George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead (1 Viewer)

[Mark Hawley]

Yeah, and I couldn't think of a more pointless criticism. They are not direct sequels and I can't understand how not following a linear storyline, respecting continuity makes any particularly entry in itself a bad movie.

 

[Mark Hawley]

double post

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Before BLAIR WITCH too? Either way I really don't care; the novelty of this tired technique is growing repetitious no matter who got to the threaters first. Same thing with zombies in general.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Yeah, DAWN and DAY are indeed direct sequels.

I have no idea what I think of DIARY OF THE DEAD because I haven't seen it, so I don't know if it's good, bad, or indifferent. I did see LAND OF THE DEAD (I'd call my view on that one "indifferent"), unfortunately, and the feeling that it could not have fit in with Romero's other films wasn't the only criteria I had "in itself" for not enjoying it, though it was part of it.... also was the feeling that I've seen this all done before and it was a bore.

 

[DavidPla]

But that doesn't change the fact that Dawn is still a commentary on late 1970s American consumerism and Day on the Aids virus in the mid 1980s. Each film speak for their respective times. I think if you really want to link the sequels as being set in 1968.. sure you can. But I highly doubt Romero set out to do so.. I actually think part of the charm of the films is watching how every decade deals with the zombie apademic. Night is clearly 1960s as Dawn is clearly 1970s and Day is clearly 1980s. You can gladly ignore the walkman in Day but that doesn't change the fact that it's there just as there are cellphones in Land.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I can ignore the walkman and the book because they're relatively minor inconsistincies in the total picture (not many would even know when the book was published). But there are many more to rationalize in LAND aside from just the cellphones -- there's rap music, piercings, and a character's D.O.B. on his name badge is listed as 1972.

Now, I know that Romero gave up and decided to make LAND and DIARY current (2005 with LAND), because I feel he waited so long to continue the story. I do believe he intended the original trilogy to go together. He may choose to waffle on this now, though.

And I'll tell you frankly, I've always felt the "social commentary of the times" nonsense was way overstated. Especially with regard to NIGHT and DAY.

 

[Michael Elliott]

You can be entertained by some cheap, no-budget knock off called I AM OMEGA (the 4th version of Legend) yet you claim that you've seen everything in LAND and were bored about it?

We've all got the rights to our opinion but I think anyone reading these chats would agree that you've just got something in your mind that is making you take cheap shots at the series. Complaining how things have grown or stuff like rap music that shouldn't have taken place? I believe your issues is that you WANT direct sequels but were never given them. You've got five different movies dealing with zombies and that's it.

If you want to pick at something in the series regarding direct sequels or what not then you need to go after NIGHt. At the end of the film it is said that the zombie issue is "almost cleaned up" so the events in DAWN, by your logic, should have never taken place. Since they aren't connected however, it's okay.

 

[Tony J Case]

So I stopped on the way home from work tonight and caught a showing of this. Holy shit - that thing was GOOD! I've been into horror movies around the time that everyone identified Robert Englund more with Willie than Freddy, so it takes quite a bit to make me jump these days.

Man, there were a bunch of times you had to peel me off the celing. And it didnt make me sick like the way that the Blair Witch did - despite being hand held, it was a reasonably steady show.

You'll have to ask me again when the honeymoon is over, but right now this is easily as good as the first two "...of the dead" films and a worthy addition to the panthion. Great, great stuff.

***edit***
Oh, and Samuel the Amish Asskicker RULES! And I love the defibrillator to the head! The most . . .um, eye popping kill of the movie!

 

[Joe Karlosi]

How silly. We've been through this before and I don't expect you to change your viewpoint on it now either -- but just because one group of hunters optimistically think they're finally done with the "cleanup", that doesn't for one second mean they can't be wrong or that the problem hasn't become much more widespread than they anticipated, worldwide. How many horror films have you seen when the monster is thought to be dead, or a catastrophe is contained, and yet the series and sequels continue, especially when there's money to be made? Please. When DAWN starts and it opens in the middle of a crisis, you think it's a crisis for some other zombie event that took place in another time or something?

 

[Dennis Castro]

I've never seen "I am Omega", but I have seen both "The Omega Man" and "I am Legend" and read the book/short story. Although they both deal with some of the same themes, the films(which are horrible adaptations of the story) are a totally different trip than Romero's films. I don't even see how you can really compare the two.

 

[DavidPla]

That trailer doesn't mean that it's a DIRECT continuation ala Star Wars. It's there to state that this is part of the same film series of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead so that the studio can cash in. Especially since Day was released in 1985 alongside Return of the Living Dead which had people confused if that film was part of the series. Even Land had a trailer that stated the previous three films in the series. If Romero had really meant for Day to be a complete direct sequel to Dawn then why didn't he simply have the two survivors from that movie be present in Day underground with the rest of the characters?

Forget about the 21st century technology for a second.. Land is just as valid of a sequel as Dawn and Day. The zombie outbreak is the main theme for all four films (which is what's really important here) and Land continues that. It gets worse in Dawn.. even worse in Day... and at its worse in Land. If Romero wanted to make it a separate part of the series, he would've made it a reboot (which he has done now with Diary of the Dead). But Land doesn't start over or fresh. It continues what was previously established. It even continues Romero's theme of the zombies evolving from Bub to that zombie gas attendant.

 

[Michael Elliott]

If you really think DAWN takes place minutes/hours/days after the events in NIGHT will you please explain to me why everyone is dressing 1978? The cars are from 1978, the helicopter is from 1978 and so on. And please don't say it's because Romero was lazy in the writing. The mall is one of the biggest characters in the film and it's 1978. Not 1968.

I just find it downright hysterical that you bring up time issues with this film. Do you do this with F13, HALLOWEEN, ANOES, HELLRAISER, Universal's FRANKENSTEIN or WOLF MAN films? Time issues are a lot bigger in these films yet you don't mention them. F13 films take place in the matter of days of one another yet nothing ever matches up.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

More specifically, it was a rip of THE LAST MAN ON EARTH. Whatever the case, Michael is the one who brought this "knock-off" thing up (with regard to I AM OMEGA)... I was just proving that NIGHT, too, was a "knock-off". Of LAST MAN/LEGEND...

 

[Joe Karlosi]

But that's exactly what I'm saying about DAWN and DAY. They don't start out "fresh" on their own from scratch .... each movie begins in the middle of the already-ongoing chaotic zombie uprising.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Why would I mention them in a thread on the Romero DEAD films? For one thing, they simply work for me, and it's all about subjective opinion as to what works for each of us, and why. Yes, there have been many such discussions on the Classic Horror Film Board about the old FRANKENSTEIN gaffes and things, regarding timeline inconsistincies... I've gladly pointed them out, but no they don't bug me nearly as much. Still in all, the FRANKENSTEIN films do indeed "work together" and don't suddenly start from scratch, as LAND did. Another big difference to consider is that Romero himself made all of these Dead movies - they're all HIS babies - whereas the other old movies you've mentioned were taken on by other filmmakers.

Same thing for F13. But even there I can send you a link to a timeline where, believe it or not, they've worked it all out:

Friday the 13th: The Complete Timeline

Mike, one thing I can say for I AM OMEGA is that its zombies looked far more gruesome than those blue-face people in DAWN.

 

[Tony J Case]

Fellows, mind if we talk about Diary of the Dead and not one or the other is a sequal to another? The dude doesnt like the movies, fine - who cares why. I hate Day because the zombies werent wearing pink Tu-tu's. Who cares?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Well, this dude hasn't seen DIARY.. he might even like it, who knows?

But I do like and own the first three.

And you're right - this is a thread specifically about DIARY OF THE DEAD, so excuse me -- but this is what usually happens when people ask me questions about why I haven't been into the last couple of Romero DEAD films.

 

[BrettGallman]

Guys, you have to look at the continuity (or lack thereof) as being similar to comic book continuity. The current Marvel Universe is 60+ years old in our time, yet hardly anyone ages. Similarly, technology is constantly being updated to reflect modern times. Still, there's no doubt that the events that happen in the X-Men comics today are happening to the same characters established in 1963.

Or perhaps "The Simpsons" is another good example. The show is damn near 20 years old, yet no one questions the continuity between episodes just because no one ages and the technology is always updated. It's the same thing with the Dead films. Call it lazy or whatever, but I just see at as a distinct stylistic choice on the part of Romero.

And I guess we can get back to Diary of the Dead discussion now. I'd join in, but it isn't playing anywhere near me.

 

[Doug Miller]

Saw Diary last night in Seattle -- I thought it was awful. I'm going to go "spoiler-less" on the things I didn't like, we're all friends here and what I'm going to talk about won't be a big shock.

#1 - Romero needed to make up his mind on what direction the movie was going in. This was not a "handheld" like Blair Witch or Cloverfield (which I both loved btw). It was footage from handheld's that one of the characters had turned into a "movie", adding music to add drama and tension to the story. Diary would have been so much more effective if they had it as a straight handheld movie, or went with it's a movie about guys making a handheld zombie movie. The footage was too mixed for angles, and the amount of music was offputting since it was supposed to be "real".
#2 - The acting was #&%^#! awful. It was truly high school or freshman college acting. The emotion was so forced that I spent half the movie wincing. It's like Romero put an ad in the paper for "actors".

I love Night and Dawn. I always thought Day was pretty dull and never bought a copy. I liked Land OK, but never thought of it as being in the family as the others. The sad thing was that Diary could have been really sweet. The social commentary is definitely heaviest in Diary than in any of his other four.

It's funny, Romero had an interview on a comic book website Newsarama where he said that he often had film school students come to him with samples of their work and "All they bring me is fuckin' zombie movies" and that they needed to come up with more original ideas, or something to that effect. It's like Romero has become a parody or what he hates most.

Doug

 

[Joe Karlosi]

It is certainly funny. To me, because Romero himself is no longer original either, and while I feel he made a great horror film with NIGHT, even that was a rip of elements from 1964's THE LAST MAN ON EARTH! Anyone can make a zombie film these days... it's not like they need to go to George to show him their "work"!