NOLD 90 Movie Mistake

[AcesandEights]

I agree with this. It's not a good fit. My face is still sore from Diary. Social commentary canker? And, I also agree, by the way. Other people need to step forward to make decent zombie movies, in their own vain.

[bassman]

Other people need to step forward to make decent zombie movies, in their own vain. It seems to me that alot of people try but it either isn't good or just doesn't catch on as well as Romero's original trilogy did. He's not the only person that can make them, but you have to give the man some points for being the only person to really make a series with the living dead that works.

[darth los]

It seems to me that alot of people try but it either isn't good or just doesn't catch on as well as Romero's original trilogy did. He's not the only person that can make them, but you have to give the man some points for being the only person to really make a series with the living dead that works. Dammit dude!! You stole my response !! But yeah, Plenty of people mak e zombie films and they all suck. So let's get this straight. Let's let someone else make the film just for the sake of getting new blood in there, is that right? Don't get me wrong, GAr is more than capable of making a turd, which he has shown but he also can make magic and that is something virtually no one else in the genre has done.

[Trin]

So let's get this straight. Let's let someone else make the film just for the sake of getting new blood in there, is that right? Yes, that's right. But I don't think the argument goes so far as to say GAR should stop and someone else should start. That's not the point. The argument is that GAR should not be teamed up with WWZ. GAR should continue making the movies he wants to make. Hopefully Dead movies - though I know some would prefer he make other things. But, whatever, let him make his own kind of movies with his own plot and his commentary and all that. That's his strength. At the same time have someone else make WWZ and hopefully the good story paired with a good director will carry forward into a great movie. A newer director who is less established (cough - rigid - cough) would be less likely to insert a bunch of their style into the script. And maybe if we're lucky a new franchise is born that cranks out some worthy zombie stuff. There are two things I'd like us to avoid: 1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka." 2) No zombie future when GAR hangs it up.

[EvilNed]

There are two things I'd like us to avoid: 1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka." I have a hard time imagening a more boring movie than that!

[darth los]

Yes, that's right. But I don't think the argument goes so far as to say GAR should stop and someone else should start. That's not the point. The argument is that GAR should not be teamed up with WWZ. GAR should continue making the movies he wants to make. Hopefully Dead movies - though I know some would prefer he make other things. But, whatever, let him make his own kind of movies with his own plot and his commentary and all that. That's his strength. At the same time have someone else make WWZ and hopefully the good story paired with a good director will carry forward into a great movie. A newer director who is less established (cough - rigid - cough) would be less likely to insert a bunch of their style into the script. And maybe if we're lucky a new franchise is born that cranks out some worthy zombie stuff. There are two things I'd like us to avoid: 1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka." 2) No zombie future when GAR hangs it up. 1) I just wanted to get straight what your your point was and they were good ones even though I don't agree with them. 2) I like the point you made about GAr working best when NOT subjected to the tyranny of a major studio (I'm sure that's how he feels about it and I thought I'd use a dotd reference ) it was obvios that was the problem with land.

[Yojimbo]

But yeah, Plenty of people mak e zombie films and they all suck. I don't know, brother darth, but I kind of liked a few of them. Shaun of the Dead and Fido comes to mind as decent zombie films. Also dug Cemetery Man for all it's weirdness too. But overall, I'd have to agree the the majority of the zombie films that are coming out are less than dog turd on the shattered glass riddled sidewalk in front of that check cashing store where folks who live off the grid go to cash their welfare vouchers.

[darth los]

I don't know, brother darth, but I kind of liked a few of them. Shaun of the Dead and Fido comes to mind as decent zombie films. Also dug Cemetery Man for all it's weirdness too. But overall, I'd have to agree the the majority of the zombie films that are coming out are less than dog turd on the shattered glass riddled sidewalk in front of that check cashing store where folks who live off the grid go to cash their welfare vouchers. Exactly. Yeah, those films you mentioned are good. But what percentage of films in the genre are good? Maybe 10?

[Yojimbo]

Exactly. Yeah, those films you mentioned are good. But what percentage of films in the genre are good? Maybe 10? Yeah, brother darth, but that 10% rule is applicable everywhere in the film world, and perhaps it is a high estimate at that. Suspense movies, for example, I do not believe that there is even 5% that are worthy. General horror, romance, comedy - whatever genre you pick I think that the same rule is going to apply.

[darth los]

Yeah, brother darth, but that 10% rule is applicable everywhere in the film world, and perhaps it is a high estimate at that. Suspense movies, for example, I do not believe that there is even 5% that are worthy. General horror, romance, comedy - whatever genre you pick I think that the same rule is going to apply. I guess when you put it that way. I don't even enjoy watching movies like i used to. The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? ) and sequels has made me desensitized to it all. I haven't seen saw 5 yet i can tell you what it's about and what happens in it. Nuff said.

[Yojimbo]

I guess when you put it that way. I don't even enjoy watching movies like i used to. The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? ) and sequels has made me desensitized to it all. I haven't seen saw 5 yet i can tell you what it's about and what happens in it. Nuff said. I hear you. I have seen a few recently that were ok, and posted these on the media boards, but it should tell you something that none of these were mainstream Hollywood releases, which overall suck major ass.

[Trin]

The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? ) ... retards...

[Yojimbo]

... retards... ... regurgitants ...

[zombiekiller]

the night remake is awesome, imo. i recall being pretty bummed that i was too young to get into the theaters to see it, but luckily my mom is kick-ass and let me rent it like a million times. not quite as good as the original, but a great film that does it proper justice. there are a few other bloopers that can be found by accessing the main page of this site and following the appropriate links. never noticed the leaves on the trees, but the whole being able to see your breath in august always bothered me a bit. they really should release a 20th anniversary dvd next year. i was lucky, i seen night 68,90 dawn 78,04 and day(org.) at the theatres( drive-ins and walk ins) and they were great. that's the only way to see those movies.

[blind2d]

Yep, you're lucky, all right. Does this count as necromancy, though?