Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CorruptedHannya t1_ityxa2w wrote

It already had a sequel, well technically 2, and a good remake.

And whatever is made now isn't going to be nearly as good as Dawn of the Dead or Return of the Living Dead so why bother?

17

CapnSmite t1_itz0iut wrote

Even more than that.

Dawn of the Dead

Day of the Dead

Land of the Dead

Diary of the Dead (slight update/parallel story, kinda using Marvel Comics' "sliding timescale" rules; supposed to take place at the same time as the original movie)

Survival of the Dead

Empire of the Dead (official sequel comic written by Romero, with direct ties to the original movie; also introduces vampires to the series)

12

battousai611 t1_itzdfbn wrote

You mean to tell me that vampires exist canonically in Romero’s Living Dead series??

4

DMPunk t1_itzsl4u wrote

I've read things that correlate zombies as a type of vampire. Basically zombies are a feral vampire that consumes blood by chewing it out of the flesh

6

CapnSmite t1_iu0448f wrote

Ooooh! That's an interesting take I can't recall hearing before.

3

Try_Another_Please t1_iu0nt9v wrote

I am legend was romeros primary inspiration. Makes more sense if you know that.

2

CorruptedHannya t1_itz0mt1 wrote

Oh I know it has many, many entries as the series goes on, of insanely varying quality, but I was talking direct sequels, of which there are only 2 as far as I know.

1

CapnSmite t1_itz0z0n wrote

Land of the Dead and Empire of the Dead are also direct sequels.

I mean, aside from Diary and Survival, none of the films have any character or story through line aside from "the dead are rising and eating people" and offering social commentary. But they can fit neatly on the same timeline. Zombies start rising > zombies start overrunning everything > zombies have overrun everything, people are forced into hiding > people start to adapt more and carve out a place and rebuild society in part of a major city > a major (albeit different) city is almost completely reclaimed and there's more of a semblance of normalcy, zombies still pose a threat but are mostly kept in check (plus vampires are there).

1

CorruptedHannya t1_itz1549 wrote

Oh, is it? I wasn't aware of that, I thought it followed some time after Day. Always thought it was Night > Dawn > Day > Land, showing the fall of humanity over decades.

Anything you could link me to confirm that?

Edit: damn you changed your entire comment and now I look like a rambling lunatic answering questions that weren't answered haha.

2

ExcalProphex t1_itzj9yy wrote

In Land of the Dead Tom Savini plays the zombie version of his character in the original Dawn of the Dead. To my knowledge he is the only recurring character from the original 3 movies.

2

Grapesoda5k t1_itzcyuf wrote

ROTLD isn't a sequel.

The Romero zombies and Trioxin zombies are quite different.

John Russo worked on the original NOTLD also but those films went in totally different directions.

https://livingdead.fandom.com/wiki/Return_of_the_Living_Dead_(film_series)

3

CorruptedHannya t1_itzdvvy wrote

Yeah they did differ but its still basically a sequel all but officially. Wasn't it that Romero wasn't allowed to use the 'of the Living Dead' fixture when he and Russo had differing ideas for the sequel and it's tone, Russo wanted more comedy and talking zombies so Russo kept that title fixture and created Return of the Living Dead, as in return of the zombies from Night, as his sequel, and Romero removed 'Living' from the title and went with just 'of the Dead' with how he wanted the zombies and series to go, and created Dawn as his sequel. Night is even mentioned in the original Return as a cheeky nod.

The zombies in Night are different from those in both Dawn and Return. They're smarter and know to use weapons etc and overall are much more human like, they're arguably closer to the Return zombies than what Romero ultimately went with going forward.

At least that's how I've always understood it.

2

Grapesoda5k t1_itzeh6j wrote

Russo zombies are indestructible, comedic zombies.

Romero zombies are quite easily dispatched unless they're offscreen when they appear from nowhere.

Snyder zombies are just lame.

5

CorruptedHannya t1_itzenvq wrote

Oh the Snyder thing we can agree on, Dawn 2006 is fucking awful and he fundamentally misunderstood everything the original was about.

1

Grapesoda5k t1_itzf6i4 wrote

He's just a silly hack with delusions of grandeur.

4

monty_kurns t1_iu0mm2y wrote

>Yeah they did differ but its still basically a sequel all but officially. Wasn't it that Romero wasn't allowed to use the 'of the Living Dead' fixture when he and Russo had differing ideas for the sequel and it's tone, Russo wanted more comedy and talking zombies so Russo kept that title fixture and created Return of the Living Dead, as in return of the zombies from Night, as his sequel, and Romero removed 'Living' from the title and went with just 'of the Dead' with how he wanted the zombies and series to go, and created Dawn as his sequel. Night is even mentioned in the original Return as a cheeky nod.

The zombies in Return of the Living Dead aren't Russo's, but Dan O'Bannon's. When Romero and Russo went their separate ways, Russo wrote a screenplay titled Return of the Living Dead. In that story, it is a direct sequel to Night and follows the sheriff seen at the end. From what I remember there was also a cult involved. Originally, Tobe Hooper was signed on to direct it. When he left the project, O'Bannon was brought in and he kept the title, but completely rewrote the story and created the talking, running, braining hungry zombies. Russo was able to adapt his screenplay into a novel, also called Return of the Living Dead.

Honestly, Russo's original story isn't that bad. I have the paperback of it and read it maybe 15 years ago. I remember thinking it actually would've made a decent movie, assuming it weren't made by Russo who, by all accounts, is a really nice guy but kind of a hack when it comes to filmmaking. I'm going to need to go back and give it another read, but it was definitely serious in tone and featured the same kind of zombies you saw in Night.

2

RudegarWithFunnyHat t1_ityyovm wrote

well, the remake of day of the dead was odd and bad and had very little to do with the org movie.

2

CorruptedHannya t1_ityyxv4 wrote

I don't think I mentioned the Day of the Dead remake, I did mention the Night of the Living Dead remake from 1990 by Tom Savini though, which is good.

3

RudegarWithFunnyHat t1_ityz284 wrote

did not say you did, the 1990 remake is a real remake apart from a bit in the ending, the remake of dawn of the dead not so much but it also takes place at a mall and it's also an ok movie.

0

Try_Another_Please t1_iu0nq77 wrote

Romero estate did a posthumous novel the living dead and its fucking awesome. I'm willing to see what this becomes with his wife overseeing.

2