CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Night of the Living Dead is now the cookie in the middle of a horror geek circle jerk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Night of the Living Dead is now the cookie in the middle of a horror geek circle jerk

post #1 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:01pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, remake it! You, over there - you remake it too! Take a shot! Get some.

We never put a copyright on the print, so blah blah blah...

Quote:
Jon is having a horrible day. He has overslept, had a fight with his sister Barb, and a dear friend has been attacked by some lunatic.The day is getting worse when he has to visit the gravesite of a former girlfriend. Out of nowhere he is attacked, and makes a run from the cemetery seeking shelter. He takes refuge in a wedding hall to look after his injury, only to become witness to a growing army of undead creatures outside. The night is young, and things are about to get much worse.

This 2007 re-imagining captures the independent spirit of the 1968 classic. While still managing to create a unique and original experience.
Reply
post #2 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:05pm
It really is sad that there's a friggin' ton of these going around. Guess they figure it'll get attention, since they got nothing else going for them.

Like the family version, or the musical. Or that horrendous 3d one that gives you headaches.
Reply
post #3 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:07pm
I still enjoy the dubbed one I have on VHS that I got from a friend years ago. And the 3D one was fucking horrible.

I think this is the one I have: http://imdb.com/title/tt0230575/

It's fucked up and fun to watch drunk.
Reply
post #4 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:08pm
This has to be better than the 3-D remake with Sid Haig. Of course, watching Romero talk about what he had for dinner last night would be better than the 3-D remake with Sid Haig.
Reply
post #5 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:08pm
The 3-D one's not the same as the one I saw floating around a while back that they added color to, is it? That thing was ten kinds of fucked.
Reply
post #6 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:09pm
It's one of the few films that are really unwatchable, with no hyperbole. You'll be scratching at those shitty 3d glasses after a few minutes so you don't permanently lose your eyesight.
Reply
post #7 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
The 3-D one's not the same as the one I saw floating around a while back that they added color to, is it? That thing was ten kinds of fucked.
No, it's the one with poor Sid Haig on the cover.
Reply
post #8 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:11pm
I remember Sid talking about how awesome it was going to be when I met him at a horror con like 2 years ago. I just smiled, got his autograph and walked away.
Reply
post #9 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:13pm
I turned the movie off after his first scene where he's hitting the zombie in the head with the shovel. I knew nothing good would come of anything else in the film. It's like watching a relative on his deathbed, you don't want to remember him that way.
Reply
post #10 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:19pm
The only remake I like is the one done by Tom Savini. Cause it's Tom Mother Fuckin' Savini.
Reply
post #11 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
I heard Savini was going through a rough divorce which led to Romero ghost-directing more of Savini's remake than you'd think. I have nothing to back that up.

Savini called his remake "the most miserable experience of" his life. But I've seen his expression at some horror cons, and I have my doubts.
Reply
post #12 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:23pm
Oh, the horrors of the 3-D remake.

I M SHTTNG ON U NOTLD
Reply
post #13 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minsky View Post
Oh, the horrors of the 3-D remake.

I M SHTTNG ON U NOTLD
Blasphemy.



It even comes with four pairs of 3-D glasses. FOUR PAIRS! So you can watch it with all three of your friends!
Reply
post #14 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:28pm
Pick three people you don't want to see for months!
Reply
post #15 of 66
2/25/08 at 3:34pm
Or you could wear all four pairs of glasses at once and make it 12-D! That's a lot more D for your dollar.
Reply
post #16 of 66
2/25/08 at 5:26pm
its worth picking up just to have those 3D red/blue glasses, in case late night TV ever starts broadcasting old ass 3D movies again like they did in the 70s/80s
Reply
post #17 of 66
2/25/08 at 6:52pm
It most definitely is not worth it. Just buy some colored cellophane and you can make as many damn ones as you want.
Reply
post #18 of 66
2/25/08 at 6:55pm
Thread Starter 
You can buy red/blue 3d glasses off Ebay for about a dollar.
Reply
post #19 of 66
2/25/08 at 7:12pm
"You know what'll inspire fear, suspense, and dread location-wise?"

"No?"

"A wedding hall!"
Reply
post #20 of 66
2/25/08 at 8:37pm
Ugh. How long will this bullshit continue? Late-60s distribution fuckups aside, everyone knows NOTLD is a copyrighted movie by now. Why does every asshole with a camera think they can shit out a remake over a long weekend?
Reply
post #21 of 66
2/25/08 at 9:34pm
It's not copyrighted, that's the problem. It's public domain. You could go make remake the movie over next weekend and release it as Night of the Living Dead and you'd be fine. It's why there's so many damn dvd releases of it (but only one great one, the Elite) and why Russo did the 30th Anniversary Edition- so he can get some money out of the thing.
Reply
post #22 of 66
2/25/08 at 9:49pm
It's an irritating loophole at best. Have Romero and company ever pursued legal action? People have been pissing on his legacy for decades now, just because some assholes retitled the movie at the last minute and forgot to include the copyright on the title card.

The sheer arrogance on display by all these "re-imaginings" is astounding. And sadly, John Russo is probably the worst offender of all, because he was involved in the original, then proceeded to assfuck the movie with an "update" George Lucas couldn't imagine if you fed him retard pills, and which is virtually indistinguishable from the original film to unsuspecting consumers.
Reply
post #23 of 66
2/25/08 at 10:51pm
From what I understand, the reason Romero and Co. did the '90 remake was in fact to finally get some money out of the flick.

The Night '90 dvd also has a Savini commentary, and it's actually a pretty good listen. No mention of a divorce or "being a miserable experience".

I've got the Sid Haig 3-D version. Didn't hurt my eyes. I just went in with low expectations, and I didn't think it was that bad. But hey, that's just me.
Reply
post #24 of 66
2/25/08 at 11:03pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
And sadly, John Russo is probably the worst offender of all, because he was involved in the original, then proceeded to assfuck the movie with an "update" George Lucas couldn't imagine if you fed him retard pills, and which is virtually indistinguishable from the original film to unsuspecting consumers.
Currently the only version available at my local Best Buy....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) View Post
The Night '90 dvd also has a Savini commentary, and it's actually a pretty good listen. No mention of a divorce or "being a miserable experience".
Quote:
Slasherama: In 1990, your directorial remake of Night Of The Living Dead hit shelves ("shelves"? - Phil). I understand it wasn't the finest of experiences for you…

Savini: "That was the worst experience of my life! George wasn't there. It would have been a blast if George were there. We would've had fun and hashed things out like we always do. He would have been on my side and been supportive. But he had to go to Florida to write The Dark Half and I was stuck with these two idiots, who will remain nameless. People who thought that they were Orson Welles, with big egos. They were assholes. I put the storyboards in my book Grande Illusions 2, because I wanted the world to know what I had intended to do. That movie was 20 or 30 per cent of what I intended it to be. I had a whole Lolita ending planned for Harry and Barbara. It was suspenseful stuff. So I told myself that I'd put the stuff I didn't get to do on Night Of The Living Dead in whatever my next project was - even if it was a romantic comedy! So I got to do a pilot for a TV show called The Chill Factor and I did put some stuff in that."

Slasherama: Did the experience of Night put you off directing?
Savini: "No, because I had already done three episodes of Tales From The Darkside and those were a joy. I was totally prepared. I shoot stuff on paper first, because it's not costing you any money to make mistakes. I put 800 storyboards of Night Of The Living Dead on the wall of my office. Whenever I had a meeting with someone, whether it was the costumes, set design or George, I could go through the whole movie and say, 'Here's what I intend to do'. When George saw it, he said, 'You've got an eight-week movie on the wall and you only have six weeks to do it. So even he started cutting stuff. He cut the whole bit with Tom catching on fire at the gas pump, before we started shooting. He said we wouldn't have time, but my attitude was: how do you know? That effect was cut in lieu of dialogue, but I feel that you don't go to a movie to see people talk - you go to see stuff happen. Unless it's My Dinner With Andre, or something. So to cut action for dialogue just didn't make sense to me."
Full interview: http://www.slasherama.com/features/savini.HTML

And this is just gossip, but from the Fango boards a couple years ago:

Quote:
since his chemical dependecy problems and divorce back in the late 80s/early 90s(around the time he made the "Night Of The Living Dead" redux),Savini's life badly fell apart in a very big way
There's another story about him keeping his life savings in a safe in his house (trying to avoid estate taxes and such for his daughter) and someone broke in and made off with the safe a couple years ago.
Reply
post #25 of 66
2/25/08 at 11:07pm
Wow. Thanks for that link, Phil. Interesting to see Savini being so candid about his remake. I have an old Fangoria interview with Romero circa '91 where he "declined to discuss the remake for personal reasons".
Reply
post #26 of 66
2/25/08 at 11:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
Wow. Thanks for that link, Phil. Interesting to see Savini being so candid about his remake. I have an old Fangoria interview with Romero circa '91 where he "declined to discuss the remake for personal reasons".
Edit: for a really bad Savini interview (conducted by John Russo himself), check out Horror F/X, a shot-on-video mess with some of the worst production values I've ever seen (or heard; the MIDI playing during the opening montage barely qualifies as music).
Reply
post #27 of 66
2/26/08 at 12:18am
Damn, and here I always thought Night '90 was a great experience for them, and they got some money out of it. I still find the flick enjoyable though. A decent remake written by the original's director/co-writer, that actually adds to the original version.

I also remember on the documentary on the dvd about how Savini originally had so much more in terms of effects, and its too bad that they weren't able to reinstate the footage for an unrated cut. I'm assuming the footage was cut because of said egotistical assholes who hampered the production.
Reply
post #28 of 66
2/26/08 at 12:24am
Thread Starter 
Savini's experience on the film doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. It's aged quite well, and is probably tied with Land in terms of rewatchability (possibly not a real word). Possibly the most realistic looking zombies of any of the Romero-touched zombie films, and the score is effective, and it does a decent job of mixing the familiar with the surprising. Not a sterling example of how to do a remake, but better than much of the recent pile o' reimagininininings.
Reply
post #29 of 66
2/26/08 at 12:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) View Post
I'm assuming the footage was cut because of said egotistical assholes who hampered the production.
I'm wondering exactly who he was referring to as said assholes. I'm gonna guess executive producers Menahem Golan (half of Cannon!) and Russell Streiner, who's known for being in league with John Russo.
Reply
post #30 of 66
2/26/08 at 12:42am
I'm surprised Savini doesnt like his remake, I for one prefer it to the original. wonder what he would have done so differently.

here's a 3D image if you got them 4 pairs of glasses

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080223.html
Reply
post #31 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfMC View Post

here's a 3D image if you got them 4 pairs of glasses

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080223.html

Not to derail, but if we're just gonna post random 3D pics, I got that beat. (NWS)
Reply
post #32 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Savini's experience on the film doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. It's aged quite well, and is probably tied with Land in terms of rewatchability (possibly not a real word). Possibly the most realistic looking zombies of any of the Romero-touched zombie films, and the score is effective, and it does a decent job of mixing the familiar with the surprising. Not a sterling example of how to do a remake, but better than much of the recent pile o' reimagininininings.
My thoughts exactly, Phil. The biggest change is the most positive. Barbara no longer catatonic, but a raging action femme.
Reply
post #33 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:52am
Cooper's death is much more satisfying, too. Ben's death loses its original irony but Savini was wise to perform some misdirection and surprise people expecting a carbon copy remake.
Reply
post #34 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:56am
Thread Starter 
To be fair, the misdirection credit should go to the screenwriter (Romero). WTF happened with Diary? Clumsy goddamn mess.
Reply
post #35 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:00am
Dammit. Diary isn't playing in my little town; I was hoping it would be good though.
Reply
post #36 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:18am
Thread Starter 
No one wanted to love it more than me. It's soul-crushing.
Reply
post #37 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:23am
I just want to see Diary. Mess or not. And yeah, Cooper's death is much more satisfying. He was also a bigger asshole in the remake than in the original. Tom Towles is a hell of an actor.
Reply
post #38 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:27am
That Night 3-D bullshit was horrible. It kind of sucks that all these crappy "Night" remakes can happen because they only stand to get worse. I enjoyed the 1990 one. Not as good as '68 but a damn entertaining flick. That 3-D one with Sid is piss-poor. I was particulary amused by the standoff scene where the heroes agree to leave Cooper's kid out in the woods to be eaten by the zombies.
Reply
post #39 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:30am
Thread Starter 
Everyone was a little more Hollywood in the remake. The Cooper of my memory in the original really seemed like a regular guy reacting really badly to the situation. The remake Cooper was more of a villain.

I wrote up this review of Day for a blog years ago and I made all these stoned connections between Cooper in Night and Rhodes in Day ("Is it a coincidence that Rhodes' recently deceased superior is named Major Cooper?"). Oy.
Reply
post #40 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Everyone was a little more Hollywood in the remake. The Cooper of my memory in the original really seemed like a regular guy reacting really badly to the situation. The remake Cooper was more of a villain.

I wrote up this review of Day for a blog years ago and I made all these stoned connections between Cooper in Night and Rhodes in Day ("Is it a coincidence that Rhodes' recently deceased superior is named Major Cooper?"). Oy.
I actually noticed a lot of similiar themes like that in the original trilogy. The most ineteresting thing was that the character who always seemed wrong in those films or the one whose idea was most often dismissed (Cooper, Fran, Logan) always tended to be right.
Reply
post #41 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:34am
Never noticed that connection, Phil. Wow.
Reply
post #42 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:35am
"I thought Cooper was an asshole, but he's a sweetheart next to Rhodes".
Reply
post #43 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:47am
I've seen Day countless times, and I've never thought of that line in that context.
Reply
post #44 of 66
2/26/08 at 3:18am
Thread Starter 
To hear me tell it, Day's characters were a family reunion of the archetypes from the previous films. Miguel is descended from NOTLD's Barbara - both snapped and useless. The soldiers were riffing on the rednecks and bikers from Dawn - it was the hairiest, chubbiest, good ol' boyest group of soldiers you've ever seen.
Reply
post #45 of 66
2/26/08 at 4:18am
You forgot baldest, Phil. Most bald actors I've ever seen in a film, and I liked that. Added more to the realism. Also, Rhodes was the only guy without facial hair. Everyone else either had a beard, or a goatee.
Reply
post #46 of 66
2/26/08 at 5:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Jim Slade View Post
"I thought Cooper was an asshole, but he's a sweetheart next to Rhodes".
Damn! You've opened my eyes to whole different Day.
Reply
post #47 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
WTF happened with Diary? Clumsy goddamn mess.
Could you expound on that opinion Phil? I've seen DIARY twice and I can't wrap my mind around what was clumsy or a mess about it. I thought it was well-written, full of depressingly-nihilistic violence and a lot of fun.
Reply
post #48 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
I weighed in on the post-release thread, and there are three really well-written reviews on the main site, with which I more or less agree.

Romero's singular talent is his editing. There are sequences in NOTLD, Martin, Dawn, Knightriders and Creepshow which are just masterfully assembled. He's on record as saying "I'd rather have a hundred lousy shots than three great shots", because he knows his strength is in marrying images and sounds into something greater than the sum of his parts. To put him at the helm of a film full of long, sustained takes is to handicap him severely. His dialogue has often been corny, but I've never seen it delivered less convincingly. (Hot, bad narrator/lead: "Why did you stay?" Militant black guy: "Because for the first time, WE have the power! We're in control!" Ugh.). In the past, Romero would use his editing skills to usher us briskly past any clunky acting or lines. He can't do that here, and the seams really show.

Aesthetically, it's too well composed to sell its central gimmick. Someone else said something about how they're toddling along with the handheld schtick, but everything locks down and SHOWCASES any significant effect or set piece. That film student behind the camera is the best wartime cameraman I've ever seen.

Perhaps I'll catch it again and see it with revised expectations. I'm glad you liked it, but there's plenty of us who were really let down.
Reply
post #49 of 66
2/26/08 at 1:58pm
Just because I feel like derailing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
Aesthetically, it's too well composed to sell its central gimmick.
So is it well-composed or clumsy and a mess? I don't get the disconnect. I've read the reviews here and they all echo this apparent oxymoron. I also don't get the complaint about the shot composition. Would you really be happy with a film that obscures the action through crappy hand-held shaky-cam? I know I wouldn't.
Reply
post #50 of 66
2/26/08 at 2:09pm
Thread Starter 
Re-railing.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Creature Corner Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CREATURE CORNER › Creature Corner Main › Night of the Living Dead is now the cookie in the middle of a horror geek circle jerk