George A. Romero: Is He A Joke?

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by kubrick

Romero has always been about far more than just Horror. He has taken on subjects such as racism, socialism and consumerism and ran freely with them for the past 30 years or so. Dawn/Day have already been remade, and there is currently a re-make of the crazies going ahead. I reckon he's just as relevant now, if not more than he has ever been. Dont get me wrong he's no Kubrick, but he's damn good at what he does. I was lucky enough to meet him a couple of years ago and he was a really nice chap.

I hope he continues to make movies for a long time to come.

Truer words have never been spoken on these forums. So many people don't watch film with intellectual intentions these days. I have had conversations with hundreds of people who said that they hated zombie movies because they were just so stupid in concept. And when asked to elaborate on their perspective regarding the zombie concept, they would always just say something along the lines of, "dead cannibals is just plain silly." And that is usually the extent of it. When I explain the massive metaphor behind the idea of the zombie, and why one of the greatest of the zombie films (both the original AND the remake) take place in a mall, their eyes suddenly spark and realize what the real concept is all about. That's when they usuall say, "damn... I'm gonna have to watch those again. That actually sounds pretty cool."

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

Truer words have never been spoken on these forums. So many people don't watch film with intellectual intentions these days. I have had conversations with hundreds of people who said that they hated zombie movies because they were just so stupid in concept. And when asked to elaborate on their perspective regarding the zombie concept, they would always just say something along the lines of, "dead cannibals is just plain silly." And that is usually the extent of it. When I explain the massive metaphor behind the idea of the zombie, and why one of the greatest of the zombie films (both the original AND the remake) take place in a mall, their eyes suddenly spark and realize what the real concept is all about. That's when they usuall say, "damn... I'm gonna have to watch those again. That actually sounds pretty cool."

Very literate response.

But I ask you, which Romero film do you remember best? Night of the Living Dead (1968) or Diary of the Dead (2008)?

Which film glistens with thought and unimpeachable craft? Dawn of the Dead (1978) or Land of the Dead (2005)?

I merely posit: Romero will be remembered by me and many others for the past, not the present.

That’s no affront to him, only an observation.

Thanks.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Very literate response.

But I ask you, which Romero film do you remember best? Night of the Living Dead (1968) or Diary of the Dead (2008)?

Which film glistens with thought and unimpeachable craft? Dawn of the Dead (1978) or Land of the Dead (2005)?

I merely posit: Romero will be remembered by me and many others for the past, not the present.

That’s no affront to him, only an observation.

Thanks.

I agree with the bolded statement above. However, for the generations to come, there needs to be modern material for the Romeroan concepts. My brother is 19 and will never have the patience to sit and watch any film created before 1990. He won't even watch 'Back To The Future' because it was filmed in the 80's! Such is the mentality that requires Romero to continue his work. Heck, that is the sole reason why I'm such an outspoken fan of his 'Dawn Of The Dead' remake.

As for your two specific questions:

#1. I'll always remember 'Night Of The Living Dead' best.
#2. 'Dawn Of The Dead' is the better work of thought and impeccable craft.

However, my perspective is also much broader than most as many people have a hard time trying to watch modern zombie films, let alone trying to watch a "poor special effects" 70's film.

*Please note that the quotations do not reflect my opinion of the special effects, but is reflective of the mob mentality surrounding current cinematic techniques by comparison.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I agree with the bolded statement above. However, for the generations to come, there needs to be modern material for the Romeroan concepts. My brother is 19 and will never have the patience to sit and watch any film created before 1990. He won't even watch 'Back To The Future' because it was filmed in the 80's! Such is the mentality that requires Romero to continue his work. Heck, that is the sole reason why I'm such an outspoken fan of his 'Dawn Of The Dead' remake.

As for your two specific questions:

#1. I'll always remember 'Night Of The Living Dead' best.
#2. 'Dawn Of The Dead' is the better work of thought and impeccable craft.

However, my perspective is also much broader than most as many people have a hard time trying to watch modern zombie films, let alone trying to watch a "poor special effects" 70's film.

*Please note that the quotations do not reflect my opinion of the special effects, but is reflective of the mob mentality surrounding current cinematic techniques by comparison.

So ergo: diminished tolerance justifies diminished art?

I say there's has to be a better way.

But again, I appreciate your grasping of the problem.

One more thought: By this logic, one could say later-day Welles is a good fill-in for Kane.

I hope not.

[Anscules]

romero is greatness. got to meet him last year about this time and he was so kind and even self-effacing. he was accosted by about 22 dweebs all asking "george! do you have any advice for young filmmakers?!" and he tolerated these questions as if they were the first time he'd heard them, instead of the 12,994,444,295th.

that night i also met ken foree, malcolm mcdowell, and from my own experience dispelled the rumor that tom savini is a jerk. it was a wonderful night with the living cast from the first "dead" film. screened the movie with them, then they told stories about making it. hilarious, amazing night. romero's excellent in front of a crowd.

[bruce_pullen]

Modern Zombie films have a greater tempo and enhanced savagery. They’re quicker than the genre (crafted by George) initially afforded. I'm not sure his and other's subsequent versions have the poetry, quiet, and patience of Romero's seminal pieces. To me, they feel akin to Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho (1998).

I've told a friend, I find it sad that modern audiences will only know or care about remakes to classic movies. I hope it will not be so. I hope like Aladdin, people will find the diamonds in the rough. And have the will and maturity to seek them out.

I think the youth need to ingest better films early on, for them to understand the classics.

Again. Thank You.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by bruce_pullen

Modern Zombie films have a greater tempo and enhanced savagery. They’re quicker than the genre (crafted by George) initially afforded. I'm not sure his and other's subsequent versions have the poetry, quiet, and patience of Romero's seminal pieces. To me, they feel akin to Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho (1998).

I've told a friend, I find it sad that modern audiences will only know or care about remakes to classic movies. I hope it will not be so. I hope like Aladdin, people will find the diamonds in the rough. And have the will and maturity to seek them out.

I think the youth need to ingest better films early on, for them to understand the classics.

Again. Thank You.

I concur wholeheartedly... but, have you tried to convince a teen to watch the original 'Night Of The Living Dead'? Or, even better... anything filmed in black and white (other than Sin City)? Seriously, it is almost a guarantee that you will be hit with a Soviet satellite at the very moment you pose them the question then them actually agreeing to the proposition.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I concur wholeheartedly... but, have you tried to convince a teen to watch the original 'Night Of The Living Dead'? Or, even better... anything filmed in black and white (other than Sin City)? Seriously, it is almost a guarantee that you will be hit with a Soviet satellite at the very moment you pose them the question then them actually agreeing to the proposition.

It took years for me to work my Best Friend up to older films. He just yesterday watched Kubrick's The Killing (1956) for the first time. He just saw The Hustler (1961) last month. I've tried to get him to watch A Face in the Crowd (1956), but he's delayed up to now. He now thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) is a masterpiece, when he wouldn't go near it before. I basically gave him a film education, by buying him the films. And waiting for him to watch them, that was my trick.

By the way: any suggestions of what to show him? If you have any.

..I believe the key is: to expose them when they're young. Show them Chaplin, Capra, and Fleming when they're five and six.

Rather than to a teen reared on MTV, by then... I don't know.

So I see your point. I certainly do.

I think it takes persistence and preemption: to achieve success.

Thanks again.

[assydingo]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I concur wholeheartedly... but, have you tried to convince a teen to watch the original 'Night Of The Living Dead'? Or, even better... anything filmed in black and white (other than Sin City)? Seriously, it is almost a guarantee that you will be hit with a Soviet satellite at the very moment you pose them the question then them actually agreeing to the proposition.

My mom won't even watch Casablanca. She's 40 something (=P).

[dgator783]

directing is no easy task esp working with the tight budgets that most of his films are granted. He makes good films with the subject matter and they are rather intelligent for the most part which you can not say about most horror films esp the ones coming out these days. SUre, some of his movies are better then others, but everything you do will not turn out the same, theres too many variables (different actors and their take on the source material, budget, producers, movie studios)...all of these things have to be taken into account. I respect his work that for the most part, he writes himself...show me that you can do better, (write a script, secure finacing, then direct it)....

[Mr.White]

No he's not a joke,he's a cinematic genius,just wish "Night of The Living Dead"(the classic 68 version(NOT COLORIZED THANK YOU!),and NOT that piece of dreck called the 30th Anniversary re-edited by old Romero chum John Russo with new music,not a good idea to mess with classic.even if it fell into the public domain!) was Blu in it's original 1:33 ratio,fans would appriciate this!!! Knightriders,is also damn cool,dont know if Anchor Bay still owns the other Romero stuff other than Dawn and Day(I got both Blu's and keeping my Ultimate Edition4 DVD Set of "Dawn",and 2 disc set of "Day" These are too cool to resell!) Long live Geroge Romero!

[Blu Man]

Seriously stop with these threads. Anyone else sick of the "John Doe is a hack or what" threads?

[zombieking]

George Romero a joke? NO

Uwe Boll is a joke

[UFAlien]

I think all the Dead movies are overrated, except Day, which I find to be criminally underrated... awesome flick IMO

[DeeChizzle]

Dawn of the Dead is by far the greatest zombie flick ever made and arguably the best horror movie ever made. It is so much more than just a zombie or horror film. It is truly a thinking man's film and imo it's a movie that was made way ahead of it's time but the message it delivers is powerful and relevant to any generation of moviewatchers.

So to answer your question, no Romero is not joke.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by Blu Man

Seriously stop with these threads. Anyone else sick of the "John Doe is a hack or what" threads?

Sir, I have stopped. I did four. (Romero, Hooper, Carpenter, Craven)

Then others made four++ threads mocking my style. So don't blame this thread. This is legitimate. Thank You.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by DeeChizzle

Dawn of the Dead is by far the greatest zombie flick ever made and arguably the best horror movie ever made. It is so much more than just a zombie or horror film. It is truly a thinking man's film and imo it's a movie that was made way ahead of it's time but the message it delivers is powerful and relevant to any generation of moviewatchers.

So to answer your question, no Romero is not joke.

That's why I asked the question? Dawn of the Dead (1978) is the 'Citizen Kane' of Zombie movies. And yes it is arguably, one of the finest horror films ever made. The shopping mall, the muzak, the humor, the drama, the spectacle, the film is genius.

Unfortunately, what has he done since?

Yes, Day of the Dead is competent. But at times, it feels like Dawn leftovers. The use of the calendar, the taunting of the zombies, the dead killing the baddies?? Seen it! Done that!

The question (at the head of the thread), made it clear. Since 1980, is Romero living off his legacy or still making it?

[DavePS3]

Gotta always keep in mind that film is a form of art and whether we like the piece or not, it's generally what the director wanted to do (unless the studio cut into it). As a director, you basically do what YOU want to do, given your budget, the actors you're dealing with and of course the script which is sometimes worse than the direction. We all love films here, for different reasons. We love a film because of what it's able to do for us emotionally even on a simple gut level. Some films don't move us much and some repulse us for a variety of reasons but like a painting... you like it, hate it or are indifferent. No matter what our reactions are to films, we all know what we like and don't like and often, it has little to do with what the director's true intent was. Some director's just want to have fun and don't bother trying to make a real masterpiece. That's okay because if I was a director, I'd do things my way too.

[bruce_pullen]

Originally Posted by DavePS3

Gotta always keep in mind that film is a form of art and whether we like the piece or not, it's generally what the director wanted to do (unless the studio cut into it). As a director, you basically do what YOU want to do, given your budget, the actors you're dealing with and of course the script which is sometimes worse than the direction. We all love films here, for different reasons. We love a film because of what it's able to do for us emotionally even on a simple gut level. Some films don't move us much and some repulse us for a variety of reasons but like a painting... you like it, hate it or are indifferent. No matter what our reactions are to films, we all know what we like and don't like and often, it has little to do with what the director's true intent was. Some director's just want to have fun and don't bother trying to make a real masterpiece. That's okay because if I was a director, I'd do things my way too.

So mediocrity from a former master is okay?

I love Romero don't get me wrong? But the man can do better? And if he can't anymore... then that's that.

[bruce_pullen]

I find it disturbing that previous work can be an indefinite shield from honest assessment. George A. Romero did great work (off-and-on) from 1968 to 1980.

1. Night of the Living Dead (1968)

2. Martin (1976)

3. Dawn of the Dead (1978)

and some would say

4. Knightriders (1981)

All subsequent work suffers from shabby focus and lazy characterization. Similar to Hitchcock's (65-70) period. Except this has gone on for decades, and has gotten worse. I respect Romero. And love his earlier work, but I would be remiss not to point this out.