Night of the Living Dead (Remake) - why was this movie made ?

[Mikey]

Was watching the Night of the Living Dead remake today and keep asking myself why was this movie made ?

First of all it's coming off the heals of Day of the Dead - which was quite good in it's own right.

Day established the progressive after effect of the zombie plague.

Why go back to beginning -- and film almost the same first movie over again ?

I'm guessing it might have been because the original is in public domain so remaking the movie would put a start movie back in Romero's hands -- but still, imo it was a total waste of time and money.

1. It's not as scary as the original

2. Changing Barbara into Sigourney Weaver from Aliens was typical of the time so it don't get any points for originality.

3. The movie followed the original so closely it seemed useless to make.

I put this movie as one of the worst Romero zombie pictures ever made -- even worse than Diary (I never seen the new movie yet)

No wonder the franchise was put on hold for about 15 years after it's release.

What do you think ?

[fallensaviour]

I liked the remake that savini did in 90.
Is this the movie you are talking about?
Or the remake they did a couple years ago with sid heig?
The one with Sid was very different and really had nothing in common with the other film.

I think the main reason they redid the film was just to bring it up to date and colorize it.
They really didn't vary from the Romero version at all.

[Mikey]

I liked the remake that savini did in 90.
Is this the movie you are talking about?
.

Yep

[kryptosmaster]

I totally forgot about the one they did a couple years ago. I just saw it on On Demand on my cable for free. It wasn't that bad but wasn't that good either.
I remember seeing the Romero remake in the theater. It was just a gorier, in-color version of the original if I recall. I haven't seen it in maybe 20 years.
Rich

[fallensaviour]

Here is a couple cool facts about the film from the wiki page.


"The film was handled by the same team as the original, with the exception that directing duties were handled by famed special make-up effects artist Tom Savini, who originally signed up with hopes of doing the make-up effects as he was not able to for the original film. Romero served as producer for the remake, and he recruited some of the original camera and sound crew to participate."

So that is probably why it feels so much like the first one.

[GaryPlaysWithDolls]

I'd like to think that they made the remake because they really respected the first film and thought they could bring something cool and new to it.

Or,

They just thought they could cash in on the name with a rehash of a classic.

Or,

Some combination of those two.

So many remakes seem to fall in this area.

[palitoy]

Romero and company don't own the first film, that played a big factor.

[toys2cool]

I liked it

[spamn]

I thought it was a pretty decent remake, and they altering it in the way they did prevented it from becoming like Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. I thought they did okay. Is it better or worse for Barbara to be competent or a shrinking flower? I don't know, but I really liked what she did at the end of the movie. It was quite satisfying.

[wolfie]

So just you that don't like it then Mikey.

[Mikey]

So just you that don't like it then Mikey.

What else is new

[TrueDave]

Was watching the Night of the Living Dead remake today and keep asking myself why was this movie made ?

First of all it's coming off the heals of Day of the Dead - which was quite good in it's own right.

Day established the progressive after effect of the zombie plague.

Why go back to beginning -- and film almost the same first movie over again ?

I'm guessing it might have been because the original is in public domain so remaking the movie would put a start movie back in Romero's hands -- but still, imo it was a total waste of time and money.

1. It's not as scary as the original

2. Changing Barbara into Sigourney Weaver from Aliens was typical of the time so it don't get any points for originality.

3. The movie followed the original so closely it seemed useless to make.

I put this movie as one of the worst Romero zombie pictures ever made -- even worse than Diary (I never seen the new movie yet)

No wonder the franchise was put on hold for about 15 years after it's release.

What do you think ?

I sat and had the ins and outs explained to me by my Gorehound buddy and It's a wonder anything got made.
I watched the movie twice. Once in the thatre and one while I was studying under savini.

I don't like what they did with Barbara either, not very original. Some of the Gags were hokey like the half buried "torn in half" Zombies in the yard.

Why was it made? Money.

I would have preferred a contination also.

But if you think about it It's logical. Night , Dawn , Day , Night again. Dawnn Again , Land? Diary?I think they should have stuck with time themes in the title.
Twilight of the Dead, Dusk of the Dead, Holiday of the dead etc . . .

[ctc]

>What else is new

Unmutual! Unmutual!

>Twilight of the Dead,

....wherein the zombies mope around and whine about their love lives....

I actually liked the 90's remake, but didn’t think it was a big deal. It kinda felt like another zombie movie. The 00's remake was really blah.

Don C.

[johnmiic]

I recall going to a Comic Convention in NY in the early 1990's when Tom Savini was a guest. He outlined all the new and innovative things he wanted to do in the remake. One thing in particular really intrigued me was that he intended to shoot some scenes from the POV of the zombies but when you see things as they perceive it, that would be shot in B&W. Very interesting and could be used to great advantage, I thought.

When I saw the film I said, "W.T.F!?!?", and was really let down. Years later Savini was interviewed by Cinefantastique`, and they're not known for kissing anyone's azz. Savini stated that he was not given enough budget and enough time to do all the new things he wanted to do with the remake. Romero was there at the begining and told him he had X amount of weeks to shoot. He couldn't go over. So Savini eliminated a whole lot of things he wanted to do. On top of that Romero was not there during the shoot and the other people higher up would continually frustrate Savini. Every day they would tell him you can't do this, you can't do that, if you do such and such the cameraman might quit and file a grievance with the union, etc., non-stop. Savini was basically set up to fail.

[Timothy2251]

It had some *** moments for me, and it really can't compare to the original, but on it's own, I thought it was pretty good.

Plus, hey, Patricia Tallman!



Oh, you red-headed actress/stuntwoman! How I love thee!