Is George Romero a genius or a lucky hippie?

[countchocula]

I love half of Romero's films. The other half...eh, not so much. His films are noted for their biting social commentary, but if you watch the Dead flicks, they all impart the same message. Romero seems to think that he is still crafting subtle art. The aphorisms in his zombie epics aren't nearly as complex as some die-hards would lead you to believe. "Humanity is fucked." "People like to shop." "Society is violent."

Are these oh-so-subtle messages supposed to be deep reflections on mankind's intrinsic faults? Because they seem pretty goddamn simple to me. Every review of Dawn/Day/Land of the Dead that I've read gushes about the "poignant" themes that Romero "explores." Couldn't any moron tell you that our culture kind of sucks? This isn't rocket science. These aren't cryptic revelations that are buried beneath visual metaphors. In fact, the social commentary is hamfisted. Romero bludgeons the viewer with obvious allegories that a 5th grader could pinpoint. I can only laugh when I see Eli Roth or Quentin Tarantino drooling over Romero in interviews. "They may look like regular zombie movies, but they have a lot to say about society. The zombies are in a mall because consumers are like zombies!"

Maybe this shit was profound 30 years ago (it probably wasn't), but I thought that art was supposed to be subtle and indirect. So what do you think...is Romero a genius or a lucky hippie?

[Reigh Kaufman]

He's a semi-genius whose ambitions are outweighed by his ability as a director.

He's a visionary who needs bifocals.

And so on, in that vein...

[JJFlamingo]

He makes great fucken movies that are fun to watch, any implied social commentary is just an added bonus, and should NEVER be the main focus during the analyzing process. Enjoy the visceral roller coaster thrills first, marvel over deeper meaning later...:D

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Oh God Count I can tolerate the H/F13 Overrated thread,but this is a tad insulting IMHO.Romero has made many great films,zombis or not,all of the Dead films {Diary was decent enough,},Creepshow,and many more thatI have/haven't seen.To call Romero a lucky hippie is like calling Da Vinci a lucky Frenchman,or Hitchcock a talentless hack.As a devoted Romero fan,he is THE definition of genius.

[Sad man]

Romero was great. Yes, was. The original DEAD trilogy is brilliant and the messages behind them were a nice bonus that weren't rubbed in our faces. DIARY OF THE DEAD, however, is a piece of shit. 100% shit. He lost his touch.

[LordSimen]

He's a lucky genius who's fond his shtick and keeps with it.

[poopontheshoes7]

I dont think he thinks he's making subtle art. He knows the messages are blatant, he doesnt try to hide them behind clever cinematic techniques. He puts them right out into the open. But it never seems forced. Yes, to groomed cinemaphiles like us that are used to picking up messages in films they social commentary is obvious. But to your regular average movie watcher they are not.

George Romero has made some great horror films besides his Zombie flick. Creepshow is one of my favorite movies ever and Martin, The Crazies and The Dark Half are all pretty damn good.

I would say he's a horror genius.

[LordSimen]

George Romero has made some great horror films besides his Zombie flick. Creepshow is one of my favorite movies ever and Martin, The Crazies and The Dark Half are all pretty damn good.

I would say he's a horror genius.

Finally, someone else who loves the Crazies! :)

[Henry Lee Lucas]

dawn was filmed in a mall because their friends owned it and they thought it would be cool.

Lucky hippy for sure, but does make some great horror movies.
gotta love creepshow, really wanna see martin and the crazies.

good thing he never directed diary of the dead.
(if we pretend like it never happened...)

[rilocay]

I'm agreeing with the lucky hippy term. It doesn't make him any more or less a filmmaker though. He's done what he's done.

[Brendan M.]

The Crazies, Martin, The Dead Series, Creepshow..... Who cares what he is, he's made great movies. That's all that matters. Hell, I even like Monkey Shines. Guy in a wheelchair vs a killer monkey is too good of a concept to pass up. Comedy gold.

[The Postmaster General]

When did Romero say he was being subtle?

To me, this is like people who hate The Dark Knight because of "the fucking fanboys".

[MisterTwister]

He used to e a genius but not anymore. Diary of the Dead was horrible and now he's doing a sequel to it. WTF!?

[The Postmaster General]

On a similar note: What the fuck has Stephen Hawking done lately?

[Superplasmatron]

Finally, someone else who loves the Crazies! :)

Its an amazing film, pity its yet another of his that's being remade.

[hrdude]

The word genius is thrown round to easily. I love his films but I wouldn't say he's a genius. He found a genre that suited him and ran with it. A fucking great genre which he majorily contibuted to, but again not a genius.

[poguesfan]

I find Romero's films to be quite entertaining with a touch of clever social commentary attached. A genius is a rather broad term for anyone to embody. Let's just call him a damn good filmmaker and leave it that.

[BatDaddy]

I'd have to say he's somewhere in the middle. I haven't seen all of his work, but what I've seen was very entertaining. Night of the Living Dead has become one of my yearly Halloween-time late night movies. Dawn of the Dead was just an engaging and fantastic film. I haven't given Day of the Dead a proper viewing. Land of the Dead was fun, mostly. Even Diary was a third good (I liked the scare parts - there was some effective stuff there, especially the hospital scene).

I'll reiterate something I read from someone else (probably here, I don't quite remember) - I think Romero ended up making some really great and classic films that people starting reading too much into, and all the commentary about his social commentary began to weigh on him, and so it started becoming too blatant in his last couple of flicks (Land and Diary).

I personally don't watch movies so much for the social commentary, mostly because I completely suck (and I mean SUCK) with metaphors and such things. I don't want to know what real-life figure Dennis Hopper was supposed to represent (in Land) - I just know he's a fucking asshole. That's how I view my movies. Diary got WAY to heavy-handed with all that message stuff. "I can't go help - I'm PLUGGED IN." Give me a fucking break.

Anyways, I'm rambling. My point is, I don't think he's overrated as a director or storyteller, but probably overrated as a social commentator.

[Henry Lee Lucas]

On a similar note: What the fuck has Stephen Hawking done lately?

He's very disappointed in the world, he feels we should be pouring way more money into Nasa and were only half as far as we could be. Douche bag mightve forgotten about those other factors people have to consider before emptying out their wallets for further space exploration, something they will not benefit from.

[The Postmaster General]

He's very disappointed in the world, he feels we should be pouring way more money into Nasa and were only half as far as we could be.

Exactly. He hasn't come up with any mindblowing theories lately.

Romero changed the game and no one can take that away. If no one wants to call him a genius, that's cool, but I think it's unfair to say he's something he didn't use to be. Romero is Romero and he did what he did.

I'm not seeing where he's said stuff about having subtle social commentary or being a genius. We, the audience, gave him the genius monicker, and I think it's something we can't just take away because he's not knocking every single one out of the field. He made some cool shit in the 60s and 70s and not just zombie movies.

I don't give a hell about Brunchtime of the Living Dead or The Dead Don't Wear Plaid or whatever else he's pulling out to stay in the game. He should be able to make movies until he's totally senile and is in fact himself the living dead. Since we're the ones that put him on that pedestal he's earned the right to do whatever he wants with film. Who knows, we might get lucky and lightening will strike twice.

In short, he's a lucky hippy for getting called a genius. :cool:

[Henry Lee Lucas]

Exactly. He hasn't come up with any mindblowing theories lately.

Romero changed the game and no one can take that away. If no one wants to call him a genius, that's cool, but I think it's unfair to say he's something he didn't use to be. Romero is Romero and he did what he did.

I'm not seeing where he's said stuff about having subtle social commentary or being a genius. We, the audience, gave him the genius monicker, and I think it's something we can't just take away because he's not knocking every single one out of the field. He made some cool shit in the 60s and 70s and not just zombie movies.

I don't give a hell about Brunchtime of the Living Dead or The Dead Don't Wear Plaid or whatever else he's pulling out to stay in the game. He should be able to make movies until he's totally senile and is in fact himself the living dead. Since we're the ones that put him on that pedestal he's earned the right to do whatever he wants with film. Who knows, we might get lucky and lightening will strike twice.

In short, he's a lucky hippy for getting called a genius. :cool:

I think because it was falsely said after Night and Dawn, he began to embrace those comments and forcefully put his message within the movie. One thing that has always remained is how he focuses on the survivors struggle amongst themselves versus the zombie being the main antagonist. Ill give him that.

[countchocula]

Bubba, my main gripe is with fans who hype up Dawn/Day of the Dead and lose their splooge over social commentary that may or may not exist in the films. Personally, I feel that Dawn is somewhat overrated, but I'm into Romero's non-zombie efforts. Creepshow is one of my favorite films of all time. I just don't get the deification of Romero and his Dead trilogy. I've read too many reviews that praise all of these ostensibly cerebral allegories.

G1ng3r, I know I have a divisive, controversial opinion. The idea is to stir debate. Do you see the messages in Romero's work or are you more inclined to enjoy whatever is on the surface? I'd be interested to hear your take on it since you adore these flicks.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Well,simply enough,he makes great films!Each of them {Diary excluded,}have elegant dialogue,loveable characters,and engaging plot-lines.{And wonderful action!}Any film-maker who can not only do that,and more is a genius in my book.As for the social commentaries,they are just an extra,but are also a positive thing as well,like JJ said,enjoy the film first,contemplate social-commentaries later.

[Henry Lee Lucas]

Bubba, my main gripe is with fans who hype up Dawn/Day of the Dead and lose their splooge over social commentary that may or may not exist in the films.

In the end its up to the viewer to decide. Because it wasnt intentional doesnt mean it should be ignored.

EDIT: I lose my splooge over Day but not because of its commentary.

[Reigh Kaufman]

I do not think there can be any doubt that Romero is making socio-political comments when he made the Dead Trilogy. 'Night of the Living Dead', made during the civil rights movement, has a black hero who is...


DO I REALLY NEED A SPOILER?


...murdered at the end of the film by the National Guard.

That is not incidental or accidental on Romero's part. Maybe the message in 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Day of the Dead' is less resonant, but he didn't just hippy-trip over that plotline without some severe forethought.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Ben being killed accidently by the National Guard is a great example of his social-commentary,and I did not find it blatant in the least,upon originally watching it I only thought:Aww no,Ben!!! It was not until later that I realized the symbolism that may or may not have been involved,keep in mind that the part was written for a white male,and Romero made no script changes to accomidate the character's change in color

[darchangel]

I thought Ben was killed by locals who were working with the local police force, not the National Guardsmen. Didn't the Sherriff say something about they were meeting the National Guard after they swept the rest of the area? :confused:

Either way, the references to the rednecks throwing a black man on the fire in the end credits were a little disturbing to me in a racial way, even moreso in the remake when the zombies are being hung from the tree (much like those old pictures of KKK members standing next to a tree full of black people who've been hung).


Back on topic, I don't think he's either. I think he's a man who used his movies to try and make certain social points; unfortunately, most of the original audiences who watched these movies were just like "Ooh! Awesome! Zombies!" and either missed the message entirely or just didn't give a shit one way or the other.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I wouldn't say he's a genius on a technical level but i would call him a genius with reagrds to his ability to create such relevant and intriguing narrative's and characters in most of his films . He knows how to create these realistic and disturbing worlds that you can imagine yourself a part of , or really existing .

That was the power of the first 3 dead films , and to a lesser extent , Land and Diary , the world they existed in so closely resembles reality even considering the dead are coming back to life . In the hands of a lesser director , a zombie film would appear to exist in a fantasy realm , you just don't buy it , you are taken out of the narrative and the cinematic world that's unfolding .

In the first three dead films , you forget the fact that zombies don't exist ( okay , mtv is proof they do on a certain level ) , you're part of the action and the proceedings and the characters are totally believable , it's what makes the horror of those films so potent . The interactions of the characters , the characterizations feel genuine , you can identify with them , their plight , and he has the uncanny ability to intimate that , yes , the world is ending , and their is no hope .

In Dawn , from the first frame of a wall covered in red carpet , he sets up the unsettling atmosphere , so simple , yet so genius . Then we see fran moaning because of some nightmare she is having , and then we see all hell breaking loose in the television station . Those first 5 or so minutes say so much with so little , that's genius . He sets the tone for the entire film in that opening , and that sense of dread and danger pervades every frame thereafter .

I would definitely say he is a genius , but that doesn't mean he has blown me away with every film he has done ( Bruiser seemed like someone else directed it ), when he's genuinely inspired , like he was with the dead trilogy , there is no better . I also agree about the Crazies , that is one of the best " viral " outbreak films ever made , it's more proof of his skill and talent . I don't think there are many directors that could sustain that level of suspense for almost 2 hours without slowing down . It hits the ground running and never stops , you never get the chance to relax when you watch that film , it never gives you a chance .

Maybe Gr has slowed down a bit in his old age , and maybe people don't feel he's as impressive as he was in the 60s 70s and 80s but he has cemented his legacy in the horror world , and he has influenced entire generations of filmmakers , he still is .

Sure , Land can't compare to Day , Night , Dawn , but it's still a great film with his signature all over it . Diary was also a great film , even if people feel like it was garbage , it was a genuine return to form for the indie Romero , a more intimate film that gave him more freedom to create .


Gr , a true genius and artist , the dead films are still relevant today , and they always will be , because of the effective world , characters , and narrative he created . I'll go even further , he's an American treasure .

[countchocula]

I do not think there can be any doubt that Romero is making socio-political comments when he made the Dead Trilogy. 'Night of the Living Dead', made during the civil rights movement, has a black hero who is...

DO I REALLY NEED A SPOILER?

...murdered at the end of the film by the National Guard.

That is not incidental or accidental on Romero's part. Maybe the message in 'Dawn of the Dead' or 'Day of the Dead' is less resonant, but he didn't just hippy-trip over that plotline without some severe forethought.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but I know for a fact that the racially-charged ending was incidental. Romero wasn't trying to make a social statement with the ending. How can I say that? Well, I'm getting my information from a reliable source...George Romero himself!

A few years back, I attended a horror film festival. The guest speaker was none other than Romero, the man of the hour. There was a Q&A session following a screening of the original Night of the Living Dead. Someone in the audience asked Georgie about the inspiration for the ballsy, racially-charged ending. Romero shocked us all by stating that there was no underlying racial statement behind Ben's death. His exact words were, "The hunters didn't know that Ben was black." I kid you not. The socio-political ending was incidental.

This is partly why I don't see Romero as a renegade or a master filmmaker. I'm still a fan, mind you. He did sign my copies of Creepshow and The Crazies.

[Henry Lee Lucas]

In Dawn , from the first frame of a wall covered in red carpet , he sets up the unsettling atmosphere , so simple , yet so genius .

watch the commentary, savini asks romero about that, purely accidental.

[countchocula]

watch the commentary, savini asks romero about that, purely accidental.

That's precisely the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

[Henry Lee Lucas]

That's precisely the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

lets look at it indepth
Night - praised for its casting of a black lead during the civil rights movement. real reason - the guy who played ben was the best actor, MLK jr was coincidentally shot the day they finished filming
Dawn- praised for its view on american consumerism
real reason - filmed in a mall because romeros friends owned it, he didnt want to make a sequel, argento encouraged it

At this point in his career (day-land-diary) it becomes extremely obvious that he is intentionally injecting these social commentaries, and its in these 3 films that they come off as extremely over the top and preachy. coincidence?

Great director though.

[LordSimen]

That's precisely the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

That's the same for every film maker or artist. You do one thing, other people notice something else and call you a genius. What can you do. That's the nature of art. People bring what they wish to bring into it when they decide to look at it.

[countchocula]

True. It just bothered me. I have to say, I'm fond of Reigh's assessment. A visionary who needs bifocals indeed.

[LordSimen]

For example, there's no doubt that Orson Welles was a film making genius, even more so than Romero. But out of 5 of the things he'll be praised for with Citizen Kane, I bet you at least 1 of those 5 will most likly be a happy accident and/or something completely unintentional that just happened to work out that way. Shit happens. :D

[Le_Big_Mac]

Regardless of how shallow the social commentary in Night and Dawn may be, they just plain kick ass.

[Soulburn420]

Personally, I love all the dead films. Diary was the weakest sure, but it had it's points. It's far from unwatchable. And the reason I enjoy them is simple. I love good horror films. The social commentary doesn't matter to me. It's the horror of the situation within the film that gets me. And Romero, whether doing his Dead flicks or his non-Dead flicks, knows how to do that with the best of them. So my opinion, whether he si a lucky hippie or a genius, neither. He is just a director that excels in the art of horror.

[zombievictim]

I enjoyed every single one of the Dead films (yes even Diary which I fucking loved) and find him to be a genius. However, the only other film I've seen of his outside of the Dead films is Creepshow. So judging from the six Romero films I've seen, I think the man's a genius with a great style and always presents interesting characters.

[Brendan M.]

I enjoyed every single one of the Dead films (yes even Diary which I fucking loved) and find him to be a genius. However, the only other film I've seen of his outside of the Dead films is Creepshow. So judging from the six Romero films I've seen, I think the man's a genius with a great style and always presents interesting characters.

You should really see Martin sometime.

[LordSimen]

I enjoyed every single one of the Dead films (yes even Diary which I fucking loved) and find him to be a genius. However, the only other film I've seen of his outside of the Dead films is Creepshow. So judging from the six Romero films I've seen, I think the man's a genius with a great style and always presents interesting characters.

I'm a huge fan of The Crazies and Knightriders. I recommend both!

[dellamorte dellamore]

Genius doesn't have to be intentional , it can be accidental or subconscious . It doesn't matter if Romero intended for particular aspects of his films to come out the way they did , it's the very fact that they had such a profound impact that is evidence of his genius and filmmaking prowess .

I don't get how Mlk and having a black lead character lessens what was accomplished with Night . Maybe these factors could have influenced the success of that film at the time, but it's cynical to think it was mainly because of that . The film is still scary as freak , it still has tremendous replay value . And it has nothing to do with a black actor or a long since completed civil rights movement and leader . The film is timeless , Gr opened the floodgates for indie cinema , he was a visionary , determined to make something creepy on the cheap and creating an enduring phenomenon in the process . Yep , he's just a lucky hippie allright .

And what about Dawn , he was lucky because he knew someone who owned a mall ? LOL , no man , his genius was at work again because he realized it would be a terrific setting to tell his story and to continue the series .

[Henry Lee Lucas]

Genius doesn't have to be intentional , it can be accidental or subconscious . It doesn't matter if Romero intended for particular aspects of his films to come out the way they did , it's the very fact that they had such a profound impact that is evidence of his genius and filmmaking prowess .

I don't get how Mlk and having a black lead character lessens what was accomplished with Night . Maybe these factors could have influenced the success of that film at the time, but it's cynical to think it was mainly because of that . The film is still scary as freak , it still has tremendous replay value . And it has nothing to do with a black actor or a long since completed civil rights movement and leader . The film is timeless , Gr opened the floodgates for indie cinema , he was a visionary , determined to make something creepy on the cheap and creating an enduring phenomenon in the process . Yep , he's just a lucky hippie allright .

And what about Dawn , he was lucky because he knew someone who owned a mall ? LOL , no man , his genius was at work again because he realized it would be a terrific setting to tell his story and to continue the series .

We werent questioning whether or not they were good movies. If his movies have nothing to do with the civil rights movement, or consumerism, then he shouldnt go on about how he intentionally put those in there.

And did you not praise the opening shot in Dawn for reasons the Director didnt even intend? He says straight up in the commentary he did that because it looked cool and thats what the wall color was in the studio they were filming in.

Look, everything hes being praised for, came to him by luck in the first and 2nd film in the series, he loses credibility amongst most critics by Day, coincidentally when he forcefully started to try to put these commentaries in the film.


But yes, since i obviously have to restate it, he does make entertaining horror movies.

edit: here check this, 2 things can be said about dawn.
1) Dawn, a great horror flick, can be seen as a dark commentary on our obsession with consumerism
or
2) Dawn of the Dead is a parable about our obsession with consumerism.period.

See, 1 makes it seem that while it wasn't the directors intention, it can be viewed as that. The latter makes it seem like the director deliberately made all these choices (that he would also admit were accidental) with the intention of making a commentary.

Is it legit for someone who falls in category 1 to present himself as part of the latter?

[KillerKlown]

Everything I have seen of his I have enjoyed, although my favourite is definately Dawn Of The Dead.

I have still to see Diary - Heard too many bad things about it and haven't had the opportunity to pick it up cheap, although I liked Land Of The Dead.

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I'm still a bit surprised that people find Romero's brilliance even contestible,the man makes amazing films,the commentaries on society should not be considerred so largely,is the Exorcist a POS just because there was no puberty or consummerism metaphor to be found?

I think NOT!!!

[countchocula]

I'm still a bit surprised that people find Romero's brilliance even contestible,the man makes amazing films,the commentaries on society should not be considerred so largely,is the Exorcist a POS just because there was no puberty or consummerism metaphor to be found?

That analogy doesn't make sense. I'm taking umbrage with those who praise Romero's films for sharp social commentary that isn't there. That's like praising Nosferatu for its satirical edge. There is no satirical edge to praise.

[dellamorte dellamore]

You forgot 3 . Dawn can be seen as an unsettling post apocalyptic zombie film that deals with the survival of a group of regular folks in a fantastical , deadly situation . That's part of the genius , whatever his intentions were , the film works wonders on multiple levels and is open to interpretation , but can still be enjoyed as a pure zombie bloodbath .

About the red carpet , so he said it looked cool , so he filmed it , well , there you go , he was right , even if he didn't elaborate on his decision , or even if he really did just simply think it would look cool , that opening scene is genius in it's simplicity , that opening shot is iconic now . Intentional or accidental , it's effectiveness in setting the tone for the subsequent proceedings and the way it incurs a sense of foreboding is indisputable . You're in that world as soon as you see that red carpet . No special effects , no fancy titling , no manic camerawork , just an old red carpet , that's genius .

[Henry Lee Lucas]

You forgot 3 . Dawn can be seen as an unsettling post apocalyptic zombie film that deals with the survival of a group of regular folks in a fantastical , deadly situation . That's part of the genius , whatever his intentions were , the film works wonders on multiple levels and is open to interpretation , but can still be enjoyed as a pure zombie bloodbath .

About the red carpet , so he said it looked cool , so he filmed it , well , there you go , he was right , even if he didn't elaborate on his decision , or even if he really did just simply think it would look cool , that opening scene is genius in it's simplicity , that opening shot is iconic now . Intentional or accidental , it's effectiveness in setting the tone for the subsequent proceedings and the way it incurs a sense of foreboding is indisputable . You're in that world as soon as you see that red carpet . No special effects , no fancy titling , no manic camerawork , just an old red carpet , that's genius .


If by some stroke of luck, I took a massive shit in the shape of the Eiffel Tower, would it be a work of genius?

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Henry Lee: Uhh,yea. :D

Count:Okay,putting it that way DOES seem to be a fairer {more fair?} argument.

Carry on,

[Inglorious]

I dont really have anything to add to this topic but it really does make me wonder more and more about Romero's intentions. I don't care either way, I will still love Dawn Of The Dead (and Night and Day) just as much in any scenario presented thus far in this thread. Been watching it in pieces over the course of the last 2 nights (inspired by this thread and the lurking holiday).

It's extremely interesting though, please keep debating the topic.

[The Postmaster General]

If by some stroke of luck, I took a massive shit in the shape of the Eiffel Tower, would it be a work of genius?


Well, if you influenced other people to call you a genius and say they were influenced to take shits the way you take a shit.... Sure.

Personally, I'd be more interested in your diet.

[n8miller]

To answer your question on the topic of the thread....George A. Romero is neither a Genius or a Lucky Hippie. He's simply a realist. He's successfully made a career out of making approximately one dead film per decade. He basically makes a film about the state of affairs of the country or the current zeitgeist and throws the living dead in there. Take for example Night of the Living Dead. It's a classic film. But to have an African American be the leading male hero in 1968 was almost unheard of. The ending of the film is very significant in my opinion. The men shoot Ben in the head and refuse to pick him up with their hands, not for the fact that he was deadish and could infect them, but simply because he's an African American. They refused to touch him they went as far as to pick him up and carry him with hooks.

Dawn of the Dead is another good example. Think of the 1970's as the time for fun and a carefree environment. People loved sex, drugs, rock n roll and apparently shopping. Placing Dawn of the Dead in a mall was a great idea. It was the underlying subconscious of the American Culture of the time. The age of excess.

Day of the Dead in my opinion portrays the age of excess growing scarce. With the economy in shambles ( back in the 80's it was in shambles.) along with spread of the AIDS epidemic growing, people were scared. So why not be afraid of something more tangible as well.....a.k.a....the living dead.

George A. Romero was simply a realist. He basically played along with the mindset of the society at the time and managed to successfully place zombies in each film and make them effective.

Does that answer your question?

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

Kind of off-topic, but tomorrow I'm going to the Monroeville Mall for the Zombie-Walk in celebration of Dawn Of The Dead's thirtieth anniversary.There is going to be the walk (DUHH!!),special effects samplings, a showing of the original Night of the Living Dead, and more!

I still call Romero a genius without hesitation.

[KillerKlown]

Kind of off-topic, but tomorrow I'm going to the Monroeville Mall for the Zombie-Walk in celebration of Dawn Of The Dead's thirtieth anniversary.There is going to be the walk (DUHH!!),special effects samplings, a showing of the original Night of the Living Dead, and more!



Cool!! Take plenty of pics!

[g1ng3rsnap9ed]

I took two, one of me and Ken Foree, and one of two hot girls with blood all over their boobs. AWESOME!!