Land of the Dead (2005) (1 Viewer)

[Kevin M]

But as I said, George messed up, he's a master filmmaker, but he messed up and that's ok

My problem with this statement is that in order for it to be correct (IMO) it assumes that Romero hadn't thought of the wildly different timelines, I have read interviews where he discusses it and was well aware of the differences but in the end he didn't care because it had nothing to do with the story he was telling and it was prohibitively expensive for him to do it period style and still keep his independent vision without money-men getting in the way, so he just chucked that logic and hoped the audience would let it slide and just go with it....I personally don't have a problem with it nor do I see it as a "mistake"...it's just part of the facts of independent filmmaking.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I realize that, Kevin, but by doing that George is asking some of the more uninformed audience members to excuse the timeline. The problem with that is they don't understand what he is doing and they only see it as a problem.
As for myself, like I said I never let it bother me, and the true nature of the time discrepency in the film's has become clearer to me because of this thread mostly. If anything, the info that I have now will help my experience the next time I watch the films.
Bottom line for me, I never had a problem with the timeline, but I didn't fully understand it, either, now I think I do.

 

[Kevin M]

From my personal experience I have watched most of the films with ordinary (for lack of a better word) people and though they did mention the odd timeline differences none seemed to pay it much mind after the fact....but that's just my experience.
BTW the interview I recall him saying this in was from around the release of Day....if memory serves me and sometimes....w..what was I talking about?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Are you, um, alright there, Kevin?

 

[Alex Spindler]

Kevin, did you...get bitten by anyone strange?

 

[Kevin M]

"Cocaine is a hell of a drug."
(bitten by a Rick James zombie...DAMN IT! Now I gotta get platform shoes and braids and a young Linda Blair and....say, this might not be so bad after all!)

 

[Dave_P.]

I go to the movies to escape reality and to be entertained. I don't need a director giving me social commentary of his political views so that I would have some insight of his artsy fartsy meaning of life crap.
Give me a movie that just caters to pure entertainment. I don't want to go looking for the meaning of anything when I go see a movie. Give me thrills, chills and spills. Zombies that are just what they should be: undead killing machines that out-number humans at impossible odds. Give me scenerios that keep the audience at the edge of their seats. Cut the crap of "we don't negotiate with terrorists" bullshit ... if I want to remember 9/11 (and who will ever forget?!) I'll turn on the television. We get plenty of terrorist news every night. I don't need it in my zombie movies.
Zack Snyder knows how to make zombies scary. He delivered all the elements in the 2004 DOTD remake that I love about going to see a movie for. It was a movie that had only one goal: SURVIVE - IF YOU CAN!! It's us against them. This is how all zombie movies should be made.
George Romero can keep his social commentary. I'm not interested. How would everyone like a zombie movie with a message that zombies just need love? Maybe we should just all try to get along? No thanks!
- Colton.

Amen

 

[Tino]

It's not a blunder. You're obviously not understanding what George is doing here

Honestly Rich, must you be so condescending and dismissive of other peoples opinions??
This should be a friendly discussion, NOT a confrontational one.
BTW, I liked Land Of The Dead. But I was hoping for so much more from the master.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I realize that, Kevin, but by doing that George is asking some of the more uninformed audience members to excuse the timeline. The problem with that is they don't understand what he is doing and they only see it as a problem.

If an audience member is truly uninformed, they're not going to know/remember the timeline issues, anyway.
DJ

 

[Justin_S]

Quote:

Again, if you're not interested, why'd you even see it? You don't want his social commentary? Fine. Leave it to us who enjoy it.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

It's not a blunder simply because it doesn't matter. The stories are set "now" every time you watch them. If you can't cut the necessary anachronisms some slack, that's your problem.

Well, I don't feel I have any problem, though I certainly think some others are having something of a problem with my objection! In many cases, these are from Romero fans who resented the 2004 DAWN film, and in my opinion are letting anything go, just to have George back. But I actually DO cut the early films some slack. For example, although DAWN is very obviously looking like 1978, I use my imagination and can pretend it's still a day or a week after NIGHT, in the late '60s. The changes are not that outrageous to me. When I watch DAWN, I still make like it's shortly after NIGHT. So I do cut it slack.
And with DAY, since it's underground, it's not too hard for me to also pretend it's not too long after NIGHT and DAWN (maybe several months later, IMO). So again, I work with it.
But cellular phones and Rap somehow existing after world obliteration is absurd to me. If all these films are supposed to be "on their own", then why are there always references to "what has gone before"? DAY OF THE DEAD had a newspaper blowing outside in the wind which still reads the fairly-recent headline: THE DEAD WALK! (going back to the start of the plague from NIGHT); The new LAND film even has a prologue to briefly bring us up to date!
Why do you think zombies are "starting" to get more intelligent? It's the next step in the series' evolution, following the previous films as an ongoing lineage. I don't think every one of these films is meant to be a brand new, "what if the world ended NOW" scenario - if that's what others are suggesting...

 

[GuruAskew]

Years ago, Dick Giordano wrote an article explaining why a full year's worth of continuity doesn't go by during one of our years, despite Superman having an issue set during Christmas each year. I wish I had a copy of it...

Look at "The Simpsons". Bart is always 10, Lisa is always 8. Maggie is always 1, yet they've celebrated Christmas 4 or 5 times during that age, not to mention the fact that Bart was a year older than me when the show first aired and now he's almost 14 years younger.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Look at "The Simpsons". Bart is always 10, Lisa is always 8. Maggie is always 1, yet they've celebrated Christmas 4 or 5 times during that age, not to mention the fact that Bart was a year older than me when the show first aired and now he's almost 14 years younger.

Yes, I see what you mean and would apply it to many cases in film. But personally, I don't see this as the same idea with the Romero DEAD series.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Justin,
these film's can still be loved and enjoyed even without the social commentary.

I grew up with these film's and love them to death, but I don't pay much attention to that stuff at all, I just want to be scared by zombies and the situation, and in this respect George delivers. I can talk about the social stuff and have fun doing it, but when I watch the film's themselves I just want to be entertained.

Damin,
very true. :b

 

[Justin_S]

Justin,
these film's can still be loved and enjoyed even without the social commentary.

I grew up with these film's and love them to death, but I don't pay much attention to that stuff at all, I just want to be scared by zombies and the situation, and in this respect George delivers. I can talk about the social stuff and have fun doing it, but when I watch the film's themselves I just want to be entertained.

I agree with that. Even without the commentary they'd be great films IMO, but they do add a nice layer to the films. In Colton's case, he seems very against the commentary. Romero's films are going to have commentary, so I don't get why he went to see it to begin with if he obviously has such a hard time looking past it.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

I never said that each film is supposed to be "on their own." The films are a continuous series, and a couple of years appear to go by from beginning to end. However, when you watch them, they take place in the present, despite the anachronisms. Indeed, eventually Land will become outdated in what it depicts, as well. And, yet, if you were to watch Land at that future date, it would still be taking place in your present time. If you don't like that concept, that's fine; you're allowed to like or dislike whatever you want. But it's nothing new in this series, and to single Land out for it reeks of hypocrisy.
DJ

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I just watched that feature on the 'Dawn' remake dvd called 'Special Report: Zombie Invasion', it's a faux news broadcast special that's just great for showing to your high friend just to fuck with his head by telling him it's a real news broadcast.

 

[Travis W.]

I just watched that feature on the 'Dawn' remake dvd called 'Special Report: Zombie Invasion', it's a faux news broadcast special that's just great for showing to your high friend just to fuck with his head by telling him it's a real news broadcast.

I know exactly what you mean. At Thanksgiving last year I played it in the background and called attention to it suddenly. Everyone was really believing it until one of my cousins came in and said it's from the Dawn DVD.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Quote:

Well, no, I don't care for that concept -- if indeed that is Romero's intent. But if he says it was his intent all along, I'd consider it a false concession to others' objections, not his true goal. I could see him saying, "yeah, these films can exist whenever you like", just to make everything okay.
I don't care for the concept personally only because I'm a stickler for basic continuity like that. And what really irks me about it is that it's so relatively easy to compensate for little things like this - just include an older book instead of SALEM'S LOT, or use a more primitive earphone on an older tape recorder. I don't think George did it the way he did deliberately; I just think he was totally oblivious to the inconsistencies, as were everyone else. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone on the crew: "hey, wait a minute - there couldn't have been any Sony Walkmans at the time the plague hit!"
As for it being "hypocrisy" on my part, I honestly hadn't thought of the book and Walkman until you reminded me! And yes, it's another blunder as far as I'm concerned. You may consider me a hypocrite for being able to dismiss those couple of things and not the plethora of modern conveniences in LAND, though.
I will watch LAND again, and hopefully will own the film in my collection. I'd like to try and find a way to make the pieces fit.

 

[DavidPla]

I don't think George did it the way he did deliberately; I just think he was totally oblivious to the inconsistencies, as were everyone else. I don't think it ever occurred to anyone on the crew: "hey, wait a minute - there couldn't have been any Sony Walkmans at the time the plague hit!"

But it IS very deliberate. Romero has stated countless times that EACH of his Dead films represent the time when he is making them. He is not looking for continuity of the 60s. Night is supposed to be THE ultimate zombie film for the 60s. Dawn is supposed to be THE ultimate zombie film for the 70s. Day is supposed to be THE ultimate zombie film for the 80s. He skipped over the 90s. Land is supposed to be THE ultimate zombie film for the 21st century. And in that regard, all the 21st century items SHOULD be there. He's represented what would happen to people in year 2000 if zombies attacked just as Dawn is if people were attacked in the 70s, not the 60s. There were indoor shopping centers around in the 60s to be sure, but were no where near the size and popularity that they were in the mid to late 70s. Each Dead film is a continuation from the last movie BUT a statement on our times as well. If Romero had intended each movie to be a DIRECT sequel taking place in the 60s, he wouldn't have introduced new characters in each new film.