gore in the directors cut

[kortick]

i was wondering why romero didnt really pump up the gore level in the uncut version to the extreme i mean he knew that there was gonna be 2 versions one for the theatres and one for dvd if he had really put in a lot more gore the unrated version could have been shown at midnight shows where the nc17 rating wouldnt matter and there would have been a chance for the film to gain a new level of cult appeal by showing the stuff GAR fans expect from him does anyone else think he should have put in more gore knowing he was putting out 2 versions?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Gore for the sake of gore doesn't save a medicore film dude. Why is it that everyone thinks that dead films are just about the gore. That level of thinking is the reason the man doesn't even try to turn in something decent. I thought the R cut was pretty gory and I really saw no reason to add anymore gore to the film. That film needed to be re-shot period. Even if it would have had more and played at midnight it would have sank into oblivion like it has. Just chalk up LOTD as a failure. Making posts about adding gore to the film, or saying the film was great just for the gore means nothing in the mainstream of things. People want to watch his dead films because of films like DAWN 1978 and NIGHT 68. There is more to the films than watching a hundred zombies eat someone's intestines. If gore is the only reason you like zombie films... than you should stick to the original DAWN & DAY and the slew of italian imitators.

[EvilNed]

I think the gore is fine the way it is. When overdone, extreme gore can almost look silly. I mean, today it's actually quite amusing and sadistic when Torrez and Rickles get torn to bits in Day of the Dead.

[kortick]

well it is my fault in expressing the version i wanted to see as well as gore i would have liked extra scenes of charecter development as well you dont care about someone being torn apart if that person has no value to you i liked LAnd but i do recognise its shortcomings the gore scenes would have been the more expensive parts to make as opposed to the charecter parts i was just thinking that it was shortsighted not to make a REAL directors cut seeing that they were making one anyways like i feel that cholo should have gotten to take a bite out of kaufman before the explosion and big daddy should have been seen eating SOMEONE at least i think that the opportunity to make the real film was wasted as the opportunity was provided

[Adrenochrome]

the gore was fine (in fact, it had more than the others) - I would rather have seen character developement with Pillsbury, Slack and Kaufman - also --- I still wanna know what happened to the son in the "Cholo/apartment scene with the hangman". (He was bitten when he was trying to cut the old man down.......no gunshot....no nothin'....just, "It's your mess, you clean it up.") -- (or something like that) Too much gore in a Zombie Flick ruins it.....the true horror is surviving the problem, not watching a feeding frenzy.

[mista_mo]

DJ...Land wasn't a failure, not to the critics, not at the box office either. it made 44 million overall? and it cost 15million to make? I'd call that pretty good myself. It made 10 million or so in it's opening weekend. again I'd say thats pretty good. I loved it, it was and still is a great film. And please don't go using the excuse that I only like it cuz "i'm a stupid 17 year old" cuz, yes while i'm 17, I am incredibly far from stupid. I like the occasional action movies, but I hate steven segal or however you spell his name.. So yea..I think that is pretty good proof pointing otherwise. You don't like the movie, thats cool, just don't go calling it a waste of time and a failure, when so many people and film critics loved it. I'm one of em.

[MinionZombie]

We know what would have happened with the son - he'd have been shot and disposed of, no point showing it really, it's pretty obvious. And MisterMo - you make some excellent points, viva Land of the Dead!

[DjfunkmasterG]

DJ...Land wasn't a failure, not to the critics, not at the box office either. it made 44 million overall? and it cost 15million to make? I'd call that pretty good myself. It made 10 million or so in it's opening weekend. again I'd say thats pretty good. I loved it, it was and still is a great film. And please don't go using the excuse that I only like it cuz "i'm a stupid 17 year old" cuz, yes while i'm 17, I am incredibly far from stupid. I like the occasional action movies, but I hate steven segal or however you spell his name.. So yea..I think that is pretty good proof pointing otherwise. You don't like the movie, thats cool, just don't go calling it a waste of time and a failure, when so many people and film critics loved it. I'm one of em. I don't think you're stupid. Compared to his other Zombie films... LOTD is a failure. over 50% of his own fans find it medicore. When your own hardcore fans hate the movie, to me that would be a failure. $44 million is nothing. It cost $18,000,000 to make. $10-$15 million to market. Thats $33,000,000 just to make a film. $44,000,000 is pathetic. Plus you have to remember they don't get all of that box office money. The average contract for LOTD box office return is 75% of the box office gross. Which is about $33,000,000 the cost to make the film with marketing. LOTD's only profit came from DVD sales. DVD rentals were nil because most Blockbuster stores didn't even carry LOTD, and BB is the largest chain. If LOTD was a success, like everyone claims.... Universal would be jumping up to hand him $20,000,000 for a sequel with theatrical Distribution. Instead they wanna do a $5-$7 mil budget direct to video sequel. Universal would rather finance a $40,000,000 Dawn remake sequel, than a LOTD sequel. I still have an inside contact at Universal and trust me, they aren't exactly jumping to get the sequel rolling for LOTD.

[glsjaw]

if i remember right there wasnt alot of advertising for Land and i know atleast in my area it was yanked about after a week of being in the theaters

[DjfunkmasterG]

During DAWN 04 I saw ads on Sci-Fi, TNT and many station 4 weeks before it's release. Including ads that ran during NBA games, infact one game was sponsored by Universal Pictures DAWN of the DEAD. Which I thought was strange...but still cool none the less. During every commercial break was a tv spot for DAWN. For LOTD... I think i saw one or two commercials 3 days before it's release. Not even one commercial during ER for LOTD. DAWN 04 had 3 commericals during an ER episode. Universal dropped the ball on the marketing... plus surrounding the campaign around just the fans was a huge mistake. They needed to market it better. However, without being able to use the previous films screwed them. I think had they done TV and trailers using the original 3 dead films... it would have been better.

[MinionZombie]

Land got a good amount of advertising over here in the UK, I frequently saw TV ads for it. As for 50% of fans hate it - where are you getting your evidence from eh? lol. And they still made a profit, a good amount at this early stage in its life. Big blockbusters get made and can come out with fudge all profit and they still get a sequel of the same magnitude. Hollywood is just run be retards. Besides, GAR's flicks are what would be classed as limited appeal - it's more of a cult thing. LAND ROCKS!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Hollywood is just run by retards. Agreed!

[mista_mo]

Yea, I agree with you on that fact my good man...Hollywood is so shallow...it appeals to the lowest common denominater (in most cases..okay, 99% of the cases)..hell, most of the hollywood movies have unneccesary sex scenes that don't really need to be shown. Plus, most of the movies that come out are just junk..simple dialogue, mediocre acting, and they rely on intense action scenes and great FX. (I imagine someone who doesn't like LOTD will say something like that fits the film almost perfectly). As much as I hate to admit it...most teenagers (and kids and young adults) have pretty bleh taste in movies. They like em just cause of the action and FX...I can't stand most action movies, and alot of people reveire Stephen Segal as a God cause of his films (come on, the guy can't act and the dialogue in the films is utterly horrible). There...thats my little Rant on hollywood films, and don't get me started on the "Stars" that the accursed land produces. It's BS. And Dj, alot of people would type cast me into the mold of Teens that I just described up there. When people think of teens it's like: Drugs, sex, rebelion, stupidity, booze, etc. And I know I'd get typecast into that. Lets see, I stopped smoking, drinking, drugs a few years ago (It was going to kill me so I said enough is enough) I don't have sex, as I believe it should wait until marriage (yea, yea make fun of me if you will, but I got some morals that I choose to live by, and being a christian helps alot). Oh, and I do have a girlfriend...Neither of us wants a sexual relationship, as it would ruin what we have right now, which I wouldn't trade for the world. I like to think that i'm pretty far from stupid..again, I'd like to think so. So yea..thats my little post. I know I got off topic a little bit, but couldn't help it. sorry for any spelling mistakes tho...my eyes are killing me so I can't stair at the screen for too long.

[EvilNed]

Most Hollywood films have already made their money back even before they are released from marketing deals and such. Land was definetly not a setback for any of the companys. It ran at a plus. And the movie theather doesn't get 25% of the profits. I read a text somewhere where a former theather owner explained it: The first two weeks of the film, the company gets 100% of the cash, the next week 90% and the one after that 80% etc. etc. Movie theathers mostly get money from pop corn and soda (which is why A) they are over priced and B) they dont want you to bring your own). So Land was definetly not a failure. And when saying that only 50% of your fans find it mediocre, then that's just your estimation. Alot of people don't like it. But alot of people wouldn't have liked it, no matter what Romero had cooked up! You cannot please everyone, it's hard enough to please the majority. It's safe to say that the majority find Land a good film, but lacking in some departments. Then there are some extremes who find it flawless and some who find it flawfull. By the way, if you had it your way then the Star Wars prequels are the biggest mistakes since the dropping of the A-bombs... Of course, that I can agree with.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Although you have a point... The estimates of what a theater keeps is a little inaccurate. In 1999, George Lucas signed a distribution deal with 20th century Fox. Fox then makes deal with the theaters. In his deal all theaters had to be equipped with Dolby Digital EX surround at a minimum, and 90% of all box office take had to be returned to Lucas Film. That 90% deal ran for 3 weeks, then decreased to 75% for 3-6, then to 49% for week 6 through 10. After 10 weeks it is a 25/75 split. Industry standard. LOTD, not being the huge name Star Wars is was lucky to get a deal close to that. Of course a lot has changed since 1999 to 2005. However, there is no friggin way Universal was getting 100% of all the box office on LOTD for 2 weeks straight. Most Low Budget, non celeb driven films are lucky to get a 75/25 deal. Even an Adam Sandler film, which is guaranteed to make money, (only flop he had was Little Nicky) was distributed at a 70/30 split. Land may have done well, but it was only DVD sales, and the last leg of the European release. US Box Office means jack, and any film released in the US will never make the studio their money back. The studio's only make back profit on Overseas distribution and DVD sales. The US market is a joke. The few films that make bank... Are because they are decent films. The majority are still in the red after their US release. They only hit black on the overseas Distribution and DVD sales. If the Studio's relied on the US film going public for their bread and butter... They would be bankrupt. DAWN of the DEAD 2004 made $100,000,000 World Wide. Cost $26,000,000 to make and $20,000,000 to market globally. Do you know what the final profit margin was on the remake of DAWN after all the expenses? 20% (They made $20,000,000 profit) only because it was very successful overseas while doing its theatrical run. The current margin is probably 35-40% because of DVD sales. Although Land cost less to make, and less to market. The profit margin was much smaller, but still made a profit which is why Universals Rogue division is willing to do DTV sequels, but at a price tage of $5-$7 million per film. In the studio system... Unless a film, like LOTD makes at least $30-$35 million in the US alone... They consider it a flop. They only become happy when the film goes overseas. However, history has shown Romero does better finanically with overseas dollars. The Original DAWN did better overseas, but there were contributing factors which is he refused to get it rated so his US take of $20,000,000 back in 1979 was decent, but the other $50,000,000 it made overseas, is because films are more profitable over there as opposed to here. LOTD has many issues... Story, plot, characters, Running time, rushed Post Production... and poor marketing. However, i don't care how many critics praised or slandered LOTD... Word of Mouth, like on these boards and IMDB, and Rotten Tomato... Will make or break a film. Plus the biggest market for Horror is urban communities. Large Cities. Most Large Newspapers... hated LOTD. If you think I am wrong on demographics... Do yourself this little test. Go into a shady neighborhood blockbuster, and check the action and horror sections of the shelves. take a look at the amount of titles they have. Then go into suburbia, a decent neighborhood and take a look at those same shelves. Horror isn't just marketed for Teens, it is marketed to the inner cities are urban areas because they spend the money. If they hear bad things they won't get their asses into the seats. I live near Washington DC, literally 20 minutes by train, 40 minutes by car(Beltway traffic is a bitch). LOTD was showing in almost every theater in the DC metro area. Out by me, in Gaithersburg, MD within in 10 miles of my house it was on 3 screens. The Rio 18, The Regal 13 Rockville, and the Germantown 14. After week one the Germantown and Regal 13 pulled LOTD. The RIo crammed it in their smallest theater and letterboxed the film to play on a screen made for 1.85:1 films, and the theater had sh*tty ass sound. In Baltimore, MD... In the city and not so desireable areas... it played on every screen. In Owings Mills, White Marsh and Bel Air, it played one of the 3. Allentown, PA. I bet the only lace it played was probably the Carmike 16 off Airport Rd. I was going to be in Allentown while LOTD was out... when I inputted the zip code of 18103 into Fandango, and MovieTickets.com After week 2 i couldn't find LOTD within a 30 mile radius. It played in a ****ty part of Reading PA. I am getting off topic... anyway, This film was made for fans, marketed towards fans, and the rest of the public hasn't got a sh*t f*ck clue of who George Romero the man really is, infact ask any normal person if they know who George Romero is. I bet they stare at you blankly. The film should have been marketed based on horror not some mans reputation. To get back on topic... I think the goire level in the R-Cut was fine and was quite a bit. I will admit I did expect a longer film in the URDC, so like most of you I was let down in that department. However, for me... I was let down twice.