PDA

View Full Version : NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990) - Workprint Edition


evilzombie20
10-27-2007, 06:28 AM
Hey folks, well I did some searching on the boards and I found a TON of threads about this film, also found a link to a petition to get it released uncut, but ultimately I decided to start a new thread about it mainly because most of the threads concerning this film are buried and none really go into the workprint edition of the film.

After quite possibly the longest run on sentence in the planet, I shall continue.

A few months back I had received a copy of the NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD workprint from a good friend of mine. Upon receiving the DVD containing the supposed "strong uncut version" of this classic remake (never thought I'd hear ANYONE say that) I was beyond excited. After seeing the behind the scenes documentary on the official release and hearing about all of that footage that was supposedly cut out to give the film an R rating, avoiding the dreaded X, how could I not be?

So since I've had the workprint I've seen a few mention it here and there but no one has really actually seen it, they've just talked about it thinking it's this big thing with all this missing footage. I've also never seen anyone break it down at all as I have with the RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD workprint, which I did manage to put together here (http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9077&). So I decided, what the hell might as well get on with it...just don't expect a long list.

Well the film starts off the same, has a few extra shots of Barbara in Johnny driving and temp music. The score as far as I can summit was actually taken from random bits of library music as well as tracks from PHANTASM, and cues from HALLOWEEN II. I'm sure there was more from other films in there but these were the ones that really stuck out the most.

The film really continues on as normal, Barbara and Johnny are attacked, Barbara flees to the house, Ben shows up, and the zombie attack ensues. Here's where we get one difference, finally, after Barbara plows Uncle Reg with the fire poker, we see her pull it from his head with a nice hunk of flesh dangling from it.

After that, the film pretty much stays the same yet again until the zombies start to break in. The only differences here are two well known ones involving two supposedly gory head shots featuring two main zombies. Well what sounds like the score to ZOMBIE 4 in the background is following by two very tame head shots, by today's standards anyways, with Mr. McGruder and the window zombie. After that the film pretty much stays the same.

The next difference is when Barbara looks out the window while Ben is yelling at Ben to open the cellar door. In the theatrical version, we see a crowd of zombies by an old building festering in the distance, in the workprint we see the silhouette of one zombie walking in the bushes. This same zombie would later on be seen outside when the group goes out to find the keys while being followed by two buddies. I found this shot to be much more effective and creepy but the shot used in the film isn't too shabby either.

(Just a quick note, I will be posting pics from the workprint tomorrow, it's 6 am right now and this is just a quick thing to do before bed but tomorrow, pics will be here.)

Okay so after finding the keys, the order of the next turn of events is altered slightly. In the theatrical version, after the group comes back inside, we see Helen go downstairs to check on Sarah to find her lying on the makeshift table and then Tom goes to check the window to see how many zombies are outside - what actually makes less sense now that I'm thinking about it is he sees the same thing Barbara saw outside the kitchen window when it's a completely different few on the other side of the house! Guess they should have left the original shot there after all...

Anyways, in the workprint, those events are switched around, instead we see Tom run to the window then Helen goes downstairs to check on Sarah. Then the film continues on the same until Tom shoots the crispy zombie in the head. The zombie's head explodes in a mass of gore and falls to the ground.

Okay so after that, the truck goes boom, Ben runs back to the house, the zombies attack en masse and as Ben and Cooper are duking it out, Barbara dispatches of a zombie coming in the doorway - in the theatrical version you can barely make out the zombie's body on the porch, and after that...well that's it.

The film stays pretty much exactly the same and there's no more gore.

SO you can imagine my disappointment to discover that all of the gore that was cut out amounted to about 30 seconds and the only other differences in the film were some edits and one alternate shot. Now generally when a workprint is obtained, there are a TON of differences between the released version and the workprint version. I guess I shouldn't complain too much since only 30 seconds of gore was trimmed from the film and only one shot was replaced but for God's sakes if you're going to complain about gore being cut out of your film at least don't make it sound like half the film's missing! The way Tom Savini and co. were talking about it in that interview I was imagining buckets, and buckets of gore left on the cutting room floor. I felt like I had been cheated, that the public deserved better, and unrated version; DEATH TO THE HEADS OF COLUMBIA/TRI-STAR (now Sony pictures).

Well, I guess now that I've seen the footage and whatnot, I have one simple statement; the added gore makes absolutely, 100% NO difference. The film still is effective with or without the heavy gore. Realistically, it looks and feels better without it. First off, a good portion of the gore that was taken out was head shots, zombies wouldn't have liquid blood in their system because hours after death your blood begins to coagulate and it hardens up. So since most of the zombies in this film show rot, you would expect they've been dead for a while therefore there wouldn't be very much blood if any damage was done to them. Granted, I don't fault any zombie film for having blood spray out of a 50 year old corpse that's lunging to eat someone, hey the splashier the better, but having no blood makes the film feel slightly more realistic. But let's be honest here, the amount of blood that actually comes out of the zombies' head in the workprint is very minimal so I guess either way it wouldn't really matter but I just don't feel it's right for people to think they're missing so much when they're really missing next to nothing at all.

Which brings me to my next point. Earlier in this post I said I found a link to a petition to get the film released uncut. I haven't checked to see how many people have signed this petition but I'm sure there's not too many - then again, could be wrong. Well here's where I become the bad guy and bring bad news.

According to a trustworthy source, who shall remain nameless per his request, the film was never mastered with the gore scenes intact. The workprint version was made to show to the studio and that later on was submitted to the MPAA which cut the head shots out - as we know - or digitally removed the gore in the film, the window zombie is the most popular of this treatment. So there is no unrated cut of the film. After the cuts were made, most know Savini didn't fight for the film so any cuts that were made were done and done, the film was then mastered, the real score was cued up to it, redubs were done and within a few months it was ready to be released. Point? Well, the only way these cuts exist are on unmastered rolls of film or on a 9th generation bootleg workprint. The thought that Sony would even entertain the idea of re-inserting these scenes is beyond ridiculous. They would have to completely re-master the film, re-score it, cue everything back up and frankly; there's just not a market for that.

The film unfortunately did not do well when it came out and even though over the years many, including myself, have loved this film since they saw it - realistically there's just no market for an uncut version. At least not enough of one to merit Sony justifying putting it out. So for anyone out there who feels up to starting a petition to get the uncut version release, remember these two things; 1) there is no "uncut version", there's a workprint from a shoddy video and one small reel of film in Sony's vault somewhere which in order for them to re-insert said reel they'd basically have to re-cue the film's score, dubbing, etc. i.e. too much work for them to care. 2) It's not going to happen. There's no market for this film. It's in budget bins all over the country and at most sells for $9.99 at your local Music and Movie store. The edition we have now is probably going to be the only edition. Get over it. The scenes you see in the documentary included on the disc is really all you're missing.

So in closing the workprint is honestly almost completely the same film as the one circulating through the general market. There's very little differences between both versions and the differences there are aren't something I can honestly justify bitching about. The R-rated version has worked fine for me for years and will continue to do so in the years to come. If Sony happens to re-issue a disc come it's 20th anniversary with these deleted scenes included as a special feature, AWESOME! I would never say no to another edition to this film, actually I'm on my third copy so having it re-released would certainly help my cause in buying it again, but just don't expect said scenes to be put back in the film. Unless you want to see a severe quality and audio drop out. Then they might put the scenes back in.

With that - I say good night...errr...morning, it's 6:27 am here and I'm starting to see pink elephants. Later!

Sadogoat
10-27-2007, 10:30 AM
Great post :)

In the past, alot of people seemed confused as to why Savini - who's previous 'Dead' contribution was the memorable bloodbath that was the climax of Day Of The Dead - would turn in such a tame remake of the original Night. Admittedly, when I first saw Night 1990 back when it was first released, I was rather puzzled as to this state of affairs - and many critics of the day were also scratching their heads in bafflement.

That said, it could be argued that Night doesn't really warrant it. Unlike the bikers in Dawn and the soldiers in Day, Night doesn't have alot of 'throwaway' characters who you can set up for a graphic zombie brunches - unless you deviate considerably from the original storyline. I admit that despite the lack of gore, I love Savini's remake - even moreso than Romero's original (yes, that's tantamount to blasphemy for some people). But what hooked me was the fantastic zombie makeup - particularly the first 'graveyard' zombie. Burrell and Vulich really did their homework - and when I first heard that Dawn was to be remade, I was quietly hoping that the zombies in that would look as good as Savini's Night ghouls (this was before I learned they'd be 'track athlete' zombs). In my honest opinion, there have been very few zombie movies since that have bettered the makeup for the undead in this now 17 year old movie.

I think the only negative thing I have to say about Night 1990 is Judy Rose's grating screams :)

Steve P
10-27-2007, 10:53 AM
Thanks for that. Very interesting.

ZombiesAteMyDog
10-27-2007, 02:43 PM
great post and very comprehensive, I posted said petition you mentioned, though i did not start it, only found it on IMBD and thought it to be worth mentioning here, and over all it doesnt sound like we missed out on too much...

me personaly after reading your post think its definatly not worth the hassle to get a re-released and uncut version of the film, however if I could get my hands on a workprint version of the film i wouldnt mind checking it out for my self.

evilzombie20
10-27-2007, 02:54 PM
Hey guys, okay here are the pictures as promised. I did noticed one more difference between the theatrical version and the workprint, I know BAD EZ20, BAD! But the final change is when Ben shoots the female zombie after Barbara says "Madness!" during the Cooper/Ben shoot out.

In the theatrical version, you don't see any blood spray from the zombie's head, it just kind of falls back to the ground with little spray. So again, only thing missing is a little gore.

But anyways - here are the pics.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/a_little_voice/nightworkprint.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/a_little_voice/theatricalvsworkprint.jpg

zombiekilling101
10-27-2007, 03:03 PM
thanks for the info

MrShape666
10-27-2007, 05:32 PM
The way I understand it, Savini was forced by studio interferance to tone down the movie while he was making it, forcing him to scrap elaborate gore shots before they had even been shot. Then had to cut it down further for the MPAA.

The movie was made at the worst possible time: 1990 right at the hight of censorship in America.

evilzombie20
10-27-2007, 08:20 PM
I hadn't heard that, from what I heard the gore stuff that was cut was just cut. Savini didn't even fight for it because he didn't see a point.

According to various sources the film didn't turn out the way Savini had intended it to anyways. George apparently had a lot of influence on set and changed things on Tom daily. I remember hearing him say 40% of the completed film is what he wanted, the rest was changed.

He's very bitter about the whole experience as well as I brought it up to him at a convention and he changed the subject rather quickly.

Zombie Survivor
10-29-2007, 01:29 PM
Thanks, I have now more understanding what the Workprint really is about. I knew it was about gore and some additional scenes, but not if it was totally different from the version we now have. You have my gratitude. So... here's a delicious brain :)

http://www.simplesampling.com/BrainsCover9k.jpg

evilzombie20
10-29-2007, 01:48 PM
You have my gratitude. So... here's a delicious brain :)

http://www.simplesampling.com/BrainsCover9k.jpg

Yum...:eat:

retro zombie killer
10-29-2007, 08:39 PM
Yes thanks for the info. I too would like to get a work print of NOLD '90. Evilzombie20 love you signature. I love Aqua Teen Hunger Force.:clap:

evilzombie20
10-29-2007, 09:39 PM
Well the workprint is available here (http://www.fleshwoundvideo.com/N.html).

I'm just warning everyone, the quality isn't too great and there is virtually no difference between this version against the theatrical version.

Now for my next workprint venture...I plan on tackling; PET SEMATARY TWO!!!

dead and loving it
10-31-2007, 08:22 AM
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I'm not going to go out of my way to get this.

MrShape666
11-04-2007, 04:26 PM
Like I said, they made this at the worst possible time: Censorship was high, there was still a lot of anti horror hysteria going around, low budget independent productions were getting squashed by the studio system. It was a real bad time to produce a zombie film, so I'm not surprised this film had trouble.

But, truth be told, this was the closest we got to a Dead film for the 90s.

vortec1
11-11-2007, 04:10 AM
Thought it was good except judy all that screaming made me want to slap her!

MrShape666
11-12-2007, 04:39 PM
I hate Patricia Tallman's over the top performance as Barbara. The new Barbara was well written, but Tallman kinda made her irritating.

retro zombie killer
11-12-2007, 09:58 PM
Thought it was good except judy all that screaming made me want to slap her!

Get in line for that. You ain't the only one with a itchy hand in regards to Miss Judy Rose. The scary thing is that I know girls just like her.:loon::scare:

I hate Patricia Tallman's over the top performance as Barbara. The new Barbara was well written, but Tallman kinda made her irritating.

I thought she kicked a*s. She had a rough day. Come to think of it her life was pretty rough. I kinda got the impression that her Mom was a real piece of work from brother Johnny's ramblings about her in the beginning. Barbara was a survivor. Although she did lose it when she had to deal with the Zombie holding a doll. They should of made it her brother for better effect.