Return of the Living Dead

[Cereval]

Just a few quick questions (as I watch) ...

I understand that the scene after the Trioxin spill at Uneeda implied that the gas reanimated all the dead things in the warehouse. IMO a nice touch was the butterfly display coming to life. My question is WTF was up with the split dog? The scene seemed to suggest this was an actual half-dog carcass that was brought back to life. Apart from never hearing of such a biological study tool, what was the significance of this little segment (discovering the split dog all wet, goopy and alive)? I always thought it was a replica dog for school study. And if this were true, why would it have returned to life?
How in the fcuk can you say "BRAINS! LIVE BRAINS!" without any frickin' lips? (furthermore, "THE PAIN! ... THE PAIN OF BEING DEAD.")
With the skull being the casing that holds the brain, how exactly does one break through and instantly chomp on the brain simply by biting? It would seem more likely that the attacker would have to crack open the skull to get at the brain ... right?

I know these have surely been asked before. But I'm throwing it back out there anyway. I wasn't so critical of these things when I saw this film in the theaters at age 4, but indeed these questions have surfaced over the years ...

[Huescacho]

Yes, this questions was asked before. All members of this site know that zombie crisis is impossible that suced, but in a movie, the actors must do impossible things for gain scenes of action... If we want reality, zombie movies can't exists!.

[ash]

Those are actually some of the reasons i stayed away from the Return series for so long. However, I realized that the logical inncauracies are made up for by the direction, acting (Though some would disagree), make-up effects, and of course, the humor.

To add to your list, isn't it odd that the zombies all had EYES? Hell, even the SKELETON had eyes still.

[Danny]

i think brains would be more suited to romeros films, since we all know that cemetary zombie from night could crack a skull easy, they were more animal like and used rocks and crap rather than teeth.

i'll wager even zombie man wont stray form his good side for fear of getting his head kicked in.

......more.

[Griff]

Good questions! I hope these answers satiate your hunger for reason:


There are such things as 'split dogs'. Its not a replica but, rather, an actual dog that has been preserved via a process known as plastination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastination). Of course, even if re-animation were to occurr, it'd be quite unable to move but, hey, its a movie.
Its a movie.
Yep, its a movie.


Thanks and come again.

[MikePizzoff]

1. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.
2. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.
3. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.

[DEAD BEAT]

Ya know even though it is a little cheesy i only really dug the first one of the series,you have to give it up for the great make-up on the zombies it was better than DAWNS but that doesnt matter if the story line blows!

here's 1 important question you missed:

If they eat your brains how the hell do their victims come back to life?
(punk girl,policeman etc.)


:eek:

[bassman]

It's my opinion that it all boils down to one simple thing......It's just a bad movie.

[EvilNed]

For the same reason that Douglas Sirk always portrayed his characters living in the ultimate idyllic countrylife (or wherever, it was always idyllic anyway):

The director knows that a film is a film and we come to the movies to be entertained. He knows as well as any of us that this is not how life REALLY is. But for **** sake, if we went to see a film about life then we sure as **** wandered into the wrong movie theather because The Return of the Living Dead sure isn't going to deliver it.

The brains is part of the films absurd and comedic tone. These are zombies man, they feel no pain and can probably flex their muscles alot harder than we can. So there's your explanation for that. It's mumbo-jumbo science, but it worked in the movie! (and yes, the movie lied)

As for the split dog, it appears to be an actual split and conserved dog. I'm not a med school student so I don't know if that's accurate or not.

[capncnut]

I understand that the scene after the Trioxin spill at Uneeda implied that the gas reanimated all the dead things in the warehouse. IMO a nice touch was the butterfly display coming to life. My question is WTF was up with the split dog? The scene seemed to suggest this was an actual half-dog carcass that was brought back to life. Apart from never hearing of such a biological study tool, what was the significance of this little segment (discovering the split dog all wet, goopy and alive)? I always thought it was a replica dog for school study. And if this were true, why would it have returned to life?
How in the fcuk can you say "BRAINS! LIVE BRAINS!" without any frickin' lips? (furthermore, "THE PAIN! ... THE PAIN OF BEING DEAD.")
With the skull being the casing that holds the brain, how exactly does one break through and instantly chomp on the brain simply by biting? It would seem more likely that the attacker would have to crack open the skull to get at the brain ... right?

1.
It's my opinion that it all boils down to one simple thing... It's just a bad movie.
2.
Yep, its a movie.
3. It's just a movie man. :D

[kortick]

what?

its only a movie?

[triste realtà]

I just watched this again recently and noticed the writing credit: John Russo, Russ Streiner and Rudy Ricci. But awhile ago I read something that said it was based on John Russo's book of the same name "albeit in title only". Anybody know for sure?

As for realism in living dead films, it's begun to bother me when the dead have crystal clear eyes instead of the milky cataract look (like Night '90). Now I hope it bothers you all too. :elol:

[axlish]

I just watched this again recently and noticed the writing credit: John Russo, Russ Streiner and Rudy Ricci. But awhile ago I read something that said it was based on John Russo's book of the same name "albeit in title only". Anybody know for sure?

Yes, that is true.

[Griff]

I just watched this again recently and noticed the writing credit: John Russo, Russ Streiner and Rudy Ricci. But awhile ago I read something that said it was based on John Russo's book of the same name "albeit in title only". Anybody know for sure?

I'm pretty sure Russo, Streiner and Ricci had knocked out at least one screenplay equivalent to Russo's original ROTLD book. The rights to the screenplay, not the book, are what would have been purchased by producer Tom Fox. Even though it was completely re-written by O'Bannon, they were obliged to give the original screenwriters credit.

[axlish]

It should also be noted that John Russo also wrote a 2nd novel titled Return of the Living Dead, based on the screenplay used in the movie. As novels tend to do, it has a couple of cool extras not used in the film.

Both his original story and the 2nd book are both worth the read. I bet his original novel gets made into a movie some day.

[Andy]

3. It's just a movie man. :D

it does say at the start thats it based on real events :lol:

[Huescacho]

The sucess of the 28 Days Later, could be real?. A virus of the rage modified, that can pass by touch, peron to person. They aren't zombies, but they was like zombies, no?.

[Eyebiter]

Anyone tried calling the 800 number on the drum lately?

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/returndead/returndead1-ic.jpg

[HLS]

Just a few quick questions (as I watch) ...

I understand that the scene after the Trioxin spill at Uneeda implied that the gas reanimated all the dead things in the warehouse. IMO a nice touch was the butterfly display coming to life. My question is WTF was up with the split dog? The scene seemed to suggest this was an actual half-dog carcass that was brought back to life. Apart from never hearing of such a biological study tool, what was the significance of this little segment (discovering the split dog all wet, goopy and alive)? I always thought it was a replica dog for school study. And if this were true, why would it have returned to life?
How in the fcuk can you say "BRAINS! LIVE BRAINS!" without any frickin' lips? (furthermore, "THE PAIN! ... THE PAIN OF BEING DEAD.")
With the skull being the casing that holds the brain, how exactly does one break through and instantly chomp on the brain simply by biting? It would seem more likely that the attacker would have to crack open the skull to get at the brain ... right?I know these have surely been asked before. But I'm throwing it back out there anyway. I wasn't so critical of these things when I saw this film in the theaters at age 4, but indeed these questions have surfaced over the years ...


Good points, But it is just a movie. I do not think it was intended to be looked in a serious way. That dog thing had me wondering as well. Those things are always plastic so that was odd. The skull with eyes I thought was not needed. And how can an extremely rotten corpse talk anyways? I do not think the people that made the movie intended to make it as realistic as possible. They just wanted to make a fun movie. I loved how those two guy slowly turned into zombies while still being alive. They never killed over or anything. They just slowly changed color, dropped body temperture and such while still up and talking.

[Cereval]

Yes, this questions was asked before. All members of this site know that zombie crisis is impossible that suced, but in a movie, the actors must do impossible things for gain scenes of action... If we want reality, zombie movies can't exists!.


... but, hey, its a movie.
Its a movie.
Yep, its a movie.


1. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.
2. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.
3. Remember this movie is a horror/comedy; a spoof of sorts.

......It's just a bad movie.

3. It's just a movie man. :D


Good points, But it is just a movie. I do not think it was intended to be looked in a serious way.

I thought my suspension of disbelief would've been obvious by the fact that I'm posting on website devoted to films about the living dead. I'm aware of the comic book and cartoon aspect of this film. I posted this in the curiosity realm of "runners vs. shamblers" ... that's all. :p :rockbrow: :shifty:

[jdog]

its only an 80s movie, what do you expect (dont get me wrong thats all i watch mostly). i have always liked this movie, good times in my book

[capncnut]

I agree, Return of the Living Dead is pure 80's flashback material. The soundtrack even more so.

[MaximusIncredulous]

Anyone tried calling the 800 number on the drum lately?

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/returndead/returndead1-ic.jpg

It's a number for Pilgram Telephone services. Sex related junk it seems.

[ash]

The sucess of the 28 Days Later, could be real?. A virus of the rage modified, that can pass by touch, peron to person. They aren't zombies, but they was like zombies, no?.

It wasn't passes by touch, you moron. Anyway, do you even know how Rage worked?

[Huescacho]

No, I don't know exactly. I wanted tell you if it could happen sometimes...
How are you for tell me this?. I could tell you injuries until tomorrow, but you are very stupid. My time is very expensive for use with you...

[Pothatuu]

As for realism in living dead films, it's begun to bother me when the dead have crystal clear eyes instead of the milky cataract look (like Night '90). Now I hope it bothers you all too. :elol:

Dawn, Day and Land all had crystal clear eye zombies (although Romero didn't have the budget for those kinds of effects)

[kortick]

dont call nacho a moron

he is a good person
and would never insult you

nacho the rage virus is spread
thru bites or exposure to blood or other
body fluids of someone who is infected already

i always wondered about rage, and this is my one
major problem with the films concept is
why dont they attack each other
it is called "rage" not 'selective rage"
they dont kill for food
they kill cuz they are full of mindless rage
and therefore they should attack anyone or
anything they come across wheter that person was
infected or not

as for return,
i saw it when it came out
and i clearly remember it being
described as a horror comedy

and the orignal return storyline by russo
isnt bad but the zombies behave much different
from the romero ones in dawn and day ect
it has the sherrif as the main charecter
and has a zombie baby in it long before dawn 04

[coma]

It wasn't passes by touch, you moron. Anyway, do you even know how Rage worked?
Thats extremely rude. What are you, twelve?
My man is chill and is always nice.
You're just jealous cause the ladies seem to really dig homeboy:)
Rage is passed by body fluids.
If blood etc gets in and open wound or in your mouth, eyes (like the Dad) you get it.


i always wondered about rage, and this is my one
major problem with the films concept is
why dont they attack each other
it is called "rage" not 'selective rage"
they dont kill for food
they kill cuz they are full of mindless rage
and therefore they should attack anyone or
anything they come across wheter that person was
infected or not
I think the real reason is he wasnted to make a romero zombie film, thats why other than rage and non dead, it is conceptually the same thing. He changed it up a little bit. If the infected attacked each other they wouldnt be as much of a threat because they would be very busy with each other, thogh that might've been cool.


as for return,
i saw it when it came out
and i clearly remember it being
described as a horror comedy

and the orignal return storyline by russo
isnt bad but the zombies behave much different
from the romero ones in dawn and day ect
it has the sherrif as the main character
and has a zombie baby in it long before dawn 04
I saw it in 9th grade I think and it was described as a horror comedy.
In the commentary the director (O'Bannon?) said he worshiped GAR films and didn't want to crap on him so he made it funny and changed Zombies enough so it wasnt that close.
Man, that movie was SUPER popular back then.

[Head Shotz]

Its was just made for entertainment. I don't think it was ever played off as a GR type film, which seems to be the norm nowadays. Rape the past for a dollar today!:mad:

I still think one of the funniest scenes is in the cemetary in part II.

[bub21]

there zombies cereval, they can do anything


but yeah, i thought the same thing about the whole no lips situation

[DjfunkmasterG]

Ya know even though it is a little cheesy i only really dug the first one of the series,you have to give it up for the great make-up on the zombies it was better than DAWNS but that doesnt matter if the story line blows!

here's 1 important question you missed:

If they eat your brains how the hell do their victims come back to life?
(punk girl,policeman etc.)


:eek:

they didn't need their brains. Remember the chopped up cadaver was still moving around. The gas had special properties which re-animated dead tissue, yes the logic of the brain being gone would make one wonder how the zombies could function, but again... it is just a movie, and a great one at that.

Also keep in mind ROTLD 1 was technically the first RomZomCom. ("Tina, you know I love you, and you've got to let me eat your brain.")

[Andy]

ive only just noticed, in ROTLD1, when frank and freddy are arguing in the office just after they lock the body in the fridge and just before they call burt (the boss)..

in the background when their arguing, there's a eyechart and the first 4 lines of it read:


B
URT
ISASL
AVEDRIVER

but the rest is too small to read.

dunno why but i just noticed that lol

[DjfunkmasterG]

That film has tons of hidden jokes. That is one of the good ones. :D

[Andy]

That film has tons of hidden jokes. That is one of the good ones. :D

i normally notice stuff like that in movies but i havn't owned them before, just seen them when their on TV, but i picked up ROLTD 1 and 2 on DVD for £4 each today :D

[El_Hooligan]

On the DVD, in the extras section, there's an interview with Tobe Hooper and he explains why he chose his zombies to eat brains. He said because he wanted to do something different than Romero's zombies, so he just had them eat brains.

[Griff]

On the DVD, in the extras section, there's an interview with Tobe Hooper and he explains why he chose his zombies to eat brains. He said because he wanted to do something different than Romero's zombies, so he just had them eat brains.

Ahem. Come again?

[El_Hooligan]

Ahem. Come again?

Thanks for catching that.

I meant Dan O'Bannon. For some odd reason, Tobe Hooper was on my mind at the time I was posting.

[DVW5150]

... MORE PARAMEDICS !:elol: ... SEND MORE COPS !:lol:

[capncnut]

"Man, there's a hundred of those f**kers."

"A HUNDRED?" :lol:

[Mutineer]

TROTLD is my favorite entry of all of the unDead films. Some of the greatest lines in the film.

[capncnut]

Linnea Quigley was cute. :D

[coma]

Linnea Quigley was cute. :D
Is that the punk chick with the baldy?
Hubba hubba!

[Mutineer]

And hearing after all these years it was a prosthetic. :rolleyes: :eek:

[capncnut]

I know, it looks pretty good for a prosthetic twat. If you look on the DVD, you can see the crack and everything. I'm not being funny but she should've just gone nude. I mean, she did it in counteless other flicks so what's the problem?

[zombieslayer]

It should also be noted that John Russo also wrote a 2nd novel titled Return of the Living Dead, based on the screenplay used in the movie. As novels tend to do, it has a couple of cool extras not used in the film.

Both his original story and the 2nd book are both worth the read. I bet his original novel gets made into a movie some day.

I have the book return of the living dead,and don't see any way it ties into the movie with the same name. it takes place a few years after night does and right before dawn.it tells how the zombie plague gets started again. it's a real good book. if you can find a copy, you should get it. i got night, return, and dawn. wish they had day so i could have the whole set. lol. would be nice to see them make it into a movie.

[kingofmonsters2]

actually there are a number of reasons that russo's original story never made it as the final film, some have been meantioned here.
1. o'bannon had respect for the romero movies, he wanted to pay homage to romero but yet do something different, everybody in the world was making rip off romero type zombie movies so o'bannon had his zombies act different
(A) romero's are slow and stupid, o'bannons can run, and they can think, even formulate plans.
(B) romero's ate the flesh of their victims, o'bannons ate the brains
(C) romero's had no true origin, o'bannons had a definate origin
(D) romero's had a weakness, a shot to the brain killed them, o'bannons had no true weakness, they kept moving no matter what damage was done (im not adding the electricuting or the "acid" bullets in part 3 that immobalised the zombies since we are talking about part 1)

2. romero was creating his own sequal to his living dead movies at time, DAY OF THE DEAD, from what i have read, both russo and romero had the right to do sequals for night of the living dead, romero made the movie dawn of the dead and russo wrote the book return of the living dead. o'bannon had respect for romero and his movies and made changes (see above) but another reason was that two sequals from the same original movie could hurt the other directors movie if one bombed at the box office, if the movie goers thought that day of the dead sucked then whay would they go and see return of the living dead, if return of the living dead sucked why would they go and see day of the dead. if one sequal sucked, then what makes them think that another sequal based off the same series would be better, so the changes were also comercial based as well, let each movie stand or fall on its own, without the movie goers have any preconcieved notions about either film before viewing them, and this does go back to the respect aspect, o'bannon felt each movie should have its own chance.

o'bannon showed alot of his respect for notld in his movie, the similarities are great, enough to be recognised by and liked by us zombie fans but a new and different movie to horror fans who may not be great fans of the zombie genre

both movies are about a group of strangers who are forced to deal with a horrific situation and deal with their own mistrust and trepaditions of each other, notld had black and white racial tension, rotld had the adult versus youth, the alternative punk teens against the conservative adults. both movies had the groups fortifying their home against the undead, both showed the authorities handling (or mishandling) the situation. in all honestly rotld could almost have been a straight out remake of notld with very few changes to the overall story.