Poll: Which do you prefer? Romero's last 3 dead films or The Walking Dead?

[darth los]

This pearl of wisdom was brought to you by Darth Los Industries...signing off with a since time began. Seriously though...the above hit the nail, right on the nose as far as I am concerned. Oh somebody mentioned about folks like myself judging "Survival" without even seeing it, I made a value judgement based on watching his last two films and what I know about "Survival"...suffice to say, I can't be bothered watching any more of GARs recent crap at this point. Have to say, if refusing to suck GAR's dick and praise the shite he's been releasing over the last decade makes me a hater, then so be it (and Diary was terrible IMO, total piece of rubbish.). I've already said that I love his first three movies and feel the last two that I've are total gash. I can't even be arsed with his third...horse riding zombies...no thanks. And hey, if TWD starts following the same pattern, I'll call that (and it's creators) out as well. As somebody who supports these artists buy buying their products and spreading the word about their stuff, I have right to say if I like or dislike their output. I also reserve the right to not buy their stuff if I don't like it. And if you judged it after seeing it you'd be an informed hater? People are calling it art and that's fine. But with art is going to come criticism. It's part of the deal, live with it. Anytime one chooses put "put themselves out there" negative feedback is the risk you run. How many times are ad executives sitting in a room floating ideas thinking they have the best commercial ever, only for it to bomb? It happens all the time. And i get that feeling with GAr here. He's sitting around," No really. He's going to construct an IED and blow up the limo. Genius right." And of course all the yes men around him nod their heads in agreement like good little bobblehead dolls. Sometimes negative criticism is isntrumental in making an artists work better, particularly when they choose to listen to it.

[Trin]

GAR has gone his own direction, for good or for bad. He can call himself an artist if that makes the diminishing acclaim sit better. Maybe he believes his fans don't know what they want, and he believes he can totally wow them by giving them something they don't even realize they want (which is really what Dawn did)? Or maybe he believes that they've matured and progressed along the same lines as he has? Or maybe he's going after a completely different arthouse crowd that would never touch HPOTD or the zombie genre? I don't know. Land is an extension of the original trilogy. You all know it. It's not the backwards timeline end of some new reverse trilogy. It can't be stuck in the cupboard like some mongoloid stepchild the family would rather not acknowledge. You just gotta take your lumps trilogy fans. The Land/Diary yay/meh/boo poll showed less than a 50% yay rating for Land, with less than 45% yay rating for Diary (Survival not yet released). These are polls conducted of the GAR fanbase. The same fans who now show a 90% preference for TWD. I have a hard time seeing how the polls do not show a decrease in fans. Unless we believe that Dawn or Day would have less than a 50% yay rating? It's just what we have always expected, actually. We've discussed it many times. That a fan(in this case, Kirkman and Darabont) would come along, take their love of the holy trilogy, and create something on par or at least close to par with what made us fall in love with the genre in the first place. I've got no deep hatred for Romero's latest trilogy, but he's dropped the ball with the fans. This is it right here. Well stated Bassman. Someone finally did it. The only shame of it is that TWD has had such an easy time of it. I mean, really, should GAR be so easily trounced in ANY poll regarding zombie awesomeness?

[MoonSylver]

Is GAR alienating a "lot" of his fanbase though? Every poll we've done here at HPOTD concerning his latest three flicks have shown that a clear majority of HPOTD members dig the movie, while the haters - the most vocal - are in the minority. GAR has given us three superb zombie films, and created the genre as it exists today - the dude's done more than enough. Jesus Christ, give the chap a break, he's done plenty in his lifetime for the zombie genre. Besides, people change over time, their priorities change, their attitudes change, their filmmaking styles change, their approaches to life and work change - everything changes with time - and to just demand "yet another Dawn of the Dead, motherfucker!" out of the guy is ludicrously unfair. He's provided 'the bible' for the zombie genre, depicted in three acts over three decades, and adored the world over by countless millions - surely it should be up to a new gang to give us 'the next best thing in zombies' - and indeed we've now gained that, in the form of Darabont/Hurd/Kirkman's The Walking Dead! Were Land/Diary/Survival in the same league as Night/Dawn/Day? No. Were they abominations like you always hear from the particularly verbose complainers and haters? No. They are what they are and he's done what he wanted to do and many people the world over have continued to enjoy them - and no, the "they are what they are" comment is an opportunity for some smug-arse to say some pithy insult, so don't even bother. Give GAR a fucking break, he's done more than his fair share, let the man do what he wants to do - and what he's doing now is still enjoyed by many millions globally, and liked-rather-than-hated by a majority of HPOTD members in all three of the recent examples ... get off the dude's back already. He's got an immortal God, he's a human being like everyone else ... sheesh-mageesh! /rant Agreed on all of the above. I'd like to also add that the amount of hate, on the surface of it, SEEMS to outweigh the amount of like because, honestly, one gets tired of defending something they enjoyed & getting barked at for it withh a 500 page diatribe of why it sucked, how bad it sucked, why YOU suck for not AGREEING it sucks, etc. (And yes, I'm being facitious...I figured I'd channel the hyperbole that runs amok in these kinds of things...) It just gets sad, depressing, & makes me want to go back to being a lurker. Which is why I usually TRY to stay out of such discussions anymore. (yet, here I am again...). It sucks all of the joy out of coming here for me. Which is why I'd rather play the fool. It sucks all of the joy out of coming THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!!!

[DEAD BEAT]

huh! yeah im sure we all noticed how the last 2 films arn't even part of this site! lol Then again judgment could be off here because they do have Night 30th! lmao

[krisvds]

Then again, paintings are not movies and are not viewed as such. There is, as I'm sure you know, a national endowment for the arts, which helps fund struggling artists. Traditional "art" such as paintings and sculptures have for a long time been viewed as, for lack of a better term, a public service/good. Movies are not a public service. They are a product. And what's the purpose of a product? To sell it as much as possible and get the biggest return on the investor's money in Gar's case. Because without them there would be no "art" from him. That's the one point those who take your position are not adressing. Why do know it all teenagers compelled to do what their parents say? Because the purse strings would get cut. Same thing here. This is not a medium where one can create something of great beauty and value with merely a canvas some paint and brushes. It's waaaaaay more expensive than that. So,If an artist is dependent on the purse strings of others in order for them to realize their vision and produce and do what they love then at the same time they are beholden, atleast partially, to those whom without their money their vision would never see fruition. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. MULDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!! great smiley by the way. Sure. Paintings aren't movies. Just like Resnais and Godard werent Hitchcock, or Kubrick isn't Michael Bay. Just trying to say that if you follow your line of thought through you end up with a lot of movies catered towards a certain 'demographic'. No risk taking = no art. Another nice analogy. The music bizz. Take it away Frank: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UAWqwLjN70

[MinionZombie]

Moon - *high five* - and yes, it does suck the fun out of it. As much as I hate restating - over and over and over - why I dug the movies, or why they are the abominations that the verbose haters say they are, something inside me forces me to keep coming back ... ugh. Andy - I'm not asking any haters to suddenly like the movies, what I'm actually saying is just get off GAR's dick about it ... the haterade is far too concentrated amongst the haters, and a bit of perspective is sorely needed. I refer back to my previous post again.

[Andy]

I don't think I'm on gars back too much, I respect him for what he has done with the original trilogy but that dosnt mean I think everything the man does is gold, while I personally think he's now lowered himself to the standard of a complete hack and whether you agree with us 'haters' or not, what this poll does show is theoverwhelming majority of people here do think the new gar trilogy dosnt hold a candle to the original trilogy. Also I think my opinion of land is perfectly justified and I don't try and force people round to it, if you like land that's your choice but from my pov, well imagine how you felt when you saw dawn 04, now imagine if you were a snyder fan before dawn 04 and imagine you'd waited 20 years to see it, and imagine you saw it and big daddy was in it. The disapointment and hate would be 1000 times worse and I've seen you go on long rants about dawn as it is, so no I won't cool it over land, thankyou very much

[shootemindehead]

Now after having seen land, diary and survival.. which are a completely seperate trilogy by the way, land is not ascioated by any means to the original trilogy. 100% untrue. 'Land of the Dead' IS part of the original trilogy. It was always part of it, even when it was called 'Twilight of the Dead' and 'Dead Reckoning'. 'Diary of the Dead' is the beginning of what Romero himself calls a "reboot" of the series. ---------- Post added at 12:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:16 PM ---------- It's funny. Some people are talking about Romero like he was some sort of misunderstood Orson Welles, or a Stanley Kubrick or something. They guy is a hack. Really, he's a hack. A great one, but one none-the-less. He's NOT a great director in any sense of the word and I say that not in hate. Just truth. There's no ire in my opinion. But it's opinion based on watching every one of his movies. He has produced 3 films (original zombie trilogy) that can be called great (4 if we include 'Martin', but that's a bit ropey IMHO). AND, "his" genre was ripped off (as he freely admits) from Richard Matheson. I'd also suggest that some fans got an watch the 1964 Vincent Price film 'The Last Man on Earth', based on Matheson's 'I am Legend'. I'd say Romero got a LOT of inspiration from that too for his 1968 classic. The rest of his output has been generally awful ('There's Always Vanila', 'Knightriders', 'Season of the Witch', 'Diary of the Dead', 'Survival of the Dead' etc) to just ok ('The Crazies', 'Land of the Dead', 'Martin', 'The Dark Half'). So it really came as a disappointment, but no surprise, that his last two zombie efforts weren't all that great as his track record has more misses than hits. What's most upsetting about his recent entries is that he's lost touch with the zombies that brought him so much attention. So, Romero may have some good movies left in him and we know he's capable of much better. But as long as he's keeps producing movies in the direction he's been going down, the chances are that his last truly great film will remain 'Day of the Dead'.

[bassman]

100% untrue. 'Land of the Dead' IS part of the original trilogy. It was always part of it, even when it was called 'Twilight of the Dead' and 'Dead Reckoning'. 'Diary of the Dead' is the beginning of what Romero himself calls a "reboot" of the series. While I agree with you....you can't really say that Andy's statement is untrue. It's all opinion, really. In Romero's googly old eyes Diary IS the beginning of something new, going back to the start, but people can also choose to leave Land out of the grouping of the original trilogy. Hell....if you want to get really deep into it, NONE of the films up until Diary/Survival are related, anyway....

[shootemindehead]

Well, I can Bassy. 'Land of the Dead' was directed as part of his original series. That's the director's intention. It was never intended to kick start a new series. 'Diary of the Dead' was made with that in mind. I agree, the original series is loosely connected, but they're still connected. Whereas Diary and Survival have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the original series. It's a completely different universe. I know some people want to lump in 'Land of the Dead' with the last two, mainly because they think it sucked. Or, because there's so much time between 1985 and 2005. But that doesn't mean it's not part of Romero's original vision.

[bassman]

There's no connection between the original three to qualify them as a "series", anyway. That's just a fan thing to try and make them a connected trilogy, when in reality they're not related at all. Romero has said so himself. Different characters, different scenarios, different times, different owners, etc.... only one thing running through them all: the zombie phenomenon. That doesn't make them a connected trilogy. Just a series of films with a related subject. Would you consider Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan a trilogy? All three are directed by Speilberg and have the common setting of WWII, so surely they're meant to be a trilogy? It's all fan opinion where you want to place the films, but in reality there's no relation until the last two.

[shootemindehead]

Your mixing apples and oranges here though. Romero's original dead quad is clearly set in the same zombie apocalypse, even if it is with different characters. He said himself that his intention was to do one every decade to see how the basic story progresses. It's the same scenario taken a little further in each film, showing a different enclave of survivors. As I've said before, they're connected, if not definite sequels with the same characters etc. But a series of films about the same thing doesn't have to have the same characters. Romero's original quad is a series about the same event though. Also, the fact that they were called Night, Dawn, Day and originally Twlight suggests that a running series was in Romero's mind to some degree. Diary and Survival are completely different kettles of fish altogether. Also, Spielberg never once approached his war movies in as serial fashion, so the analogy doesn't really fit.

[bassman]

Romero's original dead quad is clearly set in the same zombie apocalypse, even if it is with different characters. And Speilberg's WWII films are set during the same world war. Clearly they're a trilogy. My point is that it all comes down to opinion. You can choose to have the original trilogy and the new trilogy, Night-Land, Night-Survival, or none connected at all. It's all opinion with no definitive answer. Some people even argue the time frame between the films and say that some are actually prequels, so go figure.

[JDFP]

Land is an extension of the original trilogy. You all know it. It's not the backwards timeline end of some new reverse trilogy. It can't be stuck in the cupboard like some mongoloid stepchild the family would rather not acknowledge. You just gotta take your lumps trilogy fans. I don't see what's overly apparent to make you say "you all know it" as far as "Land" being an extension of the original trilogy. I certainly don't "know it". I don't see it at all. It doesn't seem at all like the same zombie universe to me. I actually agree with Bassman competely, there's not really a connecting element between even the 3 films of the original Holy Trilogy except that they all happen to have zombies in them. They all have a similar 'feel' to them though -- a horror like element that really unites them, me thinks. "Land of the Dead" is more of an action film that happens to have zombies -- doesn't feel like a horror film at all. Then again, maybe it's just because we're all older than we were in the 80's and have all become jaded about "horror". I don't know. I'm not saying you're 'wrong' to consider "Land" as part of the Holy Trilogy if you want -- but not for me and not for many others here. You can take your lumps if you want them, I'll just take my Holy Trilogy as is without any unnecessary additives such as "Land" -- it's like being a kid again and trying to fit a square into a star slot on one of those boards for testing. It just don't/won't fit. No matter how you try to get it in there (yes, Moon, that is, indeed, what she said). For me, and many others, it will always be the Holy Trilogy and then the second trilogy after it -- and we're not any more wrong about accepting it in that order than folks who want to accept that "Land" is a follow-up to the original trilogy. j.p.

[Andy]

Thankyou JDFP and bass, your both exactly right.