day of the dead

**kortick** · 03-Apr-2006

I was watching Day with a friend of mine who had never seen it
he realy wasnt familiar with romero movies but was aware of them

he marvelled at the fact that romero was very good at charecters

he said once you accept the premise of the dead returning to life and
eating people you could see how romero covered many different views

examples:

capt rhoades- wants to destroy all the zombies and eliminate them
sarah- looking to find a way to stop the event from happening
logan-accepts they are here and looks for ways to make them non dangerous
john- wants to escape the whole thing and live what life is left in as much enjoyment as possible re populate the planet without any of the problems that plagued it before
mcdermott- wanted to drink himseld to the point where it wasnt relevent
steele and others- following orders hoping those in charge know what they are doing

i never thought odf how romero presented so many valid points
thri the caherecters motivations
and i admit he showed me s different side of the film

he praised romero as a great creater of charecters

if you look at it each charecter has a valid view of things
i guess you have to say to yourself
"which charecter has the same ideas of what i would do in this situation"

fresh eyes see things differently

**dmbfanintn** · 03-Apr-2006

And that very fact alone (character development) is what sets GAR's film above all others!

**bassman** · 03-Apr-2006

It's true.....all of the other films are the same.

That's one of the main reasons why I enjoy Romero's Dead films and not many others: It's about the people. Not the gore(although it's still there and it's still fun

), Not the zombies, not the guns, not the solution. It's about the characters and how they deal with it. And also how they ultimately f*ck things up.

Although I haven't seen too many of Romero's other flicks(I've seen "Monkey Shines", "Creepshow", and "The Dark Half"), the ones I have seen also fall into the same category. This is why I consider Romero one of the greats. He knows what a movie is about....characters. That's the way I see it, anyway.

**Tullaryx** · 03-Apr-2006

It's not that Romero is great in creating characters in that he's great in putting together stock characters to represent humanity in a microcosm. Really, when you look at the characters in all of the Dead films they're not as fully developed as one would think. But they're developed just enough that the audience can project to each character what they think they represent.

Using Day of the Dead as an example. Rhodes and his men represented the military establishment whose solution to every crisis is to use force and more force without ever understanding just exactly what they're fighting. You have in Dr. Logan, Sarah and Fisher the scientific community whose training to research, research and conduct more research to get to the bottom of the crisis blinds them to common sense solutions. In the film we see Sarah realize this fact and joins McDermott and John in trying to survive the two diametrically opposed mindset which in the end has become the more immediate danger than the zombies themselves.

Really, the characters in all the Dead films seem more like intelligent cardboard cutouts of typical human frailties come to life. I don't think GAR really would want to have fully fleshed out, no pun intended, individual characters. To do so sometimes just gets in the way of the social commentary he's trying to make.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 03-Apr-2006

That's funny...because most writers and critics tend to see the opposite.

GAR is actually a very poor screenwriter, and his characters are two-dimensional, cookie cutter stereotypes we've seen in countless other films and comic books everywhere. Now, some of those characters are without a doubt cool as hell and memorable to the fans...but there's still not much to them at all.

Don't confuse the terms "character motivations" with "character development", because they're not the same thing. "Character development" is the little stuff we learn about the characters themselves over the course of the movie--their last names, their hobbies, their quirks, anecdotes about them told in the story, etc; and, it's also a term used to describe how a character changes, grows or otherwise develops in the course of that story.

GAR's characters have little or none of that, and never have. Even their dialogue is rarely representative of the characters that're speaking it.

**bassman** · 03-Apr-2006

True, but I think he doesn't really "flesh out" the characters all that much because we know them. Thinking back at it now, I have met every character from the Dead series. Just as I'm sure you have.

He manages to tell the story and as Kortick said, he tells the story through the eyes of the entire cast. It's how each character deals with the situation and their different ways of thinking.

Each of Romero's characters, I have seen someone else exactly the same and it's very easy to place myself in that situation with those people. And just as he creates the characters to resemble the everyday joe, the everyday joe is the one that screws sh*t up with his own stupidity. Just like what would really happen, I'm sure.

Yeah, you could possible say that Romero's characters are "cookie cutters", but I find it very easy to relate to them and they are very interesting characters. Now, if he had characters like "Dawn04"'s, then I would be whistling to a different tune. Those characters are the ones I consider "cookie cutters". But, this argument can go both ways, so.....just my opinion.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 03-Apr-2006

Actually--the characters in the Dawn remake were more developed than the ones in the original. And, I'm talking about the principals, here (Ana, Michael, CJ, Ken, and Andre)...not the secondaries.

Over the course of that film, we learned more about them, and watched them change (whether those changes were positive or negative) more than any characters in any of GAR's zombie flicks.

But, that's a whole 'nother thread.

Personally, given his overall poor abilities as a screenwriter, I'm skeptical about the "character everyman" angle as a whole when it comes to GAR's films. It's as if I'm supposed to think: "Well, in terms of writing, GAR's pacing is always off, there are plot holes the size of Rhode Island in every Dead outing, his dialogue is rarely representative of the characters speaking it or vital to the momentum of the plot itself....BUT his lack of character development was done on purpose."

Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

**bassman** · 03-Apr-2006

Are you sure you even enjoy Romero's films?

I mean, during the month or so you've been around don't think I've read one of your posts that hasn't been negative about Romero and his films. Not that it's my problem or anything.....just curious as to why one would sign up for a message board dedicated to a set of films only to bash those films.

I have to disagree with you on the "Dawn04" thing. Everyone of those characters are bland and ridiculous. Well, there were a few shining moments, but as a whole, those characters are in a close race with those in "Manos".

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 03-Apr-2006

As usual, bassman...you're unable to stay on-topic, and turn every discussion into a personal thing.

I've had lots of good things to say about GAR. I've also had lots of bad things about GAR. It's called "being objective".

I'm a fan, but I'm not one of those fans who feels the need justify why I'm a fan with bs. I don't feel the need to praise films I dislike, simply because some films I admire very much were made by the same person. And, in this case, I'm not going to say "GAR's character development is top notch" when it isn't, and never has been...just because I like some of his films.

To quote one of his flicks:
"You stick your head in the sand, and they're gonna come up behind you and bite off your a$$...."

Finally, and it's off topic, but as for your bit about Dawn 04...while you might find them "bland and ridiculous", that doesn't change the fact that, in terms of development, they're better written than GAR's.

**Tullaryx** · 03-Apr-2006

Well, saying he did it on purpose may be stretching it. That observation mostly comes from people who deconstructs his films. Like me!

But in the end, despite what people may think of the negative side of his scripts and characters, his films have gained a following not just with fans of horror and gore but with academia, especially classes that deal with sociology and especially with human dynamics when dealing with extreme crisis.

I know I've way too much time in my hands when I was in high school using GAR's Dead films as a sociological example.

**~~Svengoolie~~** · 03-Apr-2006

But in the end, despite what people may think of the negative side of his scripts and characters, his films have gained a following not just with fans of horror and gore but with academia, especially classes that deal with sociology and especially with human dynamics when dealing with extreme crisis.

Where?

I've heard of Tupac being taught at Harvard, but I've never heard of anyone using GAR as an example in any accredited college or university anywhere....except maybe for Carnigie-Melon.