A few films recently watched.

9/10

 

there's an awesome remake!!!

What is?

 

Just finished Night of the Living Dead... great movie, though the ending was a bit depressing.

it's Chris Cunningham remake of Wes Craven's the hills have eyes

Edited July 2, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

I've been watching Invader Zim nonstop lately. I had forgotten how amazing this show was.

  On 7/2/2012 at 7:06 PM, Squee said:

I've been watching Invader Zim nonstop lately. I had forgotten how amazing this show was.

that goes in the comedy series recommendations thread mister mister

  On 7/2/2012 at 6:52 PM, compson said:

Just finished Night of the Living Dead... great movie, though the ending was a bit depressing.

 

The original or the remake? I love the 1990 remake by Tom Savini. Both endings are fucked up.

  On 7/2/2012 at 7:35 PM, Atop said:

  On 7/2/2012 at 6:52 PM, compson said:

Just finished Night of the Living Dead... great movie, though the ending was a bit depressing.

 

The original or the remake? I love the 1990 remake by Tom Savini. Both endings are fucked up.

 

The original. The black guy was definitely the coolest/smartest character in the film. I remember reading or hearing something about the film being about the Civil Rights movement or something to that affect. I'm guessing the ending where they shoot and kill him without much consideration is a statement on the attitude rural white farmers had towards blacks.

i don't like romero's living dead series that much. the way he's always hitting you over the head with the message annoys me. and his points are always so simple that he could as well just put an ad in a newspaper with a short write up. would be cheaper.

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:17 PM, kinski said:

i don't like romero's living dead series that much. the way he's always hitting you over the head with the message annoys me. and his points are always so simple that he could as well just put an ad in a newspaper with a short write up. would be cheaper.

 

I thought it was pretty subtle? Apparently the black actor didn't even realize until later that he was casted because he was black. Plus can you really be that critical when Romero basically created the genre?

so what, he's a holy cow? i'm not denying his importance, it's just that i'm 25yo male living in 2012 and all this seems a tad silly to me, no matter how revolutionary that was back in the day.

there, i said it...

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:25 PM, kinski said:

so what, he's a holy cow? i'm not denying his importance, it's just that i'm 25yo male living in 2012 and all this seems a tad silly to me, no matter how revolutionary that was back in the day.

 

I still don't get your point about the message not being subtle... to most people Night of the Living Dead is just about some people in a farmhouse trying to survive. And I understand the sentiment that so much time has passed, something revolutionary back then isn't nearly as special as it is today, but without it, there probably wouldn't be the newer iterations that you enjoy today.

 

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

there, i said it...

 

?

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:36 PM, compson said:

but without it, there probably wouldn't be the newer iterations that you enjoy today.

allow me to disagree... i believe it is fair to say that whoever invented the chair, if he hadn't, we wouldn't be all sitting on the floor would we???

 

 

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

there, i said it...

i was just putting myself in the role of kinski, because i get his point...

Edited July 2, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:39 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:36 PM, compson said:

but without it, there probably wouldn't be the newer iterations that you enjoy today.

allow me to disagree... i believe it is fair to say that whoever invented the chair, if he hadn't, we wouldn't all be sitting on the floor would we???

 

 

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:28 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

there, i said it...

i was just putting myself in the role of kinski, because i get his point...

 

Its all subjective, but to compare the Zombie genre to a functional invention like the chair is a bit ridiculous. There's all sorts of nuances and ideas that have been overdone now, but back then it was pretty unique and terrifying.

Edited July 2, 2012 by compson

The conflation of zombies and rednecks with rifles was half the point of Romero making NOLD in the first place. While it may not be nearly as relevant to a 2012 audience, the sad reality is that very little contemporary sci-fi / fantasy filmmaking is relevant, period, to any generation. Fortunately, there was Battlestar Galactica. Now, whether you found its politics agreeable or didactic is another matter entirely.

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:41 PM, compson said:

Its all subjective, but to compare the Zombie genre to a functional invention like the chair is a bit ridiculous. There's all sorts of nuances and ideas that have been overdone now, but back then it was pretty unique.

yes it is, after all, i'm talking to myself, i think it's a bit ridiculous to engage in a discussion about the importance and whatnot of a zombie flick... Edited July 2, 2012 by THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:43 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:41 PM, compson said:

Its all subjective, but to compare the Zombie genre to a functional invention like the chair is a bit ridiculous. There's all sorts of nuances and ideas that have been overdone now, but back then it was pretty unique.

yes it is, after all, i'm talking to myself, i think it's a bit ridiculous to engage in a discussion about the importance and whatnot of a zombie flick...

 

You confuse me lol. This is hardly a discussion about the importance of anything. I simply said I enjoyed the film and didn't think the message was hitting me over the head. Perhaps back then when there were very few black leading roles in films, it was more obvious.

that's racist!

 

don't ever get me serious dude. :)

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:43 PM, THIS IS MICHAEL JACKSON said:

yes it is, after all, i'm talking to myself, i think it's a bit ridiculous to engage in a discussion about the importance and whatnot of a zombie flick...

 

 

Well, NOLD was a lot more important than you seem to realize. Step for even half a moment into fundamental media theory and you'll discuss NOLD.

 

If there's interest, I'll upload an excellent bit of structuralist scholarship from Richard Dyer about NOLD in particular. That film still carries considerable resonance within generic definitions of zombie movies and a critical view of whiteness and masculinity in mainstream films.

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:41 PM, The Overlook said:

The conflation of zombies and rednecks with rifles was half the point of Romero making NOLD in the first place. While it may not be nearly as relevant to a 2012 audience, the sad reality is that very little contemporary sci-fi / fantasy filmmaking is relevant, period, to any generation. Fortunately, there was Battlestar Galactica. Now, whether you found its politics agreeable or didactic is another matter entirely.

 

What do you mean contemporary sci-fi isn't relevant? I've never seen Battlestar Galatica, so I can't comment on it. I can't figure out what you mean entirely though in regards to NOLD. Did you find it to be overt with its message?

 

I'd be interested in reading whatver you got on NOLD btw.

Edited July 2, 2012 by compson

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:51 PM, compson said:

What do you mean contemporary sci-fi isn't relevant?

= Most of it is irrelevant beyond basal physical response. You cough up your $10, then you give up your sweat, tears, vomit, cum, whatever. Hence, a lot of debate among WATMMers about whether films should just be for enjoyment aka. "Leave my movies alone. I'm 'batin!"

 

NOLD contained both - the overt and the liminal. After all, Dyer's essay wasn't written until 30 years after its release.

Edited July 2, 2012 by The Overlook

the day after - everything before and after the nuclear strike was boring. and poorly acted. loved the hilariously blunt dialogues, though.

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:41 PM, The Overlook said:

Fortunately, there was Battlestar Galactica. Now, whether you found its politics agreeable or didactic is another matter entirely.

Oh no, if BSG is the future we're screwed . I found its politics and "spirituality" not didactic exactly, more completely facile, shallow, and determined by a vague amalgamation of contemporary hot-button issues like abortion, cloning, and Jeebus. I did like Edward James Olmos' pores, though.

I mostly agree, but it's better to try and fail than keep pandering to tards with sequel after sequel IMO.

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:57 PM, The Overlook said:

  On 7/2/2012 at 11:51 PM, compson said:

What do you mean contemporary sci-fi isn't relevant?

= Most of it is irrelevant beyond basal physical response. You cough up your $10, then you give up your sweat, tears, vomit, cum, whatever. Hence, a lot of debate among WATMMers about whether films should just be for enjoyment aka. "Leave my movies alone. I'm 'batin!"

 

NOLD contained both - the overt and the liminal. After all, Dyer's essay wasn't written until 30 years after its release.

 

I see your point. Do you have a link to this essay?