Why people hate LOTD

[DjfunkmasterG]

That's my problem with the whole premise, ZombieFood One scavenger getting lucky (or making a serious and organised raid on a money depot - which I admit may be harder than I first envisaged given that a million and one zombies would descend upon anyone who blew up a big city vault!) and hitting upon a large stockpile of cash can screw up the entire economy of the Green overnight. Money works in RL because economies are so large, and monetary supply can be controlled, and even then it sometimes goes horribly wrong (I'm thinking of the German Weimar rebublic where people burned money because it was cheaper than fuel!!). Both Kaufmann and Cholo acted like money had value beyond the confines of the Green, but it was never explained why, given that it wasn't confirmed that there were any other cities in existence. To put it simply, if I had a large gun pointed in Kaufmann's direction, and intended to leave the Green never to return, I can think of many more valuable commodities to extract than money, which may or may not have any value anywhere else. Antibiotics and painkillers to name but two. Even a good bottle of Kentucky Bourbon... I'm not going to labour this point to death (no pun intended!), it's been interesting hearing everyone's different take on the subject. I still want to know what those people in the suits *did* for a living (although that question belongs in a different thread!) The point of the ransom was to further the plot, however, with a vehicle like Dead Reckoning, especially with the fire power it had, knocking over a bank vault would be much eaiser than holding out for a ransom. People sometimes forget DEAD RECKONING... Why would you hold a city for ransom when chances are the economy is fitted just for one location? Now what gets me even more, even after reading this thread in depth is why hold out ofr $5million when there is probably 30 million in all the banks that are on your route to anywhere. So now we have a new equation in the mix that helps solidify why Land is weak, and panders to the hollywood mainstream. GAR had us thinking with the first three films... now we think so much we find all the plot holes he didn't.

[bassman]

But if there is all this money in the Green, doesn't that mean that the scavengers had to go out to retrieve it at some point? Meaning that there wouldn't be much left around except for a few cash registers(which would have probably been looted by everyday people at the beginning of the ....um "disaster" I guess. Think about Katrina). It's been a little while since I last watched LAND, but isn't it mentioned several times throughout the film that there are a few other places across the country just like the Green? If that's true then probably most of the money(the banks and such) would have already been raided and dispersed to the different "colonies". So maybe Cholo was looking for the money so that he could make it to other colonies, buy and trade things, and then get back to the road?

[MinionZombie]

Well of course the colonies have a lot of money to themselves - all controlled by those at the top and filtered down like a drip where necessary. With Cholo demanding the money - he was being paid to do a job, Kaufman's dirty work, but didn't get paid in the end and was negated his 'right' to live in the Green itself. Cholo goes for the truck - which is a serious part of the lifeline of the community - and demands his money, as if zombies weren't running around (if he'd have been stiffed on the bill in the old world he'd have done the same sort of thing) - it's also a way to try and 'stick it to the man' no matter what he does (get a bunch of cash or keep the truck).

[Scousezombie]

Hi Bassman, Regarding the money within the Green, when Kaufmann took over and fortified the city there would presumably have been a lot of money already stored in various bank vaults within it, plus the money held by survivors who had barricaded themselves within the city or evacuated there when it was established as a haven. I may be totally wrong, but I'd have thought it would be easier to establish a new currency within the Green than try collect up the money from the surrouding areas to control supply. Foxy states that a 'Jug of good Kentucky goes for $1,500 back in town' - I'm thinking that the $5,000,000 ransom may not have gone very far even if Cholo had gotten his hands on it! It also suggests very steep inflation. Regarding the state of play in the wider world: We're told during the opening sequence that the undead rising is a global phenomenon and that cities everywhere are under siege. We're also told that that people are establishing outposts in big cities and raiding rural towns for supplies. Later in the film Kaufmann refers to having established outposts with food and supplies that will help the chosen few to go 'anywhere they want to go' -when pressed by one of the board on where they will go he states that alternative sites have been selected for 'us and our families'. The others (meaning the ordinary people) can be 'replaced by others'. He doesn't elaborate on whether these other sites are already populated or not. After Riley takes Dead Reckoning back from Cholo he asks Cholo where he will head off to, Cholo refers to an 'outpost in Cleveland' which Riley says hasnt been heard from for a while. What can we draw from all this? It could be that Cholo knew of other places to head to, but chose the Cleveland outpost because it was closer and he needed medical attention (he'd been wounded when Dead Reckoning was re-taken). More troubling is the fact that the board member didn't seem to know where they would head to if the Green was lost, and he was presumably in a good position to know if there were other surviving cities still in existence.

[bluball]

I was one who loved Land when it first came out, loved the script (second, filmed version, not the one w/out Big Daddy), loved it all. Now, having seen it so many times I feel less and less enthusiastic about it...I appreciate the story and the editing but NEVER felt scared or disturbed as I did in GAR's earlier Dead films; never really felt suspense (spoiled by reading the script?), cringe now at Big Daddy's yelling. I suppose it was when I watched it with a group some months ago and one said how boring it was, silly, they laughed at Big Daddy....I kept defending the movie but in retrospect there simply are not enough hooks for the movie to keep grabbing me now. It's over; we broke up. I am not in love any more. Could it be that If were not Romero I would not have gushed over it, not have bought it? I don't know...I can't separate the two as it does feel "Romeroesque" in its themes but is so polished that it feels too safe now. Yes, a parable about class and terrorism using Dead protagonists is safe to me it has some great elements, and the story is cool IMO, but it simply has not grown on me at all. Dead, Day, and Night are movies that chill me to the bone and are milestones of pure horror...Land broke no new ground for me, really. It is well-made IMO, well-acted (clarke aside IMO) but it just is not scary, is too safe with its characters (sacrifice a few---make it matter. Kill Charlie, or slack, reanimate them, what have you)...I wish it was shocking and disturbing but it feels too safe. Cholo coming back----eh, okay, but have him and Big daddy chow down on Kaufman, etc. There are SO MANY ways we all would have improved upon the movie or story...the extras were not grimy, desperate, syphilitic and haggard enough for me....details for me make a difference. I took her to the prom but now it's over; if you love Land, I am happy for you and envy you. I love Romero's other Dead films, and aspects of Land rule, but on a whole it's not one I will "love".

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well of course the colonies have a lot of money to themselves - all controlled by those at the top and filtered down like a drip where necessary. With Cholo demanding the money - he was being paid to do a job, Kaufman's dirty work, but didn't get paid in the end and was negated his 'right' to live in the Green itself. When did he have a right? In a world populated by zombies... democracy is out the window. Just noticed this thread has much more activity than the "Like" thread. Kinda Ironic aint it?

[AcesandEights]

Just noticed this thread has much more activity than the "Like" thread. Kinda Ironic aint it? Not at all. Considering it always seemed, on an anecdotal level, that the community was split in the old forums on this movie, I don't find it the least bit out of character that people on the web flock to controversy. And let's not forget, everyone hates almost everything according to the internet. Chalk it up to the act of tearing down being safer than putting your balls out there and telling people you actually love...polka (or whatever it is you love that most everyone else would hate), or the fact that people think it's cool to be cleverly sarcastic, or whatever you like, but negativity is an attention getter. Anyway, I always found that the argument regarding money resolved itself pretty squarely. People sometimes forget DEAD RECKONING... Why would you hold a city for ransom when chances are the economy is fitted just for one location? Now what gets me even more, even after reading this thread in depth is why hold out ofr $5million when there is probably 30 million in all the banks that are on your route to anywhere. So, you're going to try and blow a few bank vaults open with precious, and, I'm more than certain, rare ammunition to get to what may, or may not be, in the vaults? And this assumes that you wouldn't blast a considerable amount of the funds (if there's a fair amount of funds in the vault(s) in question) to bits with the missiles? Let's not forget about the likelihood that firing off heavy ordinance in an urban environment might bring hordes of the undead down on these folks. That might not mean much given Dead Reckonings defensive capabilities, but it will make re-supplying a much more pressing and insistent concern if a horde of several hundred play pile on at a few of the sites chosen for heists. None of this makes sense to me (relax, I know this isn't what YOU would do per se, and that you were just suggesting an if/then scenario). But then again, Cholo's actions don't make too much sense either, do they? It's almost like Cholo was consumed by his desire to look out for number 1 and his, pretty much, psychopathic need to lash out in a world he found to be unfair. Cholo's actions didn't seem to make sense, but it did seem to be a very human reaction. Hmmm, a GAR character who doesn't do what makes sense from a rational, thought out perspective, but instead brings doom down on his own head by reacting selfishly to baser human desires and emotions. No, that doesn't sound like every other character in a Dead movie So now we have a new equation in the mix that helps solidify why Land is weak, and panders to the hollywood mainstream. GAR had us thinking with the first three films... now we think so much we find all the plot holes he didn't. I couldn't disagree with this more. You're simultaneously bringing into question the rule set of the world in which the characters live and making assumptions to fit your own opinion. Without having a thorough understanding of the outside world in Land how can you judge the actions of the people in it? And for that matter, aren't you ignoring cues that Kaufman's plan, doomed as it is, has just enough merit for a desperate, megalomaniacal greedy ****er to graspingly hold onto? There's references made to other human bastions and his money schtick has already worked once (and, for all we know, may be working in other the isolated hold-out settlements). Maybe there's not enough contextual knowledge of the world the character's lived in, maybe this really is a shortcoming of the film, but it really sounded like the attachment to money was a double-edged farce. Did it seem utterly foolish that people held onto what they knew, the familiar social-control of wealth, in a world gone mad? Yes, from a rational, survival-minded perspective, it would seem foolish to most of people outside of the situation. But, given what we know about people and their habits, it's not really surprising in the least. It just seems to not make sense from a rationalist's point of view, becasue people are, more often than not, self-destructive, creatures of habit who prefer the easy and familiar to logical adaptation. And even if you disagree with this last statement, this has always seemed to be how GAR represents humanity on average in his Dead films. To me, this is what GAR meant to do. Just my two cents <----not meant to be a money related pun

[DjfunkmasterG]

I will admit you did put it in perspective a bit. It still doesn't save what to most is a medicore film. However, you made a well thought out point and deserve some rep for that.

[bluball]

The money debate will rage on forever about LOTD...for some it's a perfect way to go, others just can't buy it. No one way (buying it or not) is better than another IMO (I am one who buys into the new society based in money angle) although not accepting the basic premise will no doubt turn many off from the final film, ya think? Clearly GAR has considered this but rolled the dice anyway...I commend him for sticking to his vision, even if it turned out to be a far from perfect film IMO

[ZombieFood]

I'm thinking, as I beleive you are suggesting, that without more knowledge of the Green (much less the outside world) the argument regarding the use of currency is speculative. Yet at the same time, perhaps GAR had a dual purpose for the use of currency in this movie. For the casual veiwer, the money would be simply dismissed or even overlooked entirely. But the for, um, dedicated viewer, it would be a topic of discussion for years to come. Such is the genius of GAR. Vive la debate!

[MinionZombie]

That's the thing - Cholo still believes there is such thing as a democracy in that world - another little nugget from GAR that these people believe they're going back to normal. As for Cholo and his 'right' to move into the Green, I meant that Cholo himself believed he had the right to do it as he believed he'd earned that right, through working for Kaufman - and he had enough money to do it (had he been paid of course). Just to clarify...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Not at all. Considering it always seemed, on an anecdotal level, that the community was split in the old forums on this movie, I don't find it the least bit out of character that people on the web flock to controversy. And let's not forget, everyone hates almost everything according to the internet. Chalk it up to the act of tearing down being safer than putting your balls out there and telling people you actually love...polka (or whatever it is you love that most everyone else would hate), or the fact that people think it's cool to be cleverly sarcastic, or whatever you like, but negativity is an attention getter. Anyway, I always found that the argument regarding money resolved itself pretty squarely. So, you're going to try and blow a few bank vaults open with precious, and, I'm more than certain, rare ammunition to get to what may, or may not be, in the vaults? And this assumes that you wouldn't blast a considerable amount of the funds (if there's a fair amount of funds in the vault(s) in question) to bits with the missiles? Let's not forget about the likelihood that firing off heavy ordinance in an urban environment might bring hordes of the undead down on these folks. That might not mean much given Dead Reckonings defensive capabilities, but it will make re-supplying a much more pressing and insistent concern if a horde of several hundred play pile on at a few of the sites chosen for heists. None of this makes sense to me (relax, I know this isn't what YOU would do per se, and that you were just suggesting an if/then scenario). But then again, Cholo's actions don't make too much sense either, do they? It's almost like Cholo was consumed by his desire to look out for number 1 and his, pretty much, psychopathic need to lash out in a world he found to be unfair. Cholo's actions didn't seem to make sense, but it did seem to be a very human reaction. Hmmm, a GAR character who doesn't do what makes sense from a rational, thought out perspective, but instead brings doom down on his own head by reacting selfishly to baser human desires and emotions. No, that doesn't sound like every other character in a Dead movie I couldn't disagree with this more. You're simultaneously bringing into question the rule set of the world in which the characters live and making assumptions to fit your own opinion. Without having a thorough understanding of the outside world in Land how can you judge the actions of the people in it? And for that matter, aren't you ignoring cues that Kaufman's plan, doomed as it is, has just enough merit for a desperate, megalomaniacal greedy ****er to graspingly hold onto? There's references made to other human bastions and his money schtick has already worked once (and, for all we know, may be working in other the isolated hold-out settlements). Maybe there's not enough contextual knowledge of the world the character's lived in, maybe this really is a shortcoming of the film, but it really sounded like the attachment to money was a double-edged farce. Did it seem utterly foolish that people held onto what they knew, the familiar social-control of wealth, in a world gone mad? Yes, from a rational, survival-minded perspective, it would seem foolish to most of people outside of the situation. But, given what we know about people and their habits, it's not really surprising in the least. It just seems to not make sense from a rationalist's point of view, becasue people are, more often than not, self-destructive, creatures of habit who prefer the easy and familiar to logical adaptation. And even if you disagree with this last statement, this has always seemed to be how GAR represents humanity on average in his Dead films. To me, this is what GAR meant to do. Just my two cents <----not meant to be a money related pun Actually what is there to judge about the outside world... it is infested with zombies. Face facts, Romero dropped the ball on this one and turned in a half assed sequel to his dead saga.

[Svengoolie]

I gotta go along with you on this one, DjfunkmasterG. Oh, well....there's always the original Dawn of the Dead!

[AcesandEights]

Actually what is there to judge about the outside world... it is infested with zombies. Face facts, Romero dropped the ball on this one and turned in a half assed sequel to his dead saga. When I say outside world, I mean the world outside of that particular city. To be specifc, we don't exactly know what people are basing their hopes on in regards to there still being viable settlements where money may/is an accepted medium of exchange. I also think that the more important point I was trying to make, that everything in the story is logical given the nature of humanity, is unaffected by the above.

[Arcades057]

I just watched Land again the other day (well, I had it on for ambience while I played Civ. 4) and noticed something. I wasn't pulled in. When the gunfire went off, when someone called out "stenches," when the music changed; nothing got my attention. Clueless is on in the background now and I'll tell you what, Alicia Silverstone's legs get my attention a lot more than Land did. I will give you this about Land: It does leave it open for a sequel. Will there be a sequel? Most likely. I'm sure it made enough to warrant one worldwide. Will it be better than Land, I sure hope so. On another subject, I grew up watching the Star Wars movies. I saw Empire and Jedi when I was 5 or six and discovered years later that there was ANOTHER ONE. I was hooked. I try to watch the originals at least once a year just to see if I missed something. When the special editions were released I ran to the theaters and devoured them. I stand by my insistence that the SEs ARE better than the originals (aside from a few stupid cutesy scenes added for kids, that is). When the Phantom Menace was released I saw it on the first day at a 3pm showing. Meh. It was OK, Darth Maul is one of the coolest villains of all time (it's true that he's Pete from Shaun of the Dead, no? I think I heard that on the commentary). The story was a little flat, Jar Jar was stupid, and the idiotic childish names (Jar Jar, Mace) were an omen of future stupidity to come. I still saw Attack of the Clones on the first week. Well, it could've been worse. The stupid names continued (Jango and Dooku, anyone?) and the storyline, again, fell flat. It's easy to see where things are going but Ian Mckellan I think (the guy who played Palpatine) pulled off some pretty good scenes. I felt as though I'd wasted my time with those two movies. They seemed to be geared more toward little kids than adults, the people who made Star Wars the highest grossing movie of all time. Then came Revenge of the Sith. Everything I wanted to see was shown in one movie. More stupid names (Gen. Grievous and the Jedis' names), the acting was TERRIBLE this time, Darth Vader does NOT emote like a friggin Goth kid... Besides that the movie rocked. It took 5 years to get something worthwhile out of the new movies but it happened. I was sated. Nothing was left to imagine about the before-a-New-Hope era. Segwaying into the Dead franchise... Dawn is arguably the best offering of the 4 GAR movies. We had to survive through Day (good in its own right but lacking most of what makes a movie good) and stomach and go to war over Land... But will the next one (IF) be worth the wait? Had GAR "gone Hollywood" just to appease the masses, only to smack them all with another tense, edge of your seat, gotta leave the theater, can't stand the tension, entre like Dawn '78 next time? Does he have another one in him? I submit that he MIGHT. I could be wrong. There was enough wrong with Land to show that he could very well be slipping. We'll see. If you've read through that you're a trooper!