NOLD 90 Movie Mistake

[shootemindehead]

Yep, an exploding head shot of the burnt zombie was cut and several exit wound shots were taken out. Most notably the skinny black zombie and the original zombie that attacks Barbara in the graveyard. Apart from that, nearly everything else was on the screen that was shot. The MPAA were real dicks about anything gruesome on screen. But it's amazing what directors can get away with today! As an aside, is there anyone else that's amazed that this film is nearly 20 years old now?

[DjfunkmasterG]

I have seen the work print for this film, and the opening is a lot different than what was on the big screen/DVD release. The car ride was longer and voice overs were not done at the cemetary gates, they were done during the car ride. If you can find it the work print is a pretty awesome view, I think it was more Savini's vision than what was released.

[darth los]

Yep, an exploding head shot of the burnt zombie was cut and several exit wound shots were taken out. Most notably the skinny black zombie and the original zombie that attacks Barbara in the graveyard. Apart from that, nearly everything else was on the screen that was shot. The MPAA were real dicks about anything gruesome on screen. But it's amazing what directors can get away with today! As an aside, is there anyone else that's amazed that this film is nearly 20 years old now? Wow, i hadn't given that much thought. It's held up etraordinarily well besides it's age. There are only a couple of instances where the effects look dated. For a 20 year old movie that's saying something. I think it was just that period where the censors were being overly conservative. It was like a pushback away from the status quo. Think about it. We just came off of the splatterfilm era where it was common fare to ram a knife through someone's skull atleast once per film. I think there was a quota or some shit. Now think about the era when this film was released. If I remember there was a whole lotta Steel Magnolia, Pretty Woman, Beaches crap going on. it's fuuny how we think of what is allowed to be shown in movies as an upward progression when it's really an ebb and flow. Since the early 90'0s it has evolved into what we have today. But let's not think for a minute that this is the pinacle of gore. That my friends was in the 70's/80's. I'd love deej's comments on this topic by the way.

[shootemindehead]

Yep, there is an ebb and flow alright. But the 70's weren't just the high point of gore, it was the highpoint of movies, full stop. I think though, that the living dead tend to draw the wrath of censors more so than any other horror movie monster. The taboo of flesh eating is really something that tends to stick in people's throats . But when I see theatre releases like "Hostel" or the remake of "The Hills have Eyes", I can't help chuckling at the absolute "outrage" that zombie flicks recieved in the past. In England (and subsequently Ireland), "Zombie Flesh Eaters" was put on the 1984 banned list of video nasties, alongside "The Beast in Heat", "SS Experiment Camp" and "I Spit on Your Grave". As a result, I waited years to see it (in any form) and while I liked it, I was obviously let down somewhat, when it wasn't the mind melting guts and gorefest it and been made out to be. Zombie films had such a bad rap, that when Savini set out to remake "Night of the Living Dead", he did so with the intention to keep it restrained, but still the MPAA insisted on cuts...simply because it was de rigeur at the time. If it was being made now, he probably could have put anything he wanted on the screen (well, withn reason ) Which makes the theatre release of "Day of the Dead" all the more spectacular, when you consider what Romero and Savini got away in that film. Funkmaster...I haven't seen the workprint of "Night 90", that might be something worth checking out. But, there probably were running time cuts made here and there by Savini himself, but there wasn't much gore cut out by the MPAA, because there wasn't much in it in the first place...according to Savini anyway.

[darth los]

Well, I think we all can agree on one thing. It's been damn near 20 years since the films release and it's like the red headed stepchild of the series. Every other film gets special treatment and editions except this one. They need to re-release it with savini's "cut" as one of the special features. As you said he could get away with that stuff and more now days. If you think about it there's really no reason they couldn't do it unless there are rights issues involved.

[Yojimbo]

I remember watching the movie with director's commentary and Savini claimed that there was less than a minute of footage cut from the final film, in comparison with the version he originally submitted. Basically, apart from the one head explosion that was cut, almost every headshot was trimmed by a second or two - either from the start or end of the shot - to remove close ups of erupting exit wounds, and this accounts for like 90% of the cut footage. There are no missing gut-munching scenes and no character development was removed. I recall Savini claiming that in his opinion the trims made the movie more effective. Yeah, sure!

[ProfessorChaos]

i'm pretty confident that we'll get a 20th anniversary edition dvd/blu-ray next year, even with a shit economy.

[Wyldwraith]

Tis sad, I'll commit a bit of heresy and say I far prefer Savini's remake of NotLD to the GAR original. GAR's Barbara was such an annoyingly helpless twit, devoid of the slightest sign of the self-preservation drive being present. Savini's version has quite enough blubbering from Barbara when her and Ben meet up. GAR's Barbara annoyed me so badly it really detracted from the film for me. That, and I preferred Savini's ending. I didn't always hold this view of the two films in comparison, but now I'm sick to death of the "Everyone dies, screen fades or cuts to black as zombies wander around and feast on the last to die" endings. Dead Men Walking suffered from the Everyone Dies phenomena. Which was just enough to ruin an already borderline film. Guess I've become a bit of an optimist in my survival horror tastes.

[darth los]

Tis sad, I'll commit a bit of heresy and say I far prefer Savini's remake of NotLD to the GAR original. GAR's Barbara was such an annoyingly helpless twit, devoid of the slightest sign of the self-preservation drive being present. Savini's version has quite enough blubbering from Barbara when her and Ben meet up. GAR's Barbara annoyed me so badly it really detracted from the film for me. That, and I preferred Savini's ending. I didn't always hold this view of the two films in comparison, but now I'm sick to death of the "Everyone dies, screen fades or cuts to black as zombies wander around and feast on the last to die" endings. Dead Men Walking suffered from the Everyone Dies phenomena. Which was just enough to ruin an already borderline film. Guess I've become a bit of an optimist in my survival horror tastes. Well, I also have my reasons but I prefer the remake to the original as well. As I have stated before you can't take anything away from the original because of it's historical significance. With that said, the remake is a superior film, imo. Just think about it. If you had some people over and wanted to show them a zombie film which one would you show them, the original or the remake? To me it's not even a contest. It's the remake!! I wouldn't want to turn them of to zombie films on the first go so I would elect to show them a more polished product.

[Yojimbo]

Just think about it. If you had some people over and wanted to show them a zombie film which one would you show them, the original or the remake? To me it's not even a contest. It's the remake!! I wouldn't want to turn them of to zombie films on the first go so I would elect to show them a more polished product. Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style.

[darth los]

Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style. Agreed. Of course the original is irriplaceble but we all know if shown to a noob they'd be bored to tears.

[EvilNed]

Am I the only one here who hates the NOTLD remake? I think it's dull, lacks tempo, poor atmosphere and mostly badly acted?

[darth los]

Am I the only one here who hates the NOTLD remake? I think it's dull, lacks tempo, poor atmosphere and mostly badly acted? I don't want to make it seem as if I don't absolutely love the original, which I do, but are you saying that the original ISN'T guilty of most of those things?

[bassman]

Though I do think that the original is irreplacable, I reluctantly agree with brother Darth's statement about preferring to show a total ghoul-noob Savini's version over the GAR's original, especially when attempting to indoctrinate some of the younger, Gen-Y "I have been on the internet since I was an infant" types. As I have said before, my little sister (in her early 20s) laughed at NOLD 68 and Dawn 78, but loved Savini's NOLD and (admittedly, it kills me to type this) prefers Hack Snyder's DOTD to GAR's 1978 version. But along those lines, I know that a lot of "kids" in her age group cannot groove with a lot of classic movies simply because they dismiss black & white films because they are not in color, or because they don't have an MTV soundtrack and editing style. Very true. If I'm introducing someone to Romero's world of the dead I start with Night 90 and Day. Then if they like those I move them up to Dawn and Night. Then I go to Land and Diary. Most of them don't make it past Dawn, though. They usually give the "it's soooo cheesy" response.

[darth los]

Very true. If I'm introducing someone to Romero's world of the dead I start with Night 90 and Day. Then if they like those I move them up to Dawn and Night. Then I go to Land and Diary. Most of them don't make it past Dawn, though. They usually give the "it's soooo cheesy" response. Well, isn't it? Let me clarify before I get flamed. I think people who don't love these films are immediatley turned off by the dated effects. Forget the fact that at the time the were state of the art and on a shoestring, independent budget no less. Before I show Dawn to someone I mmediatley put out a disclaimer saying "in order to enjoy this film I need you to look past the special effects." Once that's out there the film immediately becomes more palatable to a general viewing audience. That just goes to show you how unimaginative and, frankly, gullable, people are. Just because the special effects in a 2009 movie such as Star Trek or Terminator: Salvation does that make them anymore "real"? The bottom line is that you're suspending your disbelief in order to enjoy this fictional world. So the zombies in the original dawn are obviously not as polished as in the remake but for some fucked up reason people let that get in the way of what could be an eye opening, life changing viewing experience. I don't even think people are interested in films as an art form anymore. Nowdays it's more like a two hour time killer till' it's time to check their my space pages again.