NOLD 90 Movie Mistake

[Uncle Rege]

NOLD 90 is by far my favorite/most watched movie of all time. So i am not posting this movie mistake to trash the film, simply an observation due to my watching of this movie HUNDREDS of times. :lol: Ok-Opening cemetery scene, and including all of day 1 daylight scenes-deciduous trees are free of leaves. (especially the large silver maple next to the house) Once night comes, all of the trees grew their leaves! The back yard scenes, the large silver maple next to the house, and all of the trees of day 2. Just something to look for next time you watch. Also, night scenes show breath of the cast as though it were cold, yet the movie is taking place on 23 august 1989. Unlikely to happen at the peak western pa. summer. Although, Patty Tallman DOES proove to us that it was a bit tit nipply in her night scene!! :p

[ProfessorChaos]

the night remake is awesome, imo. i recall being pretty bummed that i was too young to get into the theaters to see it, but luckily my mom is kick-ass and let me rent it like a million times. not quite as good as the original, but a great film that does it proper justice.

there are a few other bloopers that can be found by accessing the main page of this site and following the appropriate links. never noticed the leaves on the trees, but the whole being able to see your breath in august always bothered me a bit.

they really should release a 20th anniversary dvd next year.

[axlish]

they really should release a 20th anniversary dvd next year.

Just give us a bare bones Blu-ray and stick a fork in it :|

[zombiekiller]

NOLD 90 is by far my favorite/most watched movie of all time. So i am not posting this movie mistake to trash the film, simply an observation due to my watching of this movie HUNDREDS of times. :lol: Ok-Opening cemetery scene, and including all of day 1 daylight scenes-deciduous trees are free of leaves. (especially the large silver maple next to the house) Once night comes, all of the trees grew their leaves! The back yard scenes, the large silver maple next to the house, and all of the trees of day 2. Just something to look for next time you watch. Also, night scenes show breath of the cast as though it were cold, yet the movie is taking place on 23 august 1989. Unlikely to happen at the peak western pa. summer. Although, Patty Tallman DOES proove to us that it was a bit tit nipply in her night scene!! :p
don't forget when ben was pushing the zombie out the back door and you could see the film crew in the window.

[Neil]

Me's like it :)

[blind2d]

You could see their breath because they were so scared! Um... and... it was an undead... film crew.

[darth los]

the night remake is awesome, imo. i recall being pretty bummed that i was too young to get into the theaters to see it, but luckily my mom is kick-ass and let me rent it like a million times. not quite as good as the original, but a great film that does it proper justice.

there are a few other bloopers that can be found by accessing the main page of this site and following the appropriate links. never noticed the leaves on the trees, but the whole being able to see your breath in august always bothered me a bit.

they really should release a 20th anniversary dvd next year.


I really wish they would release it and the original on blu ray. All the other films are so what's the deal with this one? :confused:


And the hell with a bare bones edition. The remake never gets any love. Every other film in the series has different versions/editions/extras. All we have is the same old copy from damn near 20 years ago. :mad:

It should definitely include savini's version of the film as well. I doubt there would be any problems releasing it today since film makers can get away with waaaaaaay more.




:cool:

[Neil]

It should definitely include savini's version of the film as well. I doubt there would be any problems releasing it today since film makers can get away with waaaaaaay more.




:cool:

Yeh... A directors cut might get some interest... Assuming it was actually OK?

[darth los]

Even if it was not as good as what we saw in theaters it would still be interesting to see what his vision actually was.




:cool:

[bassman]

Would there be a directors cut though? I seem to remember Savini saying that he pretty much fails to acknowledge the film as his own now. Pissed off at the studio or something.

And is there that much extra footage aside from the head explosions and extended kills?

[darth los]

Would there be a directors cut though? I seem to remember Savini saying that he pretty much fails to acknowledge the film as his own now. Pissed off at the studio or something.

And is there that much extra footage aside from the head explosions and extended kills?



I'm not sure. But even the deletion of content such as that would detract from savini's vision. Perhaps it was a much darker/hellish version and taking certain scenes out that feeling was totally lost.


IMO, if you're going to ask someone to direct your film you can't put constraints on them. It only serves to stifle their creativity. Then no one is happy because the director didn't get to do what he wanted and you would think he didn't put his all into it. That being the case the end product is likely to be an inferior one.




:cool:

[Philly_SWAT]

I think that the biggest mistake in Night 90 was not having Barbara take a shower after falling in the woods, having blood all over her, etc. Gratuitous tit shots have long been a staple of horror movies.

[darth los]

I think that the biggest mistake in Night 90 was not having Barbara take a shower after falling in the woods, having blood all over her, etc. Gratuitous tit shots have long been a staple of horror movies.

Well i guess through all the chaos one of the last things on her mInd was taking a shower. Things like , i don't know, SURVIVAL, tend to take precedence over stuff like hygene.

Maybe it's just me.

What's funny is that the nerdy dude from diary had that exact same shower jones.

Coincidence, I THINK NOT!!




:cool:

[Trin]

Isn't Night 90 the one with commando Barbra? I didn't like that at all. The original Barbra was so realistic in how she acted and reacted to the problem. Making Barbra large and in charge just sucked the life out of the movie for me. :(

[krakenslayer]

I remember watching the movie with director's commentary and Savini claimed that there was less than a minute of footage cut from the final film, in comparison with the version he originally submitted. Basically, apart from the one head explosion that was cut, almost every headshot was trimmed by a second or two - either from the start or end of the shot - to remove close ups of erupting exit wounds, and this accounts for like 90% of the cut footage. There are no missing gut-munching scenes and no character development was removed.

[shootemindehead]

Yep, an exploding head shot of the burnt zombie was cut and several exit wound shots were taken out. Most notably the skinny black zombie and the original zombie that attacks Barbara in the graveyard.

Apart from that, nearly everything else was on the screen that was shot. The MPAA were real dicks about anything gruesome on screen. But it's amazing what directors can get away with today!

As an aside, is there anyone else that's amazed that this film is nearly 20 years old now? :stunned:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I have seen the work print for this film, and the opening is a lot different than what was on the big screen/DVD release. The car ride was longer and voice overs were not done at the cemetary gates, they were done during the car ride.

If you can find it the work print is a pretty awesome view, I think it was more Savini's vision than what was released.

[darth los]

Yep, an exploding head shot of the burnt zombie was cut and several exit wound shots were taken out. Most notably the skinny black zombie and the original zombie that attacks Barbara in the graveyard.

Apart from that, nearly everything else was on the screen that was shot. The MPAA were real dicks about anything gruesome on screen. But it's amazing what directors can get away with today!

As an aside, is there anyone else that's amazed that this film is nearly 20 years old now? :stunned:

Wow, i hadn't given that much thought. It's held up etraordinarily well besides it's age. There are only a couple of instances where the effects look dated. For a 20 year old movie that's saying something.


I think it was just that period where the censors were being overly conservative. It was like a pushback away from the status quo. Think about it. We just came off of the splatterfilm era where it was common fare to ram a knife through someone's skull atleast once per film. I think there was a quota or some shit.

Now think about the era when this film was released. If I remember there was a whole lotta Steel Magnolia, Pretty Woman, Beaches crap going on. it's fuuny how we think of what is allowed to be shown in movies as an upward progression when it's really an ebb and flow. Since the early 90'0s it has evolved into what we have today. But let's not think for a minute that this is the pinacle of gore. That my friends was in the 70's/80's.

I'd love deej's comments on this topic by the way.


:cool:

[shootemindehead]

Yep, there is an ebb and flow alright. But the 70's weren't just the high point of gore, it was the highpoint of movies, full stop.

I think though, that the living dead tend to draw the wrath of censors more so than any other horror movie monster. The taboo of flesh eating is really something that tends to stick in people's throats :D .

But when I see theatre releases like "Hostel" or the remake of "The Hills have Eyes", I can't help chuckling at the absolute "outrage" that zombie flicks recieved in the past. In England (and subsequently Ireland), "Zombie Flesh Eaters" was put on the 1984 banned list of video nasties, alongside "The Beast in Heat", "SS Experiment Camp" and "I Spit on Your Grave". As a result, I waited years to see it (in any form) and while I liked it, I was obviously let down somewhat, when it wasn't the mind melting guts and gorefest it and been made out to be.

Zombie films had such a bad rap, that when Savini set out to remake "Night of the Living Dead", he did so with the intention to keep it restrained, but still the MPAA insisted on cuts...simply because it was de rigeur at the time. If it was being made now, he probably could have put anything he wanted on the screen (well, withn reason :) )

Which makes the theatre release of "Day of the Dead" all the more spectacular, when you consider what Romero and Savini got away in that film.

Funkmaster...I haven't seen the workprint of "Night 90", that might be something worth checking out. But, there probably were running time cuts made here and there by Savini himself, but there wasn't much gore cut out by the MPAA, because there wasn't much in it in the first place...according to Savini anyway.

[darth los]

Well, I think we all can agree on one thing. It's been damn near 20 years since the films release and it's like the red headed stepchild of the series. Every other film gets special treatment and editions except this one.

They need to re-release it with savini's "cut" as one of the special features. As you said he could get away with that stuff and more now days. If you think about it there's really no reason they couldn't do it unless there are rights issues involved.




:cool:

[Yojimbo]

I remember watching the movie with director's commentary and Savini claimed that there was less than a minute of footage cut from the final film, in comparison with the version he originally submitted. Basically, apart from the one head explosion that was cut, almost every headshot was trimmed by a second or two - either from the start or end of the shot - to remove close ups of erupting exit wounds, and this accounts for like 90% of the cut footage. There are no missing gut-munching scenes and no character development was removed.
I recall Savini claiming that in his opinion the trims made the movie more effective. Yeah, sure!

[ProfessorChaos]

i'm pretty confident that we'll get a 20th anniversary edition dvd/blu-ray next year, even with a shit economy.:D

[Wyldwraith]

Tis sad,
I'll commit a bit of heresy and say I far prefer Savini's remake of NotLD to the GAR original. GAR's Barbara was such an annoyingly helpless twit, devoid of the slightest sign of the self-preservation drive being present. Savini's version has quite enough blubbering from Barbara when her and Ben meet up. GAR's Barbara annoyed me so badly it really detracted from the film for me.

That, and I preferred Savini's ending. I didn't always hold this view of the two films in comparison, but now I'm sick to death of the "Everyone dies, screen fades or cuts to black as zombies wander around and feast on the last to die" endings.

Dead Men Walking suffered from the Everyone Dies phenomena. Which was just enough to ruin an already borderline film.

Guess I've become a bit of an optimist in my survival horror tastes.

[darth los]

Tis sad,
I'll commit a bit of heresy and say I far prefer Savini's remake of NotLD to the GAR original. GAR's Barbara was such an annoyingly helpless twit, devoid of the slightest sign of the self-preservation drive being present. Savini's version has quite enough blubbering from Barbara when her and Ben meet up. GAR's Barbara annoyed me so badly it really detracted from the film for me.

That, and I preferred Savini's ending. I didn't always hold this view of the two films in comparison, but now I'm sick to death of the "Everyone dies, screen fades or cuts to black as zombies wander around and feast on the last to die" endings.

Dead Men Walking suffered from the Everyone Dies phenomena. Which was just enough to ruin an already borderline film.

Guess I've become a bit of an optimist in my survival horror tastes.


Well, I also have my reasons but I prefer the remake to the original as well. As I have stated before you can't take anything away from the original because of it's historical significance. With that said, the remake is a superior film, imo.


Just think about it. If you had some people over and wanted to show them a zombie film which one would you show them, the original or the remake? To me it's not even a contest. It's the remake!! I wouldn't want to turn them of to zombie films on the first go so I would elect to show them a more polished product.








:cool:

[Yojimbo]

Just think about it. If you had some people over and wanted to show them a zombie film which one would you show them, the original or the remake? To me it's not even a contest. It's the remake!! I wouldn't want to turn them of to zombie films on the first go so I would elect to show them a more polished product.








:cool:
Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style.

[darth los]

Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style.



Agreed. Of course the original is irriplaceble but we all know if shown to a noob they'd be bored to tears.







:cool:

[EvilNed]

Am I the only one here who hates the NOTLD remake? I think it's dull, lacks tempo, poor atmosphere and mostly badly acted?

[darth los]

Am I the only one here who hates the NOTLD remake? I think it's dull, lacks tempo, poor atmosphere and mostly badly acted?



I don't want to make it seem as if I don't absolutely love the original, which I do, but are you saying that the original ISN'T guilty of most of those things?








:cool:

[bassman]

Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style.

Very true. If I'm introducing someone to Romero's world of the dead I start with Night 90 and Day. Then if they like those I move them up to Dawn and Night. Then I go to Land and Diary. Most of them don't make it past Dawn, though. They usually give the "it's soooo cheesy" response.:lol:

[darth los]

Very true. If I'm introducing someone to Romero's world of the dead I start with Night 90 and Day. Then if they like those I move them up to Dawn and Night. Then I go to Land and Diary. Most of them don't make it past Dawn, though. They usually give the "it's soooo cheesy" response.:lol:



Well, isn't it? :p



Let me clarify before I get flamed.


I think people who don't love these films are immediatley turned off by the dated effects. Forget the fact that at the time the were state of the art and on a shoestring, independent budget no less.

Before I show Dawn to someone I mmediatley put out a disclaimer saying "in order to enjoy this film I need you to look past the special effects." Once that's out there the film immediately becomes more palatable to a general viewing audience.


That just goes to show you how unimaginative and, frankly, gullable, people are. Just because the special effects in a 2009 movie such as Star Trek or Terminator: Salvation does that make them anymore "real"? The bottom line is that you're suspending your disbelief in order to enjoy this fictional world.


So the zombies in the original dawn are obviously not as polished as in the remake but for some fucked up reason people let that get in the way of what could be an eye opening, life changing viewing experience.


I don't even think people are interested in films as an art form anymore. Nowdays it's more like a two hour time killer till' it's time to check their my space pages again.







:cool:

[bassman]

Well, isn't it? :p



Yeah...I completely agree. I love the film, but it's as dated and cheesy as they come. I totally understand why newcomers would be turned off by it. It's honestly not that good looking anymore. And probably anyone that argues otherwise is only doing so because their love for the film is blinding them from the truth...

Out of Romero's films the only one that really feels timeless is Day, imo.

[Trin]

I'm going to go against the common consensus here. I like Night '68. I hate Night '90.

The original was a horror movie. The remake was an action flick. The atmosphere, pacing, intensity, acting, plot - I like the original in every aspect over the remake.

In my opinion Barbra was exactly right in the original. She saw her brother assaulted and had to flee from the attacker. She was traumatized. That made sense. As opposed to Night 90 where Barbra becomes a commando. Bleck. You can keep her, cause I'm not buying it.

This thread is really just an extension of my problem with movies in general. These days people cannot sit through a movie with suspense and plot if there isn't the proper explosion/minute ratio. A movie without car chases/shootouts/fight scenes/whatever is doomed. Horror movies are now gauged by gore and special effects over storyline.

I think we need a color remake of 12 Angry Men with hard-bodied 90210 teens, a few car chases, some explosions, and oh btw - the whole court-case aspect was slow and monotonous so let's edit that out.

Yes, I'm old. You kids stay off my lawn!!! :)

[darth los]

^^^^^



You Rang?

Is that what you mean Bassman? :lol:



Yeah...I completely agree. I love the film, but it's as dated and cheesy as they come. I totally understand why newcomers would be turned off by it. It's honestly not that good looking anymore. And probably anyone that argues otherwise is only doing so because their love for the film is blinding them from the truth...

Out of Romero's films the only one that really feels timeless is Day, imo.




I'm just Yanking your chain Trin.


We like the old Romero films just fine. But the bottom line is that they do come off as dated and cheesy especially to those of this generation. We were just commenting on the fact that audiences today wouldn't even sit through half off either one before most of them start thinking"dude are you serious!?! Where's the real movie"?







:cool:

[EvilNed]

I don't want to make it seem as if I don't absolutely love the original, which I do, but are you saying that the original ISN'T guilty of most of those things?


Oh it's certainly guilty of alot of things. But not as many things as the remake! Dull, poorly made, no ambition are three things I think off when I think of the remake! I actually watched it again a few weeks ago to see if I'd changed my mind. Nope. It's just plain old boring. And the music is so incredibly bad...

[darth los]

Dull, poorly made, no ambition are three things I think off when I think of the remake!

Well, if that's your opinion, fine.


One thing we can agree on though is that the original is none of those things.







:cool:

[Trin]

I'm not disagreeing with Bassman. Night '68 does look dated. Okay, I disagree with cheesy. But I can see the argument. In my mind it's no more cheesy than Exorcist or Amityville Horror or Psycho. And they're all considered classics. Or Ghostbusters (oh, yeah, I went there :elol:).

Looking dated, however, is not enough to make me embrace a half-witted remake. Color crap is still crap.

I'm not sitting anyone down in front of commando Barbra to try to indoctrinate them to zombie movies just because it might appeal to their short attention span. If they get halfway through Night '68 and have no desire to see the rest then screw em. They'll never really be GAR fans anyway.

Or maybe my love of the film is blinding me. :confused:

[Yojimbo]

Well, isn't it? :p



Let me clarify before I get flamed.


I think people who don't love these films are immediatley turned off by the dated effects. Forget the fact that at the time the were state of the art and on a shoestring, independent budget no less.

Before I show Dawn to someone I mmediatley put out a disclaimer saying "in order to enjoy this film I need you to look past the special effects." Once that's out there the film immediately becomes more palatable to a general viewing audience.


That just goes to show you how unimaginative and, frankly, gullable, people are. Just because the special effects in a 2009 movie such as Star Trek or Terminator: Salvation does that make them anymore "real"? The bottom line is that you're suspending your disbelief in order to enjoy this fictional world.


So the zombies in the original dawn are obviously not as polished as in the remake but for some fucked up reason people let that get in the way of what could be an eye opening, life changing viewing experience.


I don't even think people are interested in films as an art form anymore. Nowdays it's more like a two hour time killer till' it's time to check their my space pages again.







:cool:
Don't know, brother - and maybe I am a dinosaur but I am one of those who actually prefer my monsters to be stop motion, my spaceships to be models photographed against a hand painted backdrop on forced persepctive glass inserts than all the digital/CGI self-abuse that proliferates the genre now.

[bassman]

I'm not disagreeing with Bassman. Night '68 does look dated. Okay, I disagree with cheesy. But I can see the argument.

:shifty:

I was actually talking about the original Dawn being dated and cheesy in most people's eyes. Night is almost timeless, imo. Kinda like the grainy black and white was put in on purpose for dramatic effect. That's how I see it, anyway.

So yeah....I was calling Dawn dated and cheesy. And I love it.

[Trin]

Don't know, brother - and maybe I am a dinosaur but I am one of those who actually prefer my monsters to be stop motion, my spaceships to be models photographed against a hand painted backdrop on forced persepctive glass inserts than all the digital/CGI self-abuse that proliferates the genre now.
I grew up watching the old, old, old Dr. Who movies. Back when special effects meant putting a guy in a cardboard box painted silver and pretending he's a robot. They pretty much had to make a wonderful storyline cause they had nothing for effects. So to me all the Dead movies had great effects.

In fact, I'd say the earlier ones had better effects. Why? No, they didn't look better. I'm not arguing that. But they made sense. For example, does it really work for Samuel to impale a zombie by sticking a blade through his own head? That's not a "great zombie kill." It's freakin ridiculous. You never saw anything that was just stupid like that in the originals.

I wouldn't say I prefer older style effects. But I will say I won't trade storyline for effects. And that's what movies do these days. They focus on making something really cool to look at and forget that it has to mesh with the story. They're shooting fireworks up onto the screen and laughing as the zombies in the seats sit motionless and watch.


:shifty:

I was actually talking about the original Dawn being dated and cheesy in most people's eyes. Night is almost timeless, imo. Kinda like the grainy black and white was put in on purpose for dramatic effect. That's how I see it, anyway.

So yeah....I was calling Dawn dated and cheesy. And I love it.
In that case I totally agree. :D

[Neil]

And that's what movies do these days. They focus on making something really cool to look at and forget that it has to mesh with the story.
Did someone say Michael Bay? Did someone say Roland Emmerich?

[Trin]

Ah, yes, Godzilla and Transformers. I almost mentioned both of these as examples of movies that forgot to have a storyline.

I mean, honestly, the Transformers cartoon had more plot than the movie. It's almost as if they figured they could dismiss storyline since anyone could just go watch the cartoon if they cared about what was going on. It was totally optional for the experience they were serving up. Maybe for Transformers 2 they could serve plot at the concession stand just in case you want a little meal with your dessert.

They took a cartoon and made a movie and ended up with less plot. Outstanding!!

[darth los]

Ah, yes, Godzilla and Transformers. I almost mentioned both of these as examples of movies that forgot to have a storyline.

I mean, honestly, the Transformers cartoon had more plot than the movie. It's almost as if they figured they could dismiss storyline since anyone could just go watch the cartoon if they cared about what was going on. It was totally optional for the experience they were serving up. Maybe for Transformers 2 they could serve plot at the concession stand just in case you want a little meal with your dessert.

They took a cartoon and made a movie and ended up with less plot. Outstanding!!



You know I never put much thought into it but you're right. The tranformers cartoon is actually very deep and has an interesting canon attached to it.


But, let's not forget that it was still the 80's and audiences attention spans were not as short back then. And when you consider that their audience was mainly children that's as big an indictment about how unsophisticated Americans have become.


Yes the attention span of children in the 80's is greater than that of today's adults.



WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.







:cool:

[Trin]

I'm sorry darth, I tried to read your post but only made a few sentences in then lost interest. Maybe if you put a few more emoticons in there or some sound files or a hot chick jpeg or something. Then maybe I could read the whole post. But I'm trying to be more in tune with today's youth and thus my current attention span really only lasts a.... what was I saying? Whatever.

[bassman]

Before I say this....let me just say that I agree with you guys on the short attention span thing.

But there is also a place for some more straight-forward action films. I love to think during movies, but I sometimes also enjoy an action flick where I can slow down the ol' noggin and enjoy the visuals. And these kinds of flicks aren't anything new if you think about it....

[Trin]

Before I say this....let me just say that I agree with you guys on the short attention span thing.

But there is also a place for some more straight-forward action films. I love to think during movies, but I sometimes also enjoy an action flick where I can slow down the ol' noggin and enjoy the visuals. And these kinds of flicks aren't anything new if you think about it....
That's a good point. Godzilla probably falls into this category. Does it need to be more than a movie with a big lizard stomping through a city? Maybe not.

[darth los]

Before I say this....let me just say that I agree with you guys on the short attention span thing.

But there is also a place for some more straight-forward action films. I love to think during movies, but I sometimes also enjoy an action flick where I can slow down the ol' noggin and enjoy the visuals. And these kinds of flicks aren't anything new if you think about it....


There's a place for everything and everything in it's place.


But nowdays it seems like EVERY movie is the sort where people say, "Well if you just turn your brain off you'll enjoy it." Fuck That. I need more from my movies.


Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.

I guess GAr falls into that catagory as well. :(








:cool:

[bassman]

Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.



Well obviously Kubrick is dead, but Ridley Scott is still making good films and lasting just fine. There are plenty "thinking" directors out there, if you ask me. But unfortunately you're right....they do seem to make fewer films while McG, Ratner, Boll and the like are churning them out every month or so...

[Trin]

Technology has been an enabler of the plot-less wonderland. It's easy to make high-budget special effects blockbusters now. Moreso than ever. And with the returns on investment it's alluring too. Who wants to take a chance on a plot driven character movie that *might* resonate with viewers when a special-effects blockbuster will make a fortune even if it gets bad reviews?

I see both sides. Yes, action-oriented flicks have their place. No, that place is not dominating a large (and ever growing) percent of the market.

GAR is his own unique kind of problem. I believe that many moviegoers were hungry for a change back to plot and character driven storylines when Land came out and they looked to GAR and Land to show the movie industry what a master can do. I fully believe that GAR is capable of blending the storytelling of old with some touches of new technology to come up with something truly staggering. I think he just missed the mark with Land... errr... and Diary.

[darth los]

Technology has been an enabler of the plot-less wonderland. It's easy to make high-budget special effects blockbusters now. Moreso than ever. And with the returns on investment it's alluring too. Who wants to take a chance on a plot driven character movie that *might* resonate with viewers when a special-effects blockbuster will make a fortune even if it gets bad reviews?

I see both sides. Yes, action-oriented flicks have their place. No, that place is not dominating a large (and ever growing) percent of the market.

GAR is his own unique kind of problem. I believe that many moviegoers were hungry for a change back to plot and character driven storylines when Land came out and they looked to GAR and Land to show the movie industry what a master can do. I fully believe that GAR is capable of blending the storytelling of old with some touches of new technology to come up with something truly staggering. I think he just missed the mark with Land... errr... and Diary.



Well, it's been my experience in life that people will work only as hard as they have to. The saying "nescesity is the mother of invention" is probably the truest statement ever uttered.


So when a movie practically makes itself movie makers don't feel the need to think much and it shows in their product. :rolleyes:










:cool:

[shootemindehead]

Great, Legendary directors Like Kubrick and Ridley Scott wouldn't last 5 minutes as directors today using the same style that made them legends. That's the sad part.

Very true. Can you imagine 'Alien' being made today? Not a chance.

[darth los]

Very true. Can you imagine 'Alien' being made today? Not a chance.


That was my point earlier that I think Bassman took a little differently. I'm sure Scott is involved with plenty of projects but can ya name any? Me neither.







:cool:

[Trin]

Well, it's been my experience in life that people will work only as hard as they have to.
I think this is true for anyone looking to earn a paycheck. For someone looking to express themselves and take pride in their work I think people will work pretty darned hard. Those people may not have the same opportunities today as they did 40 years ago. And there may not be as many of those people around either since breaking into movie making is so hard now.

Movie making is an industry now, scaled for profit. You can't just make a movie and take a risk and hope people will like it. You have to make movies that have guaranteed return on investment. If you find a formula that works you crank them out in droves.

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.

[darth los]

I think this is true for anyone looking to earn a paycheck. For someone looking to express themselves and take pride in their work I think people will work pretty darned hard. Those people may not have the same opportunities today as they did 40 years ago. And there may not be as many of those people around either since breaking into movie making is so hard now.

Movie making is an industry now, scaled for profit. You can't just make a movie and take a risk and hope people will like it. You have to make movies that have guaranteed return on investment. If you find a formula that works you crank them out in droves.

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.



Well said friend. There's nothing much I can add to that. :)


Sadly though. It's too true. :(








:cool:

[bassman]

The harsh reality is that 10 movies of satisfactory enjoyment will net more money than 1 really outstanding movie.

Too true. But at least now with DVD being such a big market, sometimes the great films that didn't do too well in theater get good word of mouth and sale well on DVD....

[darth los]

Too true. But at least now with DVD being such a big market, sometimes the great films that didn't do too well in theater get good word of mouth and sale well on DVD....


So I guess there are pros and cons to everything. But it seems as if most straight to dvd offerings are far from classic. And the fact that they are low budget "labors of love" is not reflected in terms of the quality of these releases.







:cool:

[bassman]

I'm back tracking a bit here, but you asked if anyone could name any good *new* Ridley Scott films. American Gangster was Great, imo.

Black Hawk Down and Gladiator weren't too shabby, either...

[darth los]

I'm back tracking a bit here, but you asked if anyone could name any good *new* Ridley Scott films. American Gangster was Great, imo.

Black Hawk Down and Gladiator weren't too shabby, either...



I didn't know about Black Hawk down but the other 2 are a couple of my favs.







:cool:

[EvilNed]

I hated American Gangster, but loved Gladiator. But Ridley Scott IS kinda of a hit-and-miss guy. Sometimes he just makes bland, boring films. Sometimes he makes masterpieces.

[darth los]

I hated American Gangster, but loved Gladiator. But Ridley Scott IS kinda of a hit-and-miss guy. Sometimes he just makes bland, boring films. Sometimes he makes masterpieces.


I think the same can be said for every film maker. What is GAr's hit/miss ratio again? :confused:


Exactly.







:cool:

[EvilNed]

I think the same can be said for every film maker. What is GAr's hit/miss ratio again? :confused:


Exactly.


From what I've seen, much better than Ridley Scotts. :p I've seen 7 of GARs films, and I liked them all.

[darth los]

From what I've seen, much better than Ridley Scotts. :p I've seen 7 of GARs films, and I liked them all.

And you don't think your love of his filmaking style has made you just a wee bit partisan?


In any case GAr's ghouls have had a way bigger impact on pop culture than anything scott's produced, imo.









:cool:

[EvilNed]

And you don't think your love of his filmaking style has made you just a wee bit partisan?

No, I just think I steered clear of all the crappy ones... There are a few out there which I haven't seen, and the only one I want to see is Martin!




In any case GAr's ghouls have had a way bigger impact on pop culture than anything scott's produced, imo.

That can be debated, but yes it can be argued that it is so. Then again, most sci-fi films off today trace their roots to Ridley Scotts vision of the future (Alien, Ridley Scott), where the future was suddenly no longer "clean" but rather dirty and ugly.

[darth los]

No, I just think I steered clear of all the crappy ones... There are a few out there which I haven't seen, and the only one I want to see is Martin!





That can be debated, but yes it can be argued that it is so. Then again, most sci-fi films off today trace their roots to Ridley Scotts vision of the future (Alien, Ridley Scott), where the future was suddenly no longer "clean" but rather dirty and ugly.


Well, star wars didn't seem to clean to me either so the origins of the "dirtieness" of the future can be debated as well.


But having a vision of the way something already established should be and creating a completely new genre are two different things.


GAr pwns scott. Write down, pass it on, love it, live it.






:cool:

[EvilNed]

But having a vision of the way something already established should be and creating a completely new genre are two different things.


I guess it can be argued that it was Richard Matheson who created the genre, and not GAR. But then again, Ridley Scott didn't write the script/books to his films. Anyway, I think you're giving GAR a bit too much credit...

Because let's face it, if we're gonna go by the rule of who popularized things, then Michael Jackson, and not GAR, is what got the zombies into popular culture. :p

[darth los]

Because let's face it, if we're gonna go by the rule of who popularized things, then Michael Jackson, and not GAR, is what the zombies into popular culture. :p


Finally, something we can agree on!! :D


I'll do you one better. The dude who made ROTLD had a Huge impact on how zombies are viewed as well. Everyone in the media you hear speak on the subject insist that zombies are hungry for BRAINS!!!!!!!








:cool:

[bassman]

I'll do you one better. The dude who made ROTLD had a Huge impact on how zombies are viewed as well. Everyone in the media you hear speak on the subject insist that zombies are hungry for BRAINS!!!!!!!



Ugh....unfortunately you're right. Why is it that the hacks always get the credit? Usually if I mention "Dawn of the Dead" to someone, they think i'm talking about the remake.:annoyed:

[EvilNed]

I'll do you one better. The dude who made ROTLD had a Huge impact on how zombies are viewed as well. Everyone in the media you hear speak on the subject insist that zombies are hungry for BRAINS!!!!!!!


Yeah. But whenever I mention Return of the Living Dead, people always go Huh?. Then I just have to say "The one zombie film where the zombies actually say Brains." and then everyone gets it.

Also, I fail to see how Dan O'Bannon is a "hack" just because he made a film you didn't like, Bassman. Infact, O'Bannon is a very talented writer. Don't tell me you didn't like Alien...

[bassman]

Also, I fail to see how Dan O'Bannon is a "hack" just because he made a film you didn't like, Bassman. Infact, O'Bannon is a very talented writer. Don't tell me you didn't like Alien...

I shouldn't have used the word hack. I was actually calling Snyder a hack, but it does look like I was calling O'bannon the same. He get's some points for Alien, but I think his cheese slid off his cracker for Return.:p

Here's a strange one....anyone ever had someone tell them that Night is a Universal Monster movie? I once had this lady try to convince me that Night was a universal movie released around the same time as Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.:stunned:

[EvilNed]

Yeah, I think I've heard that one. Can't pinpoint a specific moment tho, but it does ring a bell. But truth be told, not alot of people HAVE actually seen Night of the Living Dead. I'd imagine we are amongst the priviledged few here.

[bassman]

But truth be told, not alot of people HAVE actually seen Night of the Living Dead. I'd imagine we are amongst the priviledged few here.

I'll have to respectfully disagree there, ned. I think everyone has seen at least bits of Night. Whether they know it or not.

When I first became a fan of Romero's films, I saw Day first. Then when I went looking to see if this guy had done anything else I stumbled across Night and realized that I had seen that film hundreds of times growing up. I can't remember a Halloween night when it WASN'T on the air.

Being that it's Public Domain, I think it gets many more views than we think. Like I said, I find it on several different channels just about every halloween....

[EvilNed]

I'll have to respectfully disagree there, ned. I think everyone has seen at least bits of Night. Whether they know it or not.


Yeah, but there's a difference between seeing bits and pieces and actually seeing the film. Not many people have actually done that.

Heck, I've seen pieces of both Grease and Pretty Woman, but I haven't seen the films. :p And probably never will..

[darth los]

Yeah, but there's a difference between seeing bits and pieces and actually seeing the film. Not many people have actually done that.

Heck, I've seen pieces of both Grease and Pretty Woman, but I haven't seen the films. :p And probably never will..


Agreed. That's like saying "well, I've read bits and pieces of the constitution". and thinking that makes you familiar with the document.


In this country we normally just call those people republicans. :lol::p:D

[bassman]

I said AT LEAST bits and pieces. Clean ya glasses, ya bunch of yo-yo's!:p

I would think that most people have seen the entire film. That's how it's seemed to me, anyway...

[Trin]

The whole ROTLD thing and "Brainsssss" just slays me. I had to go through anger counseling over it. Those are not GAR zombies!!

I saw Night first of them all. Didn't see it when it first came out, but close. Then Dawn, then Day... In proper order. :)

I have no frame of reference for anyone who did not see them in order. I cannot even conceive of that. No offense to Night - I love that movie - but progressing from Dawn to Night would be like getting out of a tank and going for a spin in a bumper car.

[darth los]

I said AT LEAST bits and pieces. Clean ya glasses, ya bunch of yo-yo's!:p



Or in other words: Less than the entire film. :p

Which would not give such a person credibility to comment on it.



Love the harry Cooper reference by the way. He's actually the only one I've ever heard use that phrase. Until now that is. :)







:cool:

[EvilNed]

I said AT LEAST bits and pieces. Clean ya glasses, ya bunch of yo-yo's!:p


And I said that most people hadn't seen it, so what kind of a response was that? :p

Actually, I dare say that amongst the classical three, NOTLD is the least watched of them even amongst us fans on this here site! Though out "there" (amongst normal people) I think Day would be the least seen one.

I showed a friend of mine Day of the Dead the other day, and keep in mind this is a friend I've been gradually introducing to zombies for a couple of months now, and the response was that this was the best zombiefilm she'd seen yet! Infact, she really, really liked it.

[bassman]

I showed a friend of mine Day of the Dead the other day, and keep in mind this is a friend I've been gradually introducing to zombies for a couple of months now, and the response was that this was the best zombiefilm she'd seen yet! Infact, she really, really liked it.

Yeah...Day has that universal appeal that Dawn and Night lack. Day is always the one I show first to newcomers and they've always liked it. Bub made my wife cry....I still get a kick out of that.:lol:

[EvilNed]

Yeah...Day has that universal appeal that Dawn and Night lack. Day is always the one I show first to newcomers and they've always liked it. Bub made my wife cry....I still get a kick out of that.:lol:

Yeah, my friend didn't cry, but you could tell she certainly felt sorry for him and was happy when he shot Rhodes. I found that amusing.

[darth los]

Yeah, my friend didn't cry, but you could tell she certainly felt sorry for him and was happy when he shot Rhodes. I found that amusing.


It's always interesting to see the female vs. male reactions to things like that. I'm sure both genders wanted rhodes dead but the reasons are different.







:cool:

[bassman]

It's always interesting to see the female vs. male reactions to things like that. I'm sure both genders wanted rhodes dead but the reasons are different.



Yeah, most people want Rhodes dead(and you know from the start that he'll die because he's such an ass), but I think Bub getting his revenge is the real power at the end of the film. I have yet to meet one person that didn't like Bub and root for him.

I know alot of people don't like Day, but they at least have to give Romero and Howard(or is his last name Sherman? I can never remember:confused:)credit for successfully making the "bad guy" into the hero of the film....

[Trin]

I showed a friend of mine Day of the Dead the other day, and keep in mind this is a friend I've been gradually introducing to zombies for a couple of months now, and the response was that this was the best zombiefilm she'd seen yet! Infact, she really, really liked it.

Of the originals, Day is the obvious choice to put a female friend in the mood for boinking.


I know alot of people don't like DayI support euthanasia for those people. No one should live in that kind of suffering.

[darth los]

I support euthanasia for those people. No one should live in that kind of suffering.



You know I've heard that over and over again but what they didn't like about it is almost never discussed. Is the best they can come up with is that it's not like night or dawn?


Pretty flimsy arguemnet if you ask me.








:cool:

[bassman]

Is the best they can come up with is that it's not like night or dawn?



That's what I think the problem is. Just like Romero says in the documentary....people wanted another Dawn. I think this problem still happens today. That's not to say that his new films don't have flaws, but I think some people just want him to make Dawn or Night over and over again...

[darth los]

That's what I think the problem is. Just like Romero says in the documentary....people wanted another Dawn. I think this problem still happens today. That's not to say that his new films don't have flaws, but I think some people just want him to make Dawn or Night over and over again...


Well we see how well making NOTLD over again turned out (diary).

You know what we need? For GAr himself to take the helm on the world war Z film. I'm sure he could do a far better job than virtually anyone else out there plus it would give him the chance to cover new ground. Before he kicks it I would love to see his vision of the zombie apocalypse on an epic scale such as that. And perhaps his vision of humanity as it tries to pull itself together afterwards.


Because truthfully the beginning to mid zombie outbreak scenarios have been done to death. And invariably half the film is spent until the tools in it realize that you have to shoot them in the head in order to kill them and that little timmy really isn't little timmy anymore but a creature running soley on the instinct to feed. Honestly, how much more of that do we need?








:cool:

[bassman]

Romero's Resident Evil. THAT'S what I want to see.

I still can't believe they went with Paul "I'm such a hack, how is it that I f*ck Mila Jovovich?" Anderson's bullshit film instead of Romero's.:annoyed:

[darth los]

Romero's Resident Evil. THAT'S what I want to see.

I still can't believe they went with Paul "I'm such a hack, how is it that I f*ck Mila Jovovich?" Anderson's bullshit film instead of Romero's.:annoyed:


It's guess it's all about who you're fucking nowdays. Perhaps he's the one who got milla on board and without him there was no her.



Side note: The streets are filled with gorgeous women with these man apes on their arms that make you go hmmmmmmmm........... :confused:







:cool:

[ProfessorChaos]

You know what we need? For GAr himself to take the helm on the world war Z film.

i don't know man...there's waay too much potential for romero to start face-fucking the audience with all his social commentary and political beliefs...while i think they work well in his films (okay, not the new ones), WWZ should just be a kick-ass epic about zombies wiping out half the world...

EDIT: and this thead has gone pretty far from its intended topic lately....just sayin....maybe a mod could change the title and we could go back to talking about night '90.

[Yojimbo]

WWZ should just be a kick-ass epic about zombies wiping out half the world...


On some level this is one of my greatest fears: WWZ turning out to be a simple effects and action film which will attract tweens and idiot frat boy types for a few weekends and then be largely forgotten like most of those effects/action flicks.

In this vein, I was going to mention something about "I AM LEGEND" the Will Smith vehicle, but then I guess it would not apply since it fell far short of kicking ass.

[Trin]

i don't know man...there's waay too much potential for romero to start face-fucking the audience with all his social commentary and political beliefs...while i think they work well in his films (okay, not the new ones), WWZ should just be a kick-ass epic about zombies wiping out half the world...
I agree with this. It's not a good fit. My face is still sore from Diary.

I hate to say this, but WWZ would likely benefit by having someone new and fresh take up the zombie movie cause. The genre needs a future after GAR and it's not with anyone currently dipping their toes in it.

That's not to say I think GAR is done by any measure. But he's got his own agenda and should pursue that instead of other people's ideas. At this point in his career he doesn't need someone else's ideas. He's better at his own work.

[darth los]

i don't know man...there's waay too much potential for romero to start face-fucking the audience with all his social commentary and political beliefs...while i think they work well in his films (okay, not the new ones), WWZ should just be a kick-ass epic about zombies wiping out half the world...

EDIT: and this thead has gone pretty far from its intended topic lately....just sayin....maybe a mod could change the title and we could go back to talking about night '90.


Point taken. And it is a valid one. It's just that how many crappy zombie flicks do we have to see before we come to the conclusion that barley a handful of directors can competantly pull off a zombie film.

All that's coming to mind right now is GAr and fulci. But it's not like I'm awake yet. Any other suggestions?








:cool:

[AcesandEights]

I agree with this. It's not a good fit. My face is still sore from Diary.


Social commentary canker? ;)

And, I also agree, by the way.

Other people need to step forward to make decent zombie movies, in their own vain.

[bassman]

Other people need to step forward to make decent zombie movies, in their own vain.

It seems to me that alot of people try but it either isn't good or just doesn't catch on as well as Romero's original trilogy did.

He's not the only person that can make them, but you have to give the man some points for being the only person to really make a series with the living dead that works.

[darth los]

It seems to me that alot of people try but it either isn't good or just doesn't catch on as well as Romero's original trilogy did.

He's not the only person that can make them, but you have to give the man some points for being the only person to really make a series with the living dead that works.



Dammit dude!! You stole my response !!


But yeah, Plenty of people mak e zombie films and they all suck.


So let's get this straight. Let's let someone else make the film just for the sake of getting new blood in there, is that right?


Don't get me wrong, GAr is more than capable of making a turd, which he has shown but he also can make magic and that is something virtually no one else in the genre has done.








:cool:

[Trin]

So let's get this straight. Let's let someone else make the film just for the sake of getting new blood in there, is that right?
Yes, that's right.

But I don't think the argument goes so far as to say GAR should stop and someone else should start. That's not the point. The argument is that GAR should not be teamed up with WWZ. GAR should continue making the movies he wants to make. Hopefully Dead movies - though I know some would prefer he make other things. But, whatever, let him make his own kind of movies with his own plot and his commentary and all that. That's his strength.

At the same time have someone else make WWZ and hopefully the good story paired with a good director will carry forward into a great movie. A newer director who is less established (cough - rigid - cough) would be less likely to insert a bunch of their style into the script. And maybe if we're lucky a new franchise is born that cranks out some worthy zombie stuff.

There are two things I'd like us to avoid:
1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka."
2) No zombie future when GAR hangs it up.

[EvilNed]

There are two things I'd like us to avoid:
1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka."


:lol: I have a hard time imagening a more boring movie than that!

[darth los]

Yes, that's right.

But I don't think the argument goes so far as to say GAR should stop and someone else should start. That's not the point. The argument is that GAR should not be teamed up with WWZ. GAR should continue making the movies he wants to make. Hopefully Dead movies - though I know some would prefer he make other things. But, whatever, let him make his own kind of movies with his own plot and his commentary and all that. That's his strength.

At the same time have someone else make WWZ and hopefully the good story paired with a good director will carry forward into a great movie. A newer director who is less established (cough - rigid - cough) would be less likely to insert a bunch of their style into the script. And maybe if we're lucky a new franchise is born that cranks out some worthy zombie stuff.

There are two things I'd like us to avoid:
1) GAR saying, "I took the WWZ story and used it as a backdrop to explore the plight of the vegga-pygmies in southern sri-lanka."
2) No zombie future when GAR hangs it up.


1) I just wanted to get straight what your your point was and they were good ones even though I don't agree with them.

2) I like the point you made about GAr working best when NOT subjected to the tyranny of a major studio (I'm sure that's how he feels about it and I thought I'd use a dotd reference ;)) it was obvios that was the problem with land. :(








:cool:

[Yojimbo]

But yeah, Plenty of people mak e zombie films and they all suck.






:cool:
I don't know, brother darth, but I kind of liked a few of them. Shaun of the Dead and Fido comes to mind as decent zombie films. Also dug Cemetery Man for all it's weirdness too. But overall, I'd have to agree the the majority of the zombie films that are coming out are less than dog turd on the shattered glass riddled sidewalk in front of that check cashing store where folks who live off the grid go to cash their welfare vouchers.

[darth los]

I don't know, brother darth, but I kind of liked a few of them. Shaun of the Dead and Fido comes to mind as decent zombie films. Also dug Cemetery Man for all it's weirdness too. But overall, I'd have to agree the the majority of the zombie films that are coming out are less than dog turd on the shattered glass riddled sidewalk in front of that check cashing store where folks who live off the grid go to cash their welfare vouchers.



Exactly. Yeah, those films you mentioned are good. But what percentage of films in the genre are good? Maybe 10?








:cool:

[Yojimbo]

Exactly. Yeah, those films you mentioned are good. But what percentage of films in the genre are good? Maybe 10?








:cool:
Yeah, brother darth, but that 10% rule is applicable everywhere in the film world, and perhaps it is a high estimate at that. Suspense movies, for example, I do not believe that there is even 5% that are worthy. General horror, romance, comedy - whatever genre you pick I think that the same rule is going to apply.

[darth los]

Yeah, brother darth, but that 10% rule is applicable everywhere in the film world, and perhaps it is a high estimate at that. Suspense movies, for example, I do not believe that there is even 5% that are worthy. General horror, romance, comedy - whatever genre you pick I think that the same rule is going to apply.


I guess when you put it that way.


I don't even enjoy watching movies like i used to. The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? :rolleyes:) and sequels has made me desensitized to it all.

I haven't seen saw 5 yet i can tell you what it's about and what happens in it. Nuff said.







:cool:

[Yojimbo]

I guess when you put it that way.


I don't even enjoy watching movies like i used to. The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? :rolleyes:) and sequels has made me desensitized to it all.

I haven't seen saw 5 yet i can tell you what it's about and what happens in it. Nuff said.







:cool:


I hear you. I have seen a few recently that were ok, and posted these on the media boards, but it should tell you something that none of these were mainstream Hollywood releases, which overall suck major ass.

[Trin]

The prevalence of rehashes, remakes, retreads ( notice a pattern here? :rolleyes:)... retards...

[Yojimbo]

... retards...
... regurgitants ...

[zombiekiller]

the night remake is awesome, imo. i recall being pretty bummed that i was too young to get into the theaters to see it, but luckily my mom is kick-ass and let me rent it like a million times. not quite as good as the original, but a great film that does it proper justice.

there are a few other bloopers that can be found by accessing the main page of this site and following the appropriate links. never noticed the leaves on the trees, but the whole being able to see your breath in august always bothered me a bit.

they really should release a 20th anniversary dvd next year.

i was lucky, i seen night 68,90 dawn 78,04 and day(org.) at the theatres( drive-ins and walk ins) and they were great. that's the only way to see those movies.

[blind2d]

Yep, you're lucky, all right. Does this count as necromancy, though?

[ProfessorChaos]

shut up, dude. i like being quoted, even if it was a post from eleven months ago.:D