We’re defenseless now!


George Romero has died. You just know that this is the moment they’ve been waiting for, and the zombie uprising will begin tonight at midnight.

Dammit. I was going to take the night off, but now I’ve got to run out and buy shotgun shells and board up the windows.

Comments

  1. robro says

    Yeah, just read it in the Guardian. I may have to board up all the windows and doors. I hope the basement is secure. Just thinking about NOTLD can creep me out, and to think he made it on $100K.

    On another, completely unrelated note, BBC1 has announced the new Doctor Who: Jodie Whittaker. That’s right, the first woman. Let the painful cry of the man-boys begin.

  2. hemidactylus says

    Board the windows against undead? Not when the moon will go out of orbit and hurtle through space!!! Space:1999 was perhaps my first formative experience of scifi and I made not very good Eagle models as a kid. I lived that short lived show. Maya the shapeshifter? Anyone? Really? Ok Fonzie and Happy Days were more important at the time.

    Landau and Bain were in the original incarnation of Mission Impossible. Dating myself that was a bit before my time.

    Romero played a huge role in popularizing the zombie in movies, but how much a role did freethinker Zora Hurston play with her more serious fieldwork?

    RIP Romero and Landau. Moonbase Alpha has lost its Commander Koenig! Sad.

  3. magistramarla says

    robro @ #2
    We’re excited at our house about the new (female!) Dr. Who. Capaldi hinted at it rather strongly in the last show.
    The last incarnation of The Master was a woman, so my theory is that was a way to prepare us for this.
    Can’t wait for Xmas day!

  4. says

    Martin Landau was Mission Impossible guy to me.

    As for George, that guy was so good and cool and likable. I think it’s awesome he got to have a late career hurrah, with Land of the Dead & a few other jobs. A lot of old timers don’t get a chance to do that.

    Not even slightly interested in Dr Whom.

  5. handsomemrtoad says

    Day of the Dead was absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in philosophy/history of science, for (at least) two reasons:

    1. It beautifully characterizes the tension between the public and the scientific community during the HIV-AIDS pandemic (it was made in 1985, when the pandemic was at its height)–the public stridently demanding “when are you gonna show us something we can use?” and the scientists trying in vain to explain that science is a slow, uncertain process. It’s especially relevant to our situation now, where, in our frustration with the experts’ failure to deliver satisfactory solutions to our problems (slow economy, expensive health-care, terrorism, etc.) we have elected the supreme non-expert who exults in ignorance and has a non-solution to every problem. See here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy81Ktk2-zg&t=1920s

    2. Day of the Dead reveals something scientists do called “proof of principle”. This means exploring a strategy which MIGHT, CONCEIVABLY solve a problem, but is not remotely practical. Sort of like “we should get some eggs, so we could have ham and eggs, if we had any ham (which we don’t)”. The “Star-Wars” missile defense people were guilty of this in the 1980s: claiming success based on rigged, ultra-simple model experiments of “hitting a missile with another missile” in situations which had no bearing on the real world. The scientist in Day of the Dead has an idea which could, in principle, solve the zombie problem: he has a way to make zombies docile and obedient. It really works! But it’s completely impractical, for a reason which becomes obvious during the movie. See here (WARNING: SPOILER):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy81Ktk2-zg&t=4126s

    The movie also includes one line which totally sums up Romero’s whole philosophy, which underlies all his movies, and also seems especially appropriate now: “Civility must be rewarded, Captain. It it’s not rewarded, then there’s no use for it. There’s just no use for it at all!”

    RIP, genius.

  6. handsomemrtoad says

    Day of the Dead was absolutely fascinating to anyone with an interest in philosophy/history of science, for (at least) two reasons:

    1. It beautifully characterizes the tension between the public and the scientific community during the HIV-AIDS pandemic (it was made in 1985, when the pandemic was at its height)–the public stridently demanding “when are you gonna show us something we can use?” and the scientists trying in vain to explain that science is a slow, uncertain process. It’s especially relevant to our situation now, where, in our frustration with the experts’ failure to deliver satisfactory solutions to our problems (slow economy, expensive health-care, terrorism, etc.) we have elected the supreme non-expert who exults in ignorance and has a non-solution to every problem. See here:

    youtube[DOT]com/watch?v=dy81Ktk2-zg&t=1920s

    2. Day of the Dead reveals something scientists do called “proof of principle”. This means exploring a strategy which MIGHT, CONCEIVABLY solve a problem, but is not remotely practical. Sort of like “we should get some eggs, so we could have ham and eggs, if we had any ham (which we don’t)”. The “Star-Wars” missile defense people were guilty of this in the 1980s: claiming success based on rigged, ultra-simple model experiments of “hitting a missile with another missile” in situations which had no bearing on the real world. The scientist in Day of the Dead has an idea which could, in principle, solve the zombie problem: he has a way to make zombies docile and obedient. It really works! But it’s completely impractical, for a reason which becomes obvious during the movie. See here (WARNING: SPOILER):

    youtube[DOT]com/watch?v=dy81Ktk2-zg&t=4126s

    The movie also includes one line which totally sums up Romero’s whole philosophy, which underlies all his movies, and also seems especially appropriate now: “Civility must be rewarded, Captain. It it’s not rewarded, then there’s no use for it. There’s just no use for it at all!”

    RIP, genius.

  7. SuckPoppet says

    I’ve got to run out and buy shotgun shells

    Huh?
    You’re not armed to the teeth already?
    What kind of American are you?

  8. methuseus says

    @magistramarla #5:

    We’re excited at our house about the new (female!) Dr. Who. Capaldi hinted at it rather strongly in the last show.
    The last incarnation of The Master was a woman, so my theory is that was a way to prepare us for this.
    Can’t wait for Xmas day!

    I’m excited for the fact that someone other than a white man got a leading role for once. I sort of hope the companion is still female, because there’s no reason to just do the opposite of what they used to do. A series with two strong lead female characters would be very nice in my mind. Just think of the tension between Missy and Capaldi’s Doctor mirrored with Jodie Whittaker’s Doctor. As far as my personal reaction, I’m more of a “Meh” as long as the next actor is a good, powerful actor (from what I’ve seen of her acting, she is). To me it’s more about the actor making the part their own than what’s under their clothes. And no, I’m not trying to minimize the achievement, I’m just describing how everyone should feel about it in a perfect world.
    @SuckPoppet #8:

    Huh?
    You’re not armed to the teeth already?
    What kind of American are you?

    I know you’re being facetious, but I’ll bite: a sane one?

  9. blf says

    The last incarnation of The Master was a woman, so my theory is that was a way to prepare us for this.

    Possibly, perhaps only to firmly establish gender can change with a regeneration; otherwise, not really, since there are female Time Lords: Romana, the Rani, Susan Foreman (probably), various others on Gallifrey, and so on.

      ─────────────────────────

    I admit had to look up George Romero; looking at this gentleman’s filmography hints as to why: I’ve succeeded in not seeing any of his films in full.

  10. birgerjohansson says

    Martin Landau was a magnificient villain in North by Northwest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Landau
    Before Space: 1999 there was another British SF TV series, I have forgotten the title-that involved some of the same team as in the later, more famous series.

    Space: 1999 could have been much better if the producers/directors had added just a tiny bit of common sense. They could have had the moon oscillate in and out of hyperspace instead of the resulting drivel.
    I usually say a clever 14-year old can come up with ways to by-pass contradictions and logical loopholes in SF TV and film. Never is this as obvious as in Space:1999, a potentially very good series betrayed by morons.
    — — —
    Zombie fans; the prequel to “The Girl With All the Gifts” is out now. (“The Boy On the Bridge”)

  11. handsomemrtoad says

    TO: 13. WMDKitty — Survivor

    Yes, the first, black-and-white “Night of the Living Dead” was 1968, but I am talking about “DAY of the Dead“, the THIRD chapter in the trilogy, and THAT was made in 1985. (The middle one, “Dawn of the Dead“, which takes place mostly in the shopping mall, was 1978.

  12. cherbear says

    I loved Space 1999 too. I”m more sad for Martin Landau then George Romero.