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. 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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.