What does Z Snyder think?

[Svengoolie]

Uhhh No, his refusal to bring the film in at an R was what got his budget reduced. They would have given him the full $7 million if he toned it down. Kudo's to him for sticking to his guns. This is common knowledge and mentioned in various DVD interviews. Yes and no. Due to Knightriders' failure at the box office and Creepshow's moderate performance, UFD was reluctant to put up any substantial sum of money for a Laurel project that would be gauranteed to be released without a rating. GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp Squad were given a choice--release the film with an R rating and he'd get the bigger amount, or release it without a rating and get the smaller. If you think his immediate post-Dawn track record at the box office wasn't the motivation behind UFD's decision to play them like that, you're crazy.

[bassman]

Yes and no. Due to Knightriders' failure at the box office and Creepshow's moderate performance, UFD was reluctant to put up any substantial sum of money for a Laurel project that would be gauranteed to be released without a rating. GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp Squad were given a choice--release the film with an R rating and he'd get the bigger amount, or release it without a rating and get the smaller. If you think his immediate post-Dawn track record at the box office wasn't the motivation behind UFD's decision to play them like that, you're crazy. Actually....he was right and he's not crazy. Romero says in multiple interviews that they would only put up the full amount of money if he delivered an R rating so that it could premiere on more screens(which equals more money). It had nothing to do with his prior films... And Romero, being the badass that he is, decided he wouldn't go down like that. And delivered a hell of a good zombie flick in the process ....

[axlish]

Romero says in multiple interviews that they would only put up the full amount of money if he delivered an R rating so that it could premiere on more screens(which equals more money). It had nothing to do with his prior films... And Romero, being the badass that he is, decided he wouldn't go down like that. And delivered a hell of a good zombie flick in the process .... Right but if you consider what a major success Dawn was, the fact that they were only putting a maximum of 7 million on the table shows that they had little faith in the product. The failure of Knightriders and the lukewarm financial success of Creepshow played a part for sure.

[bassman]

Right but if you consider what a major success Dawn was, the fact that they were only putting a maximum of 7 million on the table shows that they had little faith in the product. The failure of Knightriders and the lukewarm financial success of Creepshow played a part for sure. Why is that little faith? Maybe that's the amount of money that was requested to make the film. I mean....what was the budget for "Dawn"? I don't know, but I'm thinking it probably wasn't seven million. Maybe seven was the amount thought to be needed to make the script that Romero had written.....

[Svengoolie]

Thank you, axlish. As usual, you're an island of reality in an ocean of diarrhea.

[axlish]

Why is that little faith? Maybe that's the amount of money that was requested to make the film. I mean....what was the budget for "Dawn"? I don't know, but I'm thinking it probably wasn't seven million. Maybe seven was the amount thought to be needed to make the script that Romero had written..... The budget for Dawn was $625,000, half of which was raised by Dario Argento. The inflated budget that was reported (until recently) was 1.5 Million. Dawn was released unrated, and pulled in 55 million roughly. Why would they be afraid of the rating? Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script. I'm not sure. In retrospect, I think Romero should have bagged the project, directed Pet Cemetery (which was a success) and the gone after the financing for his original concept.

[Svengoolie]

The budget for Dawn was $625,000, half of which was raised by Dario Argento. The inflated budget that was reported (until recently) was 1.5 Million. Dawn was released unrated, and pulled in 55 million roughly. Why would they be afraid of the rating? Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script. I'm not sure. In retrospect, I think Romero should have bagged the project, directed Pet Cemetery (which was a success) and the gone after the financing for his original concept. A couple of things to consider: 1. The 55 million made by Dawn is a figure that represents world-wide box office gross spread out over a period of years, and the various distributors' acutal earnings were substantially less. 2. GAR couldn't have just bagged the project, even if he wanted to--he was under a three-picture contract with UFD and was obliged to deliver Day by 1985. In essence, it breaks down like this: GAR has a hit with Dawn, and signs a three-picture deal with UFD in which he's supposed to deliver Day by 1985. He follows up Dawn with a box office disaster, and another flick that does okay at the box office. Not great, not good...but okay--lukewarm, some might say. Then, when it comes time to put up or shut up with Day, he delivers a script that will obviously have to be distributed as an unrated feature with a projected budget of around 7 million clams. With Day as an unrated feature, that means that a major studio won't get on board to help distribute it, the way Warner Brothers did with Creepshow...and that means a very limited number of venues in a limited number of markets. Thus, UFD gave them the ultimatum--tone down the gore so the film could get an R-rating and he'd get the 7 mil, or play it with the gore and get the lower budget. Now, if both Knightriders and Creepshow had been as successful as Dawn, would UFD have been on board with the gore? We may never know.

[axlish]

1. The 55 million made by Dawn is a figure that represents world-wide box office gross spread out over a period of years, and the various distributors' acutal earnings were substantially less. Correct, but this figure was probably accurate as of 1983-84 when the negotiating took place. Surely Dawn has grossed much more since then. 2. GAR couldn't have just bagged the project, even if he wanted to--he was under a three-picture contract with UFD and was obliged to deliver Day by 1985. True. This deal is as much to blame as anything regarding the flop that is Day of the Dead. In a way, it hurt Land as well. I can't blame Laurel for taking the deal though, it makes sense financially.

[Svengoolie]

I can't blame Laurel for taking the deal though, it makes sense financially. Especially when you see how it all came out in the end. Oh, and just one more thing.... Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script. According to GAR, UFD loved the original script.