Any theories on why George Romero decided to allow another to make a terrible, terrible sequel to this beauty?
>>63688795
>ywn see romero's big budget version that was the "gone with the wind" of zombie films
>>63688795
Are you talking about Land of the Dead? Pretty sure Romero is responsible for that one as well.
>>63688826
>gone with the wind" of zombie films
Zombie fans are the worst.
>>63688897
That's legit what he said. I honestly have no clue what that would even be or mean
>>63688842
Naw, I'm talking about Day of the Dead 2: Contagium. It was made post-2000 and I honest to God didn't get 20 minutes into it before I shut it off.
>>63688842
>Land of the Dead
>bad
Man, you people are dumb.
>>63688976
Where did I say it was bad, dumb ass?
>>63688897
OP here, not strictly a zombie fan, just any horror movie to be honest. I saw it on Hulu and said to myself, "Why the fuck not? I loved the first one."
>>63688922
that was just a direct to dvd piece of shit that got the day of the dead title slapped on it to trick people into watching it. had nothing to do with romero or the original
There are no theories, that's an unofficial sequel
>>63689066
>>63689087
Yeah, I figured after I saw that Romero had nothing to do with the production of it.
Bitches, right?
>>63689018
>>63688795
>make a terrible, terrible sequel to this beauty?
>>63688842
>Romero is responsible for that one as well.
Get a grip.
No idea about the remake or whatever but...
"Day of the Dead" (original) is my personal favorite.
I could throw in "Return of the Living Dead" for sheer comedic genius and so much it gave to the genre. "braaaiiinns"
"Night of the Dead" is a given because it's the genesis.
Land of the Dead wasn't bad.
>>63689117
Follow your own shitty advice.
>>63689117
The sequel to Day of the Dead is Land of the Dead, he assumed that OP was talking about that one
Is it so hard?
land of the dead: good
diary of the dead: meh
survival of the dead: wtf
romero's objectively best film: martin
guilty pleasure: two evil eyes
>>63689155
You are correct. I thought Contagium was a sequel to it and I am a moron for not getting my facts straight honestly.
>>63689155
>needing to prove you're the smartest person in the thread by insulting everyone else
you probably do this irl too, you might as well have a trip that says permavirgin
>>63689259
wut
>>63688897
>he doesn't know about the original Day script
Pleb.
>>63688922
There's a Day of the Dead remake. That's what it's a sequel to.
>>63689414
Grody. I don't know if I want to watch the remake then.
>>63689195
>romero's objectively best film: martin
You.
I like you.
>>63689445
I watched it. By zombie standards it's not that bad.
>>63689414
Yeah, the one with Mena Suvari and Ving Rhames. I originally thought that was a sequel to the Dawn of the Dead remake because of Rhames but he plays an unrelated character.
>>63689414
Contagium is from 2005, the remake was made in 2008
>>63689470
Okay I may have to try it for that purpose then.
>>63689485
Oh.
>>63689528
Now I can't remember which one has the vegetarian zombie, was that the unofficial sequel?
>>63689485
So it is a direct sequel to Romero's Day of the Dead then? That's really bizarre. And confusing.
>>63689626
Zombie films have a history of confusing titles.
>>63689626
It was probably a quick cash in to exploit the Dawn of the Dead remake success
