|
Post by Flyboy on Oct 4, 2009 10:09:28 GMT -5
NOTLD was truly innovative. All movies, studio & indie, should strive to be as great as NOTLD. I love how such a little low budget horror flick is better than a lot of these big budget movies that pump so much money into well-known actors & "showy(yet mostly shitty)" & expensive effects. That's just a good feeling because at the end of the day, you don't really need well-known actors or expensive effects to have a good movie.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Oct 4, 2009 10:49:40 GMT -5
You're right, he definitely won't give us anything that lives up to the quality of the original three. I honestly think that's impossible. Not just because of story or plot or anything like that, but really I think a lot of it has to do with the cheap, digital look his films have now. Of course they look a little cheap, that's probably because they're low-budget films, without studio backing. It's not that bad though. Remember that NOTLD was black and white and even cheaper and still was good because of the plot. They don't look a little cheap, they look very cheap and digital. NOTLD was awesome... I don't get your comparison. The low budget actually helped the look of it. Same with DAWN... ow budget, but in my opinion one of the greatest films of all time. I don't care about budget with Romero's movies. What I'm saying is that when movies look cheap and digital, it immediately takes them down a few notches.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Oct 4, 2009 10:49:59 GMT -5
You're right, he definitely won't give us anything that lives up to the quality of the original three. I honestly think that's impossible. Not just because of story or plot or anything like that, but really I think a lot of it has to do with the cheap, digital look his films have now. Of course they look a little cheap, that's probably because they're low-budget films, without studio backing. It's not that bad though. Remember that NOTLD was black and white and even cheaper and still was good because of the plot. They don't look a little cheap, they look very cheap and digital. NOTLD was awesome... I don't get your comparison. The low budget actually helped the look of it. Same with DAWN... ow budget, but in my opinion one of the greatest films of all time. I don't care about budget with Romero's movies. What I'm saying is that when movies look cheap and digital, it immediately takes them down a few notches.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Oct 4, 2009 11:20:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately, loads of movies are shot digitally these days & that makes most of 'em look cheap.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Oct 4, 2009 11:29:20 GMT -5
Of course they look a little cheap, that's probably because they're low-budget films, without studio backing. It's not that bad though. Remember that NOTLD was black and white and even cheaper and still was good because of the plot. They don't look a little cheap, they look very cheap and digital. NOTLD was awesome... I don't get your comparison. The low budget actually helped the look of it. Same with DAWN... ow budget, but in my opinion one of the greatest films of all time. I don't care about budget with Romero's movies. What I'm saying is that when movies look cheap and digital, it immediately takes them down a few notches. I don't know how cheap Survival looks, but from the photos and trailer it isn't too bad. Anyway I care more about stuff like story, characters, zombies, gore.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Oct 4, 2009 13:25:07 GMT -5
Flyboy, you're exactly right. I wish digital film wasn't the future but unfortunately it is. If I was a director, I'd ONLY use film.
Omer, where did I say I didn't care about story and characters? Obviously those are important. But seeing all of it digitally just pulls me out of it. Some movies look so cheap and digital it's like watching a movie someone shot with an expensive camcorder. Yuck.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Oct 4, 2009 13:26:50 GMT -5
I think shooting digitally is just as lazy as using CGI. I do like how film looks & also the editing process behind it.
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Oct 4, 2009 13:44:27 GMT -5
If digital is the future then there is probably a good reason for that . Personally I don't really care or notice the differences.
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Oct 4, 2009 13:52:03 GMT -5
Yeah because it's easier to shoot things digitally & edit using a computer rather than shooting with film then physically editing the film. It's kind of lazy, really. Nowadays it's almost hard to believe that films were made the way they were years ago. I'm sure technology will keep on advancing until humans will be needed to create a film. Robots will make 100% CGI movies. Hopefully by that time, I'm long dead.
I also can't wait until technology advances to the point where we don't even have to physically get up to do anything whatsoever. I invite obesity & being completely out of shape into my life with open arms.
You obviously care enough to keep the argument going.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Oct 4, 2009 13:57:23 GMT -5
I like how you don't notice the difference between digital film and real film, yet you bitch and moan about how the blood in DAWN is too red.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Oct 4, 2009 18:28:42 GMT -5
Everyone seems to forget that making movies is a business.
Sure, there will always be a director that wants to use celluloid as a throwback, but at the end of the day it's all about $$$.
|
|
|
Post by Great Sage Equal of Heaven on Oct 4, 2009 20:33:36 GMT -5
Can someone inform an ignoramus what looks bad when filming digitally? I hate the look of cheap CGI but as for general films in digital format, I don't know the difference.
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Oct 5, 2009 0:01:42 GMT -5
Am I the only one who can spot the difference immediately?
|
|
|
Post by Great Sage Equal of Heaven on Oct 5, 2009 0:27:17 GMT -5
well I just don't know what I am looking for. It might be obvious if I knew.
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Oct 5, 2009 8:06:41 GMT -5
Am I the only one who can spot the difference immediately? It's not hard to spot celluloid from digital.
|
|