Update: This story was written a few weeks before the passing of George Romero. I may not like anything Mr. Romero has created in recent years but we will always have the Holy Trilogy of zombie films. And man-o-zombie do I love those three films! I was always partial to "Dawn of" but recent viewings of "Day of" have significantly warmed me to its horror charm (where charm = Bub!). Mr. Romero, literally, changed the face of filmmaking. Before "Night of" zombies were afterthought monsters in little seen bad horror films (that I love). Now zombies are mainstream fucking everywhere, watched by hundreds of millions -- especially in bad horror films (that I love!). Mr. Romero is gone and there will never be another (good or bad) true, "of the Dead" film. BUT ... perhaps ... one day a crazy madman genius will perfect a resurrection machine -- and perhaps that mad scientist will raise Mr. Romero -- and perhaps it will all go spectacularly wrong and zombie Mr. Romero himself will usher in a hubris driven mad science zombie apocalypse! Where I will be one of the awesome survivors in a world gone "of the Dead!" Maybe you'll be there with me. Together we go forth -- murdering the hell out of zombies left and right! But until that glorious day -- rest in peace, Zombie Maestro.
Zombie maestro George Romero, director of the classic "of the Dead" trilogy - Night of the Living Dead (1968), Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985), is still alive and kicking. And he’s making another zombie flick!
While some might rejoice at the very idea of the hundred and ninety-eight year old (not actual age) horror director making another movie -- I don’t seem able to find a shred of “care” anywhere inside my soul. Once upon a time we had a single zombie voice in the world of cinema. And the voice was pretty compelling. Now we are over saturated with thousands of zombie voices in the world of TV and cinema - many good, many bad but to be honest, most of them are just adequate.
Which is fine. I dig zombies as much as the next horror buff. I even watch bad ones. Like -- from beginning to end. I can't seem to bring myself to give a shit about the new Twin Peaks, which, to me, plays out like a bad daffy duck cartoon. But if you sit me in front of Zombies of Madison County IV and I will watch that shit. No accounting for taste, I guess.
But as for Romero keeping up with a new, young breed of horror filmmakers I just don't see it. Especially as evidence by has three misfires of recent years - Land of the Dead (2005), Diary of the Dead (2007) and Survival of the Dead (2009), all of which seem they were filmed by low IQ Romero imitators.
But, nope. All written and directed by the zombie maestro himself.
Call it ageism but I seriously doubt that old dudes can make genre pictures for teenagers. You might be able to convince me that Spielberg has it in him to make family friendly young adult (and / or kid) movies. But Romero is no Spielberg.
I just don’t believe the crushing majority of old men filmmakers can keep up with what’s really relevant to today’s youth, culture and counter-cultures. And do you know who watches horror films? Mainly -- the coveted target audience - 18-24 year olds.
I am immediately reminded of Woody Allen’s worst film - Anything Goes (2003) upon which Mr. Allen tries to write dialog for twenty year olds. Mr. Allen, being at the time sixty-seven years young. Sure -- it’s possible a sixty-seven year old white man can write believable dialog for a twenty year old girl, but very unlikely. And in the case of Anything Goes -- obviously, Allen can’t. (I will also go out on a limb and say Jason Biggs & Christina Ricci give two bumbling performances, which certainly doesn’t help the believability of the screenplay. So it’s not entirely Mr. Allen’s writing that is at fault. It’s also, his directing!).
As for modern zombie movies? Romero just can’t keep up it seems. And has lost the touch he once had when creating his original trilogy. Of course what audiences wanted back then is much different from what they want now.
And if Romero honestly can’t understand why directors like David Fincher get the nod to make World War Z II and Romero doesn’t -- well, then he doesn’t understand it.
But I sure do.
Mr. Romero -- you’ve had a great run. And you might have good films left in you. But your new proposal for Road of the Dead doesn’t sound like one of them. Please. Stop. Making. Zombie. Movies.
But hey, Dear Reader, don't take my word for it. Let me know if this sounds like the zombie movie you’ve always been waiting for:
From the Indiewire article linked above, Mr. Romero explains his pitch:
“In the darkest days of the zombie apocalypse, the last safe place on earth is anything but, as a mad despot uses the spectacle of high-octane carnage to keep control of his populace” — suggests a “Mad Max” vibe. It also serves to remind that, from “Dawn” to “Day” to “Land” and now “Road,” the decades-old franchise is ever-changing.”
“There was a sequence in ‘Survival of the Dead’ where there’s a zombie that’s behind the wheel of a car, and Matt (Romero's new director) proposed an idea: ‘How about zombies that know how to drive!?'” Romero explained over the phone during a 4th of July interview. (He lives in Canada, where he’s a permanent resident.) That setup is certainly in keeping with some of the biggest action movies in recent years, a connection Romero readily copped to: “It’s ‘Fast and the Furious’ with zombies at the wheel.”
Wow. You read that right, "Zombies that know how to drive."
I don’t know about you -- but I can not wait to never watch that movie.
The leading cause of death in children are “unintentional injuries” including drownings. According to the CDC, 20% of drowning victims are under the age of 14. And non-fatal drowning victims could sustain brain damage and long term disability.
Pools, bathtubs and any body of water pose risks, however this time of year is especially dangerous, because activities surrounding pools, such as BBQs and alcohol use, become distractors to the adults supervising.
When it comes to drowning prevention, the following is necessary:
Fence height should be at least 4-5 feet high and the entry gate should self-close and self-latch.
Even if your pool has a fence, be aware that the house who’s hosting the BBQ, play date, or sleep-over may not.
And any kiddy pools or ice buckets used for drinks should be dumped out after use and flipped over so they do not become a future threat.
The farther you are away from the child you’re supervising, the longer it takes to rescue. With distance between you and the victim, other children may swim in your path and you may lose sight of where the victim submerged. And seconds count. A panicked child under water may also aspirate water into the lungs becoming hypoxic quicker. Moreover they could be at risk of “secondary drowning” in which water in the larynx triggers a spasm closing up the airway, or water falling into the lungs causes pulmonary edema and respiratory failure days after the water incident.
Put the phones away. Adults supervising kids in a pool should not be answering a phone call or on social media. Moreover, adults should not be drinking alcohol while supervising a child. Reaction time is key, and a drunk adult could become a drowning victim as well.
Many drownings occur while others are feet away from the victim. Why? Because a submerged victim makes little sound and nearby splashing visually and auditorily obscures the victim’s splashes.
Parents have long learned that when children get quiet during playtime, something could be going wrong. Use that same Spidey-sense when they are in the pool.
Most CPR classes teach adult, child, and infant CPR. Having this knowledge and becoming certified could save a life one day.
If swimming in open waters, know the weather and sea conditions prior to jumping in. Life jackets/vests, appropriate for the child’s size, should be worn, even if the child is out of the water, such as in a boat.
Have a safe and healthy summer!
LearnHealthSpanish.com / Medical Spanish made easy.
Daliah Wachs, MD, FAAFP is a Board Certified Family Physician. The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.
Facebook has already lost the battle, but it’s reorganizing its troops and attempting an all-out assault on fake news after its security team admitted in a new report that “fake personas were created on Facebook...to amplify news accounts” and spread fake information online during the 2016 United States Presidential election.
Facebook has since taken action, “killing” 30,000 fake accounts in France. It’s also drafted users like you to report fake news, implementing a little button in the upper-right-hand corner of posts to activate the counterintelligence to vet the misinformation.
That counterintelligence is conducted by some of the most trusted news agencies -- Associated Press, ABC News, Politifact, FactCheck, and Snopes. ABC said they aren’t being paid for its efforts despite devoting six journalists to it full-time, and I’d assume the rest are “volunteer mercenaries” as well, which makes me feel all patriotic for American journalism.
But fake news is paid news, so waging war against it requires paid fact-checkers. But Facebook is putting its own boots on the ground, directly in front of its massive algorithm, and it has counterintelligence that shows who it should target. Facebook claims that users who post more than 50 times per day are most likely sharing spam or fake news. So Facebook can now limit their distribution as if it were destroying railroad tracks, airports, bridges and highways.
Facebook doesn’t even have to consider what the trains, planes and automobiles are carrying. The link between spam and fake news and those sharing more than 50 times per day is so strong, Facebook doesn’t even need to consider the content. “It’s one of the strongest signals we’ve ever found for identifying a broad range of problematic content,” Facebook’s vice president in charge of News Feed, Adam Mosseri told Recode’s Kurt Wagner.
The problem is Facebook has to cover its ass and allow for freedom of speech and the press -- you know, those First Amendment rights. So if Facebook thinks you or its algorithm has found fake news and wants to blow it out of the water, it has its counterintelligence team of journalists fact-check the story. Even then, though, Facebook can’t launch torpedoes. It sets phasers to stun and flags the post as “disputed” if two of its counterintelligence communities finds a problem with the news. And while disputed stories don’t show up as much in the sea that is News Feed, they’re still out there -- seeking, and eventually destroying, a gullible target.
Facebook has even taken steps to assist the gullible targets by asking them if they’re sure they want to share the trash upon which they’ve stumbled. Nothing’s stopping that fake news terrorist from tossing that bomb into the Facebook-sphere, though.
The one thing that would make a difference on the fake news front doesn’t seem to be figured out yet. Facebook says it’s going to make it harder for fake news publishers to profit from fake news, but they haven’t revealed how. In their new report, Facebook calls this phase of the battle plan as “disrupting economic incentives.”
Fake news publishers are practicing guerrilla warfare already, though, moving from network to network in order to keep the ad revenue coming. And as long as there are gullible targets willing to click on fake news, there will be fake news. The best defense against fake news is through an educational campaign that limits the number of gullible targets to the point it’s no longer profitable for fake news publishers. That’s the weapon Public Data Lab and First Draft are working to create, and until that information bomb is complete, fake news will continue to sail the Facebook News Feed seas. It takes a new propaganda campaign to end the current one.