ROTLD... why does everyone despise it so?

[Jamn]

I remember watching this movie on late night cable as a child and thought it was hilarious when they all left Spider holding the door for Tarman. The two guys were named Burt and Ernie(that is funny to a kid). I also remember my friends and I debating if it were real could we hold them off. The ROTLD zombies- NO. The NOTLD zombies- maybe yes. Plus the nudity parts, we were not supposed to be watching those kind of movies. I agree if this movie was made today I would most likely hate it, but I caught it as a kid and I still watch it when it comes on cable uncut. My wife hates that I watch it because when she was a child she was sheltered and was not allowed to watch any horror movies. Previews of horror movies scare her.

[Trin]

Just asking because like I said, IMO, "......living dead" means undead, not GAR universe or anything like it. There were films with "....living dead" in the title before GAR. Russo retained the rights to use the "Living Dead" title in his movies when he and GAR split, and Return is an adaptation of a Russo book by the same name. So it's not like this is just some guy making some movie and using the term "Living Dead" in it. And seriously.. Night of the Living Dead - 1968 Dawn of the Dead - 1978 Day of the Dead - 1985 Return of the Living Dead - 1985 I'm not sure why I have to connect the dots for you here. It seems reasonable that a person would assume a zombie movie coming out at that time named "Return of the Living Dead" would be related to the series, if not a direct continuation. What's the criteria required for a movie to *succeed* in honoring this name? Not sure, but making a B-movie horror/comedy as a sequel to a horror classic fails. What I think this comment means is that Trin himself can't forgive ROTLD for making his favorite genre of film, that he's enthusiastic about, look stupid to everyone else. Um, the zombie genre looks stupid to everyone else without ROTLD getting involved. Your Star Wars/Space Balls analogy is flawed because ROTLD isn't a parady of zombie movies and most people that say "Braaainns" have never seen a GAR movie. I loved Shaun of the Dead, which was a proper parody of zombie movies. I also loved Zombieland. So you can't write it off as me being bitter at the genre getting a send-up. No, what irritates me is when people give me shirts for Christmas that say "Braaainnns" and they think that they're giving me this super cool gift that feeds my GAR addiction. People that have never even seen a zombie movie in their lives know that zombies eat brains, right? ROTLD defined what the common person thinks the zombie genre is. And defined it crappily. Your Star Wars analogy would be better if the people who say "I see your schwartz is as big as mine" thought it actually came from Star Wars. I don't hate ROTLD because of what it is. I hate it because of what it isn't. Namely a decent follow up to the GAR classics set in the same universe. As a B-movie horror/comedy it's fine.

[blind2d]

I must say I agree with everything Trin just said, and then some! ...Except for the whole liking Zombieland thing... can't say as I do... But yeah!

[Rancid Carcass]

Actually, if my information is correct, the Russo/Streiner/Ricci ROTLD screenplay was a straight adaptation of Russo's novel. When Tom Fox acquired the rights to produce it he gave it to Tobe Hooper (the films original director), he felt uneasy about making a direct sequel to Night (and who wouldn't!), and didn't want to tread on Romero's toes so he got Dan O'Bannon to rewrite it as a black comedy. The idea of the zombies running was purely to differentiate between Romero universe and theirs, as was the brain eating, though there was a bit more to it than that originally but it never made it into the final draft.

[BillyRay]

My problem has always been, in the middle of this slapstick horror comedy, the notion that after our demise the only thing we have to look forward to in the afterlife is feeling ourselves decompose. That's truly horrifying to me. There is no afterlife, no judgement or peace, only more suffering and awareness. And it makes all the jokes after that seem so much more juvenile. That and the whole "Braaaiiins" deal.

[babomb]

Your Star Wars/Space Balls analogy is flawed because ROTLD isn't a parady of zombie movies and most people that say "Braaainns" have never seen a GAR movie. I think it's very much a parody. And most people not seeing zombie flicks but still knowing they eat brains is probly like was already mentioned, due to the simpsons. I loved Shaun of the Dead, which was a proper parody of zombie movies. I also loved Zombieland. So you can't write it off as me being bitter at the genre getting a send-up. I loved both of those too! Zombieland alot more. I just don't have these rules about movies. Not sure, but making a B-movie horror/comedy as a sequel to a horror classic fails. That isn't the case though. Whether the original treatment was meant to be a sequel or not, it was re-written and differentiated. Um, the zombie genre looks stupid to everyone else without ROTLD getting involved. I was gonna say that earlier but didn't want to incur the wrath of those who may take offense. I'm not sure why I have to connect the dots for you here. It seems reasonable that a person would assume a zombie movie coming out at that time named "Return of the Living Dead" would be related to the series, if not a direct continuation. I have no issue with that. I just don't understand why a person could never get over that. I guess if you were there, at the theater in 1985 waiting in line if there was one, the whole time thinking it was a direct continuation of the GAR franchise and were presented with Return, you'd be pretty pissed. If that's the case here, then I'm gonna feel like an ass for ever questioning it. I didn't even consider that originally, so if that's the case than I sincerely apologize. I'm not old enough for that to have been a possibility. So I just assumed that was the case with most people here. I was like 8 when Return came out and I didn't see it until it came out on VHS, and it was probly 5 years later that I saw Dawn for the 1st time. When you look at it: Night of the Living Dead - 1968 Dawn of the Dead - 1978 Day of the Dead - 1985 Return of the Living Dead - 1985 I mean, if that's what you saw, just a basic timeline like that, yeah you might think that, maybe. But if you saw the GAR films, and a preview of Return, it's obvious they're unrelated. Not to mention that it's rare even today(if it's even happened) for 2 installments of a movie franchise to be released in the same year. Unless they're re-releases or special editions.

[Gryphon]

My problem has always been, in the middle of this slapstick horror comedy, the notion that after our demise the only thing we have to look forward to in the afterlife is feeling ourselves decompose. That's truly horrifying to me. There is no afterlife, no judgement or peace, only more suffering and awareness. And it makes all the jokes after that seem so much more juvenile. That and the whole "Braaaiiins" deal. Well, in every zombie story, I always assume the soul leaves the body prior to zombification, personally

[Thorn]

Just curious... I really enjoyed it even if it wasn't a GAR movie and even if there was some zombie speaking ability discrepancy and such... but I felt they did an awesome job turning the toxin into a character by following the poison gas... and there was some character development... and James Karen rocks. I also liked the hidden things... like the eye chart and such. I felt it was a quality movie for what it was, a zombie flick. I do not hate them, I find them funny. It is just a different genre of film. Splatter/horror/comedy. I prefer my zombie films serious, scary, and with a sense of dread.

[bassman]

With the Eighties obviously now long gone, I wonder if the proposed remake will be layered with the velveeta, or a more honest horror effort?

[Trin]

I would just add a couple sentiments. ROTLD wasn't a comedy when it came out. I know that sounds goofy looking back at it, but in 1985 it wasn't a comedy. It was B-movie horror. There was a whole subgenre of horror that was cheesy and goofy and over-the-top at the time. You could call it horror/comedy if you want but even that is not exactly accurate to the way these kinds of movies were viewed. It's hard to explain. There is no real equivalent today. And I'd mention that ROTLD defaced the series similar to what Survival did more recently. They both took a loyal fanbase and jerked them around with something less horror and more comedy than the predecessors. I'd say that ROTLD had more room to do that since it owed less allegiance to the original. But I can still HATE IT for doing it.

[babomb]

Jus so ya know, Trin, I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else in anything I said. I accept and respect everyones opinions and was not trying to devalue them. According to rancid carcass(great name BTW), when Tobe Hooper decided not to do the original script he had O'Bannon rewrite it as a black comedy. This is also supported by O'Bannon on the commentary track. I'm not saying you're wrong about it not being a comedy, just that there seems to be some conflicting opinion on that.

[DEAD BEAT]

Just curious... I really enjoyed it even if it wasn't a GAR movie and even if there was some zombie speaking ability discrepancy and such... but I felt they did an awesome job turning the toxin into a character by following the poison gas... and there was some character development... and James Karen rocks. I also liked the hidden things... like the eye chart and such. I felt it was a quality movie for what it was, a zombie flick. I dont Loco! Lol

[Trin]

Jus so ya know, Trin, I meant no disrespect to you or anyone else in anything I said. I accept and respect everyones opinions and was not trying to devalue them. According to rancid carcass(great name BTW), when Tobe Hooper decided not to do the original script he had O'Bannon rewrite it as a black comedy. This is also supported by O'Bannon on the commentary track. I'm not saying you're wrong about it not being a comedy, just that there seems to be some conflicting opinion on that. Compare it to movies like Toxic Avenger and Student Bodies and Surfer Zombies and it takes itself far more seriously than a comedy of the era. If I'm not mistaken that commentary track was cut in 2002 or so. Which is long after the period I'm talking about. Today we look back at ROTLD and call it a comedy. I wouldn't expect O'Bannon to look back at it any differently. There has been lots of discussion about ROTLD over the years. One of my favorites is from Michael Aldred. From the Michael Aldred review: "As many will take note of, humor runs rampant throughout the movie but it's sharp and rather morbid humor. The Return of the Living Dead is not a horror/comedy as many easily mistake it to be. It's a horror film with humorous undertones. The self-referential joking is meant to lighten the mood when necessary, not to be the focal point." Aldred goes on to discuss at length how horror and comedy were blended in ROTLD. I totally get the point of what you're saying babomb and I mean no disrespect either. It's just a different perspective.