|
Ok, I went Best Franchise and Best Remake for Romero but Best Gore and Best Sequel for Evil Dead. Edge goes to Romero, but I had to show some love for Evil Dead.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Hollismason posted:People are discounting the later films in the Romero verse where Land of the Dead is just as good as Day IMO, so you have 4 feature length films that stand out. Like Land of the Dead is legit. Diary and Survival not so much but their still worth the time to watch. I think Survival and Day are just boring, but they're not horrible. They mainly suffer because the first movies are this big American epic. But compared to the other frightful contestants might take them over Friday Part 3, Halloween Part 4, or OG Evil Dead if I'm feeling nasty. ALSO let me say this agains Evil Dead--and I think it goes back to issue with the tree stuff which isn't much better in 2 on a rewatch--the violence works differently with Ash then it does the other characters. Ash is a cartoon character and there's kind of an improv-ish quality to the horror between Ash and the horror that makes it work. I think with other characters, the horror kind of takes front and center, and I don't love that. Particularly with the tree stuff, the reason I find it offensive in a way I don't with stuff like The Hills Have Eyes or Poltergeist is because they're props who the horror is happening to. And I think there's a range where I can deal with that. It's fine in Friday when Jason is doing something silly like bashing someone against a tree in a sleeping bag, it gets iffier with Freddy's dream torture music videos. When a lady is getting her clothes ripped off and branches prodding her mouth or going up her leg, it's hard for me to go with the movie. I'm neither having fun with the audacity of what I'm seeing or fully able to engage with the horror. This isn't to say that the tree scenes would be better if a character acted like Ash during these scenes. But it creates unintentional dynamic where primarily women--even the ones not attacked by trees--are passive victims of the horror while Ash is yucking it up and yes/anding with the horror. It's definitely less a problem in Evil Dead 2, but I think that just brings another point to Romero. Barbara is an extremely passive character in Living Dead as are her female co-stars. And I think you can see a clear evolution and self-correction on Romero's part as the series goes on. There is critique to be had, but he definitely pushes more active female characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:Ok, I went Best Franchise and Best Remake for Romero but Best Gore and Best Sequel for Evil Dead. Edge goes to Romero, but I had to show some love for Evil Dead. I believe this is exactly how I voted as well. I won’t lie though, I haven’t seen the original Dawn or Day in a long time so I might be selling the gore part short.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
I've watched all the Dead films in the last 6 months but I haven't seen the Evil Dead films since maybe the debut of Ash vs Evil Dead S1 or S2. So I think I'm gonna rewatch them today/tomorrow before voting. But this made me realize I don't actually own Army of Darkness. That feels like an oversight but its on Starz so I'll watch it there and then decide if its a worthy purchase for my horror wall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
As much as I don't want ED to win, Evil Dead remake is really, really good.
Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
TheBizzness posted:I believe this is exactly how I voted as well. You can't really understate the Savini effects, they're so drat good. Though I went with Evil Dead simply for the splatter element and the sheer wall-to-wall audacity of it. The vomit, the melting claymation. Maybe it was an award for Most Gore but it's such a vital part of the franchise, especially is it becomes used for slapstick in Evil Dead 2. Romero's Dead films are more about the characters and the drama, so I felt comfortable giving the bucket of blood to Raimi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:37
|
|
|
Shameful confession. I've never been overly impressed by Savini's early work. I mean I recognize that he's probably a practical effects genius of some kind and its unfair for me to judge his work by standards 40 years later. But I just find so much gore from the 70s/80s really fake looking and always have. I mean, I ain't mad at Dawn/Day. They're good movies. But I've never loved them as much as others and I think that's why. But whether or not Savini can still win the "gore" category depends on how Raimi's work holds up these next few days. But the show and '13 probably give ED the edge to me in that category at least. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
To me the goal of special effects shouldn't be realism, but radicalism. As in do they look rad as hell, or do they not? And Savini's early stuff looks rad as hell. Then again, that's why I prefer Evil Dead's special effects. Because they just crank up that rad knob and throw out any semblance of realism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
The last thing I want is realistic looking gore. Give me the brightest red you got, and spray it out of a firehose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
Whether it holds up as realistic or not(and I think it's clear from interviews that realism was his goal), Savini's work has a visceral, intense quality that just isn't comparable to Evil Dead. I considered giving best gore to Evil Dead based on volume and ridiculousness but ended up going the other way because for me the Savini stuff is just more memorable, it's stuck with me moreso than Evil Dead. And that includes the 1990 remake by the way. I think the gore in that movie certainly would at least match the Evil Dead remakes gore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
"Fake" was a bad word choice. I definitely don't want "realistic gore". Like I actually kind of hate really "grounded" stuff like that. Its just that the particular type of "fake" gore that Savini did and that was so popular at the time just never did much for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
The special effects and make up in Day of the Dead are superior to anything prior and still hold up to this day as some of the most gruesome effects put on film. Savini wanted to recreate what he saw in Vietnam so all his stuff has a realism to it. Day of the Dead may not be my favorite Romero but it's special effects are phenomenal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:And that includes the 1990 remake by the way. I think the gore in that movie certainly would at least match the Evil Dead remakes gore. I’m pretty excited that I might actually be able to watch all the movies in this matchup before the deadline. Technically I had seen Night 90 before but I didn’t remember much of it. Still have ED 13 and the two last Romero movies to go, although I might skip Survival if I hate Diary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 02:03
|
|
david_a posted:I just got done watching NotLD 1990 five minutes ago and it was pretty tame in the gore department. Some of the makeup on the zombies was pretty creative but I don’t remember any real splatter. Certainly nothing close to Day. Skip Diary and go right to Survival, honestly. Neither is great and they both have tiny budgets but Diary is definitely weaker by a lot. It's a found footage movie that opens with someone explaining they added score to the found footage "to scare you".
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 02:26
|
|
|
It strange that Romero couldn't get a budget for the last two since Land of the Dead did really well considering its total cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:It strange that Romero couldn't get a budget for the last two since Land of the Dead did really well considering its total cost. I know that was a creative choice with Diary at least. Romero wanted to go back to his guerilla filmmaking roots, and make something cheap, quick, and dirty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
I always kind of assumed Romero and the later sequels fall victim to the long delay after Day and the ever flowing fads and approaches of the horror genre. Romero never super established himself (mainstream wise) outside of the Dead films and the Dead films themselves had been over for so long. And while I like Land it feels very dated at the time. It had that very grim 90s vibe to it and I think he was a little late to that so it just kind of extended the feel that Romero's day was done and might have contributed to him not getting major backing for the rest. I don't know... its my theory. I will say. As much as Night is timeless Dawn is 70s as gently caress, Day is 80s as gently caress, Land is 90s as gently caress, and even Diary is kind of 2000s as gently caress. I mean, what's more 2000s than a kind of uninspired found footage retread of past ideas? Even if there's any validity to my theory of Romero feeling "old" it makes for a really tangible time journey in retrospect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 03:19
|
|
Hollismason posted:It strange that Romero couldn't get a budget for the last two since Land of the Dead did really well considering its total cost. He spent his entire life not being able to get funding for anything despite making some of the most influential films of all time. The only reason Land got made is because a remake of one of his movies made tons of money.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 03:24
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:He spent his entire life not being able to get funding for anything despite making some of the most influential films of all time. The only reason Land got made is because a remake of one of his movies made tons of money. I think blaming the budget is too kind to Survival and Diary though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 03:56
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Along with Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later. That's probably true, but I'm just saying Night and Dawn should've earned him James Cameron level budgets for the 80s and 90s.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 04:02
|
|
|
Diary of the Dead is so bad that it's like a Romero zombie film as interpreted by The Asylum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 05:24
|
|
|
Rewatched Evil Dead. I’ve said it before but every time I rewatch ED I think “this is gonna be a disappointment because its cheap and I really probably just remember it fondly for what followed” and then I am surprised by how much I love it. That once again held true. I think Raimi did an amazing job adapting his film style to compensate for the limits and flaws of the production and crew. And honestly ED’s more straight horror vibe is probably more my thing in general than the slapstick that would follow. Just the sheer horror and growing madness of it all really works for me. I also rewatched Day of the Dead partly so I didn’t just confuse ED/ED2 again by watching them back to back but mostly because I felt bad about my disrespect earlier today to Savini. There’s no question Savini was great at what he did. I deeply regret using the word “fake”. But I think its still true that for as good as Savini is and as much as Day probably inspired a million zombie films and like 75% of The Walking Dead that 80s gore just isn’t my thing. I suppose I should be horrified by the humanity of Savini’s gore (and of course the story) but I think that’s probably where the “fake” thing came from. I think Savini does a great job and it looks as "real" as I’d want it to look, but I still know its rubber and corn syrup so I don’t really feel the humanity or shock or disgust of it. It just feels like someone making very impressive gore and while I can appreciate that on an intellectual level I just don’t get much from it. But Day is a very good zombie film and in a lot of ways probably inspired future zombie films and tv shows more than Night did. I ask forgiveness for disrespecting it and Savini's gore. But I can't say its one of my favorites. But that probably just comes down to tastes as gore and "humanity sucks" aren't my favorite elements of horror. On the top of “legacy” I have to say, I feel like Evil Dead is getting a little shortchanged. There’s no doubt Romero’s films have reshaped the genre and I’m not even gonna sit here and try and argue it isn’t the king there. But I think ED and Raimi deserve more respect than they’re getting. The obvious is that the franchise was still pumping out quality content 40 years after its beginning and it launched the careers of Raimi, Campbell, Rapert, and even sorta kinda the Coen Brothers and Ted Raimi. That collection of talent probably bleeds through hundreds of horror films. And I think something has to be said for the inspiration of making something from scratch with your friends and family with the money you scrounged up and striking gold with it. Reading a lot of the production stuff about the film it struck me that Sam Raimi is basically what I wanted to be for all those years I was chasing the film making dream. And sure, Romero and Night did that first but doing it a generation or so later probably really does mean something. But what really struck me here is that I really do think Evil Dead inspired stuff as a style or film. That thought came to me as I was watching and thought “man, this reminds me of Demons, its clear how Raimi was inspired by that Italian horror stuff I’ve only recently seen.” And then it occurred to me. Demons came out 4 years after Evil Dead. Did Raimi inspire Argento and Bava? The more I think about it the more it feels true to me. Hell… Return of the Living Dead came that same year. As much as Return wouldn’t exist with Night, is it crazy to think Russo and O’Bannon’s spin on it might have been inspired in part by Raimi’s film? I’ve never thought of Evil Dead in this way because I’ve always thought of it as the student film. But Evil Dead was a horror hit and praised by the likes of Stephen King years before these classic films that it feels very similar in a number of ways to. So why shouldn’t I wonder if these classics were inspired by Raimi’s sardonic work? Maybe I’m crazy. Raimi almost certainly was inspired by people before him and some of the same people Demons and Return were inspired by. Probably even Argento and Russo themselves. But the more I think about it the more true it feels to me that Return and Demons (and other films similar in tone) feel and look like the movie I just rewatched that came before them. And wouldn't I draw the conclusion that the one inspired the others if I wasn't clouded by reputation and perspective? So I’m not telling you Evil Dead is more important to the genre and inspired more films and careers than Night of the Living Dead. But I think maybe we’re all not showing it the respect it might deserve for what it did impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 05:29
|
|
|
Dawn vs Evil Dead 2: judged solely on their worthiness as sequels, I'd have to vote Evil Dead 2. As important as Dawn is to the Dead franchise, when I think of Evil Dead, I think of Evil Dead 2 first and foremost. Evil Dead 2013 vs Dawn 2004: I liked both of these well enough. I didn't love either. Both work as their own thing and not imitations of the original. The first half hour of Dawn was great, but it lost steam in the second half. I'd say Evil Dead wins this for being more consistently good and because it feels like a bigger gamble to make this with such a completely different tone to the originals when that goofy fun tone was what the franchise was known for. Confession: I haven't seen Night 1990. I might try and do that before the 7th, especially if anyone thinks it's a vote switcher. Best Gore: Day of the Dead wins this for Romero's Dead franchise. I could practically smell the guts sloop out of the zombies on Frankenstein's table. Judging this on highest highs rather than consistency, because the lovely cg effects of Diary and Survival really bring the average down. Best Franchise: Romero's Dead The first three entries are so strong yet varied, and the benchmark by which all other zombie movies are judged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 10:04
|
|
|
Night '90 is good, but I don't know if its a gamechanger. But I'd definitely recommend it. Its about 90% the original but in color and a VERY faithful remake but it does 3 significant differences that are all worth checking out. 1) The ending, 2) Barbara is a stronger character and not a traumatized victim; and 3) Tony motherfucking Todd. Its also free on Pluto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Night '90 is good, but I don't know if its a gamechanger. But I'd definitely recommend it. Its about 90% the original but in color and a VERY faithful remake but it does 3 significant differences that are all worth checking out. 1) The ending, 2) Barbara is a stronger character and not a traumatized victim; and 3) Tony motherfucking Todd. I could see it being an important deciding factor if you're someone who could go either way. I mean, both NOTLD and Evil Dead have consistently excellent trilogies and then Evil Dead came back very strong recently with the t.v. show. So some people might look at that and say Romero needs something else to give him a boost over that extra hump, and something like the 90 remake or the Dawn 2004 remake, or even Land of the Dead, might be the decider there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 14:47
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:But what really struck me here is that I really do think Evil Dead inspired stuff as a style or film. That thought came to me as I was watching and thought “man, this reminds me of Demons, its clear how Raimi was inspired by that Italian horror stuff I’ve only recently seen.” And then it occurred to me. Demons came out 4 years after Evil Dead. Did Raimi inspire Argento and Bava? The more I think about it the more it feels true to me. Hell… Return of the Living Dead came that same year. As much as Return wouldn’t exist with Night, is it crazy to think Russo and O’Bannon’s spin on it might have been inspired in part by Raimi’s film? I’ve never thought of Evil Dead in this way because I’ve always thought of it as the student film. But Evil Dead was a horror hit and praised by the likes of Stephen King years before these classic films that it feels very similar in a number of ways to. So why shouldn’t I wonder if these classics were inspired by Raimi’s sardonic work? Even the Loony Tunes-esque violence being taken to its most grotesque real world extremes can be found in Tim Burton and Joe Dante's 80s work or stuff like Killer Klowns from Outerspace. That's not to invalidate Raimi's work as influential. I think we see parallel thinking as excluding influence which I don't think is fair. But while you can see connections between like Braindead and Raimi's work, I find it hard to argue that Braindead wouldn't exist if Raimi's films didn't exist. There are several movies that are almost impossible to imagine existing without Romero. No Return of the Living Dead, Shaun of the Dead, 28 Days Later, and it goes beyond film. No Dead Rising, no Girl with All the Gifts, no Walking Dead graphic novel... not first like seventy issues of Walking Dead graphic novel. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Pro Raimi: Without Raimi, you don't get Edgar Wright's entire career. Evil Dead 2 is what made him want to become a director. You also don't get the Coen Bros, because the only way they got Blood Simple made was because they learned marketing ideas from Raimi and how to use short films to sell full films; plus Ethan's the editor on The Evil Dead. You also probably don't get Barry Sonnenfield for similar reasons, since he was in that collective, and made his career with Blood Simple as well. You also probably don't get Peter Jackson. Bad Taste has Evil Dead DNA and Meet The Feebles and Dead Alive all carry Evil Dead 2's DNA. You also probably (although it's a stretch) don't get Lord of the Rings without Army of Darkness. If you don't get Lord of the Rings, we wouldn't have Hollywood's trend of attempts at Epic Fantasies to be the next Lord of the Rings. You also probably miss out on a few notable of Stephen King books. His vocal support is what sky-rocketed Evil Dead's popularity, but he's pretty open about how films inspire his novels. Post Evil Dead novels that are arguably inspired by the film: Pet Sematary, IT, The Tommyknockers. And for better or worse, Raimi is one of the biggest reasons Hollywood is currently obsessed with Cinematic Universes and Superheros. Spider-man and Spider-man 2 basically created the current Marvel DNA. Without those, you don't get Iron Man. Pro Romero: The real kicker, though, is that you don't get Raimi without Romero. Night of the Living Dead is a big reason Raimi knew horror films was the best bang for your buck for an indie-funded feature film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Not that I necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but I think you're overreaching with the pro Raimi vs pro Romero. We might as well pit both people's entire filmographies against each other then. It's quite obviously Raimi then, but that's not what this is about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
married but discreet posted:Not that I necessarily disagree with what you wrote, but I think you're overreaching with the pro Raimi vs pro Romero. We might as well pit both people's entire filmographies against each other then. It's quite obviously Raimi then, but that's not what this is about. Only one of my Raimi examples wasn't related to The Evil Dead trilogy, though. And it seemed semi-related since his films restructured Hollywood as we currently know it, for better, and for much much worse. Which woudn't have happened if Evil Dead weren't popular and made Raimi a household name. Cause and effects. edit: It does make another interesting point on the influence of each franchises. Romero's films do a lot more work about satire and commentary about big issues and ideas framed in genre fiction, Raimi's tend to be more commentaries on people and individual personalities (I don't agree that Raimi's films don't say anything; they just don't wear messages on their sleeves, and tend to be morality plays rather than social commentary). Romero's trilogy are hugely influential to indie films, Raimi's influence is seen more in Hollywood's structure. Romero is the underdog who always had to fight for his vision; Raimi is a rags to riches story where he was able to conform his filmmaking to Hollywood's status quo. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Franchescanado posted:Pro Raimi: --Yes there is definitely Evil Dead DNA in Jackson's work, but there's also a lot of general Troma DNA as well. And I'd argue the reemerging success of Star Wars had a lot more to do with Lord of the Rings --You're entirely ignoring Lovecraft and other shared influences for both Raimi and King --It's impossible to not see Evil Dead's impact on Wright's work, but you're being way too dramatic with not having Wright without Evil Dead. He cites Raising Arizona as on equal footing in making him into a filmmaker. And your argument of Raimi being responsible indirectly for Raising Arizona shifts away from the conversation we're having. Roger Corman is one of the most influential producers in Hollywood in the background sense, but that doesn't make his films influential. But I think we have to go back to the point that Romero's zombies aren't really zombies. They're a whole new monster with their own mythology that reflects the time. It's a different level of influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 16:42
|
|
|
Yea let's remember that it's NOTD vs. Evil Dead, not Raimi vs. Romero. Because Raimi spread his wings far beyond the horror genre and so yea I suppose you can argue that his overall impact rivals Romero. But that's not what we're debating here. The Evil Dead/NOTLD comparison is much different. Romero basically invented an entire subgenre of horror when he made NOTLD and then Dawn of the Dead ten years later. Evil Dead certainly had it's imitators then and now but it's really apples to oranges. They aren't on the same level.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
I think you also have to consider the director of the films as well because Romero made more than just NOTLD , even though this is a series VS series. Romero as a director edges out Sam Raimi. Also, The Crazies is a spiritual sequel to NOTLD. You could argue that Romero changed modern horror completely , because NOTLD is the first film to terrify the audience. Not in a campy way, not in a Tingler or Universal way , none of those are terrifying, but in a legit this is disturbing in a way that is indescribable.. Evil Dead just doesn't have the same impact as NOTLD. If there was no NOTLD , we would not have TCM. NOTLD paved the way for Evil Dead to even be made. Its arguable the first modern horror movie. No NOTLD No TCM , The Excorcist, Alien etc.. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:01
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I think you also have to consider the director of the films as well because Romero made more than just NOTLD , even though this is a series VS series. Romero as a director edges out Sam Raimi. Romero doesnt edge out anybody who made both Darkman and Spider-Man 2
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Martin
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:I think you also have to consider the director of the films as well because Romero made more than just NOTLD , even though this is a series VS series. Romero as a director edges out Sam Raimi. I think influence matters, but I think we're discussing the influences of the film in of itself. But if we were making this about director vs director, Raimi's a narc Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Martin Martin owns so hard and I badly regret selling my DVD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:But I think we have to go back to the point that Romero's zombies aren't really zombies. They're a whole new monster with their own mythology that reflects the time. It's a different level of influence. Also I just thought a lot of Evil Dead looked like Demons with the lighting and camera angles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Romero's Dead are people who have died and for reasons unknown have seemingly re-animated. Raimi's dead are summoned Candarian demons who inhabit the bodies of the living, distorting their features and turning their flesh necrotic. Timeless Appeal posted:I think you're exaggerating a lot here: Peter Jackson literally said Evil Dead inspired him to make Bad Taste. He literally said that Evil Dead 2 inspired Meet the Feebles and especially Dead Alive. I googled it and found quotes where he said so before I posted. The Army of Darkness aspect I did not google, but it seems pretty evident in how it influenced his portrayal of the Orcs, plus the spookier aspects of LotR. Stephen King was a novelist for a decade before The Evil Dead. I'm saying The Evil Dead, which he clearly saw and loved because they used it for marketing, inspired aspects of Pet Sematary (resurrection of the dead, burying a loved one and them coming back possessed and with bloodlust, forces in the woods) and IT (shape-shifting creature that gets power from torturing people before killing them, a group of friends terrorized by supernatural forces), two of his most popular novels of all time, one of which JUST GOT MADE INTO THE MOST POPULAR HORROR BLOCKBUSTER FILM SINCE GET OUT. Edgar Wright says that Evil Dead 2 made him want to be a filmmaker. He said the next film around the same time was Raising Arizona. We weren't talking about the Coen Bros influence, we're talking about Raimi; why would I mention Raising Arizona when it's irrelevant? Why mention Corman? The thread was discussing how Romero's Dead trilogy influenced film and horror. I brought up examples of how Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy influenced film as well, since no one had brought them up. It just so happens that The Coen Bros, Barry Sonnenfield and Peter Jackson being influenced by The Evil Dead is notable, since the three of them (plus Raimi) redefined HOLLYWOOD IN ITS CURRENT INCARNATION. Coen Bros wouldn't have a career if they didn't work on Evil Dead and copy Raimi's marketing techniques to get Evil Dead made. I'm not saying these are the singular reasons for their careers, but we're talking about Evil Dead's influence. I provided examples of Evil Dead's influence. Evil Dead also had a huge influence on the Video Nasties trend and horror films on VHS, by the way. Edit: Also an actual counterargument against Evil Dead and Edgar Weight is that his break-out film is directly taken from Day of the Dead. Romero even showed up on Shaun and gave his approval. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:36
|
|
|
As directors, Raimi and Romero are comparable but Romero stands above and beyond. As films, Night of the Living Dead is a towering wall of which Evil Dead is just one of many buttresses. Night of the Living Dead did not come fully formed from nothing- I am Legend and it's film adaptation The Last Man on Earth are the immediate predecessors- but what Night of the Living Dead did is untouchable by Evil Dead. This is very much a Universal VS Chucky situation- Chucky inspired a bunch of other killer doll movies, but it wasn't the first and it wouldn't be the last. Night of the Living Dead made the entire zombie genre a thing. In one fell swoop it defined what it meant to be Zombie Film. Name one other movie that inspired an *ENTIRELY DIFFERENT* franchise that purports to be a sequel to the original. Because people may squabble about if Day or Return of the Living Dead or whatever are the best Zombie films, but Return of the Living Dead is called that because it wanted to be, tried to be, and claimed to be a sequel to Night of the Living Dead. When you're comparing the sheer weight and importance of films, you don't get much more than the source material for all that followed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
Burkion posted:As directors, Raimi and Romero are comparable but Romero stands above and beyond. Umberto Lenzi's film Ghosthouse was marketed as Evil Dead 3, which launched it's own trilogy. Also, hard to ignore the Zombi 2 connection to Dawn of the Dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 20:43
|
|