Can you imagine what GAR's films would have been like with more budget

[NumberOneGARFan]

Can you imagine what GAR's film would have been like if he had more of a budget. Not unlimited funds but more than he had to work with. Example: Night was probably the smallest budget out of all four and yet it is such a cult classic that it probably will never be forgotten. In my eyes. The make up effects had to be simple because they only had a small budget to work with. In the later films he had more funds due to all the success from Night but even then they didn't have the proper funding. Did you know when the first print of NOTLD '68 premiered it had no copyright and alot of people copied it for their own profit.(bastards) They have been tracking them down for over 30 years. Don't get me wrong i love all the GAR films as they are. :skull:

[MinionZombie]

If GAR had had more budget for all his flicks then they'd just be bigger, larger spaces, more street scenes, LOADS of zombies, really elaborate effects sequences and so forth. Although it probably wouldn't have had a huge effect on his films as they were designed to be as such. Day and Land would have had the most difference I think - the original Day script would have been filmed by GAR and Land would have had more practical effects, a more relaxed shooting schedule and a few more scenes I'd imagine. But Universal are a bunch of puckered up assholes, lol.

[bassman]

Did you know when the first print of NOTLD '68 premiered it had no copyright and alot of people copied it for their own profit.(bastards) They have been tracking them down for over 30 years.


I believe this is why we now have "Night of the Living Dead 3D":barf: ....

[EvilNed]

Night of the Living Dead? The only thing I can see is probably the zombie make-up, they might have made it a bit more elaborate.

Dawn of the Dead, the same here. I don't think GAR had to many any severe changes due to budget restrains. He would have kept his original script, and made the zombies more gruesome looking.

Day of the Dead... No comment, we all know how that would have wound up.

But if that's how Day of the Dead would have been like, that means, what the hell would Land of the Dead be like?

[NumberOneGARFan]

I guess my original point was that in Land, GAR actually was able to do a movie he wanted to make, the way he wanted to do it. Universal gave him the freedom he needed but he still didn't have an unlimited budget though. He said it was the most flexibility he had as a director so far. On the previous three there was always restraints on the budget and with restrictions from the classification boards. They always felt there were scenes that were unsuitable and i bet there were some nice gory scenes that were ultimitely cut because of it. So not only was make up effected but also maybe special effects and film lengths. So anything that may have come due to a bigger budget would have been that much sweeter. Long live GAR. :skull:

[idsaluteyoubub]

I guess my original point was that in Land, GAR actually was able to do a movie he wanted to make, the way he wanted to do it. Universal gave him the freedom he needed but he still didn't have an unlimited budget though. He said it was the most flexibility he had as a director so far. On the previous three there was always restraints on the budget and with restrictions from the classification boards. They always felt there were scenes that were unsuitable and i bet there were some nice gory scenes that were ultimitely cut because of it. So not only was make up effected but also maybe special effects and film lengths. So anything that may have come due to a bigger budget would have been that much sweeter. Long live GAR. :skull:


They didnt let him make the movie unrated. That would have been a plus.

[bassman]

They didnt let him make the movie unrated. That would have been a plus.

Technically, they did. Just for the DVD Release and not Theatrical. Then again....just about every film maker does that these days.

You've got to admit....he did get away with a pretty hard R.

[ipotts85]

as far as effects, you can't look past the limitations at the time. 'splatter' effects were just beginnng - tom savini practically invented the effects for dawn as they went along. with a bigger budget, he may have had time to get in more detail, but i doubt the final product would have differed greatly. same with night - in 1968, the effects in that film were at their limit for the genre. i don't think a bigger budget would have affected much...

besides, i think the small budgets adds to the character of the film. when has there ever been a big budget cult film?

[MinionZombie]

Okay I'm still funking confused. Does Night of the Living Dead actually have a copyright on it now, like, for definate? Yet people are still under the impression it's not - hence Night3D? But that's kinda screwy, cos surely they'd see that the flick was now copyrighted if it is indeed copyrighted.

Anybody know definately whether Night is definately copyrighted nowadays?

[Danny]

im pretty sure fangoria said like three issues back that its not.




plagarism ahoy!

[Adrenochrome]

Okay I'm still funking confused. Does Night of the Living Dead actually have a copyright on it now, like, for definate? Yet people are still under the impression it's not - hence Night3D? But that's kinda screwy, cos surely they'd see that the flick was now copyrighted if it is indeed copyrighted.

Anybody know definately whether Night is definately copyrighted nowadays?
It's not. It's still Public Domain. And, unless I'm wrong, it can't be otherwise, ever.

"As a general rule, most works enter the public domain because of old age. This includes any work published in the United States before 1923. Another large block of works are in the public domain because they were published before 1964 and copyright was not renewed. (Renewal was a requirement for works published before 1978.) A smaller group of works fell into the public domain because they were published without copyright notice (copyright notice was necessary for works published in the United States before March 1, 1989). Some works are in the public domain because the owner has indicated a desire to give them to the public without copyright protection. The rules establishing the public domain status for each of these types of works are different and more details are provided throughout this chapter."

- taken from http://fairuse.stanford.edu/index.html

[ipotts85]

the original IS in the public domain...

anyone who wants to release it legally can, and you can download it off the internet free (and legally)...which is why they can make night 3-d...

[NumberOneGARFan]

as far as effects, you can't look past the limitations at the time. 'splatter' effects were just beginnng - tom savini practically invented the effects for dawn as they went along. with a bigger budget, he may have had time to get in more detail, but i doubt the final product would have differed greatly. same with night - in 1968, the effects in that film were at their limit for the genre. i don't think a bigger budget would have affected much...

besides, i think the small budgets adds to the character of the film. when has there ever been a big budget cult film?

Tom Savini is pretty much a genius for FX. I think it is mostly due to his time in the military as a photographer. He remembers faces of his fellow dead soldiers in 'nam with different expressions on their faces. He said he remembers feeling like a zombie when he got home. I feel like a zombie sometimes :skull:

[MinionZombie]

Damn that sucks, now for years to come there'll be a bunch of Hack Snyder types ripping it off, damn youze!

[Danny]

i dont think theyd be better most ''hollywood'' films tend to be cheaper ,rushed and lacking heart, like written on the can on a laptop after a tandori.:D

[Apocryphism]

I do not find myself disappointed that Romero's films were budgeted just the way they were. On every account, budget or lack thereof had something to do with the way the films turned out... and I happen to appreciate each of them in very specifiic ways. Of course, I have no reason to believe that I would like them less were the budgets all much larger, I'm just trying to see the big picture, so to speak, in terms of the quality of Romero's filmmaking. In short, I like Romero's works for what they are, not what they could have been.

"You work with what you got..." Romero does exactly that, and admirably so. He is an absolute professional, but he remains firmly rooted in his ability to make a lot from a little, and make it beautiful. Given more money, he could no doubt do more, but that does not overshadow or discount his previous and current works in any way.