rules", and you'll notice that even though he's making a new film, and doing it independently, he's still changing the rules. He doesn't want to do the same old thing. He wants something new. However, having said that, I really hope he toughens up Diary Of The Dead cuz even though I liked it, Land was just too soft. (Asia looked soft too ) Hee hee!

[Griff]

The only reason he didn't eat, is because he was in a hurry to attack Fiddler's Green. Uh, yeah, that's pretty much what I said. He had an agenda, he had ambition - not just for himself, but for his zombie brethren. The beginnings of revolution. They were 'making themselves useful'. And I think Riley recognized that in Big Daddy and his buddies at the end which is why he didn't blast them. They had not acted out of greed but out of self-preservation and now, rather than rolling in the spoils, they were moving on to something hopefully better - just like them. But, hey, whether you buy it or not, its to LAND's credit that at least we can even consider it. With DAWN04, what you see is what you get - which aint much.

[7734]

I just wish it had put as much thought and intelligence into being a great zombie movie first. Romero's social commentary should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Both Night and Dawn '78 succeeded in being great zombie movies with an undercurrent of social commentary. Land consistently made plot concessions to facilitate the social commentary. Cart before the horse. That's the whole problem superbly uncovered. Too many plot tangents create too many plot holes. I think the best example is Cholo holding the Green as hostage. Realistically, I think, someone like him would have taken the Reckoning and all the ammo and supplies he could have stuffed in the rig and drove off, never looking behind. These things happen to artists when there are expectations of two or three generations waiting hanging on your next product. Romero had way too much to live up to, and so his 'Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece' sort of crashed and inevitable disappointed a lot of people. But you naysayers just wait for Diary of the Dead. He's going to bring it back to square one and put it all right. Right?

[Griff]

That's the whole problem superbly uncovered. Too many plot tangents create too many plot holes. I think the best example is Cholo holding the Green as hostage. Realistically, I think, someone like him would have taken the Reckoning and all the ammo and supplies he could have stuffed in the rig and drove off, never looking behind. That's fine... Except you've described exactly what Riley does. Cholo buys into the whole Fiddler's Green farce but Riley sees it for the artificial construct that it is. Cholo's actions are meant to be irrational or, at least, based on a false rationale. Riley is the voice of reason who, like Big Daddy, sees beyond the diversions, recognizes the real issues at hand and acts accordingly. In a sense, he's like a less passive version of John from DAY OF THE DEAD who, along with McDermott, sees the futility of their situation and can't understand why others would cling to it. I would never argue that LAND OF THE DEAD is 100 percent realistic but I do believe that it is governed by reason. These plot holes that people speak of aren't oversight's on behalf of Romero but rather his characters who subscribe to a false ideal. Money and riches shouldn't have any value in an artificial world, surrounded by death, with an upperclass that thrives and prospers at the expense of the masses ...and it shouldn't have any value in Fiddler's Green, either. But it does. And that's no plot hole - its a point.

[MinionZombie]

Eh? The reason Cholo took Dead Reckoning was purely so he had leverage over Kaufman, Cholo was only interested in money, and if Kaufman didn't pay up, he'd just take Dead Reckoning instead.