Um, What makes a work of art “obscenely profound” and what do you mean by “works on it’s
own levels”? And how do you determine “seamless execution” only seeing the final product?
[/quote]
Uhh well its a little hard to explain in detail ( i kind of hoped people would ignore my rant :P ) When i said "obscenely profound" i meant that if the message or insight or view point or whatever being expressed through the film is itself really original, different or all together a powerful message.. so much so that even if the film medium is bad, people take notice and respect it.. that’s pritty rare though.. the actual qualities can vary..
When i say "works on it's own levels" i mean that even without any underlying messages the film would be beautiful, interesting and meaningful because of its own basic merits ie the filming, characterization, story and so on..
And when i said "seamless execution" well really the hall marks of that are when its not obviously heavy handed in the way that the messages are expressed ie they are not immediately apparent and furthermore you cant completely dissect the film into its composite meanings and elements because its multi faceted/ multi layered and ambiguous.. in that way it can be thought provoking and up for interpretation.
Anyway I don’t assume you’ll understand what I mean.. not so much because its complicated but rather because im pritty confusing in my writing sorry..
Let me clarify. Big Daddy represents the disenfranchised and the result of Kaufman’s greed and inhumanity to his fellow man. Big Daddy, like Bub in DAY OF THE DEAD, retains much of his memory of how Kaufman treated him and the other men and women who have become zombies because of Kaufman’s lack of charity. He hates being a zombie and he’s gonna make fuckin’ Kaufman pay.
Riley isn’t going to live like that and he wants out, but he’s not going to play Kaufman’s game. He just wants his truck back so he can find a safer place elsewhere with his friends.
i understand if you don’t like it, that’s all relative. I’m not trying to convince you or anyone to like it. it’s just part of the forum and i’m chatting up a movie i love. i know where romero was going with the flick because i know his aesthetic (and of course the commentary and behind the scenes on the dvd verify it all). maybe that fact will make you hate it more.
no bro i tottaly respect your opinion regarding the film, because i am complete cinema geek and often love films that others loathe and visa versa. its all cool. My best friend and i were just viewing LOTD and laughing at the absurdity of it.
no scare factor WHATSOEVER. thats what zombies are…right? scary? thats why LOTD didn’t cut it for me. i was just not interested at all. The characters were flat. Zombies were smarter than humans. And Cholo…was just…bad.
Cool. I respect that. There were rare scary moments, there were even those gore moments that I love. But overall you’re supposed to empathize with the LAND OF THE DEAD zombies.
Well what are they going to do? They’re zombies! Should Big Daddy learn to talk like the smart Gremlin in THE NEW BATCH? And in the same British accent?
"Now is that civilized? No, clearly not!"
You’re ridiculing him just because he’s a zombie, damn you!
[quote=“DexPac”]
I don’t know I guess maybe running zombies is just something that’s never been done right.
The only reason it worked in the Dawn of the Dead remake is because Snyder still kept the
movie about the living and kept the focus off the Zombies. My main problem with the running
Zombies in that one was that they didn’t just run, they ran faster than most normal people.
They came across as super humans rather than undead humans, but only sometimes. I feel
if you’re going to go that route with it, then don’t call them Zombies, call them Sci-Fi Mishap
Super Humans.
And for the record slow rotting zombies have been around since long before Romero. That’s just
what Zombies are. They’re Mummies, without all the toilet paper.
As far as Big Daddy in Land of the Dead, I liked the idea he represented, I just didn’t like the way
the idea was represented. I love the thought that zombies can evolve and “learn” through instinct
almost like a wild animal, I just think Romero rushed it. It all happend way too damn fast. It should
have just been left with the zombies figuring out that the fireworks are a distraction thing and that
should have been it.
[/quote]I think the slow moving zombies work effectively, there is a level of exterior action that opens the film visually. But if you you have the fast moving zombies, which I’ve grown weary of, I mean that’s just absurd; but the point is the characters run away from the action, so there can’t really be any close-quarter action as in the original Dawn Of The Dead, which makes for better entertainment, I mean just look at the end sequence, it has humour and its action-packed.
But with the fast running zombies the characters have to shy away from the action into interior settings, so the whole thing will just be talking heads and very little action. The entirety of Act II in Zach Snyder’s Dawn Of The Dead deals with the characters reacting most of the time, until they device a plan to flee the shopping mall, which in my opinion made no sense whatsoever, why would they risk going into the open when they can stay indoors in a safe place? The electricity will be down in most places anyhow, so to me the second dosen’t work at all, at least in my opinion. Slow zombies make for greater action and suspense, and the running zombies, well they’re just boring.
[quote=“Bluesteel”]
no bro i tottaly respect your opinion regarding the film, because i am complete cinema geek and often love films that others loathe and visa versa. its all cool. My best friend and i were just viewing LOTD and laughing at the absurdity of it.
no scare factor WHATSOEVER. thats what zombies are…right? scary? thats why LOTD didn’t cut it for me. i was just not interested at all. The characters were flat. Zombies were smarter than humans. And Cholo…was just…bad.
[/quote]George Romero does not intend to scare people with his movies, he’s not trying to be Wes Craven or some fucking body who is trying to get you to yell, he uses the zombies as social satire, the spark for the conflict in his charcters, who ultimately destroy themselves. I haven’t really seen a zombie movie that is genuinely scary since NOTLD, other than that I don’t think it would work to make zombies scary, because they’re not. And another creepy zombie flick is Lucio Fulci’s zombie, the gore is outrageously good and well there is very little story but the visuals are classic.
[quote=“Biohazard”]
I think the slow moving zombies work effectively, there is a level of exterior action that opens the film visually. But if you you have the fast moving zombies, which I’ve grown weary of, I mean that’s just absurd; but the point is the characters run away from the action, so there can’t really be any close-quarter action as in the original Dawn Of The Dead, which makes for better entertainment, I mean just look at the end sequence, it has humour and its action-packed.
But with the fast running zombies the characters have to shy away from the action into interior settings, so the whole thing will just be talking heads and very little action. The entirety of Act II in Zach Snyder’s Dawn Of The Dead deals with the characters reacting most of the time, until they device a plan to flee the shopping mall, which in my opinion made no sense whatsoever, why would they risk going into the open when they can stay indoors in a safe place? The electricity will be down in most places anyhow, so to me the second dosen’t work at all, at least in my opinion. Slow zombies make for greater action and suspense, and the running zombies, well they’re just boring.
[/quote]
Yeah, there only excuse for leaving is that they don’t want to die in a mall. I mean Ving Rhames’ character
was looking for his brother, but I think even he had been convinced that it was useless.
I don’t know though. In that situation I’d probly be the first to leave. I’d just have to see what the rest
of the world looks like. I can’t remember who said it or if this is even the actual quote, but I think someone
pretty smart once said something like: “Mankind’s thirst for knowledge is both a blessing and a curse”. Shit,
maybe it was actually just a character from a movie.
I’ve been wondering, do you guys think zombie films should aim higher in terms of creating a certain mythology/world like The Matrix or Star Wars. It just seems that most filmmakers who make these films tend to make them in the real world and they try to make it real, and if you look at the box office numbers that really isin’t working out. But if you look at the Resident Evil films which has a heroine with super-human abilities and is always fending off against hordes of bio-engineered mutants, you will notice that most of the general audience goes for that type of zombie film, in all – all three Resident Evil films have grossed over 170M dollars world wide, and if you look at 28 Weeks, Diary, Land, and Planet Terror combined they’ve grossed a mere 100M. So my question again, do you think the genre should be more fantasy and have a leading character who can kick some real ass? Or do you prefer the alternative?
I knew Resident Evil had something that really seperated it from other zombie films, it has a real mythology and the action is incredible, I know most of you hate Paul WS Anderson, but I think he innovated the genre a bit. I hope future films have more of this type of fantasy element.
couldn’t agree more, i love story’s with a mythology behind it and it would work alot better with a zombie movie puting some meat on bones of teh genre cant hurt at all
Yeah I guess it could work. As long as the characters don’t suffer because of it. I always thought the Resident Evil movies really lacked in character development. I don’t think making a lot of money has anything to do with the movie being good. Resident Evil did well because it had a built in audience. A lot of people go to see those movies because they’re always looking for something to complain about.
