If you had Romero's ear?

[shootemindehead]

I have to disagree (but that's ok ). I think "Day of the Dead" is the zenith of his career. He'll never produce a film like it again, nor will anyone else. I really believe there never has been and never will be a film like "Day of the Dead" again. Few directors would be willing to take the chance on producing such a relentlessly grim and genuinely terrifying film...and such a darkly atmospheric film will almost inevitably mean relatively poor box office. A lot of people tend to rate "Dawn of the Dead" over "Day of the Dead", but I am at a loss why, to be honest. I think the 1985 film is a far superior production in every way. Of course, "Dawn of the Dead" is a great film, but it isn't nearly as horrific as it's successor, nor does it stand up as well to the ravages of time. Even when it came it out originally, it sort of looked a bit dated and the foul up with Savini's blood mixture did untold damage to the film's ability to shock. Savini, of course, was still learning the tricks of the trade though. But when he used Dick Smith's formula for the blood in "Day of the Dead", it went to a whole new level. It's unfortunate that Romero and Savini have never had the ability to go back and remake/update "Dawn of the Dead", I'd really love to see that. A shot for shot update of the 1978 film, with better zombies/actors/bigger budget. However, the possibility that Romero would use such a project as a full on "message movie" may prove too strong and could perhaps ruin the project, like it did with "Diary of the Dead". The main reason people are tuning into zombie movies, is to see zombies. I think THORN has it correct, that Romero didn't set out to make "message movies", but instead decided to make a straight horror film in 1968 and chose the living dead, because the were cheap to make up. I think the "message" thing came to Romero from other sources, rather than himself to be honest, but he subsequently made it his own. The consumerist message thing in "Dawn of the Dead", I'd say was more of a side issue, with the main issue behind setting the story in the mall, was because it was a cheap location to shoot in. Of course, there are probably different opinions on that. But when I see reviewers try to tell me that "Dawn of the Dead" was some kind if über side swipe at American consumer society, that just happened to have zombies in it, or that "Night of the Living Dead" was an allegory for the war in Vietnam...I have to laugh.

[Yojimbo]

I also think he should have stuck with Laurel for a few more years. He would've at least had a good shot at directing The Stand mini-series. -stray- Not sure about that, though. I get the impression that there is some serious bad blood between GAR and Richard Rubenstein to the point where GAR all but refuses to work with him, so The Stand having been a Rubenstein property kind of makes me think that Romero wouldn't have considered it. On a side note: I wonder what the fallout was between GAR and that prick Rubenstein. Perhaps our resident scholar, Dubious, might be able to share this with us? Of course, "Dawn of the Dead" is a great film, but it isn't nearly as horrific as it's successor, nor does it stand up as well to the ravages of time. Even when it came it out originally, it sort of looked a bit dated and the foul up with Savini's blood mixture did untold damage to the film's ability to shock. Savini, of course, was still learning the tricks of the trade though. But when he used Dick Smith's formula for the blood in "Day of the Dead", it went to a whole new level. Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day. Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day.

[darth los]

Not sure about that, though. I get the impression that there is some serious bad blood between GAR and Richard Rubenstein to the point where GAR all but refuses to work with him, so The Stand having been a Rubenstein property kind of makes me think that Romero wouldn't have considered it. On a side note: I wonder what the fallout was between GAR and that prick Rubenstein. Perhaps our resident scholar, Dubious, might be able to share this with us? Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day. Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day. Why does Rubenstein get such a bad rap from us? Well I know whybut let's not forget that without him Dawn would not have gotten made. Someone had to secure funding for the project. So he wanted rights to the film in exchange. What's wrong with that. He was being a (gasp) good business man, imagine that. GAR should try it sometime. If he was a better one he would have an empire to rival Lucas'. Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo.

[Yojimbo]

Why does Rubenstein get such a bad rap from us? Well I know whybut let's not forget that without him Dawn would not have gotten made. Someone had to secure funding for the project. So he wanted rights to the film in exchange. What's wrong with that. He was being a (gasp) good business man, imagine that. GAR should try it sometime. If he was a better one he would have an empire to rival Lucas'. Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo. You make a good point, Darth, and perhaps Rubenstein does not deserve all of the hatred that we focus on him, though a contemptible prick he does seem to be. I agree that we should at least acknowledge Rubenstein as important to the process that put together DOTD. So, know all ye who have the ears to hear, and the will to care, Yojimbo acknowledges that Rubenstein had a pivitol role in bringing GAR's nightmarish vision of hell on earth that was DOTD to the screen in 1978. Yojimbo proclaims that it is entirely possible that without Rubenstiein that DOTD may have never had been made at all. (But this doesn't mean that Yojimbo likes Rubenstein!) I think that the reverse can be said too, in that without GAR, Rubenstein might be a total zero right now. I know for sure it can certainly be said about Russo, that dweeb!

[ProfessorChaos]

ProfessorChaos has noticed Yojimbo referring to himself in the third person, and ProfessorChaos wonders "Does Yojimbo think that he too, is 'too cool for school' like ProfessorChaos?"

[Yojimbo]

ProfessorChaos has noticed Yojimbo referring to himself in the third person, and ProfessorChaos wonders "Does Yojimbo think that he too, is 'too cool for school' like ProfessorChaos?" Yojimbo AND ProfessorChaos are both way, way 'too cool for school' for sure.

[shootemindehead]

Universal's Frankenstein, with Karloff in the square head get up might look funny and not very horrifying to us now, but I have read accounts of women screaming and fainting when they saw this picture back in the day. Though I agree that Day's effects were superior to DOTD, and very gory, I think it is important to remember that DOTD was among the first of the "splatter" films from that era. Gags like zombies pulling intestines out of screaming victims, helicopter blades slicing off the top of a dude's head, heads exploding from a shotgun blast, brains and blood everywhere-- these were gags that had not been done on the same level before DOTD, and in this way DOTD set a precedent for all horror (splatter) films to follow. In as far as whether or not they were shocking at the time, I would say that I recall that people were amazed at how bloody and gory (3M blood notwithstanding) DOTD was. So, I think that if you view DOTD from the context of when it came out it was extraordinarily gory and bloody and shoking to audiences, though if you compare it with films that came after (Maniac, for instance) perhaps the gore is not at the same level. So, my little sister who is in her early twenties looks at DOTD 78 now and laughs at how hokey it was, but I remember the audiences coming close to puking from the terror and the gore back in the day. I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time. But I can imagine that 1930's audiences found the Karloff monster somewhat shocking. However, that was the 30's, "Day of the Dead" came just barely 7 years after "Dawn of the Dead" and the difference in the tone of the two films is startling. I can imagine easily some people thinking that the gut pulling in "Dawn of the Dead" was perhaps a little disgusting, but in a fun way and I've seen people react to it like that today as well, with smiles on their faces. The slapstick moments kill the atmosphere to a large degree, the awful pie fight scene and the utterly ridiculous blood presure test scene, to name but two, go a long way to wrecking the tension. But when I show the same people "Day of the Dead", there are no smiles or laughs from anybody, especially in the final 20 minutes of that film. I remember when I first saw it back in '85 or '86 and my legs literally went weak and from then on, I was addicted. It really was one of the few "life changing" movie moments I've ever had. I have never seen a film like it, before or since. As someone else around here said, if there's a zombie movie you need to show as definitive of the genre...it's "Day of the Dead"...by a long shot. It's just a shame that Romero never re-captured the magic that that film had.

[DubiousComforts]

Meanwhile Rubenstein is like the the biggest villain here, second to only John "I couldn't make a good film to save my life" Russo. Trust me, you really have no idea... but if in fact someone, someday writes the book that they've been promising (threatening) to write, then perhaps you will. Meanwhile, what would I tell Romero if I had his ear? Whatever you do, don't listen to your fanbase!

[Yojimbo]

Meanwhile, what would I tell Romero if I had his ear? Whatever you do, don't listen to your fanbase! Wiser words of wisdom have yet to be posted on this thread!

[krakenslayer]

If I had Romero's ear... I'd take it to a convention and get it signed, then sell it to an obsessive Japanese fan for mucho profit!

[darth los]

Wiser words of wisdom have yet to be posted on this thread! Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck. Sure george, keep ignoring the rabid fanbase that has supported your work for all these years. Seems to be working really well for ya. It's not that he should implement everything some freak at a horror convention tells him but he should know what we're thinking. It's like the President. Do we really think that he makes every hairbrained idea one of his staffers suggest policy? Hell no !!! But every wise man will atleast listen to what people have to say.

[DubiousComforts]

Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck. The question posed was "what would I tell Romero if I had his ear?" Honesty can sure be a bitch.

[MoonSylver]

I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time. But I can imagine that 1930's audiences found the Karloff monster somewhat shocking. Even as late as the mid-70's audiences weren't as jaded as they are today. Movies like Death Wish or Jaws for example had huge public reactions. The Exorcist? People were flipping-right-the-fuck-out over that movie. Throwing up, fainting, you name it. It's a shame as a culture it takes so much more to shock or scare us now. I would LOVE for a movie to come out that provoked those kinds of reactions today.

[Yojimbo]

Oh yeah, heavens forbid that he makes a zombie film that doesn't suck. Sure george, keep ignoring the rabid fanbase that has supported your work for all these years. Seems to be working really well for ya. It's not that he should implement everything some freak at a horror convention tells him but he should know what we're thinking. It's like the President. Do we really think that he makes every hairbrained idea one of his staffers suggest policy? Hell no !!! But every wise man will atleast listen to what people have to say. See, this is one of those places where I agree to disagree with you, brother. I did not find the last few of Romero's ghoul flicks to have sucked. Surely, I enjoyed DOTD much more, but Land and then Diary were not bad films as far as I am concerned, but certainly were not his best work in any way. But I don't think that GAR totally is unaware of what the fans think about his work, and I also think that GAR cares about what his fanbase thinks about his work. Actually, I get the impression that he cares a great deal about his loyal following, however, I think his level of caring does not extend to work shopping his art in front of focus groups so that he can cater to the whims and fancies of the consumer base. Where I do agree with you without question is your statement that "every wise man will at least listen to what people have to say." GARs statement to the fans at the DIARY screening here in Los Angeles, where he stated that LAND was his "Thunderdome" leads me to believe that he is indeed listening to what the fans thought. Even as late as the mid-70's audiences weren't as jaded as they are today. Movies like Death Wish or Jaws for example had huge public reactions. The Exorcist? People were flipping-right-the-fuck-out over that movie. Throwing up, fainting, you name it. It's a shame as a culture it takes so much more to shock or scare us now. I would LOVE for a movie to come out that provoked those kinds of reactions today. Right on Moon! Once again in agreement with you. I always been wary when producers say that people were puking/fainting/running out the cinema at one of their films and nearly every producer says that their film has invoked such reactions. Personally, I've never seen it happen and I've been to a LOT of horror movies in my time. Shootem, I respect your opinion and don't mean to dispute you, but I personally saw a woman at a DIARY screening here in Los Angeles who forced her date to leave the screening because it was making her physically ill. I saw another couple storm out in disgust during the acid head bit. And once, during a screening of "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover" back in the day the girl I was dating at that time made ME leave the theater because a sequence involving decaying sides of beef combined with nudity nearly made her chuck. Needless to say, our relationship was doomed and ended soon after that date. But you have a point about this claim being overused by marketing types to the level where it becomes hard to believe.

[MoonSylver]

But I don't think that GAR totally is unaware of what the fans think about his work, and I also think that GAR cares about what his fanbase thinks about his work. Actually, I get the impression that he cares a great deal about his loyal following, however, I think his level of caring does not extend to work shopping his art in front of focus groups so that he can cater to the whims and fancies of the consumer base. Bingo. This leads me to another point. In another post somewheres GAR was accused of "falling for his own hype" in regards to the "message". The idea being the "message" in Night was really almost pure accident, in "Dawn" almost as much so, etc. I don't think he's "fallen for his own hype" per se...I DO think maybe he's gotten it a bit back-asswards in terms of how he marries story & message. IN "Dawn" for example, he was shown around the mall & the idea for the story was born. As the story evolved all of these other elements were added in. I think that's the right way to go. He didn't look at the mall & go "Ah ha! What a perfect opportunity to comment on consumerism!" the story came FIRST, THEN the other elements came in. In the last couple of efforts it seems like "I have this message, now...how can I hang a story around it..."