Day versus Land

[Gemini]

I've been watching the Dead movies in reverse order and interestingly after seeing Day again I have a new respect for Land. After all, Day was not very popular upon its release, much like Land, and it took years for it to evolve into a cult classic, much like I expect Land will. People like to hate on Land and talk about the "commando" zombies, but Bub actually tracked down Rhodes and executed him with a semiautomatic weapon in Day! I think people are so averse to the intelligent zombie concept in Land because Big Daddy was a poorly acted role, and that is a shame. But Romero has advanced the idea of the living dead as more than monsters and injected more and more humanity into their role with each passing film, why would Land be any different? In that regard GAR stuck true to his roots. He also did not sacrifice one iota in the gore/splatter department with the unrated version of Land perhaps the most brutal of his films. I have never read the original script of Day but I believe GAR had envisioned zombie armies and the domestication of the creatures; had Day been filmed true to its original script would it be seen as the laughing stock that some of you see Land as? And how can you laud the original Day script but hate on Land for incorporating many of the same elements? Thoughts? Are people really as down on Land as the impression I get? Any other reasons why Land is so terrible? About Diary ...I don't know...I don't even feel it should be mentioned with the others.

[EvilNed]

I definetly don't hate Land. But I can see why some people have a problem with it. My main gripe with it would probably be that Riley, the main character, is kinda boring. He's to perfect, almost. Too calm, too collected and too expressionless. Since the film almost weighs on his shoulders, he drags it down with it. All the secondary characters are great. Cholo, Charlie, Kaufman etc. etc., they are all great. Also, another thing with the original trilogy is that they all have a very present soundtrack, but in Land the music is almost ambient only. Again, it's too "calm". Overall, the film might be a bit too "calm" sometimes. I wouldn't say that Dawn or Day are the best paced of films, but Lands pace can just be somewhat dull sometimes. I don't mind Big Daddy at all. I wouldn't have minded if he took a slice out of some extra or something like that, but I just don't mind him. He's cool with me.

[AcesandEights]

Big Daddy was a poorly acted role... All that really needs to be said, from my point of view, though I'd include he was poorly realized in the script, as well. RAAAARGH!

[Andy]

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/s...ad.php?t=15195 I Aint typing all that out again.

[bassman]

As said before me, I think Land's two biggest problems are acting and time constraints. Other than that, I think it earns it's place among the original trilogy. It is the least of the four films but it still deserves to be part of the four films. Diary is a whole other beast, though... The smart zombie is just something that most haters fall back on. They fail to realize that smart zombies have been in Romero's films since day one. Anyone that actually pays attention to Dawn knows that it's got many "smart" zombies. Even a gun totting zombie, so the argument against BD and Bub is just stretching...

[JDFP]

I won't go as far as saying that "LAND" is the worst zombie flick ever, like some people (ahem) do, Mattei and Fraggaso have this award as far as zombie flicks along with an absolutely atrocious film called "Shatter Dead" that makes "LAND" look like an Academy Award/BAFTA/Cannes winning masterpiece, but I think "LAND" is utter and complete shit -- and is made all the worse because it's by Romero. I've said it a million times and will say it agan, "DIARY" for all its flaws, is far more entertaining to me than "LAND". Saying it's a better movie is subjective opinionated conjecture but I can pop "DIARY" in for a night of drinking the Beast (Milwaukee's Best) and enjoying it before passing out. The only interest in comparing "DAY" to "LAND" is to compare a great work of film-making with a lousy film. As far as "DAY'S" original script, I didn't like it at all. I think the budgetary constraints helped Romero create a better film than he originally envisioned. He kept the meat and potatoes, the necessary crux of a great story, while throwing out all the garnishing that helped to ruin "LAND". Hell, maybe if Romero's budget for "LAND" had been slashed in half he could have made a better film as well (of course people will disagree with me on this because they would argue that "DIARY" -- in their opinion -- wasn't a good film while I enjoyed it). I'll probably come pert near damn near close to being graciously attacked for saying it, but I'm just going to have to say from reading "DAY'S" original script years ago, I think the filmed "DAY" works much better and if the film had been shot as originally scripted it would have sucked like "LAND" did. Not only Romero, but most films are better by throwing out all the excess (LOTR and the original Star Wars trilogy aside) and just telling a damn good story without worrying about silly CGI and over-the-top F/X (here's looking at you, Michael "let's blow lots of shit up!" Bay). j.p.

[Trin]

I've been watching the Dead movies in reverse order and interestingly after seeing Day again I have a new respect for Land. After all, Day was not very popular upon its release, much like Land, and it took years for it to evolve into a cult classic, much like I expect Land will. Clock's been ticking long enough. Land has been out for 5 years now. It didn't take Day that long for GAR fans to come around so why don't we all stop hoping the same thing will happen to Land. And let's look hard at what caused Day to be scorned. It wasn't Dawn. It wasn't upbeat. The characters didn't mesh well. There was nothing to root for. None of those things is a systemic problem to Day. It's all in contrast to Dawn. View the movie on its own merits and it comes out differently. And after some time that's exactly what people did. Let's look at what are the common gripes about Land. Big Daddy. The money issue. The river crossing. The length of the movie. The scarcity of zombies. The odd powerbase that kept Kaufman on top. Those problems are systemic to Land. Viewers don't overcome those problems by viewing the movie repeatedly or isolated from the others. In fact, take away the other movies and Land is worse. Just for the record... I'm mostly a Land hater, but Big Daddy didn't ruin Land for me. Nor did the whole intelligent zombies thing. It was the disjointed and nonsensical setting and plot that killed me. I LOVED a ton of things about Land, but I can't excuse the idiots being idiots. And I cannot help but believe that Land was Romero's last shot at making the "Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece" as the poster on my wall declares. And it coulda been. It shoulda been. But it wasn't. As for the Original Day Script - read it. It's utter ridiculous, but good to see what a bullet we all dodged.

[sandrock74]

Clock's been ticking long enough. Land has been out for 5 years now. It didn't take Day that long for GAR fans to come around so why don't we all stop hoping the same thing will happen to Land. Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement. When this very site was new on the fairly young internet back in the day, Day of the Dead was treated like a rented mule. Most seemed to outright hate it. That would have been like.....what, over a dozen years after Day was released? (Five years after Day's release was only 1990, long before the internet was around for us fanboys to express our dissatisfaction about things.) I still say that Land will be viewed better the longer it's around; same as what happened with Day.

[blind2d]

I thought Land was fine for what it was... which is maybe not the reason most people see a Romero flick, but a good zombie flick? It totally was. Better than most, anyway. So take heart in that! And yeah, the protagonist dude seemed to be... a weak character, but maybe George was just trying something new, eh? Liked the skateboard cameo and Simon Pegg cameo... Dennis Hopper is King... there are lots of good things. Music was lacking, and some of the characters, but other than that... Savini's cameo... Hey... this is full of cameos! That's pretty cool... Meh, I'll always prefer Day over land personally, but it's not a bad film in itself. It has its flaws, like any movie. Pretty Boy was straight-up Tank Girl awesome, though.

[fulci fan]

The problem I had with Land was the feeling I got when watching it. It felt like the zombies were not even there. I also thought Ugene Clark was the wrong guy for the Big Daddy part. Has anyone pointed out to Romero in an interview that most fans do not like his newer zombie films?

[Trin]

Sorry, I have to disagree with this statement. When this very site was new on the fairly young internet back in the day, Day of the Dead was treated like a rented mule. Most seemed to outright hate it. That would have been like.....what, over a dozen years after Day was released? (Five years after Day's release was only 1990, long before the internet was around for us fanboys to express our dissatisfaction about things.) I still say that Land will be viewed better the longer it's around; same as what happened with Day. I don't know. I think the Internet and sites like this should accelerate any Land acceptance that is forthcoming. If it took Day a dozen years then Land shoulda taken less than 5. The ability to discuss and dissect should push acceptance or refusal toward whatever level point it's gonna reach. The only thing time is gonna do is dull people's senses to how bad it was. If Land gains acceptance under those terms than that's a hollow victory. Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever. That may be good news for Land. It is more timeless than Dawn. Maybe a bit less so than Day. But the thing just doesn't stand on its own legs very well. The plot was ho hum and full of confusion. The intelligent zombies were largely not understood by general horror audiences. I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh.

[bassman]

I will say this, and I've said it before. Land may gain the same level of acceptance as Day in general horror audiences. But in general horror audiences Day is still a whole bunch of forgettable meh. Surprisingly the two are very closely rated on IMDB. Day is at 7.0 while Land is at 6.5.

[AcesandEights]

Has anyone pointed out to Romero in an interview that most fans do not like his newer zombie films? So he can pull a Lucas-like evasion of reality? Plus, to be fair, filmmakers to a degree have to keep making films to fulfill their own vision. Now, I'd like to hear what some people have to say about what some of the great creative minds have done when faced with the reality of their vision, realized, failing the majority of their fans. That'd be an interesting bit of comparative research. How did the fanbase react and change? What were the longlasting effects for the artist/creator, the fans, the genre of the particular medium etc.?

[bassman]

I don't think Romero would give a shit if someone told him his newer films weren't good. He seems like the kind of guy that is just glad to still be doing what he loves at his elder age.

[Mike70]

Personally, I think Day increased in fan approval because Dawn appears cheesier and cheesier with each passing year. Day is timeless by comparison. For all we talk about Dawn being the best of the series, I don't think people realize how big a movie Dawn was in 1978-79. It was THE SHIT. But it didn't age as well. Nowadays we all kinda groan when we see the mall or the clothes or whatever. dude, get out of my head. i couldn't agree more with the above. day remains a constant among my fav films, while dawn recedes further and further back as time goes by. i grew up loving dawn but when i attempt to watch it now, it just looks so cheesy and amateurish that i find it very hard to take seriously. the only things that really save it from the rubbish heap are the characters and that the movie has real soul to it. ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ---------- As for the Original Day Script - read it. It's utter ridiculous, but good to see what a bullet we all dodged. another thing i totally agree with. ridiculous is a perfect word for it. the whole thing was retarded almost beyond words. after i spent the time reading the original script (on here), i remember thinking, "thank goodness that didn't get made."