Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: Any interest in "LIVING DEAD" fan edits?

  1. #16
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,249
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLivingDead View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MinionZombie; 15-Oct-2020 at 10:06 AM.

  2. #17
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post
    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.

  3. #18
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,249
    UK
    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.

  4. #19
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by MinionZombie View Post
    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.)

  5. #20
    Fresh Meat TheLivingDead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Posts
    8
    United States
    -Deleted-
    Last edited by TheLivingDead; 07-Jan-2021 at 10:25 PM. Reason: .

  6. #21
    Rising
    Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,500
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLivingDead View Post
    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.

  7. #22
    Team Rick MinionZombie's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    The Mandatorium
    Posts
    24,249
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheLivingDead View Post
    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)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •