Tobe Hooper and zombies? I'm in......
 

No huge details or anything, but hell It's worth mentioning. I for one would love to see him do a zombie flick any others?

Mortuary

Hooper's a hack, he's made one good film and it was a fluke. But I do love zombie flicks so i'll definitely check this one out when it's released.

Come on now, calling Tobe Hooper a hack is like calling Michael Bay an artist.

Um no he's right. Tobe Hooper is a hack. TCM was accidently a good movie, Speilberg made Poltergeist, and the rest of his films are crap.

I'm not much of a hooper fan. But if it's a good zombie film I'll watch it.

Michael Bay is an artist. He's just a very shitty one.

So what you're saying is that if a person makes only one great movie in their career, in this case a classic horror film which many say is the best horror movie ever made, they're a hack? I don't think so.

I've also seen George Romero called a hack in some threads, what a joke.

sounds interesting.

Andy Warhol is a hack. 90% of his crap is "appropriation" and giving celebrity benedictions. Now Frida Khalo, THERE's a true artist! One that even Picasso himself called just as gifted as him. Viva la Frida!

He's actually a very good and meticulous one... you just don't like his 'art'.

Its not the best horror film ever made and yes he is a hack.

The movie isn't great for the same reasons as most great movies. It is great because of atmosphere, cinematography, and its sheer gruesomness that it brings.

Actually - wanna talk about hacks? George Romero is a hack and a half. I'll agree that Toby Hooper is a hack with some good movies under his belt, but all the unconditional love for Romero blows my mind since his resume isn't even half as 'impressive'.

Like Jack, I'll go see a zombie movie if it's good regardless of who directed it.

We could argue all night about which director is the biggest hack...

Let's just focus on something we can all agree on.

The zombies MUST RUN! :eek:

:lol:

Romero's downfall was he could not blend into this being a business. He could have easily taken advantage of NIGHT and rode the wave after that but he choose to go the more "indy" route which landed him on the shit list of major studios which he is now begging to fund his projects. He isn't a comercial director and in the long run, not matter how good your art is, if it doesn't pay the bills it doesn't make the grade.

Yeah I've never really understood the George Romero worship either.

Yeah - his mainstream attempts were pretty crappy. I agree that he could've rolled more bank off of Night and carried the momentum, but he would've ended up the same place he is today. He simply isn't a commercial director and unfortunately for him - indie does not = good automatically. I liked Dawn and of course Night was a revalation at the time, but the rest of his films are just him proving how inept he is at the craft.

Trigger!!! What are you talking about? Romero made Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead!!! So he's a hack because he doesn't have a ton of films under his belt?

Tobe Hooper is a hack because he has some good movies under his belt? Like I said before, he made one of the best damn horror movies ever (IMO and many others) so he is now a hack because he hasn't made anything memorable since?

You people are killing me!!!

Use of the word hack in this reply: 3

On topic: I think Mortuary would be a good move.

An educated reply indeed.

I also remeber an interview with Tom Savini (the make-up artist for Romero's films, starred in both versions of Dawn of the Dead....etc) where he said George told him "you don't have to be in hollywood to make a film" he's always had that mentality throghout his career.

Yes - Romero is a hack... he can't direct a good film. Night and Dawn worked because of the time they were released. His abilities didn't grow beyond the cheap juvenile nature of late 70s and early 80s cinema.

I didn't say that Toby was a hack BECAUSE he has good films under his belt. I said he was a hack WITH a few good films under his belt. There is a difference. The difference between Romero and Hooper is that I think Hooper is at least capable of making a good film today... Romero I have zero faith in.

I thought TCM was awful... I mean, when I was younger and saw it, I thought it was allright... but having seen it half a dozen times over the years I just realized that it's crappy. I still like the 2nd and 3rd one though. Hooper a good filmmaker? Nah.

To be honest, I don't have much faith in this new film coming up by Hooper either, it could be a huge bomb and a big mistake but at the same time, you DON"T like his films that much in the first place - I myself hate Paul Thomas Anderson - you want a hack, there's a hack but that's just my opinion, others would say he's amazing and all of his films are brilliant and that he is a legend already.

It's safe to say: opinion=whether or not a director is a hack or not.............in your eyes.

Yep. Money is the bottomline and if you don't conform to Hollywood you will get plowed under. Kiss butt and eat sh*t and smile. That's way things work out there isn't it?

Hack= Director who can't make more than one good movie.

There is nothing wrong with comforming to the hollywood machine. You can still practice your craft using their tools. Many directors do the safe pictures that will get the studios attention and then when they are grounded deep enough, they go for those pictures they really want to make. It's about making money. It's a business and needs to be played smart. simple as that. You try to go against the grain and you will find yourself fighting an uphill battle. No need to make the fight harder then it already is.


When I re-read what I wrote it really doesn't sound all that "Educated". But the point was made regardless of how terribly written it was. :p