Keeping The Faith

[ItsJustaScratch]

Yeah, shut it, YOU! This is all your fault! *Hears Obi 1's voice in head* Climb the ladder Scratch.. climb the ladder.... 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. At somepoint the story had to flesh out into highly populated areas. This is a first for the series, now I couldn't actually go back to the first three without knowing the extent of the bigger social predicaments that are happening elsewhere. We would still be very much in the dark at film No 4. I waited a long time to see beyond the rather linear confines of a house, mall and military compound. As for the questionable establishments within Lands 'Pittsburgh'the area is now deprived; go into most deprived area's and you will see skanky bars/clubs,garages, prozies and maybe the odd midget on occasion.I too feel like there weren't enough (boxed in by zombie) moments, but for me the pay-off with the addition of scope was better for me. My favourite scenes being the mercenarys scavenger raids, kind of like Dawn but with more firepower. We had a tiny taste for the outside world at the beginning of Dawn and Day. With the sprawling CG landscapes of films such as I am Legend, GAR was right to move up and future proof Land to some extent. Now as for the characters. I don't think it was GAR's intention to have dozens of well thought out, oscar worthy roles in mind, as it's just not his style. The main chracter's are my favourite of the series, and the surrounding background characters maybe 2D, but the're presented in a way that defrenciates them from the rest of the crowd. If your concerned about 'cheese' please rewatch Dawn an Day, purest stilton. Oh and the action music for Dawn...I can only describe as 'Phantom Of The Hammond Organ'..it's cheese, it's GAR, BUT I love it! Nicotine Crocket, the leading man in Island/... it seems like he's the colonel/hero of the National Guard that's lost his way ..(or Faith) in humanity. Think Robert Downey Jnr's Iron Man. I think it'll be an interesting twist, as we have a lead that would rather kill than find a cure. Maybe GAR's sticking to the theme of 'gods curse' (judging by natural death zombies), with the positive change of civilization eventually (suggestively) lifting it and being the cure?? 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. Thanks for the info, I really hope that's true. I've tried looking for various different interviews to get to the bottom of this, to no avail. Mind you, he's probably busy organizing a shed load of editing/post processing after some of fan's reaction to the teaser.

[Trin]

Land was set up as a political rant. The entire story was bent that was to show GAR's "messages" By that token, he bit off way more than he could chew. The storyline suffered in plausability because he spent the entire time trying to forth his message. If you want examples. . do some research and se my and many other people's MANY previous posts about this same dead-as-a-horse's-flayed-ass subject. In his previous 3 movies the stories were indeed simple yes. That allowed him to work on character growth and plausable plot points. Very rarely in any of the first three movies did I ever have a "oh come on!!" moment. Anyways. . whatever. . you loved the movie. . good for you. Hope that works out for ya. No man. . there are obvious and blatant differences. Land and definitely Diary were the messages. Hell in Diary the "message" is repeated ad nauseum. In Night, Dawn, Day, and to a lesser extent. . Land, you had entertaining stories with a SUBTEXT there if you chose to see it. If you didn't. . .you still had an entertaining movie with all the stuff that the more base fans could enjoy. I still, personally don't buy that George had plans for much commentary in his older movies. But since fans saw so much meaning in his films (maybe some of it was intended) he figured that it was ok just to focus mostly on just that. Only. .he forgot the art of subtlety. Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points. These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!! Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points. These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!! Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time. And they'll also completely miss the fact that this is a post 9/11 film, where the characters have taken a different form. All the characters in the originals, are weak, flawed individuals; (apart from the Irish and Jamaican guy from Day) i.e braking down eventually,dead or contemplating suicide when the chips are down. Land produced more head-strong, veteran survivors, albeit with little time to elaborate on back-story. It's points like these,that make Land a subtle gem, that is ignorantly considered to be over laden with commentary, when other areas have never been considered. As an ex-student of media and contextual studies, I relish Land for the understood/underdog of the genre it is.

[clanglee]

. Land produced more head-strong, veteran survivors, albeit with little time to elaborate on back-story. . Who are almost wiped out to a man. Real veteran survivors. 3 years into a zombie epidmic and they are soft and uncareful. And they'll also completely miss the fact that this is a post 9/11 film, where the characters have taken a different form. All the characters in the originals, are weak, flawed individuals; (apart from the Irish and Jamaican guy from Day) . Everyone is flawed. EVERYONE!! That's part of GAR's early genius is that he shows that if only we could work together we would be fine. . but we can't. .so we are SOL. And I argue against the point that they are weak. The core characters in the first two movies, and expecially Dawn and Day are anything but weak. They are survivors doing the best they can in the situation they are in. To say that the characters in Land are stronger than the character's in Dawn is just . . . well. . .silly. The lack of depth in Land's character's aside. . . How do you justify this statement? How are Land's characters any less flawed? Just getting caught up. Sorry I wasn't around to lend my support to these points. These are two great posts by one of the greatest posters of HPOTD. Well said clanglee!! I agree wholeheartedly!! Looking at the past, Night & Dawn stand on their plot even as generations forget why the message was relevant and can no longer discern it. Looking into the future, as Land and Diary get further away from their time, to remain enjoyable the movies will be forced to stand more on their plot. I don't think they will withstand the test of time. Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Who are almost wiped out to a man. Real veteran survivors. 3 years into a zombie epidmic and they are soft and uncareful. Everyone is flawed. EVERYONE!! That's part of GAR's early genius is that he shows that if only we could work together we would be fine. . but we can't. .so we are SOL. And I argue against the point that they are weak. The core characters in the first two movies, and expecially Dawn and Day are anything but weak. They are survivors doing the best they can in the situation they are in. To say that the characters in Land are stronger than the character's in Dawn is just . . . well. . .silly. The lack of depth in Land's character's aside. . . How do you justify this statement? How are Land's characters any less flawed? Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now. Yeh, it's all about the teamwork, but the individuals themselves react very differently when under stress. With Dawn, Roger flips out, get's munched, the woman (her name escapes me) flips out throughout, Flyboy? well, nuff said - Peter brakes-down over the mounting pressure and comes very close to dropping himself. In Day, The female lead character keeps composed throughout and losses it at the end; the Irish and jamaican guys have a calm outlook of the situation (the liquor probably helped) from start to finish. As for land, like the Englishman in Diary, Riley & co seem to keep a greater degree of stoic when in danger, getting each others backs and so forth. I do admit however, that the Dead Reckoning at their disposal probably helps calm the nerves somewhat. I can't really comment on Night too much, because I haven't seen it for about a decade. Who are almost wiped out to a man. If you mean 'buy just one man' and Kaughman? Mr A Hitler springs to mind. Anyway, I'm talking about being faced with a zombie related dilemma; not being caught in the open in a strategic battle. Have I undertood you correctly on this? Thanks Trin. I've been expecting you to show up any time now. *Got my eyes on you hand gesture*

[RickGrimes]

I have to say ItsJustaScratch that weak and strong aren't really accurate ways of describing the characters. In Dawn we were dealing with people who were still coming to terms with the zombie epidemic at their doors as well as a growing sense of isolation as their numbers dwindled. In Day we were again dealing with the earlier days of the zombie epidemic and extreme isolation in a aggressively antagonistic setting. In Land the whole dicotomy is trading saftey for freedom. The main Land cast have gotten use to the epidemic and they are never confronted with the problem of being the only ones left. At worst they might have 20 people left (which isn't ever the case). Furthermore in both Dawn and Day the characters are watching close friends die around them where as in Land the only main characters that die are Cholo, Kaufman, and the bull fighter guy. Or rather those are the only characters with some actual screen time that die and none of them die in the presense of friends. No one in Land really loses someone. If you put Riley, Charlie, and Slack in a small room after everyone else has been killed with a few cans of food and a couple clips of ammo and then have one of them bitten and slowly die then I guarantee that they won't be looking nearly so 'strong'. And just for the record in Ben in the original Night is pretty damn hardcore

[Trin]

If you look at the protagonist characters in light of their flaws I think the first 3 movies stand up better than Land. Yes, the characters had flaws but they fit well with the characters. Flyboy was not good with guns and almost caused some serious harm. But he was a pilot. And he got better as the movie went on. It made sense. It enhanced and defined the plot and how the characters grew and grew together. Ditto for John & Sarah in Day. John was not helpful and not invested in their plight. Sarah was too heavily invested. They both met in the middle toward the end and grew together. As Rick says, Ben was hardcore. Just a great character. And the Land crew never dealt with the isolation feeling or the feeling that they were the last humans alive. Riley was just messed up. I loved Riley btw. But he was the kinda good guy who cleary wanted to do good things but lacked whatever backbone it took to actually DO good things. He had the "essential supplies" in his grasp every night and yet he allowed Kaufman to rule the protected areas like a slum lord. At the end when change was evident he took the only hope for a better Green and drove off in it. That's just character flaw for the sake of message, not plot. (One note - Riley did have hardship in his past when his brother died. We get the sense he experienced that.) Land was the worst from the perspective of using what you've got. For being tried and true survivors they just squandered their situation. I know, I know. They were ignoring the problem. But geesh - give anyone on this board Dead Reckoning and a protected city and 1 zombie per square mile and we'd be living like kings.

[ItsJustaScratch]

Yes, the characters had flaws but they fit well with the characters. Riley was just messed up. I loved Riley btw. But he was the kinda good guy who cleary wanted to do good things but lacked whatever backbone it took to actually DO good things. Land was the worst from the perspective of using what you've got. For being tried and true survivors they just squandered their situation. I know, I know. They were ignoring the problem. But geesh - give anyone on this board Dead Reckoning and a protected city and 1 zombie per square mile and we'd be living like kings. I never disputed that the character variation didn't add, or in some instances make the movie's; I was just stating that they were more fragile minded than in Land. Riley DID have the backbone, and was very successful at helping the poor and needy; he's a man of peace, that' why he wouldn't fire rockets into Fiddlers Green at any point (especially as it's full of civvies). That's why he's so renowned, he's like their Robin Hood. Again, his main priority up until that point was looking after people. I like the little gestures, like keeping the communes leaders sick son in mind when on a raid and retuning with medicine for him. Look how distraught he is when Cholo doesn't keep a firm leash on his men, and get's one killed. There are no other characters like him in the series, apart perhaps for the lead female in Day. As likable as they are, put the cast of Dawn and Day into Lands environment and they would probably fade a bit into the background like everyone else. I think the only 'good guy' who could be considered to be ingnoring the problem is Asia's prozzie chick, although you could also argue that she was just trying to survive.

[Trin]

I never disputed that the character variation didn't add, or in some instances make the movie's; I was just stating that they were more fragile minded than in Land. Riley DID have the backbone, and was very successful at helping the poor and needy; he's a man of peace, that' why he wouldn't fire rockets into Fiddlers Green at any point (especially as it's full of civvies). That's why he's so renowned, he's like their Robin Hood. Again, his main priority up until that point was looking after people. I like the little gestures, like keeping the communes leaders sick son in mind when on a raid and retuning with medicine for him. Look how distraught he is when Cholo doesn't keep a firm leash on his men, and get's one killed. There are no other characters like him in the series, apart perhaps for the lead female in Day. As likable as they are, put the cast of Dawn and Day into Lands environment and they would probably fade a bit into the background like everyone else. I think the only 'good guy' who could be considered to be ingnoring the problem is Asia's prozzie chick, although you could also argue that she was just trying to survive. Riley has every attribute you credit him with. That's why I liked his character. He was the stoic guy with a heart of gold. But there is an indisputable truth to his character - he was in charge of Dead Reckoning, had guns coming out his wazzoo, had access to food and fuel, and had the loyalty of everyone around him. Why the heck was this guy portrayed as impotent to instigate real change? Why was he limited to handing out one bottle of pills to the sick? Riley could've evicted Kaufman in a heartbeat and distributed all the food, guns, and medicine to the people. The fact that he wouldn't is a symptom of his character's inherent weakness. He was content to run away to Canada and leave the people with no defenses and no way to scavenge for food. Mulligan had more backbone. Cholo had more backbone. Ben *definitely* had more backbone. Peter shot his friend in the face when he came back and then finished the defenses. He had more backbone. Fran flew the chopper off the mall and away after her lover and father of her child died minutes earlier. She had more backbone.

[Mikey]

I did like the film, where as I really did NOT like Diary. Though I think the basic premise of Diary was decent (I hated the first person camera, though), but I still felt the screenplay was weak and the characters ever worse -- save for Texas Blonde Chick. She had some decent character work, whatever it was. Everyone else just grimmaced and looked in the camera. Big Daddy from Land was nothing new, i.e. Bub, but he lacked empathy imho. I'm just hoping the script is stronger in "..." and must we have some yo-yo with an accent in the films? John's accent from Day does not hold up. I do like the idea of riding horses...

[ItsJustaScratch]

Riley has every attribute you credit him with. That's why I liked his character. He was the stoic guy with a heart of gold. But there is an indisputable truth to his character - he was in charge of Dead Reckoning, had guns coming out his wazzoo, had access to food and fuel, and had the loyalty of everyone around him. Why the heck was this guy portrayed as impotent to instigate real change? Why was he limited to handing out one bottle of pills to the sick? Riley could've evicted Kaufman in a heartbeat and distributed all the food, guns, and medicine to the people. The fact that he wouldn't is a symptom of his character's inherent weakness. He was content to run away to Canada and leave the people with no defenses and no way to scavenge for food. Mulligan had more backbone. Cholo had more backbone. Ben *definitely* had more backbone. Peter shot his friend in the face when he came back and then finished the defenses. He had more backbone. Fran flew the chopper off the mall and away after her lover and father of her child died minutes earlier. She had more backbone. It all depends on which angle your coming from. Rileys seen what too much confidence or back-bone can do (Cholo) and the majority of the power/money seeking mercenarys in tow.It's half-wits like Cholo that made Riley want to leave in the first place, as they have lost the plot and he doesn't trust them, or deemed them to be proficient enough to safely complete a raid. When Riley put's the Reckoning in to be serviced, only to have it stolen, he knows what damage it could do in the wrong hands (Cholo) which makes him more eiger to leave. He releases that stealth, tact and hearts and minds are the answer, not firepower and glory (another nod at the war). There is another factor that stands between Riley and Kaufman (plus bodyguards...or ahem, bodyguard) and that is the remnants of the national guard, who generally shoot first, and ask questions (or rob you) later. Retirement itself suggests that Riley was doing that job for a long time, and he, like Peter, had to head-job a fellow member who'd been let loose under the inept command of Cholo. It would take a (fit)army in good health, to push through to the Green at the very least and I doubt he'd want to see any more blood spilt. The happy ending goes to proove, he was right to bide his time instead of charging in guns blazing.

[Trin]

A fit army in good health? Come on Scratch - a small pack of zombies made it into the Green and killed everyone there. I'm pretty sure Riley and Mulligan with a slingshot could've made it into the Green. And the happy ending??? Most everyone in the Green died!! The zombies ate tons of people!! Well, except for the ones that died by being blown to bits with a rocket. Oh, and the guy Kaufman executed. And how many people will die trying to resume the food scavenging without Dead Reckoning or any of the seasoned scavengers or any of the remaining military? Riley surely could've overthrown Kaufman with less loss of life. Riley right f**ked them. To get back to the original point, I think the characters in Land were equally as tough as those in the other movies, albeit in different ways. The Land characters had become more desensitized to the environment and they'd become more selfish in their desires. They were certainly devoid of the emotion and turmoil that caused Peter to have his moment of weakness at the end of Dawn. However, I could easily see Peter and Fran becoming like those in Land after the same amount of time. I see some strong parallels between Riley and John from Day. Both were doing what was necessary to maintain their place in the society, and little more. They'd mentally checked out. Both would rise to the challenge if lives were actually on the line, but they would do nothing proactive to better people's lives. Both talked of taking what they could and moving someplace away from the problem. Both turned out to be heroes in the end.

[ItsJustaScratch]

A fit army in good health? Come on Scratch - a small pack of zombies made it into the Green and killed everyone there. I'm pretty sure Riley and Mulligan with a slingshot could've made it into the Green. And the happy ending??? Most everyone in the Green died!! The zombies ate tons of people!! Well, except for the ones that died by being blown to bits with a rocket. Oh, and the guy Kaufman executed. And how many people will die trying to resume the food scavenging without Dead Reckoning or any of the seasoned scavengers or any of the remaining military? Riley surely could've overthrown Kaufman with less loss of life. Riley right f**ked them. To get back to the original point, I think the characters in Land were equally as tough as those in the other movies, albeit in different ways. The Land characters had become more desensitized to the environment and they'd become more selfish in their desires. They were certainly devoid of the emotion and turmoil that caused Peter to have his moment of weakness at the end of Dawn. However, I could easily see Peter and Fran becoming like those in Land after the same amount of time. I see some strong parallels between Riley and John from Day. Both were doing what was necessary to maintain their place in the society, and little more. They'd mentally checked out. Both would rise to the challenge if lives were actually on the line, but they would do nothing proactive to better people's lives. Both talked of taking what they could and moving someplace away from the problem. Both turned out to be heroes in the end. I agree with some points and dissagree with others. Dissagree: I had a feeling ayou might mention the N/Guard push-overs, but I was too lazy to go into it. Any type of soldier's from any regiment can be ambushed and killed, providing it's well thought out. The guards', bored with the mundane trudge, let their guard down. The area in the perimeter which the zombies broke through, was located around the training ground's and not exactly the best choke point in which to funnel zombie's. Contrary to what I said above, sometimes brute force in number's are all that's required to overwhelm a poorly (in this case, very poorly) defended out-post. I suppose, the fact this is implied and open to too much interpretation, is a short coming for the film itself. Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no.. Dissagree: The end, regardless of collateral, symbolized peace in the middle east. Once more, it's assumed that ALL the zombies in the surrounding area followed Big Daddy into to Fiddlers, and resumed some kind of distant, peacful memory. A Larger % of civvies escaped in the second influx. The Reckoning, fired the last, redundant firework's in celebration - All you would need to complete this picture, is for John Candy to come back to life and everyone dance in the street. ...The Dead Reck team are blantantly gonna sort the situation out, once that bridge is back down again AGREE: Now, it being the main argument... I agree on your point of Riley having enough..possibly giving up the goat and wanting to leave for greener pastures. That was the crux of this debate, and like SOME of the other/best characters, there is a teeny... tiny *clears throat* flaw.. So I bow to your better argument.

[Trin]

Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no.. I suppose I agree that Peter and Fran would not have ended up like the Land characters. Peter and Fran were probably WAAAY better off by that point in time, cause they were just that good!!! AGREE: Now, it being the main argument... I agree on your point of Riley having enough..possibly giving up the goat and wanting to leave for greener pastures. That was the crux of this debate, and like SOME of the other/best characters, there is a teeny... tiny *clears throat* flaw.. So I bow to your better argument. Why would characters without flaws be better? It wouldn't make a better movie. People have flaws. Good characters work within their flaws, learn to overcome them, grow from their mistakes. Good plot relies on some conflict. Look at Night. Without Ben's struggle with Harry Cooper the main elements of the plot would be lost.

[clanglee]

Peter & Forgettable Fran adapting to Land: Peter ..ci, clamber up a ladder and squeal like a bitch from one zombie Fran...no.. : What?