Any interest in "LIVING DEAD" fan edits?

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[beat_truck]

Not interested in the least bit. I don't need or want classic movies "reinterpreted" for me.:barf:

I can't speak for everyone, but I doubt you will find anyone else here that will appreciate it either.

I am not part of today's ADD generation that can't pay attention to or enjoy a movie that isn't constant action and special effects, or is "old and dated", or gasp..... B&W.:rolleyes:

[Neil]

I'd be interested in seeing the result(s) ;)

[MinionZombie]

Romero himself was very egalitarian and most of his earlier work is in the public domain is one sense or another. So I think he'd applaud any effort to draw attention to his work and legacy, as long as it was sincere. You know? I'm not trying to make a buck off of this, so I plan to bow out and now draw attention to myself or anything. What I'm doing comes from a place of pure love for the art of Romero.

In any case, interested in seeing if there is any interest in this sort of thing from the fans...or if I should expect a backlash, etc.

Again, I wanted to (re)introduce the audience of today to Romero's best work, many of which are unfamiliar with his incredible pandemic epic.

1) Only Night of the Living Dead fell into public domain - and only accidentally. The owners have since done many things to 're-establish' copyright, and none of the creators were at all pleased they were screwed out of a lot of money due to an oversight.

2) Expect a backlash.

3) Today's audiences shouldn't be 're-introduced' to something - you yourself describe the Living Dead films as an "incredible pandemic epic" - via some re-edit that has nothing to do with the original creators. Indeed, Romero's own editing style is one of the joys of watching his earlier films and in-part tells the story of his filmmaking style. Trying to 'rejig' older works to pander to people who are probably not that interested in Romero's films already is a pointless exercise, to put it bluntly. They wouldn't be seeing Romero's intended vision, so a re-edit would simply obscure - or quite possibly, denigrate - Romero's true work.

Anyone who doesn't like old movies because they're in black & white, or they have a different pace, simply shouldn't be watching 'old' movies and should stick to whatever the latest cookie cutter blockbuster is. Part of the joy of cinema is seeing the history of cinema - and the history of mankind, of technology, of the ever-evolving socio-political landscape, etc etc etc - play out on-screen.

Plus, sometimes folks can be 'too young' to see a movie in the right light. I've been that myself with numerous movies - which I have then had the pleasure of re-discovering years down the road. It's the same movie, but I have changed, and I find things I didn't see before and come to it with a new understanding.

Discover the original work - or nothing. Simple as.

Sorry if that's blunt, but new audiences should discover filmmakers' work as the original filmmakers intended.

[JDP]

Re-editing the original works is only acceptable for introducing footage shot by the director himself, but which for one reason or another was left out from this or that cut of the films in question, and adds something "new/fresh", but without compromising the integrity of the original film. Like the "Extended Mall Hours" fan cut of Dawn, for example, which, despite some mistakes, it pretty much managed to "squeeze in" almost all the available footage from that film that has been used in its several cuts. Otherwise: DO NOT FUCK AROUND WITH THE ORIGINALS.

[Neil]

I don't mind re-edits, if only as novelty factor. ie: To see how else something we know and love can be arranged...

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[JDP]

As for what is acceptable, that's debatable. Nothing in the way of content ever really belongs to anyone person. Romero concedes that his story was essentially a rip off of "I AM LEGEND" and even went as far as to apologize to the author. Artists are broadcast antennae for consciousness and culture. Their job is to pick up what is in the zeitgeist and be a paintbrush for God or whatever you choose to call it.

When you say, "DON'T FUCK WITH THE ORIGINALS", well.... they've already been fucked with.

Thriller....The Return of The Living Dead...Fulci's work....TWD all wrongfully stole from Romero when they should've become a community that sought him out rather than shun him. As Romero put it, "the BIBLE was already written" and he wasn't happy that he was ripped off.

I think there is nothing wrong with "stealing back" and trying to refocus and recast the older not antiquated films in a way that make it obvious that those movies were the Gold standard. Nothing against TWD or those other films. But Romero's movies were great cinema FIRST and cool zombie shit SECOND.

I'm only interested in the film experience here, and not the zombie shit as much.

Incidentally, Romero once established a website around 2000 with the hope of making his films free for people to watch and enjoy, and had a wonderful 'fuck it' attitude about the whole thing.haha... He simply wanted his counter-culture contribution to succeed somehow. But he quickly took down his website when he ran into trolls and the monarchy of mob rule of angry fans who wanted to possess Romero's films rather than enjoy them as an audience.

Romero was a very egalitarian kinda guy, very generous man, unfortunately at his own expense and his own career. He was fighting corporate rule and didn't expect fan fundamentalism to be the new tyranny. So I can't blame him for taking down his website and saying fuck it.

However, I understand and fully expected your POV. And I appreciate it!!

Just to be clear, I wasn't putting together some lame extended cuts that haphazardly squeeze in every piece of footage or stuff like that.

For example, in Dawn of the Dead, a change I made was to clarify that Stephen (aka.flyboy) murders the dock operator and keeps it a secret, one that clearly haunts him for the rest of the film and makes him a pill to be around. Murder ruins a man, and eventually he faces that karma when he loses it in the mall shootout and pays for his crime with his life.

That wasn't clear when I first saw the film, and it's still not clear. However, by clarifying that, it gives the movie a great Neo-noir edge. Plus, it helps to flesh out David Emge's acting since without that flourish he just seems wooden and with too much glower. He comes off as a less interesting and less talented Harrison Ford, which hurts the film. But I first saw the movie, that is how I interpreted it, that Flyboy was a murderer (i.e."we are thieves and we are bad guys and that is exactly what we are!" - says Peter) and lent the film this gravity that was super dramatic, elevating the material.

A more fun change I made was to make "Dawn of the Dead" into a living comic in the style of Sin City, since that's essentially what it was as Romero indicated in interviews, making the film candy colored and in a storyboard style. I used a painstaking post-process discipline to transforms the film in this way. And it's subtle enough that it doesn't distract. It really does bring out the best of the movie, etc. And, again, a purist or fundamentalist fan might disagree. But as a movie lover, it just makes the film fresh and relevant for me. As if someone made a 70s film in bellbottoms and afros and make candy colored zombies as a deliberate style. Now the film is timeless rather than dated, which is how David Lynch and Tim Burton make their movies.

Anyhow, I get where you are coming from. So, no problem. If you change your mind and want to check it out, hit me up in a PM and I can send you a link.

Thank you for the valuable research! :)

Fulci, O'Bannon, TWD, etc., did not go around re-editing Romero's works and changing its characters and plots, they just borrowed some elements from his movies (mostly the idea of the cannibalistic zombie, which is Romero's #1 contribution to zombie lore) and did their own thing with them. That's not "fucking with the originals". Turning one of Romero's characters into a murderer, though, is definitely "fucking around with the originals" !!! There's no suggestion whatsoever in Dawn that Flyboy killed the radio operator at the docks.

And BTW, it was actually Romero (or more exactly his make-up team) who "borrowed" from Michael Jackson's Thriller. The look of the zombies in Day of the Dead was in fact inspired on the zombies in that 1983 video. In Romero's previous movies the zombies had been very basic, they had a "fresh cadaver" look to them. But since Day is taking place at a later time in the zombie apocalypse, they wanted a more "decayed" look to them, but also not fully "rotten" yet (a la Ossorio, Fulci or Bianchi's heavily decomposed or almost skeletal centuries old corpses), so Jackson's video gave them the look they were aiming for.

[MinionZombie]

Fulci, O'Bannon, TWD, etc., did not go around re-editing Romero's works and changing its characters and plots, they just borrowed some elements from his movies (mostly the idea of the cannibalistic zombie, which is Romero's #1 contribution to zombie lore) and did their own thing with them. That's not "fucking with the originals". Turning one of Romero's characters into a murderer, though, is definitely "fucking around with the originals" !!! There's no suggestion whatsoever in Dawn that Flyboy killed the radio operator at the docks.

And BTW, it was actually Romero (or more exactly his make-up team) who "borrowed" from Michael Jackson's Thriller. The look of the zombies in Day of the Dead was in fact inspired on the zombies in that 1983 video. In Romero's previous movies the zombies had been very basic, they had a "fresh cadaver" look to them. But since Day is taking place at a later time in the zombie apocalypse, they wanted a more "decayed" look to them, but also not fully "rotten" yet (a la Ossorio, Fulci or Bianchi's heavily decomposed or almost skeletal centuries old corpses), so Jackson's video gave them the look they were aiming for.

Agreed on both counts.

...

Re-framing Flyboy as a murderer is a silly idea, to be quite frank, and very much "messes with" the original material, especially if you're trying to introduce new viewers to these movies - you're presenting a false version of the narrative, and I really don't see any actual point in this whole exercise. The radio operator killed himself - that's the truth of that scene - but it's interesting to note that Flyboy actually bothers to report it - "Operator dead. Post abandoned." - and does so with remorse. The world is in the early stages of crumbling and this guy is one of no doubt many who'd be topping themselves, exiting the nightmare early.

Flyboy's nature is well explained throughout the film. He's not the gung-ho action men of Roger and Peter, he's likely also in an awkward position not knowing what kind of man to be at that time of great social change - he'll have grown up with very traditional men and families, but he's not of that generation, so he's kind of out-of-synch with the whole thing. When he tries to propose he gets shot down. He falls into malaise. His relationship with Fran crumbles. He gets seduced by the shiny things in the mall - "We took it. It's ours." - and he pays the price of not seeing the path he should have taken throughout the movie.

And plastering on some 'Sin City'-esque comic book look, or whatever, again seems totally pointless. The candy coloured nature of Dawn is as much inspired by the disco era than anything else, so why not slap in a load of disco tunes? "The Warriors" had a director's cut which inserted 'comic book scene transitions' as this was supposedly what the director wanted (I do wonder if he'd even thought of that idea at the time of making the movie, though) - and you know what? It makes the movie worse.

Romero did his comic book movie - Creepshow - and that's what he intended that project to be. Dawn was never intended as some 'comic book' movie. He was capturing the glamour of the time of the disco era, he said it himself.

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[MinionZombie]

Doesn't mind "blunt" talk ... then starts calling you an "asshole", "rude", and a "fundamentalist" 'cos you were honest. Uh-huh. :|

[JDP]

I would have to see a citation on the flyboy stuff. In the Cannes cut, with Pilato and his outlaw gang, it is clear that everyone was murdered by outlaws pretending to be police. There’s several bodies in that station. Are you telling me that they all killed themselves? Lol

In the tighter edit, there is no indication the dock operator shot himself. The shotgun damage to his head clearly was from a distance, and Savini was nothing if not accurate in his depiction of violence. Unless you are referring to some non-canon book or an actual statement on Romero, which I’d love to see the citation, it’s open for interpretation at this point. To which I say, to each his own.

As for the rest, TWD and the others did more than “fuck with the originals”. They outright plagarized from him.

Romero “fucked with” I am Legend, by his own omission and even went as far as to apologize for it. You actually haven’t seen my fan edit, which is actually something many people do for fun with several movies. Check out FAnedit.org. As this comes from a hobby as opposed to some kind of official release, this isn’t the offense you are making it out to be. So, lighten up? Lol Christian Whitehead “fucked with” the original Sonic the Hedgehog series by making unsolicited fan interpretations of Sonic games. As you could see from the backlash over the movie, fundamentalist fans don’t like it when something that they feel belongs to them is messed with. Yet Whitehead’s work is so good that it was accepted as canon by the audience and he was even allowed to re-edit Sonic 2.

As for Thriller, yes I already know it Day of the Dead ripped off their zombies. I also read Lee Karr’s book. But you can’t blame ‘em when Jon Landis stole from Romero first, something Romero gripped about every now and then in interviews.

Again, it’s a philosophical disagreement. The fan edit community is a real thing and largely accepted, so regardless of whether purists fear of some original work being “fucked with”, they don’t have to watch it. For everyone else, it becomes another way to enjoy the same movie and even celebrities like Topher Grace and Stephen Soderberg join in for the fun. Obviously I just won’t direct my work to you or other zealots.

Thank you again for the debate, and take care! :)

How exactly did Jackson/Landis "fuck with" Romero's movies? Romero doesn't own a "patent" or "trademark" on zombies! The concept of the zombie existed long before Romero was even around. Just because a movie or video features zombies in it doesn't mean that someone has "fucked with" Romero's movies. But altering Romero's own storylines definitely qualifies as such.

TWD & others simply took Romero's idea of the cannibalistic zombie and just made their own thing with it. Again, that's not "fucking with" Romero's own movies. They did not change anything in Romero's own movies.

Romero also did not "fuck with" the movies he drew his inspiration for Night of the Living Dead. "Borrowing" some elements is not "fucking with" the original movies.

No, the dead people at the docks did not kill themselves, obviously, but the movie and script make it is obvious that the #1 suspects are the rogue cops that are lurking there, certainly not Fran and Flyboy. When they get there those people were already dead. Finding them comes as a surprise and shock to both of them. There is no insinuation whatsoever in the movie or script that Stephen and Fran had anything to do with those murders.

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[JDP]

I'm only going off of what Romero says. It quite clearly said in many interviews that he stole from Richard Matheson, who conceived of vampire horror of taking place in a banal setting (like a military base or on the streets), and even went as far as publicly apologizing. Matheson was a good sport over it too. That wasn't done in jest and if that is how Romero felt about it, then he's declaring his intention. Take it up with his estate. It doesn't bother me. I'm just saying that it's par for the course. Tarantino steals all the time from others. "From Dusk Till Dawn" and Reservoir Dogs" are great examples. But his attempt to reframe a previously done narrative or story was done so in an artful way...so more power to him.

As far as altering Romero's storylines, you'd have to see my fan films before you could make such a credible statement. You haven't... and I've done enough research on this with still living cast and crew that I'm confident that I'm honoring the source material and Romero's own ballzy sense of experimentation. He retconned his own work several times - just look at the abandoned Venus probe subplot? Or the fact that many years pass between zombies films but the whole story essential takes place over only a few years. Each film is different and surreal enough that it is silly to obsess over such things.

As for Flyboy.... I think it is clear that Fran is in the dark on that. That explains WHY her relationship suffers for the guilt eating away at Stephen. He's this quiet brooding asshole for most of the movie, until he faces his karma at the end. Because the rogue cops are cut from the final cut of the film, the theatrical cut, there is NO indication that the dock operator "killed himself". You wouldn't point a shotgun point blank at your own forehead in the way he did. Plus, there is no subtext or motivation for that. In fact, the cut from the previous shot of Peter shooting a zombie to the head of the dock operator flying back from some force inflicted upon him suggests his death just happened. Forget about the extended cut since Romero's final cut changes A LOT of things. The cops, for instance, now return to being probably normal cops who are also abandoning their posts. They are no longer outlaws. Again, if you can point to some citation saying otherwise, maybe your stance would have more credibility. But I can't find evidence that the dock operator "killed himself". To my knowledge Romero doesn't mention it in his DVD commentaries.

As far as TWD, Romero is quite adamant that he was offended by them not including him. Also, not only is Romero's zombie ripped off, but some narrative elements that are unique to Day of the Dead and Dawn show up. As Romero said, angrily, "the bible was already written". TWD did more than just borrow from Romero. I guess I'm on the side of Romero and his estate on that subject. We will just have to agree to disagree.

In any case, as much as I like a good debate on this stuff, it starts to become like something out of "Gulliver's Travels" where people are in a civil war on how to eat a softboiled egg, cracking the bottom or the top. Stupid shit.lol

I get your possessiveness over this stuff. But my artistic choices here, like to have Flyboy murder the dock worker, or to color correct DAWN so it looks more like a comic book, has more to do with the art of movies themselves. If it makes for a better movie, then I can care less over the nerd shit about "Greedo shot first". It's like the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter movies. Too much arguing over stupid esoteric details about how to stay true to the book. A filmmaker should make the best possible film possible without having to worry about that shit, otherwise he's diluting it. All that matters is what is the best possible version of the art IMAO. Everything else should take a back seat.

To be clear, I came to a filmmaker's forum (as opposed to a general forum) since I was hoping to have an objective civil conversation about the practical side of this. I don't mind the fun debating here and there, but I'm not looking into getting into it with haters. SO this will be my last postings on this.

But thanks again for your feedback. Always valuable. Cheers!

Romero can say what he wants, the fact is that he only borrowed some elements from such movies as I am Legend and The Killer Shrews for his own movie, which was not about mutant vampires or large mutant flesh-eating shrews but about flesh-eating zombies. That, I repeat, is not "fucking with" any of the movies that Romero drew inspiration from. He never in no way made any attempts at "remaking" those films. So, there's no real "fucking with" the films here. Just "borrowing" some elements from them and incorporating them into an otherwise different movie.

I don't need to see them; if you are planning on altering the look, feel, characters, plot, sub-plots, etc. of any movie, that immediately spells "fucking with" it.

The theatrical cut is based on the same script as the extended cut, where it is very clear who the main suspects for those murders at the docks are. And even in the theatrical cut it is still pretty obvious that Stephen had NOTHING to do with those murders. For starters, he doesn't even have a gun with him when he finds the dead radio operator. Then, when he answers those trying to establish contact with the post, he is very clearly shocked by what he has just discovered (which would hardly be necessary since the people he is talking to can't actually see him, so no need to put on a "I am shocked" act that no one can see. In fact, had he murdered the radio operator, we should expect that he would actually avoid answering the radio call in the first place.) Plus had he really murdered the radio operator EVERYONE at the docks, including Fran, would have easily known about it: they would obviously have heard the shot, and would also naturally inquire what the hell just happened and investigate. You are not being very observant here and actually seeing things that are simply not implied anywhere. There is absolutely NOTHING in any cut of this movie that suggests anything about Stephen being a murderer. On the contrary, he is plainly portrayed as a nice fellow, and kind of "wimpy" actually, that's why he is made fun of by his two more combat experienced companions.

It was actually Romero who declined to participate in TWD. He disparagingly referred to the show as "a soap opera with zombies" (even though the first few seasons of that show were actually better than all of Romero's later zombie efforts, ironically.)

Aside from the cannibalistic aspect, and the "damage the brain in order to kill a zombie" bit, which are elements first introduced into zombie lore by Romero's Night of the Living Dead, TWD does its own thing with the genre. They simply borrowed those two elements from Romero's movies. It is in no way, shape or form "fucking with" Romero's original movies, though, which stand just as they are. TWD is not a "remake" of any Romero movie.

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[MinionZombie]

No, the dead people at the docks did not kill themselves, obviously, but the movie and script make it is obvious that the #1 suspects are the rogue cops that are lurking there, certainly not Fran and Flyboy.

It's been entirely too long since I've seen Dawn, my memory's a bit hazy on that scene - although the new Blu-Ray coming out next month will rectify that.


Don't take this the wrong way, but there's a difference between being "blunt" and simply anti-social. You were making it personal, engaging (at the very least) passive aggressive personal attacks.

It's silly to get offended at a 'what-if' question. You clearly are offended at the simple thought of someone making a fan edit of a Romero film. It's not like I'm drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa. And as great as Romero's films are, they aren't the best films ever made. They are great, no more, no less.

Don't take it the wrong way, but maybe you just don't know how you come off.

My problem with the Romero films is that they are essentially forgotten films. Which is sad because Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead are masterpieces of form and deserve to be in the same cultural museum that JAWS and The Godfather belong. Unfortunately they are in a limbo where bad John Carpenter films live and, well, they are better films than that. My little experiment is simply to find someway to get interest back into these films. If I succeeded, what is so wrong with that? You can still watch your original version and a new audience can watch my remastered/tinkered version and yet, in both cases, Romero's art is loved again and in the zeitgeist....where it belongs. My 2 cents.

...

To be clear, I came to a filmmaker's forum (as opposed to a general forum) since I was hoping to have an objective civil conversation about the practical side of this. I don't mind the fun debating here and there, but I'm not looking into getting into it with haters. SO this will be my last postings on this.

1) I don't see how I was being personal towards you as a person, merely addressing an opinion on the idea you came to HPOTD wanting opinions on.

2) I'm not offended by the notion of fan edits, but I do find the idea of 'giving it back to the audience' (whatever that means) in some odd "tinkered with" version that alters Romero's intentions to not be a great idea.

3) Don't take this the wrong way, but you've been here all of five minutes - here being a community that has been active since the 1990s - so slagging me off because I don't see the point in your pursuit seems curious.

4) Since when were Romero's films "forgotten". They get written about constantly. Dawn of the Dead is coming out on a brand new Blu-Ray next month, which has been given lavish treatment. Land of the Dead has recently been on Netflix (UK, at least), where it was one of the popular/trending films to watch. Night of the Living Dead gets shown everywhere. Horror documentaries (e.g. the 'introduction for the mainstream' style Eli Roth's History of Horror) routinely reference Romero's works, as do reviews or analyses of practically any zombie film/tv show. Night is literally in the Museum of Modern Art, and a couple of years back received a stunningly good restoration by Criterion. Dawn of the Dead was literally shown again in some cinemas in the US in recent weeks (albeit in Rubenstein's ill-advised and costly 3D conversion). The number of editions available of Romero's zombie films on physical media around the world over the past 20-30 years is dizzying.

So to say that Romero's films have been "forgotten" makes no sense. Especially with ten years of The Walking Dead being a mainstream hit, Romero's films have never been more in the zeitgeist, one could argue. Nicotero & Co are continually referencing their love and respect for Romero's films on that show. Nicotero's even gone so far as to resurrect Creepshow as a passion project.

And why can't an audience discover the actual version of the movie? Audiences have been doing that for generations. Nothing has changed on that front. How many newbies genuinely watch online fan edits as their first time experience?

These are reasons why your pursuit doesn't seem to make an awful lot of sense. You wanted feedback, and you received it. It's unfortunate you didn't get the response you were hoping for.

5) A filmmaker's sub-forum on a website dedicated to Romero's zombie films. :rockbrow:

[JDP]

2) I'm not offended by the notion of fan edits, but I do find the idea of 'giving it back to the audience' (whatever that means) in some odd "tinkered with" version that alters Romero's intentions to not be a great idea.

Yes, like turning a character who is blatantly not a "bad guy" type into a cold blooded murderer out of the blue! The whole notion of Stephen being responsible for the murders at the docks is simply untenable. It does not make an iota of sense based on all we see in the movie itself, even in the heavily edited theatrical cut.

[MinionZombie]

Just looking at that docks scene again, out of interest ... and I wouldn't go so far as to say that the other guys at the docks are necessarily the killers of the two dead men at that post.

Flyboy says "Those guys were already dead, you know that" - and it'd appear that these other guys are indeed actual cops. Now, sure, they could have killed those two men and you could argue that Flyboy's line could only be referring to his innocence, but it could also be referring to the raiders also knowing that those two dead men were already dead when the raiders got there. It didn't quite seem to me that they definitely killed those two guys. Sure, they're raiding the place, but I'm not so sure if they're killers (at least of those two men at the docks). It could be interpreted either way as the scene doesn't really definitively say they did it. Indeed, our quartet don't really seem to suspect the supply-raiding coppers of having killed those men either.

I'd always taken the look of the injury to the radio operator's face to be self-inflicted (as if from a shot pointing upwards). The other body is a total mystery of how they died.

[JDP]

Just looking at that docks scene again, out of interest ... and I wouldn't go so far as to say that the other guys at the docks are necessarily the killers of the two dead men at that post.

Flyboy says "Those guys were already dead, you know that" - and it'd appear that these other guys are indeed actual cops. Now, sure, they could have killed those two men and you could argue that Flyboy's line could only be referring to his innocence, but it could also be referring to the raiders also knowing that those two dead men were already dead when the raiders got there. It didn't quite seem to me that they definitely killed those two guys. Sure, they're raiding the place, but I'm not so sure if they're killers (at least of those two men at the docks). It could be interpreted either way as the scene doesn't really definitively say they did it. Indeed, our quartet don't really seem to suspect the supply-raiding coppers of having killed those men either.

I'd always taken the look of the injury to the radio operator's face to be self-inflicted (as if from a shot pointing upwards). The other body is a total mystery of how they died.

We know for sure that Fran and Stephen had nothing to do with the murders. The rogue cops, though, are our #1 suspects for what went on at the docks. Why? Let's consider the following points:

1- They were there before Stephen and Fran

2- They were lurking around in the shadows, not wanting to be discovered (at least at first)

3- They are raiding for supplies and transportation

4- Unlike Stephen, these rogue cops show no intention whatsoever of answering the radio calls from HQ and informing them of the situation at the docks

5- When they see a police car approaching, they get nervous (why? they are cops themselves, aren't they?) and one of them even exclaims "bullshit!" and goes for his rifle when another one remarks that "it's OK, we are police"

6- Roger senses the tension in the air when he confronts them, and remarks that it would be foolish to start shooting at each other (since they are not really a threat to these cops; they only want to refuel the helicopter, nothing else, which is of no use to the rogue cops anyway, so trying to kill each other would be pointless)

So, the behavior of these rogue cops is highly suspicious from the very start. They don't like the presence of either civilians or other cops, they don't want to be found out at the docks. They have something to hide. Probably quite more than the fact that they are looting and escaping the city.

As for Stephen's remark, he obviously does not want to make any insinuation whatsoever that these rogue cops might very well have had a hand at killing the docks' operators, specially when they are pointing guns at him and Fran. The last thing Flyboy wants at this moment is to antagonize these guys. So he goes along the safest route: proclaiming that they are all innocent, these people were dead when they all arrived (Stephen obviously does not know if this is true or not in their case, but nevertheless he wants to play it safe and not piss off these guys by making any insinuations of guilt on their part.)

[TheLivingDead]

-Deleted-

[JDP]

I never "hoped" for anything. However, I never showed you my content and you reacted to it, as if you did. It would be one thing if I spammed unsolicited links to this forum, and you were just offering criticism.

I was coming at this with a hypothetical, I just don't have time for drama or moral grandstanding. Sorry, but my horse is higher than your soapbox.

As for the Stephen debate, I'll bite. Good way to close this off.

Romero is one of his last interviews is clear that his characters and characterizations come from a place of nihilism. He said he doesn't do "white hats or black hats". Not as black and white as that.

Look at the evidence from the film itself....

(1) Stephen tries to BS and rationalize their crimes, saying he has IDs and clearance to fly the "stolen helicopter", to which Peter (clearly in Romero's voice) rebukes him, "We are thieves and WE ARE BAD GUYS.... that's exactly what we are." So, that should give you a hint about the karma that will eventually come their way.

(2) The original cut, the Cannes extended cut (which, sux BTW), clearly establishes that ALL the men at the dock where murdered by the outlaws posing as cops, Pilato's men. He didn't reshoot that in his tighter, director's cut. So, suicide is off the table. Savini makes it clear his violence is practically forensic in nature, basing injuries off of real life violence, much of it that he witnessed sadly in Vietnam.

(3) If the dock workers were murdered, then that won't change in the tighter cut. So who killed these men? Are the dock workers still the culprits? Nope, that subplot is cut and all we get is that one police officer asking for cigarettes. Clearly Stephen and his crew almost get caught stealing the helicopter, only to realize that the police officer is also abandoning his post and duties, much like them. There is nothing left to suggest those cops are still outlaws, other than the AWOL element of it. This demonstrates how an edit can change the meaning and narrative of a story. It was a good choice of Romero.

(4) Now onto the stealing of the helicopter itself. A frantic Stephen makes it clear to Fran at the TV station that one way or another he will get that helicopter. It is not like a piece of equipment that expensive or valuable will go unguarded. And if Stephen doesn't have the papers to fly that helicopter, it is not like some guard is just gonna let him take it for a joy ride. He's a traffic reporter, and typically they work during the day anyhow.

Now...that poses a narrative problem for Romero. It just isn't believable, that during a time of martial law, that you could just steal a helicopter. So, the first solution he comes up with in the extended cut is that Stephen lucks out when he finds all the dock workers dead. However, the director's cut, those bodies are cut out. So the story clearly leaves us with one guard, one dock worker, and those other police officers who likely were supposed to be guarding the area. Stephen lucks out when him and the other's learn that the police are also going AWOL. But even then, there is anxiety about the police showing up, and they are pleasantly surprised when it is Roger and Peter, and not more police.

So, who killed the dock worker? Certainly not the police, whose characterizations were changed. You can't go off of the expanded cut since Romero changes the movie a lot, to make the story tighter and more credible in several scenes. The only hint is that as Peter shoots a zombie in the basement, you CUT to a the dock operator's head flying back...and there is Stephen, upset. Grabbing the radio as some concerned OTHER person on the other end is basically saying (to paraphrase) "You are not coming in at all...What the hell? I can't hear you!! What is going on?!?!" and Stephen nervously grabs the radio and bullshits to cover up. He doesn't say, for instance, and he could, that "Yeah, this dude killed himself, and I'm getting ready to do traffic reports." He bends the truth, "The dock operator is dead..post abandoned". And his pained expression isn't guilty as all hell.

Not to mention, in this re-edit by Romero, it is clearly implied that the poor dock operator was in the middle of a radio conversation with someone else and was suddenly interrupted, by a gun shot, which the guy on the other end of the radio clearly heard.

THINK ABOUT IT....if Stephen simply walked in on a suicide, then the last thing he would want to do is reveal himself if he can just sneak off with the helicopter. Last thing he'd want to do is end up a suspect if they come looking for the murderer. It would be laughable to suggest he just walked in AS the dock operator was murdered since if shots are going off then he'd be ducking for cover. Yet, if Stephen is the one doing the killing, and he interrupted the dude's conversation with some guy on the other end, he now has NO choice BUT to grab the radio mic and do SOME kind of cover up, for fear that if he doesn't then the dude on the other end will sent the cops to see what is wrong.

And think about how dumb all this would sound IF Stephen just happens to walk in just as some dude's head flies back, from having shot himself?!?! Uh....no.lol If it is still the outlaws, which is absurd, what...do they have a sniper from afar or something?lol

Again, it would be dumb to suggest that Stephen just happened to walk in as one of those police officers shot that dock operator from afar. Again, wouldn't Stephen be ducking for cover?!? Worried he's next? He seems awfully calm for a guy who just walked in on a murder that someone else committed. But not for some amateur killer committing his first murder. His behavior is more consistent with that, and it makes the story more interesting. More real.

The final clue is in the original edit, from the expanded cut, and how it changed in the director's cut...in the original shot, the dock operator's head flies back because Stephen grabs the guy who was hunched over and pulls him back, just after walking into the station and coming across the OTHER murdered bodies. If this guy was murdered by someone else, or committed suicide, then why not keep at least that shot? Why not have Stephen, in the final cut, still grab the hunched over guy? Romero clearly cut that out for a reason and I can tell you why....Clearly a gun shot that happens at that moment, coincidentally at the same time when Peter is shooting the zombie in a basement, and it's not a coincident that Stephen is standing right next to him as he's killed....duh! Romero was nothing is not a thoughtful editor and he was such an amazing editor that he was criminally underappreciated for his amazing talent in that department. The guy could tell a story and he paid attention to detail.

In the scenes that follow, Stephen is clearly an unstable loose cannon. He nearly kills again in a scene that follows, when he almost "blows Peter away" in a mindless shoot out with a zombie. Peter makes it clear that he knows that Stephen is playing with a couple of loose screws, especially when he points a loaded gun at Stephen as retaliation. Fran doesn't even really object all that much, suggesting that she knows how her man is. And that's a bold action to do to another, pointing a gun at someone else he hardly knows, just to make a point. However, that characterization makes more sense if the person he's dealing with has severe issues...and Peter is left with no choice.

Stephen continues to demonstrate his unstable personality... nearly getting himself killed in the boiler room by the security guard zombie... mistreating Fran for not adhering to his chauvinism.... and then idiotically shooting at the bikers. All of that is great story arc for someone plagued with guilt, and it is clear that Romero found a creative editing solution to address all of that and turn David Emge's otherwise wooden performance into something with pathos, which makes more sense if you and I were plagued with guilt. That shit eats at a man.

Even with all that said, it's not like I didn't research this, and the whole project... speaking with still living original cast and crew to figure out if my instincts were right. I'm not going to resort to that appeal of authority here, since I don't want to drag those people into this, a fan page no less. But I will just say that, Stephen/Flyboy's murder fits a theme of Romero. In NOTLD, Ben murders Cooper who turns out to be right about the basement. He didn't have to kill him. In Day of the Dead, Sarah protects Dr. Logan who killed Major Cooper because "I needed him Sarah!" for his horrible research. Sarah keeps that a secret when she should've reported Dr. Logan's murder immediately to the men, now a co-conspirator for a crime. So it's hard to feel too much sympathy for her later in the movie when Rhodes goes ape shit over learning the truth about Dr. Logan's experiments.

My point with that is that Romero doesn't deal with black and white, superficial characterizations... at least not in his early films. Which is WHY they are so great. And if my little fan edit, which really draws attention so this, can trigger a fun debate like this...then what I'm doing can't be ALL that bad, ya know?

Okay, that's really all I got. For those who did reach out to me, I sent them links to my content and gathered the research I needed.

Fun sparring with you guys. Take care!

You are taking a rather sloppy editing job (yes, the theatrical cut is the one that sucks compared to the way better and more explicit extended cut) and trying to completely change this character based on that. The flaws in your scheme have already been pointed out, namely:

1- Stephen does NOT have any guns with him when he stumbles upon the dead radio operator

2- Even if he did, and he was the one who shot him, EVERYONE at the docks would have heard the gunshot and easily put two and two together. There is no way that Stephen could have kept this a "secret" and would have easily been discovered. The sloppy way in which the theatrical cut is edited is in fact the #1 enemy of your intended "twist" for this character: Fran and the rogue cops are already there, going about their business (Fran is fueling the helicopter and the rogue cops are unloading boxes from a truck) when Stephen supposedly kills the radio operator. OOOOOOPS! There goes your theory down the drain again!

3- The fact that he even bothers to answer HQ points out again that he has nothing to do with the radio operator's death. The real culprit would logically not want to answer the call and possibly incriminate himself (and if you go back to the extended cut you will see that it is in fact the cops who don't bother to answer the radio calls, it is them who haven't got the slightest interest in reporting what's going on at the docks)

4- When Stephen answers HQ's inquiries about what's going on at the docks, he is visibly shocked. Why? The radio operator at HQ CANNOT SEE HIM, so it would be pointless for him to put on an act when there's no one actually seeing him.

5- Throughout the whole movie Stephen's character is well shown. He is definitely NOT the "bad guy" type who would kill someone in cold blood, but rather a mild mannered and somewhat "wimpy" fellow.

As for Peter's remark: he clearly says "thieves", not "murderers"! There is a huge difference between both. He is plainly referring to the fact that they are violating the mandatory relocation of all citizens to government controlled shelters, and trying to make it their own way instead, by "stealing" whatever they need to survive if necessary. It in no way implies that they are the kind of people who will kill other people in cold blood for no reason whatsoever. The movie plainly shows that this group are not really "bad guys", just trying to survive. They might be "bad guys" from the authorities' point of view (since they refuse to cooperate with their plans of a mandatory relocation of citizens and imposed martial law), but that's it. As far as we viewers are concerned, these people are actually the "good guys", the "heroes" of the story.

As for Stephen's behavior at the abandoned airport: it actually shows that at this point in the story he has virtually no experience in violent and potentially dangerous situations, that's why he did not notice that Peter was directly in the line of fire along with the zombie, and thus could actually have accidentally killed Peter.

Everything that you keep trying to bring up actually shows the opposite of how you want to reinterpret Stephen's character.

[MinionZombie]

We know for sure that Fran and Stephen had nothing to do with the murders. The rogue cops, though, are our #1 suspects for what went on at the docks. Why? Let's consider the following points:

1- They were there before Stephen and Fran

2- They were lurking around in the shadows, not wanting to be discovered (at least at first)

3- They are raiding for supplies and transportation

4- Unlike Stephen, these rogue cops show no intention whatsoever of answering the radio calls from HQ and informing them of the situation at the docks

5- When they see a police car approaching, they get nervous (why? they are cops themselves, aren't they?) and one of them even exclaims "bullshit!" and goes for his rifle when another one remarks that "it's OK, we are police"

6- Roger senses the tension in the air when he confronts them, and remarks that it would be foolish to start shooting at each other (since they are not really a threat to these cops; they only want to refuel the helicopter, nothing else, which is of no use to the rogue cops anyway, so trying to kill each other would be pointless)

So, the behavior of these rogue cops is highly suspicious from the very start. They don't like the presence of either civilians or other cops, they don't want to be found out at the docks. They have something to hide. Probably quite more than the fact that they are looting and escaping the city.

Suspicious, yes, but it's not definitive. We know as much as our quartet - none of us has witnessed what definitely did happen at the docks. In normal circumstances there'd certainly be enough to arrest them on suspicion of killing those two men at the dock, but that's all you've got - suspicion. Naturally, in an unfolding zombie apocalypse you'd never be able to actually investigate it, and while they're there at the scene, it doesn't necessarily mean that they definitely did kill those men.

Their intention is to raid the place and make off with a boat - which is reason enough to be spooked by a cop car wailing into view. The leader of the group (Pilato) even focuses on the "your friends here were stealing company gasoline" angle. You could argue that Pilato & Co, similarly, are only there to steal. We just don't know for sure, there is no evidence one way or another, just suspicious circumstances - but if a copper turned up to investigate after all of them were there, he'd have just as much reason to arrest all of them for suspicion of murder as they're all at a crime scene with just as much - or as little - against them.


I never "hoped" for anything. However, I never showed you my content and you reacted to it, as if you did. It would be one thing if I spammed unsolicited links to this forum, and you were just offering criticism.

I was coming at this with a hypothetical, I just don't have time for drama or moral grandstanding. Sorry, but my horse is higher than your soapbox.

1) No, I reacted to the ideas you were talking about in this thread, clearly. How could I react to content you didn't show me? You posted your intentions and we reacted to that text. Why not just post a link to it anyway? You can quite easily post a link, or insert a video into a post.

2) :rolleyes: