Keeping The Faith

[clanglee]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind if you think that the message in Dawn is as blatant and repeated as it is in Diary. I can watch Dawn today and just get a nice fun ride. If I choose to focus on the hidden (or not so hidden according to you) meaning I can, but with Diary. . it is impossible to watch without feeling preched to. I'm sorry Dub, but yet again I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Mike70]

And some people make up their own lyrics. . . so, we're talking about gene roddenberry now?

[blind2d]

Hidden meanings are pointless. Hence, I am a maniac.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Hidden meanings are pointless. Hence, I am a maniac. I'd say you're more of a loose cannon. Just a bit of info further to Rick's contribution. Hate to say this, but maybe some of the bitching towards GAR will help him avoid a total future de-railment...read the red text. Info courtesy of Wiki. It was strongly indicated that Romero would direct the first Resident Evil film. He initially declined, stating in an interview, "I don't wanna make another film with zombies in it, and I couldn't make a movie based on something that ain't mine",[citation needed] although in later years he reconsidered and wrote a script for the first movie. While many were impressed with the script (which garnered positive reviews), it was eventually rejected in favor of Paul W.S. Anderson's far less faithful treatment. Universal Studios produced and released a remake of Dawn of the Dead in 2004, with which Romero was not involved. Later that year, Romero kicked off the DC Comics title Toe Tags with a six-issue miniseries titled The Death of Death. Based on an unused script that Romero had previously written as a sequel to his "Dead Trilogy", the comic miniseries concerns Damien, an intelligent zombie who remembers his former life, struggling to find his identity as he battles armies of both the living and the dead. Typical of a Romero zombie tale, the miniseries includes ample supply of both gore and social commentary (dealing particularly here with corporate greed and terrorism - ideas he would also explore in his next film in the series, Land of the Dead). Romero has stated that the miniseries is set in the same kind of world as his "Dead" films, but featured other locales besides Pittsburgh, where the majority of his films take place.[7] Let's just hope, he's rejected this foolishness from the series storyline.

[DubiousComforts]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind if you think that the message in Dawn is as blatant and repeated as it is in Diary. I can watch Dawn today and just get a nice fun ride. If I choose to focus on the hidden (or not so hidden according to you) meaning I can, but with Diary. . it is impossible to watch without feeling preched to. I'm sorry Dub, but yet again I think we will have to agree to disagree. Nowhere did I argue that the message in DAWN is as "blatant" as DIARY, only that it is very far from being "fairly subtle." And I am quite able to disagree without calling you obstinant (sic) or blind.

[bassman]

I would have to agree with dub on this. Although Land and Diary are both more heavy handed with the commentary, Dawn and Day weren't exactly light with it. In fact....it's right there in the front....

[ItsJustaScratch]

You are just being obstinant or just plain blind . I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please). Doesn't cost a penny

[RickGrimes]

i actually have Toe Tags and every time I have tried to sit down and read it I have to stop around the time that zombie Gengis Khan shows up talking about leading a zombie army. It feels more like John A Russo then Romero to me. . ItJustaScratch, I think feedback has definitely changed Romero's decisions regarding the next film he makes. Originally he was saying that Land was supposed to have a sequel about them being out on the road with Dead Reckoning but after the movie came out a few months later that idea had been canned. I know in interviews he said that it was working with a large studio and having them all over him all the time about his choices that made him decide to go indy again. But even so maybe it was fan reaction to Big Daddy that made him decide not to further that story or look at a few years later in zombie history. Maybe that's why he decided on a reboot. I wonder if he's commented on that somewhere already.

[clanglee]

Nowhere did I argue that the message in DAWN is as "blatant" as DIARY, only that it is very far from being "fairly subtle." And I am quite able to disagree without calling you obstinant (sic) or blind. Agreed. . and sorry. I was in a pissy mood last night. And this topic always sets me off a bit. I appologize Dub. I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please). Doesn't cost a penny You!!!!! Shut it!!!

[ItsJustaScratch]

You!!!!! Shut it!!! That goes so well with your avatar pic

[DubiousComforts]

Agreed. . and sorry. I was in a pissy mood last night. And this topic always sets me off a bit. I appologize Dub. It's cool, no harm done. I enjoy these discussions, which typically have been civil, and I'd just like to keep it that way. I know i've only been here for 5 mins, but again; just a bit of common sense when addressing fellow members. No sarky, patronizing comments in this thread (please). Yeah, shut it, YOU! This is all your fault!

[ProfessorChaos]

been watching diary again this evening, and a theory dawned on me that might explain some of the "meh" attitudes towards land and diary of the dead. both films have their merits, and both have their faults. i can watch either of them, but neither film really impresses me all that much, and i think i finally realized why this evening. neither captures any of the feelings of isolation and dread the original trilogy, and this is largely in part due to an overabundance of disposable characters. night of the living dead focused on seven people trapped inside a farmhouse, the majority of dawn of the dead concerns the four mall refugees and their plight, and day of the dead's underground military installation has only about a dozen survivors. while there are some additional characters in a couple of the films (posse from the end of night, tv studio employees in dawn), they are mainly used for back-story and plot advancement/resolution. land of the dead had tons characters that took up significant story/screen time that could be placed in the "who gives a flying fuck?!?!" category (not just big daddy, i'm talking about the dude with the sick kid, the fucking midget, cholo's butt buddy, the skater kid). i realize that studio involvement could be to blame for some of these characters, but still, there's too many of 'em. i imagine i'd appreciate land more if there wasn't a super-city filled with lesbos, midgets, strippers, car mechanics, a board of directors, and a limo driver. a small outpost with a much smaller band of survivors would be a more engaging experience...and then if big daddy was also left out, it'd be pretty close to perfect. diary isn't quite as guilty of this offense, but there are plenty of characters (both large roles, such as elliot, and small roles like the militant black panthers, or whoever the fuck those guys were, and the amish mute) whom i think the film would be better of without. this "...... of the dead" looks like it's gonna be rife with fucking moronic empty characters who are more like walking stereotypes and cliches than survivors, and there's gonna be little to no bonding/sympathizing/relating/whatever-you-wanna-call-it with the main characters, and no moments of isolation, dread, hopelessness, and whatnot from the first three films. i'd also have to agree that the "social commentary" shit is getting laid on pretty thick in the last couple of films. diary was better film, imo, than land, but damn, i got sick of that fucking running commentary throughout...and the super-shitty acting by some of the cast. ...and if i'd just add this to my previous rant, but it's almost its own separate point, so: isn't that one guy (armory dude from land, can't remember his name, cuz he was yet another unimportant character, and the leader of the national guard gang who rob the students in diary) supposed to be reprising his role from one of those two films? if i've heard correctly, he's gonna be the dude from diary, which as i've said, holds up and robs a bunch of kids when he and his buddies are out joyriding in with stolen government gear...and i believe he may be a main character, from the look of the "trailer" or whatever video that was. so our next film for GAR is gonna have an incredibly unlikeable sleazy dude hanging out on a cattle-raising island with a bunch of time-traveling cowboys and shit? cool....

[DjfunkmasterG]

LAND: Land is a definate grower, many people turn their nose up at this film, mostly because of it's hammy 80-90's (escape from New York) feel; but isn't that all part of the GAR charm? I also believe that most people were lead by the nose by initial reviews Please don't put LAND of the DEAD and Escape From NY in the same sentence. You kill the credibility of Escape from NY by doing that. Land can't hold a candle to that film. Land just sucked. I have seen Sci-Fi originals that were more interesting than LAND of the DEAD. Diary was better than LAND, low budget, done very guerrilla style, reminded me of NIGHT. Land was a sloppy mess that had no clear direction or point.

[Mike70]

Land just sucked. I have seen Sci-Fi originals that were more interesting than LAND of the DEAD. ouch. now that is a low blow. after all of these posts just what faith are we talking about?

[clanglee]

been watching diary again this evening, and a theory dawned on me that might explain some of the "meh" attitudes towards land and diary of the dead. both films have their merits, and both have their faults. i can watch either of them, but neither film really impresses me all that much, and i think i finally realized why this evening. neither captures any of the feelings of isolation and dread the original trilogy, and this is largely in part due to an overabundance of disposable characters. night of the living dead focused on seven people trapped inside a farmhouse, the majority of dawn of the dead concerns the four mall refugees and their plight, and day of the dead's underground military installation has only about a dozen survivors. while there are some additional characters in a couple of the films (posse from the end of night, tv studio employees in dawn), they are mainly used for back-story and plot advancement/resolution. land of the dead had tons characters that took up significant story/screen time that could be placed in the "who gives a flying fuck?!?!" category (not just big daddy, i'm talking about the dude with the sick kid, the fucking midget, cholo's butt buddy, the skater kid). i realize that studio involvement could be to blame for some of these characters, but still, there's too many of 'em. i imagine i'd appreciate land more if there wasn't a super-city filled with lesbos, midgets, strippers, car mechanics, a board of directors, and a limo driver. a small outpost with a much smaller band of survivors would be a more engaging experience...and then if big daddy was also left out, it'd be pretty close to perfect. diary isn't quite as guilty of this offense, but there are plenty of characters (both large roles, such as elliot, and small roles like the militant black panthers, or whoever the fuck those guys were, and the amish mute) whom i think the film would be better of without. this "...... of the dead" looks like it's gonna be rife with fucking moronic empty characters who are more like walking stereotypes and cliches than survivors, and there's gonna be little to no bonding/sympathizing/relating/whatever-you-wanna-call-it with the main characters, and no moments of isolation, dread, hopelessness, and whatnot from the first three films. i'd also have to agree that the "social commentary" shit is getting laid on pretty thick in the last couple of films. diary was better film, imo, than land, but damn, i got sick of that fucking running commentary throughout...and the super-shitty acting by some of the cast. ...and if i'd just add this to my previous rant, but it's almost its own separate point, so: isn't that one guy (armory dude from land, can't remember his name, cuz he was yet another unimportant character, and the leader of the national guard gang who rob the students in diary) supposed to be reprising his role from one of those two films? if i've heard correctly, he's gonna be the dude from diary, which as i've said, holds up and robs a bunch of kids when he and his buddies are out joyriding in with stolen government gear...and i believe he may be a main character, from the look of the "trailer" or whatever video that was. so our next film for GAR is gonna have an incredibly unlikeable sleazy dude hanging out on a cattle-raising island with a bunch of time-traveling cowboys and shit? cool.... Very very true. Land's huge ammount of non fleshed out characters with stupid nicknames was one of the big problems I had with the movie. Plus it's difficult to stay centered with that big of a cast.