Tom Savini's Take on NOTLD Remake!

[johnmiic]

I scanned these from a back issue of Cinemafatastique` I had mentioned in an earlier thread. For those of you who found the 1990's remake of NOTLD unsatisfying read what Tom Savini had to say and what he was not allowed to do to complete the film.

[Cmonster]

It's a bad comparison; But this is kinda like the whole Tobe Hooper/Steven Spielberg thing on "Poltergeist". We all know who really directed that movie...

SC

[johnmiic]

It's a bad comparison; But this is kinda like the whole Tobe Hooper/Steven Spielberg thing on "Poltergeist". We all know who really directed that movie...

SC

Sandy, that's not a bad comparison at all. Some of that does figure in here.

[samurainoir]

So how did the original Night of the Living Dead fall into public domain in the first place, and if Romero and co went to all the trouble to remake it to reclaim their trademark/copyrights to Night of the Living Dead, how did it come to be abandoned once again after that?

[Cmonster]

Sandy, that's not a bad comparison at all. Some of that does figure in here.

Well, I say it's a bad comparison because you can't compare Romero and Spielberg... They're on completely different levels as artists and filmmakers. On Savini vs Hooper; I've always kinda looked at Savini as more of a showman and a "personality", opposed to a director, or even a competent SPFX artist. Hooper, on the other hand, has got "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in his pocket, which I personally think is far better than anything Romero or certainly Savini, has ever done. Lastly; "Poltergeist" is a masterpiece, while The remake of "NOTLD" is crap.

SC

[samurainoir]

I think everyone is in agreement that Night of the Living Dead 3-D is at the bottom of the pile.

[johnmiic]

So how did the original Night of the Living Dead fall into public domain in the first place, and if Romero and co went to all the trouble to remake it to reclaim their trademark/copyrights to Night of the Living Dead, how did it come to be abandoned once again after that?

I read somewheres, maybe another Cinefantastique` back issue, that NOTLD was not actually the films original title. It was re-named NOTLD against the wishes of the Writer & Director. I cannot recall what the original title was. Somewhere in the chain of command someone forgot to copyright the film under the new title. They didn't realize this until after release and it became public domain.

I also read, in a NY Daily News Entertainment review, that they had reclaimed the rights to the film in the late 1980's. At the time, a parody had been released with people mocking the film as it played, similar to MST 3000 and the people who released that edition could be sued as the rights were reclaimed. That seemed to make some sense because a new version was released with additional footage of Debbie Rochon playing a female reporter. I don't know if any of that is true but with a little time and research I might be able to track down those anecdotes.

[samurainoir]

Speaking of Tobe Hooper, he was originally tapped to direct Return of the Living Dead wasn't he? Writer Dan O'Bannon stepped in after Hooper went and did something else (Lifeforce?).

[babycyclops]

Savini and Romero RULE!!!! Dawn of the Dead#1 !!!!
Oh wait.... this isn't my free Fangoria subscriber ad?

[Sandman9580]

I think Savini should have been allowed to try and do whatever he wanted, even though I disagree with him on some of his would-be directorial decisions. Hearing people's voices on the soundtrack while you show the graves is way too cheesy to accomplish anything resembling poignancy, spookiness, or suspense. You'd have people giggling at precisely the kind of scene you don't want them giggling at. And I agree with whoever told him he shouldn't do zombie POV shots. It's a really artificial way of creating suspense and it means you have to ask the audience to do an awkward kind of transference. I don't think you should ever give the audience a chance to identify with the killer(s) or "see the world through their eyes" because the more you're alienated from them -- the more mystery and 'other-ness' they have -- the scarier they are.

[palitoy]

I think everyone is in agreement that Night of the Living Dead 3-D is at the bottom of the pile.
http://img.hotmoviesale.com/dvds/LGE...ng-Dead-3D.jpg

I wonder if this is on top or below it. I'm not about to review the pair to find out but egads this thing is a pile of rancid fecal matter. For those not in the know, John Russo added scenes and new music that don't fit in well to the original including a horribly hammy actor (and provider of the new soundtrack) and Bill Hinzman's zombie looking 30 years older in some scenes.

[johnmiic]

Hearing people's voices on the soundtrack while you show the graves is way too cheesy to accomplish anything resembling poignancy, spookiness, or suspense. You'd have people giggling at precisely the kind of scene you don't want them giggling at.

I think it depends on how you sell it to the audience. The description of that scene is actually very similar to a scene in The 6th Sense when Haley Joel Osmet is on the bus and looks out the window as they drive by the cemetary. In that film they did it without voices but it might work with voices too. We have yet to see someone try it.

And I agree with whoever told him he shouldn't do zombie POV shots. It's a really artificial way of creating suspense and it means you have to ask the audience to do an awkward kind of transference. I don't think you should ever give the audience a chance to identify with the killer(s) or "see the world through their eyes" because the more you're alienated from them -- the more mystery and 'other-ness' they have -- the scarier they are.

That was actually the thing I wanted to see the most in this film. Your point is valid on artificial suspense but they do have sight and seeing from their POV doesn't necessarily allow the audience to identify with them. I think it adds to the mystery. They are dead and knowing they can walk, use their limbs, feel no pain, cannot be reasoned with and see, is very intriguing.

For those not in the know, John Russo added scenes and new music that don't fit in well to the original including a horribly hammy actor (and provider of the new soundtrack) and Bill Hinzman's zombie looking 30 years older in some scenes.

I think that is the one with the female reporter played by Debbie Rochon.

[Sandman9580]

I think it depends on how you sell it to the audience. The description of that scene is actually very similar to a scene in The 6th Sense when Haley Joel Osmet is on the bus and looks out the window as they drive by the cemetary. In that film they did it without voices but it might work with voices too. We have yet to see someone try it.

True. Like all things, it would depend on the execution. Come to think of it, I know I've seen things like this - I just can't think of where. (Like you hear the sounds of war while you see someone looking at a painting of a battle. Ken Burns/PBS does this a lot, but I feel like I've seen it in fictional movies too.)

That was actually the thing I wanted to see the most in this film. Your point is valid on artificial suspense but they do have sight and seeing from their POV doesn't necessarily allow the audience to identify with them. I think it adds to the mystery. They are dead and knowing they can walk, use their limbs, feel no pain, cannot be reasoned with and see, is very intriguing.

Hmm... thinking about this way more than I should be, I'll maybe concede the point. Most of the time, I don't like POV if it's in a "serious" movie. There's just something too "literal" and unrealistic about it. It may just be a personal quirk, but I don't want to see the world through Michael Myer's eyes, or Pamela Voorhees, or Jason's, etc. This is sort of an apples-and-oranges comparison, but to illustrate what I'm thinking by using an extreme example, it's like what made the witch in "The Blair Witch Project" so frightening. You were completely denied any explicit evidence that she even existed; the boundary of the "other" was never crossed, it wasn't even approached. This made your alienation from it very tangible, and that increased the suspense.

Having said all that, there are times when I guess I don't mind it. I think it was necessary (and very suspenseful) at the beginning of JAWS. Terminator used it very effectively, it gave you specific story and character information. Ditto for Predator, even though I thought it was overused in that one (a little bit goes a long way). And I love the crazy, wide-angle rushes through the forest in Evil Dead, just 'cuz they looked cool.

So, what's the one thing those POVs all have in common? You're seeing the world through "non-human eyes"... which is interesting, and sort of worth doing, I guess. So maybe seeing the zombies POV in "Decay-O-Vision" would've been cool.