PDA

View Full Version : Night Of The Living Dead '68 vs '90



theoutfieldguy
09-28-2004, 12:42 AM
Which version do you prefer and why?

Chomp_on_this
09-28-2004, 10:10 AM
You know I gotta go with the original. I am sorry but I perfer my Barbra innocent and timid, rather than the G.I. Jane performance in the remake. Dont get me wrong I love the remake a lot, but it definately does not give me the same feel as the black and white version. It seems the movie almost lost its effectiveness when it was remade....that might just be me though.

Creepingmouth
09-28-2004, 12:22 PM
I like both but I prefer the original

Donnie Darko
09-28-2004, 12:44 PM
i like the 68 version best, mostly cause of the black and white feel and the music, i do like the old school Barb instead of the GI Jane one (good way of wording that Chomp)

the 90 version is the best remake of any movie that ive ever seen, it was done by Savini who knows and loves the genre, it had some of the same stuff but had enough differences to justify its existance. it has a good score to it, but i like the old horror score better.

Maxvayne
09-28-2004, 04:04 PM
Original. It had more media coverage which was a social meaning throughout the 60's because Vietnam was the first war to be covered by the news. The ending was never intended but became a social meaning of it's own. Zombie's were never used this way and George Romero created this type which it became a drive in hit because of it and it's scares.

The Remake was good and one of the best remakes to come out, but it was a 90's horror movie which had little gore because of the MPAA. It lacked the social meaning. Savini has even said it was not his vision he had planned. Anyway it came one of the better horror movie's of the 90's.

Scissorhands
09-29-2004, 05:47 PM
The original.. I can't stand watching the remake.. Savini should just stick to make-up FX and stay away from directing.

Chomp_on_this
09-29-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Scissorhands
The original.. I can't stand watching the remake.. Savini should just stick to make-up FX and stay away from directing.

And acting for that matter...

King Sly Joker
09-29-2004, 06:12 PM
The 68' version rules supreme.A classic horror movie,with the whole erie feeling from start to finish...

Scissorhands
09-29-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
And acting for that matter...

Seriously.. I think his finest moment in acting had to be in the movie Maniac where he used all of his best make-up/gore skill to have his character get his head blown to pieces.

Chomp_on_this
09-29-2004, 07:14 PM
I can tell ya, I am afraid to see his performance in Land of the Dead...his performances in DOTD and COTLD don't merrit him any respect as an actor whatsoever. I have no idea why Savini wants to branch out like that? I heard he has a pretty big ego though...I am not to sure this true or not, for I have never met him, but Savini hasn't proved the statement wrong as of yet.

horrorqueen7
09-29-2004, 08:13 PM
It's hard to pick really. My mom took me to see NOTLD-90 although she hated she knows I love horror movies so that one was cool - the original is very creepy!

zombie commando
09-29-2004, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
You know I gotta go with the original. I am sorry but I perfer my Barbra innocent and timid, rather than the G.I. Jane performance in the remake. Dont get me wrong I love the remake a lot, but it definately does not give me the same feel as the black and white version. It seems the movie almost lost its effectiveness when it was remade....that might just be me though.

It's not just you. I dig the remake but the original is considered a classic for a reason. It's gritty, it's creepy, and it's guerilla camera work style makes it feel realler and more down to earth than the remake.

I did like the montague at the end of the remake, but that wasn't enough to make it better than the single movie that kick started the era of undead zombie movies.

theoutfieldguy
09-29-2004, 11:30 PM
This is tough for me,too.The first zombie in the original will go unrivaled.But the more modern feel of the remake was nice also.
I guess I'll remain undecided for the time being.:D

MischievousSpirit
09-30-2004, 08:19 AM
The original is my favorite. The black & white gives it both a sense of style, and class. I rarely like remakes as 99.9% of the time they suck.

Rabbit in Red
09-30-2004, 02:05 PM
Don't hang me, I mean I love the original, but if I had to choose I would say 90". Why? Because it has a modern feel that is easier to identify with and it was the version I saw first. I was 4 and it was on HBO.

Silverpsycho
10-02-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Rabbit in Red
Don't hang me, I mean I love the original, but if I had to choose I would say 90". Why? Because it has a modern feel that is easier to identify with and it was the version I saw first. I was 4 and it was on HBO.
Same here! No one come and hunt me down, but the NOTLD '90 version was actually the first of Romero's films (yeah I know it's basically Savini's but Romero did write the script) that I saw. I remember loving it and it was my first experience with the living dead...while NOTLD '68 was actually the last of Romero's films that I purchased and watched. I love them both equally...'68 for the ending and acting/characters & '90 for its effects, living dead and make-up...plus I do like Patricia Tallman's take on Barbra...besides, it was Romero's idea to change it this way and I think it was a fresh take on this classic. I must say that I am happy to own both in my collection, so it is extremely hard to choose which one is better of the two.

Col Whizzle
10-03-2004, 10:09 AM
I'm one of the few who enjoys watching the Savini version a lot more.

Romero's version shocked the horror genre and led the path to many classics we enjoy today (including the remake), but I find I pop in the remake more often than Romero's. The original is groundbreaking, but the remake is just so awesome. Plus Candyman is in it. :D

SLAB
10-03-2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Scissorhands
Seriously.. I think his finest moment in acting had to be in the movie Maniac.

The character of "Disco Boy" achieved heights that no other actor could have brought him to. :p

fanatic986
10-03-2004, 01:33 PM
I think the original is better, but I like the cast of the remake better. Especially the actress who played Barbara.

Mr.Garrett81
10-09-2004, 09:26 AM
I must say Im a fan of the remake more than the original. But the original still kicks ass!

Pharmdee
10-27-2004, 05:05 PM
Generally I like the "original" in most cases, however this is the exception for me. I really love the "feel" of the 1990 version. For some reason everytime I watch it I feel like I could be there with them. Really cool film.

Blackesteyes
11-02-2004, 02:52 PM
Im going with the remake, because it was one of the first horror films i saw and a couple of years later i got to see it in the cinema and it was even better. I love the whole feel of it and personally i think it fits with the rest of the trilogy better due to the stretched out ending. Dont get me wrong i love the original, the remake just has cool personal memories for me.

Oliver
11-03-2004, 09:04 AM
I didn't like the original at all, the acting in it was a joke and the acting sucked. The acting was particularly lame.

The DVD I have just feels very phony, I don't know if they re-did the music or something, but it sounds like it was composed off a keyboard.

I prefer the re-make myself, has everything you could expect for the beginning of a zombie outbreak, and a very moody ending.

Blackesteyes
11-03-2004, 03:56 PM
yeah if its the anniversary version they shot a couple of extra scenes that look totally out of place even tho they tried to get the same film etc. plus they rescore it all from what i remember. I have the trilogy boxset and im pretty sure thats what they did.

TheThorn666
11-05-2004, 08:32 PM
I like the origenal one better it's a classic.

Blinkant
11-07-2004, 06:10 AM
I've got to say the remake is the best, after all, it's my fav film of all time. It's the film that got me into horror films and I think that the actors are brilliant in the film. Don't get me wrong, the origianl is good but the remake will alway stick with me as one of my fav films and also, one of the best films in the 90s.

Beau
11-07-2004, 06:33 AM
I gotta say the remake.

Blinkant
11-07-2004, 06:39 AM
I thought that you might say that, Beau.

chuxdigital
11-07-2004, 03:30 PM
my first post at this site... the savini remake: no good.

the original... like butta'

Chomp_on_this
11-07-2004, 05:12 PM
I know everybody really like Tony Todd and how he handled the role as Ben in the remake, hell I even did. But does anybody else feel that maybe Tony was overacting at times? And some points in the film it just looked like he was trying too hard that it made it look kind of cheesy.

Even though I really enjoyed the remake, it just didnt hold a candle to the original. Because the original had such a stong political statement and sataristic subjects, Savini HAD(the subject matter in the original just wouldnt be effective in present day times) to make up those missing elements with gore and action. That was probably the biggest drawback to the remake.

zombie commando
11-08-2004, 03:21 PM
Yeah....the remake was more of an eye candy flick than it was a social commentary in vein of the original trillogy. Sure it had a little bit in there, but it came off a bit flat, and wasn't pulled off as well as the original.......

HorrorManiac34
12-20-2004, 04:59 PM
I have to go with the origianl Night of the Living Dead. It had better actors imo and was a creative idea that everyone dies. The remake is great too, Tom Savini really did a great job with it.

Robert Beaudoin
12-21-2004, 02:31 AM
I liked both versions, but of the 2 I liked the original better.

Icebreaker_8605
01-03-2005, 05:16 PM
Both versions are good. Romero's 68 classic is awesome...a great flick. And I did like the Barbera better in the '90 one from the original. My vote will go to the original.

:)

T1000416
01-03-2005, 06:33 PM
I haven't seen the 90 version. I heard wasn't that bad, so I'll have to rent soon.

theoutfieldguy
01-04-2005, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by T1000416
I haven't seen the 90 version. I heard wasn't that bad, so I'll have to rent soon.

It was one of the better remakes out there.I'll go as far to say it was kickass and gave the original a run for its money to an extent.Had they used the original soundtrack for the remake,I may have voted for the remake.

Maxvayne
01-05-2005, 04:15 AM
Ill go ahead and say this and The Fly are the best remakes out there, I for one , do not consider The Thing a remake.

Loomis 91
01-07-2005, 02:24 PM
I haven't seen the 1990 version.

SLAB
01-07-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Loomis 91
I haven't seen the 1990 version.

Watch it, then post your opinion. :)

Dead Alive
02-09-2005, 09:13 AM
the remake....i know i wont be original here but the 68 version wasn't big enough....zombies looked like drunk people and they were too fast and too inteligent but the remake has more action

Chomp_on_this
02-09-2005, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Dead Alive
the remake....i know i wont be original here but the 68 version wasn't big enough....zombies looked like drunk people and they were too fast and too inteligent but the remake has more action

What? Big enough? You're gonna have to elaborate on that one.

First you say the zombies looked like they were too drunk, then you say they were too fast and too intelligent...Pardon me, but I haven't seen too many drunks winning the Nobel Peace Prize as of lately. When you are drunk, you kill brain cells...how can you act smarter?

Secondly, if you think the zombies were "too intelligent", then you probably haven't seen Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead. In Romero's Dead trilogy, the zombies start to adapt and comprehend more and more to their surroundings as each movie progresses. They start learning things they used to do in their previous life...thus making them smarter than the zombies in Night of the Living Dead. So when you look at it in that perspective, the zombies in NOTLD are rather inferior to the ones in George's later films.

Thirdly, that's fine that you like the remake better than the original, its a good movie...but for god's sake come up with some better reasoning to prove why you like it than what you did. You almost made it sound as if you haven't seen either movie.

zombie commando
02-09-2005, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
What? Big enough? You're gonna have to elaborate on that one.

First you say the zombies looked like they were too drunk, then you say they were too fast and too intelligent...Pardon me, but I haven't seen too many drunks winning the Nobel Peace Prize as of lately. When you are drunk, you kill brain cells...how can you act smarter?

Secondly, if you think the zombies were "too intelligent", then you probably haven't seen Dawn of the Dead or Day of the Dead. In Romero's Dead trilogy, the zombies start to adapt and comprehend more and more to their surroundings as each movie progresses. They start learning things they used to do in their previous life...thus making them smarter than the zombies in Night of the Living Dead. So when you look at it in that perspective, the zombies in NOTLD are rather inferior to the ones in George's later films.

Thirdly, that's fine that you like the remake better than the original, its a good movie...but for god's sake come up with some better reasoning to prove why you like it than what you did. You almost made it sound as if you haven't seen either movie.

I agree with CHomp 100% on this case. Having more action doesn't mean the movie is better....

Chomp_on_this
02-09-2005, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by zombie commando
I agree with CHomp 100% on this case. Having more action doesn't mean the movie is better....

Even the "more action" excuse is merely poor at best. The remake was more-or-less a shot-for-shot remake. Sure there was different dialogue exchanged between characters, and some different scenerios and scenes were added or left out...there was one MAJOR role change as well. But other than that, the action is pretty much on par with the amount in the original...don't you agree?

There was even high amounts of gore used in the original (especially considering it was made in the 60's). There was flesh eating, gruesome corpses, and we also have charred bodies as examples littered throughout the film. People forget to take into account that the film was shot in black and white...just because you cannot see deep red blood, doesn't mean there was NO gore.

zombie commando
02-12-2005, 08:52 AM
Yes I found the original version surprisingly gory for the time it was shot in. Anybody whom asserts it was low on the gore factor is a lobotomized baboon.

Superman
02-12-2005, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by zombie commando
Yes I found the original version surprisingly gory for the time it was shot in. Anybody whom asserts it was low on the gore factor is a lobotomized baboon. I like how you always call someone who does not share your opinions some kind of name. :rolleyes: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It was low on gore. I don't care if it was shot in the 60's or the 90's. If you're watching a horror movie you just expect to see gore. The re-make of this film was better also.

Chomp_on_this
02-12-2005, 09:48 AM
How can it be low on gore?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/14.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/13.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/12.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/10.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/8.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/7.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/6.jpg

Chomp_on_this
02-12-2005, 09:49 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/5.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/4.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/3.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/2.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/1.jpg

Considering the era, the time constraints, and the budget of ONLY $114,000...I have to say, that is pretty damn good gore.

theoutfieldguy
02-12-2005, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Loomis 91
I haven't seen the 1990 version.

Should definitely check it out.
I just recorded it last month off'a On Demand.:D

Chomp_on_this
02-13-2005, 02:31 PM
What I didn't like about the remake of NOTLD was the clear sign of dummy use when "Johnny" gets his head smashed against the headstone. What the fuck was Tom Savini thinking? That he could fool the audience with that thing? LoL. That was an Ed Wood move right there. There is no excuse for a dummy to be THAT obvious in any scene...especially when you are TOM FUCKING SAVINI!!!!

Donnie Darko
02-13-2005, 02:38 PM
yeah man, ive got a kick before outta thinking that they watched that take on the monitors and said "it worked, lets move on"

goddamn. thats a fuckin funny part, in a sad way.

theoutfieldguy
02-13-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
What I didn't like about the remake of NOTLD was the clear sign of dummy use when "Johnny" gets his head smashed against the headstone. What the fuck was Tom Savini thinking? That he could fool the audience with that thing? LoL. That was an Ed Wood move right there. There is no excuse for a dummy to be THAT obvious in any scene...especially when you are TOM FUCKING SAVINI!!!!

For real.I guess they didnt wanna damage Chop Top's grill.:D

Rabbit in Red
02-13-2005, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Chomp_on_this
What I didn't like about the remake of NOTLD was the clear sign of dummy use when "Johnny" gets his head smashed against the headstone. What the fuck was Tom Savini thinking? That he could fool the audience with that thing? LoL. That was an Ed Wood move right there. There is no excuse for a dummy to be THAT obvious in any scene...especially when you are TOM FUCKING SAVINI!!!! That or the "seemless" cuts between the Uncle dummy and the real dude. What the hell, I still love the remake.

zombie commando
02-14-2005, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Superman
I like how you always call someone who does not share your opinions some kind of name. :rolleyes:
I don't always call people that don't share my opinion names you lobotomized baboon.:p

Roswell
03-25-2005, 07:35 AM
Just recently saw the remake. I thought it was very good.

As for the original, I just couldn't seem to get into it. I suppose it was the bad DVD I rented. Somehow I just couldn't click with it. I need to watch it again on a better DVD.

BTW, on the whole dummy issue: To be honest, I thought it was a good effects shot, but it was sort of spoiled for me because I decided to watch the making of featurette on the DVD before watching the movie. I could tell it was a dummy, but I still sort of cringed at that moment.

Best part of the remake: The autopsy zombie walking toward the car. As he walks, his clothes slowly start coming off and we see he's been cut open, then sown back up. That part was pretty interesting.

Best part of the original: The opening cemetary scene. "They're coming to get you, Barbera!" Loved it!

MMyers89
03-28-2005, 05:45 PM
The original. I like em both though. But the original stands out for me.

bloody_pumpkin
03-30-2005, 07:37 PM
I go with the original , why? because a remake can never be as good as the original. the 1990 remake was decent but it wasn't as good as night of the living dead(1968).

zombie commando
04-13-2005, 08:16 AM
The remake really skimped out on some of the meaning and symbolism that made the original such a classic. I guesss that's the case with alot of remakes though huh? It's still a cool flick, just not as good as the original outing.

ZomBrad
10-05-2005, 12:38 PM
I liked the remake better.......altho, I probably shouldn't have watched it first, LOL............kinda lamed up the original....but oh well! I still liked it!

I'll tell u what I like about each version......

Original:
Ben's story of how he was surrounded by zombies

They actually show Zombie Johnny

A WAY hotter Helan Cooper

Was better when Ben had to deal with zombie Cooper, and Zombie Helen

Remake:

I liked Tony Todd alot better as Ben.

The characters had alot more depth to them.

It seemed alot more realistic as how it would happen if it were real. (The zombies showed up, and surrounded the house WAY too fast in the original)

The zombies were actually threatening, and didn't seem to shuffle in place most of the time like in the original.

The cast had a hell of alot harder time with the remake's zombies. They kinda sat around talkin' in the original.

I liked not knowing how the zombies came to be, rather than them just telling us it's radiation!

It does kinda fit with the trilogy better (not chronologically), because in the original, the zombies started using tools, when in Dawn of the Dead, they seemed to forget it abit (except the zombie with the tire iron).........then in Land of the Dead they relearned how to use tools (the guns were new tho, LOL)

Sure it didn't have the social commentary........but I really don't pay attention to that......I just like the story of survival against the undead.

It was just plain scarier

It felt more real, where as the original felt like a play

And finally.........even tho it really shouldn't matter........It had better, and scarier zombies, LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I do love the original, and I give Romero props for giving birth to the zombie genre, leading on to kick ass games like Resident Evil........he started everything that's cool today!!!! LOL

kjmarket
10-13-2005, 10:24 PM
Obviously the original '68 movie is better by far. But I really liked the '90 remake. Yes there were some really bad parts like with the obvious dummies, but I really like the most realistic zombies in any movie.

DREAMASTER
10-31-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Maxvayne
Original. It had more media coverage which was a social meaning throughout the 60's because Vietnam was the first war to be covered by the news. The ending was never intended but became a social meaning of it's own. Zombie's were never used this way and George Romero created this type which it became a drive in hit because of it and it's scares.

The Remake was good and one of the best remakes to come out, but it was a 90's horror movie which had little gore because of the MPAA. It lacked the social meaning. Savini has even said it was not his vision he had planned. Anyway it came one of the better horror movie's of the 90's.


Maybe a Director's Cut of the remake should be released ?

coryorton
11-01-2005, 02:25 PM
i enjoyed the remake more.

spiritoradio
11-07-2005, 09:14 AM
The original, in my opinion is the best of the two. Savini is a damn fine SFX artist and a funny guy that when you see him in a cameo wether it be the Dawn remake or "From Dusk 'til Dawn" you can't help but laugh, but his remake of NOTLD just doesn't hold a candle to the original. A worthy attempt and a fine movie but you can't improve on perfection.

complete
11-13-2005, 12:16 PM
I way preferred the remake. And why? Well, the first one was so boring and sent me to sleep. The acting was bad, zombies were bad etc. That, and unfortunately it was B+W.

I just liked the colourful, good acting of the remake.

Chuck D
11-13-2005, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by complete
I way preferred the remake. And why? Well, the first one was so boring and sent me to sleep. The acting was bad, zombies were bad etc. That, and unfortunately it was B+W.

Sigh.

complete
11-13-2005, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by ChuckyDarko
Sigh.

Who knows. I may prefer the 3-D remake out next year.

discvader
11-17-2005, 07:53 PM
They're both good, but you can't top the Original it's fanfrickintastic! I didn't realize that Bill Mosely played "Johnny" in the remake, never watched the credits I guess.

kaley
12-14-2005, 03:55 AM
I have only seen the 1968 version...and love it. it is amazing and definately one of my favourite movies. I would like to watch the 1990 version though. who is in it???

Roswell
12-14-2005, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by kaley
I have only seen the 1968 version...and love it. it is amazing and definately one of my favourite movies. I would like to watch the 1990 version though. who is in it???

Tony Todd (Candyman)

Patricia Tallman

Bill Mosely (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects)

Tom Towles (Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer)

William Butler (Friday the 13th Part 7, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III)

Those are the main actors.

kaley
12-14-2005, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Mark Warner
Tony Todd (Candyman)

Patricia Tallman

Bill Mosely (Texas Chainsaw Massacre II, House of 1000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects)

Tom Towles (Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer)

William Butler (Friday the 13th Part 7, Texas Chainsaw Massacre III)

Those are the main actors.

...and all the actors have been in other huge scary movies.

dragon4kody
01-04-2006, 07:16 PM
Ther wasent a hole lot of diffrence between either one of them, except for the fact that Barbra kicked some ass and lived. That killed it for me, it was a good scare but to turn Barbra for girly girl to tuff broaed was a stupid move

dragon4kody
01-04-2006, 07:19 PM
I didnt no Bill mosely was in the 90, night of the living dead

DarknessBDJM
01-04-2006, 10:57 PM
Used to like the remake better, now I like the original better, but both are very good.

Scary
02-09-2006, 12:25 PM
I've only seen the original and I love it. I was thinking about getting the remake this weekend. Is their a lot of vulgar language in it because I wanted to watch it with my son.

discvader
02-10-2006, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Scary
I've only seen the original and I love it. I was thinking about getting the remake this weekend. Is their a lot of vulgar language in it because I wanted to watch it with my son.
There's not alot of "vulgar" language, more like "intense" language. It is pretty graphic though(the gore effects). I would say it depends on the age of your son and what you permit him to see. Definite "R" rating.:)

HeatherO Fan
03-11-2006, 11:26 PM
I've only seen the '68 version, and I LOVE IT! It's not one of my favorite movies, but it is my favorite zombie movie. (Maybe it can fit in spot 20 or 21 on my faves list). I like Judith O'Dea's "loopy" moments. Through most of the movie, I kept saying "Bitch is burnt." The Tallman version lives?!? Hmmm... she's always resembled the TallMan (Phantasm+her last name is Tallman, geez. you people have NO sense of humor. lol.) The Colorized DVD version(20th Century Fox DVD), though, the chapter selection names seem to poke fun at the movie,(ie. "Barbra wigs out" "Zombies hate clotheslines" "Enter Scuff Head(meaning Cooper)" "Barbra's out to lunch" and my personal favorite: "Barbra's STILL out to lunch(On the DVD, "still" is capitalized)" The cover claims to have the "Colorized version and the ORIGINAL Black and White version," even capitalizing "Original." When in fact, they just took their colorized version and converting it to black and white. (You can tell when the title screen comes up. In the REAL B&W version, the word "night" is white, in theirs, it is a dark gray color(Converted from dark red).

Heather O Fan
___________________________________
H E A T H E R M I C H E L E O ' R O U R K E
1 2 / 2 7 / 1 9 7 5 - 2 / 1 / 1 9 8 8

HALLOWEENSHAPE7
03-12-2006, 06:41 PM
I might be thinking of the wrong movie, but I say original film. Is this the film where the zombie throughs the guy off the building??????

urbanchaos
03-17-2006, 04:46 PM
the '68 version. Because i found the '90 version boring.

michael =TERROR
03-26-2006, 02:03 PM
I like the 68 vrsion better to but I still thought Tom savini did a pretty decent job doing it.

michael =TERROR
05-02-2006, 08:14 AM
There are some things I like better in the new one but I like the old one more.

3pidemiC
05-02-2006, 09:15 AM
Why did you post again in this thread? It seems like you already summed your thoughts up with your previous posts. Also, there is a neat little "Edit" feature on these boards to add more thoughts to your posts if you decide to do so.

Nightmareman88
05-02-2006, 11:04 AM
I've always preferd the remake for some reason, I guess its just more colorful :p

Bennett Tramer
05-10-2006, 07:35 PM
come on you can't beat the original it's a classic

MMyers89
06-12-2006, 10:12 PM
How can it be low on gore?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/14.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/13.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/12.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/11.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/10.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/8.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/7.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v440/Chomp_on_this/6.jpg

Not to pointlessly resurrect older threads, but this post is just hilarious now.

discvader
06-13-2006, 05:49 AM
Not to pointlessly resurrect older threads, but this post is just hilarious now.
Huh? What am I missing? :confused:

Nothing touches the Classic, but the remake is...GOOD!!!:nodsmile:

MMyers89
06-13-2006, 11:37 AM
Huh? What am I missing? :confused:

quite a while ago, he posted a bunch of pics of gore scenes in NOTLD 68, arguing that it wasn't low on gore. Now, it appears all of those pictures have been removed from his photobucket account, except one, which he has replaced with a picture of a little puppy. So his argument of NOTLD not being low on gore is backed up by a cute little puppy dog, haha.

horrornut
06-13-2006, 12:29 PM
The original version IMO. First of all I don't like 99.9% of remakes and secondly I HATE color versions of b&w movies.

Rabbit in Red
06-13-2006, 02:50 PM
Not to pointlessly resurrect older threads, but this post is just hilarious now.

HAHAHAHA

discvader
06-13-2006, 03:07 PM
quite a while ago, he posted a bunch of pics of gore scenes in NOTLD 68, arguing that it wasn't low on gore. Now, it appears all of those pictures have been removed from his photobucket account, except one, which he has replaced with a picture of a little puppy. So his argument of NOTLD not being low on gore is backed up by a cute little puppy dog, haha.
Ok! Thanks for the clarification. That's funny!!! :nodsmile:

ALDO
06-13-2006, 05:08 PM
I like the original more but i think TOM SAVINI'S is also very good.

cool dude
07-08-2006, 09:04 AM
i think the 1990 version is way better. better actors. better special effects. more action and its not in black and white people.

HiddenDragon
07-08-2006, 09:48 AM
The original since it's so creepy to me.

3pidemiC
07-08-2006, 10:26 AM
i think the 1990 version is way better. better actors. better special effects. more action and its not in black and white people.


Because everybody knows....that all black and white movies are bad. :/

Roswell
07-08-2006, 10:34 AM
i think the 1990 version is way better. better actors. better special effects. more action and its not in black and white people.

Even someone like me, who thinks the original isn't great, wouldn't put it down because it's in black and white.

MMyers89
07-08-2006, 04:39 PM
better special effects. more action and its not in black and white people.

Because those three things are what make a movie better, for sure.

Yep, it just isn't good if it doesn't have those things.... no siree...

:crazy:

Hallow's Eve
08-02-2006, 08:03 AM
as always the original is far better than the remake. Tom Savini is great at the make up effects, and he did do a decent job at the remake. Nice twist on having the blond girl be the bad ass zombie killer instead of the helpless victim like in the original. Tony Todd was cool too. But it can't match the scares of the original or the suspense. I think the black and white gave it an even more creepy feel. The original is just a classic in every way, one of my favorites!

Rich
08-17-2006, 01:24 AM
They were both great, but the original was scarier, more atmospheric, and had more of a post armaggedon feeling to it. It was more forboding, so I must go with that one, despite the characters being more developed in the remake.

Johnathon
08-17-2006, 09:02 AM
This is a tough one. 1990 version was the first REAL horror film I've ever seen. I love the low budget style of the 1968 version. I love Romero's story of how he shot the film on a shoestring budget, threw the final cut into the back of his car, and drove to New York to screen it. I just think that is really cool. I like how the 1990 version shows Barbara as being stronger rather than her being a big pussy throughout the entire 1968 version. But I'm going with the 1968 version.

mr32
12-17-2006, 02:04 PM
Love both of them even tho i would perfer the 90's version, but the original set the stage for the 90's version.

Kubrickbuff
12-18-2006, 02:29 PM
I actually like both films, both are scary and both have a very hunting atmosphere. The music score the th 90 version is much better than the typical monster movie music that you here in the 68 version, but both versions are good in my mind and you should not compare the two of them.

mr32
12-20-2006, 12:32 AM
I actually like both films, both are scary and both have a very hunting atmosphere. The music score the th 90 version is much better than the typical monster movie music that you here in the 68 version, but both versions are good in my mind and you should not compare the two of them.

exactly

Wicker Man
12-20-2006, 06:38 AM
I've been a big fan of the Savini remake since it's release. While still nowhere near the classic that the original was, Savini showed a lot of potential as a director with that one and managed to get some really good performances from his actors. A shame he never really went on to do much more behind the camera.

At the time he made NOTLD, I had wondered if Romero would ever produce a remake to "Dawn" with Savini back behind the camera. Although I enjoyed the remake to "Dawn" to some extent, I still would've rather seen it as a follow up to the 1990 version than as the MTV style/video game movie that it was.

DarknessBDJM
12-21-2006, 01:12 PM
In changing my opinion again, the original is a better horror movie that you don't watch all that often but enjoy it when you do, it's a more powerful film. The remake is something I can watch anytime and enjoy it and it's more fun.

scabboy
12-29-2006, 10:44 AM
I love the 68 version, but I think Savini's remake was an overall better done horror movie.

Shamrock-Robot
01-01-2007, 02:15 PM
Tough choice, I love both.

mcilroga
01-01-2007, 02:16 PM
The original, hands down.

"They're coming to get you, Barbara..."

Freddy_666
01-06-2007, 09:50 AM
1968 is the best ever

zombiecamp
01-09-2007, 09:00 PM
I am disturbed that this poll exists. I am even more disturbed that 30 people voted for the 1990 version.

I guess that (in general) I am just disturbed.

PS - 1968 NOTLD - the one that I want

myersfan1348
01-17-2007, 07:23 AM
I picked the original. I would watch it over the 90's one anyday, just had that black and white scary feel to it. Ide say it was probably pretty scary back then!

tat2dvamp
01-26-2007, 09:53 PM
hands down the original the new verision was ok but i just prefered the original its a true classic and the foirst of many zombie flicks to follow

Inhumane
01-29-2007, 06:06 PM
Which version do you prefer and why?


This is not even a contest. The original NOTLD is so much better than the awful remake that was peddled out in 1990. The original had a well structered story that created a true sense of claustrophobia, horror and suspense. The remake, on the other hand, played out like a bad episode of "Tales From The Crypt". The acting was atrocious, the make-up effects were underwhelming, and all the changes made were just bad. I am continously amazed that Romero worked on this thing and thought it was a good idea.

mike32
01-30-2007, 02:32 PM
I like the older one better but the 1990 version is one of the better remakes of all time. Its not preferred but its a good flick in its own right.

zombie commando
01-31-2007, 03:20 PM
This is not even a contest. The original NOTLD is so much better than the awful remake that was peddled out in 1990. The original had a well structered story that created a true sense of claustrophobia, horror and suspense. The remake, on the other hand, played out like a bad episode of "Tales From The Crypt". The acting was atrocious, the make-up effects were underwhelming, and all the changes made were just bad. I am continously amazed that Romero worked on this thing and thought it was a good idea.

The remake was just a glossy, jazzed up version of the original. Horror should remain dark and gritty, not pretty. Savini did do decent makeup work....I don't see a problem there. And the acting in ALL of the Living Dead movies is pretty comical and over the top.

xscabboyx
01-31-2007, 04:13 PM
I thought the acting in the remake was a lot better than the original. Tom Towles, Tony Todd, Patricia Tallman, Billy Butler... great cast.

The SFX was also done by John Vulich, not Savini.

I thought the remake had superiority over the original, but they are about the same content wise. The original will always be better overall because of the era that it came out in.

BloodyJacko
02-12-2007, 12:01 PM
The original. The remake is alright though.

moviestud87
02-23-2007, 03:17 PM
lol, i never knew they remade it... must of really sucked major monkey because i never even heard about it lol...

xscabboyx
02-24-2007, 12:16 PM
lol, i never knew they remade it... must of really sucked major monkey because i never even heard about it lol...

I've never seen Deliverance until earlier this year, but that doesn't mean it sucked. I thought the remake was one of the best remakes ever, if not the best. Romero was the one who wanted to remake it, so it was done as his vehicle.

alicefan696
02-24-2007, 04:56 PM
i haven't seen the '90 one, but i thought the original was good

Thurisaz
02-24-2007, 10:02 PM
The original by far because the remake changed the most amazing part of the original. The ending. It was a moment that made your gut sink and the remake totally ruined it. The original is still, in my eyes, the best zombie movie ever made.

halo thirty one
02-25-2007, 10:33 AM
The original is still, in my eyes, the best zombie movie ever made.
I agree 100% I didn't mind the remake too much. I'd compare it favorably to the rash of remakes we have seen recently. But the original was just plain scary. So scary it gave me nightmares. I think it had to do with how real everything felt. That location could be a mile from my house, those people could have been my neighbors. When you have that connection everything that's happening just feels that much worse. The way it ended just made the feeling in my gut even worse. They don't make a lot of movies like the original Night of the Living Dead these days. Instead the horror is prettied up, like in the remakes of The Fog and When a Stranger Calls.

Halloween444
02-27-2007, 01:18 PM
I So love The original but i for my part prefer the remake on this one i c'ant say exactly why but i think the main reason are (Tom Towles-Tony Todd-Tom Savini) The Three T Are unbeatable Lol

jason_fan
03-04-2007, 08:01 AM
This is one of the very few films where I prefer the remake to the original. It had better acting, the character of Barbara was better, and the zombies were the best looking in any zombie film to date.

Khan
03-05-2007, 06:12 PM
I prefer the original, but I like the remake Barbara better.

WickedDeath
03-06-2007, 11:28 AM
I prefer the 90 verison myself. The old black and white one, though a classic, does nothing for me. Savini did a great job on His version and it had a lot more gore. JMO

billyloomis17
03-15-2007, 08:23 AM
The original, easily.

mr32
05-09-2007, 08:28 AM
The like both, but i perfer the 90's version.

Shamrock-Robot
07-21-2007, 11:31 PM
I love both versions and Im gonna take the easy way out and say both, I cant choose.

brain eater
07-22-2007, 06:45 AM
No doubt again....the original. I like the remake though, anything Tom Savini does is great.

Shamrock-Robot
07-23-2007, 02:00 AM
Savini really did do a good job.

brain eater
07-23-2007, 06:48 AM
Savini really did do a good job.

Im never dissapointed by Savini's work.

Khan
07-23-2007, 07:15 AM
Savini did as really good job with the remake.

It is my 2nd favourite remake behind The Thing.

Psych0ticNemes1s
07-23-2007, 07:26 AM
i haven't seen the remake in so long... anyone want to sned me a copy? ;)

brain eater
07-23-2007, 08:05 AM
Savini did as really good job with the remake.

It is my 2nd favourite remake behind The Thing.

I would say its my third favorite remake behind The Thing and The Fly.

Khan
07-23-2007, 08:31 AM
i haven't seen the remake in so long... anyone want to sned me a copy? ;)

You can get it for around $10 at most online retailers.:)

Shamrock-Robot
07-23-2007, 09:33 PM
You can get it for around $10 at most online retailers.:)

Yeah, Its a great price for a great movie.

Khan
07-24-2007, 11:44 AM
Patricia Tallman is very easy on the eyes.

Shamrock-Robot
07-24-2007, 07:35 PM
She was nice as Barbara too.

Khan
07-25-2007, 05:18 AM
She is an accomplished stunt woman.

I also really liked her on Babylon 5 as Lyta Alexander.

Shamrock-Robot
07-25-2007, 06:43 PM
Id like to see her return to acting.

cinezombi
07-28-2007, 02:09 PM
Which version do you prefer and why?

Nothing beats the original. I did like the remake alot, and consider it one of the best remakes, but that is all it is.

Shamrock-Robot
07-29-2007, 02:52 AM
Its a good film too.

WhiteZombie
07-30-2007, 06:58 PM
Yeah the remake is definetly great work by Savini. But the original is an un-touchable classic

Shamrock-Robot
07-30-2007, 08:07 PM
I think the remake stands on its own as a different film.

WhiteZombie
07-30-2007, 09:10 PM
I think the remake stands on its own as a different film.

Oh yeah. You cant compare a remake to an Classic like Night. It created the mondern zombie.

Shamrock-Robot
07-31-2007, 08:23 AM
Yeah I wouldnt even try and compare them, I just think of them as 2 different films with the same name.

Rich
08-19-2007, 11:50 PM
Nothing beats the original. I did like the remake alot, and consider it one of the best remakes, but that is all it is.

I was going to say excactly that.


Yeah the remake is definetly great work by Savini. But the original is an un-touchable classic

I agree with this statement too. Tom did a great job with the movie. You can't take anything away from him.


I think the remake stands on its own as a different film.

Up until the last 40 minutes of the movie when they decide to make Barbra a tough girl, the 1990 film is a scene for scene remake. Granted it is a good one, but like cine_zombi said, that is all it is, is a suprisingly good remake. Tony Todd was awesome in his pre-Candyman role as Ben.

halloweenfan26
09-11-2008, 09:17 AM
The orignal 100% it looked so real and it was really frightening but the remake was so fake looking you could tell it wasn't worth watching it.

Laurie2007
09-11-2008, 09:49 AM
the original....you can never beat the classics.....their coming to get you barbara

Revenant
09-11-2008, 10:23 AM
Definitely the '90 version.

Dustin*****

Bearscubsfan87
09-11-2008, 10:27 AM
They are two very different movies that are hard to compare. But if I had to chose one to watch, I would probably go with the remake.

Khan
09-11-2008, 12:41 PM
Definitely the '90 version.

Dustin*****

And only because it was filmed in color. :lame:

The Devil's Reject
09-11-2008, 12:42 PM
The original had a more creepy feel to it. I think it's because of the black and white which makes the film feel cold. So my vote goes to the original.

Dr_Loomis02
09-11-2008, 12:46 PM
And only because it was filmed in color. :lame:

Who said this?

I picked the original because it was a ground breaking step forward in the horror field. I love both versions actually, but the original just has a great creepy feel to it, and a very tragic ending!

The Devil's Reject
09-11-2008, 12:48 PM
Who said this?

I picked the original because it was a ground breaking step forward in the horror field. I love both versions actually, but the original just has a great creepy feel to it, and a very tragic ending!

Oh yeah the ending. I thought for sure he was going to get to live. Oh well.

spindrift68
09-11-2008, 12:52 PM
The original without a doubt.

Savini's is good too though.

Twisted Sister
09-12-2008, 09:55 AM
I love both of them, but have a soft spot for the original, very creepy, very scary, and I prefer it in black and white. It's unsettling.

Khan
09-12-2008, 10:08 AM
Who said this?

I picked the original because it was a ground breaking step forward in the horror field. I love both versions actually, but the original just has a great creepy feel to it, and a very tragic ending!

He did.

He hates all movies filmed in B&W and won't give them a chance.

Revenant
09-12-2008, 05:38 PM
That's not the reason why I liked the remake better. I've seen the original. The remake was better. It's as simple as that.

Dustin*****

Twisted Sister
09-12-2008, 05:48 PM
The zombies in the remake are some of my favorites ever, they scared me big time. The Mr. McGruder one, the skinny bald one, the lady with the doll, and the one at the beginning, they were just terrifying.

Khan
09-12-2008, 06:43 PM
That's not the reason why I liked the remake better. I've seen the original. The remake was better. It's as simple as that.

Dustin*****

The original was made on an incredibly low budget, so of course it isn't going to look as polished as the remake did.

Using the B&W film helped Romero to keep costs down.


The zombies in the remake are some of my favorites ever, they scared me big time. The Mr. McGruder one, the skinny bald one, the lady with the doll, and the one at the beginning, they were just terrifying.

With Savini involved, you don't get bad zombies. :nodsmile:

Twisted Sister
09-12-2008, 07:08 PM
So true..lol...they've definitely been the root of my nightmares since that one came out...

I'm tryin' to get used to that avatar, lol, it's scaring me!

Rich
09-13-2008, 11:45 AM
That's not the reason why I liked the remake better. I've seen the original. The remake was better. It's as simple as that.

Dustin*****

Why was the remake better?

The original was made in 1967 and released in 1968. It was made on a low budget. It was a ground breaking film that has influenced many films since. It has influenced other films in the "zombie" sub-genre. It has even influenced such prestegious films as Signs (2003). Night of the Living Dead (1968) is a classic film that continues to influence films and film makers to this day on so many levels.

The remake of Night was just that...it was a re telling of a story that was already told. It was a great horror film. Tony Todd (the Candyman himself) was absolutely brilliant in this film. He is a great underrated actor. The remake was directed by Tom Savini under the supervision of George Romero. It was in color. The make up was more lavish. They developed characters more. In those respects it was a better film, however, it did not have the effect(s) and influence(s) on our culture and popular art (film, music, and other fine arts) that the original Night had.

As years go on, and we develop technicalogically of course we can always make our films look better (quality wise) however, I think it is the effect on society that the film has that truely makes the film.

Why is it that George A. Romero's living dead films stand the test of time while the hammer "zombie" films and many others simply get forgotten by history? The answer is very simple. It is the effect they have on society. The remake of Night was a great remake and a great horror film, but it did not hit as hard as the original. It was not as effective on it's audience as the original was, therefore I believe the original was the superior film, despite how good the remake was.

Twisted Sister
09-13-2008, 12:04 PM
Very good answer. I enjoyed reading that.

Khan
09-13-2008, 12:33 PM
Yes, very good post. :nodsmile:

Laurie2007
09-13-2008, 02:52 PM
that was a good post and i too enjoyed reading it

Revenant
09-13-2008, 04:35 PM
The original was boring and the ending wasn't as good as the remake.

Dustin*****

I still gotta see Diary of the Dead, but I LOVED Land of the Dead

Ravenheart
09-13-2008, 04:46 PM
Why was the remake better?

The original was made in 1967 and released in 1968. It was made on a low budget. It was a ground breaking film that has influenced many films since. It has influenced other films in the "zombie" sub-genre. It has even influenced such prestegious films as Signs (2003). Night of the Living Dead (1968) is a classic film that continues to influence films and film makers to this day on so many levels.

The remake of Night was just that...it was a re telling of a story that was already told. It was a great horror film. Tony Todd (the Candyman himself) was absolutely brilliant in this film. He is a great underrated actor. The remake was directed by Tom Savini under the supervision of George Romero. It was in color. The make up was more lavish. They developed characters more. In those respects it was a better film, however, it did not have the effect(s) and influence(s) on our culture and popular art (film, music, and other fine arts) that the original Night had.

As years go on, and we develop technicalogically of course we can always make our films look better (quality wise) however, I think it is the effect on society that the film has that truely makes the film.

Why is it that George A. Romero's living dead films stand the test of time while the hammer "zombie" films and many others simply get forgotten by history? The answer is very simple. It is the effect they have on society. The remake of Night was a great remake and a great horror film, but it did not hit as hard as the original. It was not as effective on it's audience as the original was, therefore I believe the original was the superior film, despite how good the remake was.


Very well put Rich.

Khan
09-13-2008, 06:36 PM
The original was boring and the ending wasn't as good as the remake.

Dustin*****

I still gotta see Diary of the Dead, but I LOVED Land of the Dead

The original must have done something right, as it is the one with iconic and classic status.

Oh, and the Library Of Congress registered it to the National Film Registry for being culturally significant, which is an accurate assessment of what it did for the horror genre.

Revenant
09-13-2008, 08:02 PM
*golf claps

Dustin*****

Khan
09-13-2008, 08:03 PM
The facts speak for themselves.

The ending of the original is a legendary scene and is celebrated among the film community.

spindrift68
09-13-2008, 09:19 PM
The facts speak for themselves.

The ending of the original is a legendary scene and is celebrated among the film community.

100% Agreed. The ending is absolutley legendary.

Twisted Sister
09-14-2008, 03:01 PM
Boring??? Nooooo!!
Legendary, yes.

Ravenheart
09-14-2008, 03:02 PM
Boring??? Nooooo!!
Legendary, yes.

I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I read he thought the ending of the original was boring.

Revenant
09-14-2008, 06:32 PM
Hmmmm guy getting shot for poking his head out the window, or locking himself down in the basement injured and alone finding out the key was there the whole time and then becomes a zombie....hmmmmm oh yeah, [B]I'm[B] the wrong one

Dustin*****

Torgo
09-14-2008, 07:27 PM
Hmmmm guy getting shot for poking his head out the window, or locking himself down in the basement injured and alone finding out the key was there the whole time and then becomes a zombie....hmmmmm oh yeah, [B]I'm[B] the wrong one

Dustin*****

You're not wrong, but I'd say you're definitely in the minority.

However, I do think the ending to the remake works really well for the remake.

EvilOnTwoLegs
09-14-2008, 09:13 PM
Well, if you don't view the ending of the original while thinking about the context of society at that time, then maybe it doesn't mean much. But watching a black hero survive "hell on earth," only to be senselessly gunned down by rednecks who should probably be rescuing him, had one motherfucker of an impact in 1968...the year Martin Luther King was assassinated. This was the era of Vietnam and the civil rights struggle. The era of Selma and Birmingham.

So maybe now, in the age of email and ringtones, it doesn't hit the same nerve that it did back then. But in 1968, that ending hit a hell of a lot harder than the remake's ending did in 1990. And if you actually think about the historical context of each film, I think it still does. I understand why they changed the ending, and the remake's ending is good. But I think anyone who's totally unaffected by the ending of the original probably isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Khan
09-15-2008, 03:07 AM
Hmmmm guy getting shot for poking his head out the window, or locking himself down in the basement injured and alone finding out the key was there the whole time and then becomes a zombie....hmmmmm oh yeah, [B]I'm[B] the wrong one

Dustin*****

History has spoken and you are in the minority.


Well, if you don't view the ending of the original while thinking about the context of society at that time, then maybe it doesn't mean much. But watching a black hero survive "hell on earth," only to be senselessly gunned down by rednecks who should probably be rescuing him, had one motherfucker of an impact in 1968...the year Martin Luther King was assassinated. This was the era of Vietnam and the civil rights struggle. The era of Selma and Birmingham.

So maybe now, in the age of email and ringtones, it doesn't hit the same nerve that it did back then. But in 1968, that ending hit a hell of a lot harder than the remake's ending did in 1990. And if you actually think about the historical context of each film, I think it still does. I understand why they changed the ending, and the remake's ending is good. But I think anyone who's totally unaffected by the ending of the original probably isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Well said.

Laurie2007
09-15-2008, 04:22 AM
Well, if you don't view the ending of the original while thinking about the context of society at that time, then maybe it doesn't mean much. But watching a black hero survive "hell on earth," only to be senselessly gunned down by rednecks who should probably be rescuing him, had one motherfucker of an impact in 1968...the year Martin Luther King was assassinated. This was the era of Vietnam and the civil rights struggle. The era of Selma and Birmingham.

So maybe now, in the age of email and ringtones, it doesn't hit the same nerve that it did back then. But in 1968, that ending hit a hell of a lot harder than the remake's ending did in 1990. And if you actually think about the historical context of each film, I think it still does. I understand why they changed the ending, and the remake's ending is good. But I think anyone who's totally unaffected by the ending of the original probably isn't looking at the bigger picture.



definatley well said...people dont think about how different things were back then....people are only living for the future now unfourtunatley to see what nex shock factor will show up rather then having respect for the past and the events

Revenant
09-15-2008, 07:20 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dustin*****

I'll stick to Land of the Dead or Diary(when I finally see it)

Torgo
09-15-2008, 07:46 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dustin*****

I'll stick to Land of the Dead or Diary(when I finally see it)



You'll stick to a movie you haven't even seen yet.

Someone remind me not to take this guy's opinions too seriously in the future :bastard:

Laurie2007
09-15-2008, 08:26 AM
You'll stick to a movie you haven't even seen yet.

Someone remind me not to take this guy's opinions too seriously in the future :bastard:

we'll try to remind you if you can remind all of us first haha:yar:

EvilOnTwoLegs
09-15-2008, 08:55 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Dustin*****

I'll stick to Land of the Dead or Diary(when I finally see it)



Yeah, I know...social relevance is so boring, huh? What you really need for a good ending is to have the "heroine" shoot somebody in the head when she knows he's not a zombie, just because she doesn't like him...that's entertainment. :p

Twisted Sister
09-16-2008, 08:23 AM
:yeah:
lol lol

Dr_Loomis02
08-21-2010, 08:57 AM
http://www.cinemassacre.com/2010/08/19/interview-with-night-of-the-living-dead-cast/

Here's a fun video that James Rolfe (aka 'the video game nerd') of Cinnemassacre.com made interviewing some of the cast and screenwriter of the original NOTLD.
And here is his trip to the original cemetery featured in the beginning of the film:

http://www.cinemassacre.com/2010/07/12/night-of-the-living-dead-cemetry/

Rich
08-21-2010, 09:01 AM
Yeah, I know...social relevance is so boring, huh? What you really need for a good ending is to have the "heroine" shoot somebody in the head when she knows he's not a zombie, just because she doesn't like him...that's entertainment. :p

I feel that he deserved it. I felt bad for Ben in both versions. In the original he got shot as a human. In the remake he got turned into a zombie.

Frankly I like all of Romero's zombie movies. I can't wait to see Survival.

Noctir
10-29-2010, 12:18 AM
i like the 68 version best, mostly cause of the black and white feel and the music, i do like the old school Barb instead of the GI Jane one (good way of wording that Chomp)

the 90 version is the best remake of any movie that ive ever seen, it was done by Savini who knows and loves the genre, it had some of the same stuff but had enough differences to justify its existance. it has a good score to it, but i like the old horror score better.

I agree. Of all the remakes I've seen, the 90 version has been the best and it did satisfy me to an extent. Still, they'd have been better off to use those resources to make a fourth Dead movie, at the time, rather than remaking the first one.

EvilOnTwoLegs
10-29-2010, 01:15 AM
I feel that he deserved it. I felt bad for Ben in both versions. In the original he got shot as a human. In the remake he got turned into a zombie.

So, being kind of a dick means Cooper deserves to get shot in the head?

I can only pray that gun retailers have the good sense not to sell you one.

Torgo
10-29-2010, 09:44 AM
So, being kind of a dick means Cooper deserves to get shot in the head?

I can only pray that gun retailers have the good sense not to sell you one.

Didn't Coop shoot Ben? I mean he was protecting his zombie daughter, but he still essentially killed Ben. Also, all of society's rules are off when there is a zombie apocalypse.

Rich
11-09-2010, 12:59 PM
So, being kind of a dick means Cooper deserves to get shot in the head?

I can only pray that gun retailers have the good sense not to sell you one.

In the remake Cooper shot at Ben first. He did it because Ben shot at his daughter who turned into a zombie. Of course Cooper thought he was protecting his daughter, but he still shot at Ben, so Ben was just defending himself. In the original Cooper deserved to get shot because he locked Ben outside of the house and tried to get Ben killed. He wouldn't open the door when Ben called. From Ben's perspective Cooper tried to get him killed. So maybe I wouldn't say Cooper deserved it, but at the same time I don't blame Ben.

By the way, I don't like guns. I think they are for pussies.

The Frightmaster
11-09-2010, 01:40 PM
Well, since I couldn't find a thread that was dedicated to the original, I though I'd post my review of it here. I watched the original NOTLD for the first time the other week and to my surprise, I really enjoyed it. I say to my surprise because for some reason I'm always skeptical about pre-Halloween horror movies. And I think I expected it to be boring. I thought it would be boring because I found the 1990 remake to be very boring in certain parts, especially the beginning. But that wasn't the case with the original, I was pretty captivated from the start. So I guess this leads me to the topic of this thread and my answer obviously is that I prefer the original. I didn't really like the remake and because I didn't like it, I hesitated to see the original. Which I now regret doing.

Danny Strode
01-13-2011, 03:45 PM
My vote is for the original. Just saw it for the first time recently as I'm not big on zombie movies at all, but it was quite the enjoyment. The atmosphere is pretty good and there was a bit of suspense that's rare to find.

Steven Lloyd
01-13-2011, 05:06 PM
Didn't Coop shoot Ben? I mean he was protecting his zombie daughter, but he still essentially killed Ben. Also, all of society's rules are off when there is a zombie apocalypse.

In the remake, Ben becomes a zombie and Barbara viciously shoots Cooper when he comes down from the attic. I loved the movie up until that instant. Murdering a person who is not threatening your safety is never okay, even in fiction.

I think Romero meant Barbara to come across as badass or something in that scene, but it just ended up making her look like a psycho.

Torgo
01-13-2011, 07:09 PM
Murdering a person who is not threatening your safety is never okay, even in fiction.


I'll disagree. It's perfectly acceptable in fiction and often the pay off to a character's douche baggery. I love a good revenge scene.

Steven Lloyd
01-13-2011, 07:21 PM
I'll disagree. It's perfectly acceptable in fiction and often the pay off to a character's douche baggery. I love a good revenge scene.

I guess I just hate the idea of protagonist privilege. And such things aren't acceptable in all fiction; "Harry Potter" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are two famous works of fiction that reject the concept of revenge killing quite strongly.

Torgo
01-13-2011, 08:31 PM
I guess I just hate the idea of protagonist privilege. And such things aren't acceptable in all fiction; "Harry Potter" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" are two famous works of fiction that reject the concept of revenge killing quite strongly.

I know it's not acceptable in all fiction, but I'm definitely not opposed to it.

A Dumb Question
01-13-2011, 09:49 PM
The original by a huge margin. The only aspect of the remake that I liked was the new Barb.

LunkenDrush
01-15-2011, 09:58 AM
This is a no brainer. I'm not saying the 1990 remake was bad by any means, but I don't feel that it surpassed the original. The original was creepy, atmospheric, and I loved the fact that it brought (albeit not out there) some of the issues facing that time period forth (in my opinion it wasn't outright stated, but the race relations, human nature, etc).

Danny Strode
01-15-2011, 10:51 PM
....I loved the fact that it brought (albeit not out there) some of the issues facing that time period forth (in my opinion it wasn't outright stated, but the race relations, human nature, etc).

The only thing that bothered me about the original is how stale and lame Babara was. She did absolutely nothing throughout the majority of the film and when she did, it was all but self-explanatory what was happening.

LunkenDrush
01-16-2011, 11:26 AM
The only thing that bothered me about the original is how stale and lame Babara was. She did absolutely nothing throughout the majority of the film and when she did, it was all but self-explanatory what was happening.

She was a HELPLESS female!!! She epitomized helpless female. Did you see the 1990 version? Totally different Barbara.

I can't stand the '68 Barbara. She gets on my damn nerves.

the 'M' clam
06-06-2011, 03:52 PM
The remake of Night Of The Living Dead is one of the worst remakes I have seen to get made. The original is alot better & spooky.

A Dumb Question
06-06-2011, 04:19 PM
I guess you missed the Day of the Dead remake, then.

Roswell
06-06-2011, 04:44 PM
Or the 3D NOTLD remake that came out a couple years ago...

EvilOnTwoLegs
06-06-2011, 05:09 PM
The 1990 NOTLD remake is one of my favorite remakes. Not a patch on the original, mind, but I like it.

Torgo
06-06-2011, 05:28 PM
The remake of Night Of The Living Dead is one of the worst remakes I have seen to get made. The original is alot better & spooky.

I'm guessing you either haven't seen the remake in question or you're thinking of the 3D thing came out a few years ago. Or you haven't seen a lot of remakes. There are far worst. At the very least it's atmospheric. Nothing on the first one's atmosphere, mind you, but it has a nice atmosphere in its own right.

Khan
06-06-2011, 05:54 PM
I guess you missed the Day of the Dead remake, then.

That movie was so awful that it is the only "Dead" remake that I don't own. A vegetarian zombie? Nick Cannon starring in it was bad enough.

blacksymbiote
07-18-2011, 07:39 PM
The 1990 one seems like it was just made to have the female characters do more this time around.

captainoneliner
10-03-2011, 10:03 AM
October 1st marked 43 years since NOTLD was released! Hard to believe.

mikey1974
10-07-2011, 03:58 PM
wow! that long!

for the record, i LOVE '68...and i really LIKE '90...

for whatever reason,i never saw the original til around 1986-1987 or so...i mean,my dad had the movie on VHS,i was aware of it (and had already seen Dawn and Day) ,but i just never got around to watching it....then one summer afternoon,when i had nothing to do,i took the tape,went up to my bedroom with a can of coke and some sour cream and chives potato chips,and watched it....and i was hooked!

the remake, did it ever actually get a theatrical release? i know it never played around here,and i didn't see it til Blockbuster ot it in and i rented it...i remember being hyped for it,and Fangoria was reallty pushing it,and it being Savini's directorial debut...i liked it,and it kept a lot the same as the original,but also changed a lot,too...

Torgo
10-07-2011, 05:05 PM
wow! that long!

for the record, i LOVE '68...and i really LIKE '90...

for whatever reason,i never saw the original til around 1986-1987 or so...i mean,my dad had the movie on VHS,i was aware of it (and had already seen Dawn and Day) ,but i just never got around to watching it....then one summer afternoon,when i had nothing to do,i took the tape,went up to my bedroom with a can of coke and some sour cream and chives potato chips,and watched it....and i was hooked!

the remake, did it ever actually get a theatrical release? i know it never played around here,and i didn't see it til Blockbuster ot it in and i rented it...i remember being hyped for it,and Fangoria was reallty pushing it,and it being Savini's directorial debut...i liked it,and it kept a lot the same as the original,but also changed a lot,too...

The remake was definitely released theatrically.

I watched it last night. Still very enjoyable, very early 90s style horror. You can tell it is from the same era as Candyman and People Under the Stairs, which is cool.

And I'm gonna be honest...the acting in the remake pretty much blows the original actors away (with the exception of Duane Jones). Even the over dramatic Judy Rose is way better than the TERRIBLE actress they had in the original. And hillbilly Tommy trumps Blinky McBlinkerson from the original. Tom Towles is a bit over the top, but eh, it works.

YOU BUNCH OF YO YOS!!!

TheShape'78
10-07-2011, 05:15 PM
The original was an innovator, very edgy for its time and, unlike most American monster movies, had social commentary woven in with the horror. It was a smart and scary film, something people probably weren't used to. I mean, I think it is safe to say, while not the very first zombie film; Romero's Night of the Living Dead did for the zombie what Halloween did for the slasher. It not only changed the face of horror, but also informed every zombie film that came after it. It took zombie's away from voodoo mysticism and such and brought them a little more into the real world; zombie's are the effects of some unknown contagion. There was no going back after George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

I like that the '90 remake made Barbara more than a glorified set decoration, she was pro-active. Also, I thought it was great that Barbara shot Cooper square in the head, cold-blooded. This movie had, for lack of a better term, balls. It is, imo, a very good counterpart to the original. It was recognizable as a Night of the Living Dead remake, but it wasn't a carbon copy.

As for which I prefer, the '90 remake. I always find myself watching that one more, and I do believe the change in Barbara's character has a lot to do with that. That and I really like Tony Todd as Ben.

-mitch-

EvilOnTwoLegs
10-08-2011, 03:11 PM
The remake was definitely released theatrically.

I watched it last night. Still very enjoyable, very early 90s style horror. You can tell it is from the same era as Candyman and People Under the Stairs, which is cool.

And I'm gonna be honest...the acting in the remake pretty much blows the original actors away (with the exception of Duane Jones). Even the over dramatic Judy Rose is way better than the TERRIBLE actress they had in the original. And hillbilly Tommy trumps Blinky McBlinkerson from the original. Tom Towles is a bit over the top, but eh, it works.

YOU BUNCH OF YO YOS!!!


The original was an innovator, very edgy for its time and, unlike most American monster movies, had social commentary woven in with the horror. It was a smart and scary film, something people probably weren't used to. I mean, I think it is safe to say, while not the very first zombie film; Romero's Night of the Living Dead did for the zombie what Halloween did for the slasher. It not only changed the face of horror, but also informed every zombie film that came after it. It took zombie's away from voodoo mysticism and such and brought them a little more into the real world; zombie's are the effects of some unknown contagion. There was no going back after George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

I like that the '90 remake made Barbara more than a glorified set decoration, she was pro-active. Also, I thought it was great that Barbara shot Cooper square in the head, cold-blooded. This movie had, for lack of a better term, balls. It is, imo, a very good counterpart to the original. It was recognizable as a Night of the Living Dead remake, but it wasn't a carbon copy.

As for which I prefer, the '90 remake. I always find myself watching that one more, and I do believe the change in Barbara's character has a lot to do with that. That and I really like Tony Todd as Ben.

-mitch-

Agree with pretty much everything in both these posts.

But I gotta say, the "Barbara shoots Cooper" ending just comes nowhere near the "rednecks shoot Ben" ending. Particularly considering NotLD came out at the height of the Civil Rights struggle...in the same year that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. Obviously, Savini, Romero & Co. had to find a different ending for the remake...re-using the same ending couldn't possibly shock the audience. But the substitute they found just lacked the same kind of visceral gut-punch that the original ending had.

That said, the scene in the basement, where Ben - barricaded in, and hoping to avoid Death By Zombie - finds the key to the gas pump...brilliant. In every regard. When Ben runs to the basement, of course, it underlines the fact that Cooper, despite being an asshole, was right about a lot of things (contemporary comment on Richard Nixon?)...but when he finds that key, it acts as the big exclamation point for the underlying theme of the film - that the real enemy, and the real threat, lies within. Were it not for all the quibbling and in-fighting between Ben and Cooper, everyone could have easily gotten out of there. It's a great scene, and wonderfully acted by Tony Todd.

Overall, I prefer the original, but I do enjoy the hell out of the remake.

blacksymbiote
12-23-2011, 06:12 PM
Well Cooper wasn't a character we cared about as much as Ben. He was the jerk of the movie so him dying won't affect the audience as much. Plus it doesn't present much of an arc for Barbara except to say she can kill the living now as well as the undead.

ng31487
07-25-2012, 06:59 AM
While I do feel the original is a far superior film and still holds more resonance to this day, I've found that I tend to re-watch the 1990 version far more than the 68.

This may be because I actually saw the remake first on MonsterVision back in the mid 90's as a young kid. At the time, I lived in a house with a bit of land, and immediately upon the movie ending, I went out and fought off an imaginary zombie apocalypse in the backyard with my brother and our vast supply of Nerf guns.

RabbitInRedGuy
10-07-2012, 05:38 AM
How is this even a competition? We have Romero's visionary pop cultural phenomenon vs. Savini's piss poor camera angles and wooden performances (sans Tony Todd)....

For me, the original. No question.

MyersCult81
11-06-2012, 06:12 PM
The original is much better. It's still the scariest zombie film to this day. Very dark and extremely realistic. The music is fantastic and the performances are great all around. The black and white gives it a real creepy feel that's hard to describe. George Romero truly brought to life the modern day flesh eating zombie with this great classic.

Thorni52
11-06-2012, 06:14 PM
I tried watching the 1990 version the other day and couldn't even get through it. I'll return to it sometime soon, but halfway through I can honestly say there's not one thing I like about it..

MyersCult81
11-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Yeah, I didn't care much for the remake. Love Tom Savini as a make up artist, but not sure about his directing skills.

EvilOnTwoLegs
11-07-2012, 03:04 AM
I tried watching the 1990 version the other day and couldn't even get through it. I'll return to it sometime soon, but halfway through I can honestly say there's not one thing I like about it..

Ouch. I prefer the original overall, but the remake is damn good.

Phantasm1979
01-22-2013, 08:32 PM
I did enjoy both but I will always put the original several steps above the remake. It also helps that I know George A. Romero, Tom Savini and Gregory Nicotero.

SFXBabe7
05-22-2013, 11:03 AM
68! its a classic.
i love the ending & some movies are better in black and white.

ClassOf78
05-22-2013, 08:39 PM
The innovation of Romero's Night of the Living Dead easily puts it over the '90 version, for me anyway. In fact, the ending alone put's it past what Savini did with it.

With that said, I liked the approach to Barbra much more in the remake, and overall it's a good flick, but I prefer NOTLD '68.

Kitty
09-11-2013, 12:17 AM
The 1990 version - I love Tom Savini's special effects.

Mortimur Grimm
09-30-2013, 11:24 PM
The innovation of Romero's Night of the Living Dead easily puts it over the '90 version, for me anyway. In fact, the ending alone put's it past what Savini did with it.

With that said, I liked the approach to Barbra much more in the remake, and overall it's a good flick, but I prefer NOTLD '68.

I agree that Romero's ending alone was better. I liked the character's better in the original. I didn't like Barbra in the remake. I Tom tried to turn her into a heroine. I liked that in the original, we follow her in the beginning, but she isn't much of a "main" character for the film. She had fell back as the others took over the film due to her trauma. I liked that. Tom's ending was very disappointing to me. Far from the impact of Romero's ending. Other than the make-up, I didn't care for Savini's NOTLD.