Poll
13%
13%
20%
20%
0%
0%
33%
0%
0%
0%
Let's take a step back here.
Romero is all aces when it comes to writing. That said, writing and directing are two totally different things. "Night" was ingenius. "Dawn" had it's social commentary. "Day" had a perk of zombie character development.
The fact of the matter is that he's never had "name brand" talent, or deep story lines to work with in his movies, and he did nothing to expand the careers of anyone that starred in his movies. There was little to "direct" in his movies as people in the Dead trilogy had to do one of two things. A) Act like a zombie or B) Act like a distressed human.
Now, as naive and cliche as it may be, using only the "Dead" trilogy to base this opinion on, honestly, what else is there? "Martin", which hardly nobody knows about? "Bruiser" which is equally as obscure? C'mon.
Then there are Craven and Carpenter, who at some point and at MULTIPLE times provoked honest to God horror in peoples hearts.
Romero only had that honor once with "Night". To be perfectly honest, maybe I should have chose Hooper, because the level of realism, the fear of the unknown found in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" honestly has yet to be topped.
My point, or opinion is, Romero is Horror's greatest writer because he's smart, aware, and clever, but his directing is average.
I agree with that statement to some extent. Coroneberg does as much non-horror as he does horror. Some of his most well know films aren't strictly horror, just look at 'Dead Ringers'. The most recent Cronenberg film I saw was 'Spider' which is more of a psychological thriller, a genre he pulls off just as well as horror.
The reason I included Cronenberg, and i voted for him, is because many horror fans, including myself, rate his horror as some of the most original work to appear in the genre. The likes of Scanners, Videodrome, Rabid and The Fly being good examples.
I chose Romero.
As a short rebuttle to C-dic's post....
While a director does indeed direct actors.......he also directs the camera. Romero being his own writer of his films enabled him to use the camera to portray exactly what he wanted to (within distributor's guidelines) in his scripts.
Romero himself has said many a time he doesn't care about actors. Actors are props.......they can add to a movie, they can detract.....but will never make or break a movie. If you have a great film written....and a good director.......no matter how bad the actors are, the movie will still turn out good. You could put Tom Hanks into Wrong Turn......it would have still been a turd. On the other hand, Romero could cast Jaleel White (tv's Urkel) as his main character in Land of the Dead.........dollars to pesos says it will still be a great film.
As far as Romero's films not "making" any actors.......giving them marquee names.....you're correct. The only flaw there is that movies do not "make" actors. Studios' marketing and hype "make" actors. You cannot detract from a great director simply because his films were low budget and not supported and hyped by studios.
I'm a fan of most directors on the list.......but Romero's movies (not just the "dead" trilogy) do generally tend to be more focused at their core audience and less generic as they are not watered down (which is usually forced on the others by studios).
Originally posted by Mr Zero
care to qualify that bloody stupid statement in any way CD?
Sorry, I thought it was all too obvious. In the traditional sense, he isn't. The fact he made a couple of contributions, doesn't make him a full fledged Horror director.
"Existenz", "The Fly", "Dead Zone", "Videodrome", and "Scanners" are all Sci Fi.
"Dead Ringers" is about his only claim to the Horror genre, while "Naked Lunch", and"Spider", are totally different animals.
Originally posted by Evil DeadWhile a director does indeed direct actors.......he also directs the camera.
While I wasn't aware that Romero acted as his own D.O.P. His stuff is still "point and shoot", ya know?
The only flaw there is that movies do not "make" actors. Studios' marketing and hype "make" actors.
The greatest directors make actors better. My point was, as disposable as independent Horror movies are, he didn't furthur anyone elses career.
Wes Craven launched Robert Englund's, Carpenter did the same for Jamie Lee Curtis, John David, Kurt Russell, etc.
Romero hasn't offered anything visually that would entice me to consider him as a great director, because his 3 biggest movies revolve around the exact same plot, the exact same locales, and the exact same characters. Familiarity with a subject gets stale when all you can do to distinguish the movies is improve the make up application.
You guys have any actual hard evidence why he should be considered, other than being predisposed to his writing, which I said, is the stuff of legend?
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Sorry, I thought it was all too obvious. In the traditional sense, he isn't. The fact he made a couple of contributions, doesn't make him a full fledged Horror director.
Cronenberg: Shivers, Rabid, The Brood, Scanners, Videodrome, The Dead Zone, The Fly. Yes they are not "typical" horror movies - thankyou David for not spoon feeding us the same old shit.
But if I'm hearing this right - any movie that has a SF element to the horror isn't a horror movie it's SF? And because only a few of Cronenbergs films fall within your definition he isn't "full-fledged" enough?
Y'know Romero establishes in Night of the Living dead that the zombies are probably walking because of contamination from outer space... so I guess those are SF films and thus don't count in the traditional sense so following your rules we are left with Creepshow and The Dark Half to judge old George. How the hell did he get 3 votes on the back of those stinkers?
As to Carpenter - who in his prime was always looking to serve up a non traditional scare - if we disallow his "non traditional and sci fi tinged" work you are saying is the greatest horror director on the strength of Halloween, The Fog and Christine. Or do you allow JC to include his nontraditional work because he IS your cup of tea? If you are going to be biased, be biased and consistent or it leaves your argument meaningless.
Really hard for me to pick the best Horror director. True, I do have a large amount of admiration for Cronenberg but I can't just pick him over the others. Also where is Fulci in that Poll? He deserves to be on that poll. And also Ruggero Deodato, Joe D'Amato, and Takashi Miike. Those guys deserve recognition as well.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
Now, as naive and cliche as it may be, using only the "Dead" trilogy to base this opinion on, honestly, what else is there? "Martin", which hardly nobody knows about? "Bruiser" which is equally as obscure? C'mon.
And while I'm kicking your ass - I dont own a single one of romeros zombie movies on DVD (as yet) but I do own The Crazies, Martin, Knightriders, Monkeyshines & Bruiser. The guy may not be a genius, but he's a fine director.