This message has been deleted.
-
Dr Wily — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 07:06 PM)
There are other reasons to doubt its authenticity. The stream has like 2 minutes of opening logs and warnings. No home video has that much stuff that isn't previews before the start of a movie. The copyright warning at the start is on the screen for way too long. Warnings are annoying but are usually short. Few tapes started with an announcement saying to stay tuned at the end of the feature for previews. Why is there a Vestron logo and not some other foreign company that would release it? Vestron never released an alternate version of the film, so why would they release it in a market they don't release to?
The stream ends with like 21 minutes of previews. Vestron's Night Of The Zombies had 1 or 2 previews afterwards. Plus, the strange mix of horror and porn being advertised doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And the films being trailed are all owned by different companies, not by Vestron.
And, as I pointed out, the video quality is way too good to be Vestron's copy of the film. It's too much like the DVD release of Hell Of The Living Dead.
The added text at the beginning also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The inclusion of dinosaur DNA is a silly idea.
I've still not watched it yet but I know a lot about how Night Of The Zombies/Hell Of The Living Dead plays out. It should be relatively easy to find how there are only deletions or easily inserted footage. An alternate cut should have changes to it that are fundamental. Not just the inclusion of things that could easily be added or the deletion of parts that many would admittedly want removed.
-
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 07:53 PM)
I felt the same way about those intros. Why are there so many before the beginning of the feature? Was this a poor attempt to make it look authentic? Another thing I noticed about the end trailers is that both Zombi 3 and Rats (Blood Kill) show Bruno Mattei's name at the end in the exact same font. I've seen the original trailers on Youtube. Rats shows "Vincent Dawn" as the director, while Zombie 3 shows "Lucio Fulci". So, not only are we being hoaxed with the main feature, but we're also being hoaxed with intros and end trailers.
The dinosaur DNA plot was ridiculous, and so was the terrorist being the scientist's son. I've never seen an Italian exploitation film with so much backstory. I gather that's the sole reason for re-dubbing the scientist's voice? His voice is even dubbed when he has a mask on. With that being said I would rather stick with the original version.
Based on your findings, and mine, I'm convinced 100% that this is fake. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:02 PM)
I wouldn't call it a prank.
More like a restorationif what you are implying is true.
The video store we acquired it from was known for distributing indie films.
Maybe somebody recut it and placed it on the shelves. Who knows?
And given the nature of this movie, who cares?
The film is such a notorious ripoff of other films, down to the music and the stock footage, themes, other things, that the film is practically in the public domain.
My friends tease me and call this film the Turkish Dawn of the Dead.
The explanations given to me certainly could be part of an elaborate scheme to convince others. But obviously the person who did this had much love for this film.
Personally, I think this film views better. It's a silly film already. Then again, most zombie film are.
Just go with and enjoy it. My 2 cents.
P.S. The person I'm in touch with I will email him/her with their observations. Maybe they can come here and enlighten up.
Guess I have to call into question your tastes, mate. The original plot, a gas that makes the third world eat each other to solve world hunger, is about as ridiculous as any other idea.
Being a purist for the sake of being a purist is especially silly, considering the films flaws are so bad that the original film is now unwatchable.
Many people call this movie STOCK FOOTAGE OF THE DEAD.
I think you are being too picky, mate.
Again. having watched the original and this cut, all I know is that this cut is MUCH better. Art is art. And this is not an original film in the first place. But I always thought it to be a good, if now flawed film. This film is actually watchable now. So I guess I can care less if it is a banksy style art prank. It's not someone recut Star Wars. It's not known for being well respected anyhow in the world of zombie films (unlike, say, Argento or Fulci's films).
Judge it on the level of art. In the meanwhile, I will let you know what I find mates! Cheers. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 07:48 PM)
I wouldn't call it a prank.
The video store we acquired it from was known for distributing indie films.
Maybe somebody recut it and placed it on the shelves. Who knows?
And given the nature of this movie, who cares?
The film is such a notorious ripoff of other films, down to the music and the stock footage, themes, other things, that the film is practically in the public domain.
My friends tease me and call this film the Turkish Dawn of the Dead.
The explanations given to me certainly could be part of an elaborate scheme to convince others. But obviously the person who did this had much love for this film.
Personally, I think this film views better. It's a silly film already. Then again, most zombie film are.
Just go with and enjoy it. My 2 cents.
P.S. The person I'm in touch with I will email him/her with their observations. Maybe they can come here and enlighten us.
Again. having watched the original and this cut, all I know is that this cut is MUCH better. Art is art. And this is not an original film in the first place. But I always thought it to be a good, if now flawed film. This film is actually watchable now. So I guess I can care less if it is a banksy style art prank. It's not someone recut Star Wars. It's not known for being well respected anyhow in the world of zombie films (unlike, say, Argento or Fulci's films).
Judge it on the level of art. In the meanwhile, I will let you know what I find mates! Cheers. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:10 PM)
No, I'm saying that what I've been told came from a reputable video store/business in Australia. It's possible they are as fooled as we areif this indeed is some kind of prank.
But, again. even your tone is ridiculous. This isn't the Bible or the Mona Lisa here. This is frickin "Hell of the Living Dead." A film that tries to pass off stock footage of an arguably BETTER film as it's own.
It's not a very good movie to begin with. Yet, ironically, remove the flaws, introduce some back story, tighten the edits, it's watchable now. Still a very silly movie. Then again, most zombie films of that time are. Even the beloved 1979 Dawn of the Dead is not without its flaws. The blood looks like paint. The zombies are smurf colored. But those movies also feature raw talent, a gritty 70s sensibility, and creative storytelling.
Don't be guilty of what so many film nerds are guilty of this day and failing to see the forest for the trees.
Obviously, whoever put this together (if it is INDEED a hoax of some sort) had respect for the film and it doing his VHS grind house thing with it IMHO.
Even the crack about the re-dubbed scientist. The original voice actor is so square jawed, he sounds like G.I.Joe. At least the new actor sounds nerdy and appropriate.
Like I said, this is "Hell of the Living Dead." Not "Gone of the Wind." If ever a film deserved some creative license, it's this movie.
All I know is that I like this cut and until I get an email from that store telling me otherwise, I'm acting on faith.
This certainly is not worthy of some religious cause to debate it's authenticity. This isn't like finding out that the Bible lied about Jesus having kids or whatever it was the Da Vinci code was squawking about.
Lighten up, mate. -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:20 PM)
The problem here is not whether or not HOTLD is a good movie. Some people like it because it's campy exploitation, that's all. We don't need a ridiculous backstory that you claim to be "art". And who exactly is comparing this to Gone with the Wind? All I'm saying is don't mislead people. Some collectors who see this and look at the Blu-Ray/DVD will think they've been duped by the distributor. Is that what you want?
Why do you need an email from a nonexistent store to prove it's authenticity when the proof is right before your eyes? The cars are from the future, the intros and outros are abnormally long, the Vestron logo (North American brand) is on a supposedly Australian VHS tape. It's all there, and quite frankly I don't appreciate your attempts at fooling us. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:26 PM)
I'm not denying anything you said here.
Never did.
If I was fooled, so what?
That doesn't mean I'm trying to fool you.
Maybe I don't appreciate the accusations.
I had/have what I believe to be a director's cut. I posted it for free. Wow! A free movie that you get to watch.
Did you pay to watch it? No.
So who cares?
This isn't like someone trying to repost an alternate version of the Mona Lisa.
Some collectors who see this and look at the Blu-Ray/DVD will think they've been duped by the distributor. Is that what you want?
Oh, no. The crime! LOL I think they will be JUST fine. This wasn't a film known for being a very original work of art in the first place. If you watch this film, you already feel duped (it rips off so many films, if you are not already offended, you won't be).
So I think the 'collectors' will be fine. And if they freaked out over some harmless thread on IMDB, then their problems are far worse in their head than anything I can offer them. They need professional help. You need professional help.
But back on topicagain, campy or not, the film is already guilty of massive plagiarism. There is a reason it is called the TURKISH Dawn of the Dead and STOCK FOOTAGE OF THE DEAD.
You're probably right. Maybe I'm not as sharp on you about this. But again.this is more about your ego about being right about a stupid mostly forgotten film OR just having fun with what IS probably some alternate edit. If you are right, what wrong did you fix? No one is being charged for watching this. It's just a chance to watch an alternate take of the movie.
So lighten up. Get a life. Smoke one out. Get laid. But last I checked HOLD ain't the bible and you ain't the Pope. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 07:45 PM)
I wouldn't call it a prank.
The video store we acquired it from was known for distributing indie films.
Maybe somebody recut it and placed it on the shelves. Who knows?
And given the nature of this movie, who cares?
The film is such a notorious ripoff of other films, down to the music and the stock footage, themes, other things, that the film is practically in the public domain.
My friends tease me and call this film the Turkish Dawn of the Dead.
The explanations given to me certainly could be part of an elaborate scheme to convince others. But obviously the person who did this had much love for this film.
Personally, I think this film views better. It's a silly film already. Then again, most zombie film are.
Just go with and enjoy it. My 2 cents.
P.S. The person I'm in touch with I will email him/her with their observations. Maybe they can come here and enlighten us.
Again. having watched the original and this cut, all I know is that this cut is MUCH better. Art is art. And this is not an original film in the first place. But I always thought it to be a good, if now flawed film. This film is actually watchable now. So I guess I can care less if it is a banksy style art prank. It's not someone recut Star Wars. It's not known for being well respected anyhow in the world of zombie films (unlike, say, Argento or Fulci's films).
Judge it on the level of art. In the meanwhile, I will let you know what I find mates! Cheers. -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:04 PM)
P.S. The person I'm in touch with I will email him/her with their observations. Maybe they can come here and enlighten up.
I highly doubt you're "in touch" with anyone important to this film or the company distributing it. I think this is just a scheme, because no DVD company would take an email seriously enough to link you to a representative behind the film.
If you hate the movie, that's up to you. But please don't go around misleading other people. As far as your fan edit goes, I think the added story bits are pointless. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:16 PM)
??
Ah so the angry nerd reveals his true colors..lol..
Look, dips*hit, I never said I was involved with anyone important with the film.
I said, meant, the people who run the video store.
It was an art house/theater/video store/studio for indie film. Nothing that special. There are million of them out there in the world in every major city in the states.
So it is possible the person I'm speaking to is pulling some Banksy like prank. But I don't see any hate he has for this film in the film itself. Just a desire to clean it up.
Never said I hated this film. Clearly you are projecting. So don't put words into my mouth.
And this is NOT my fan edit. But you weren't listening to Captain Kirk on SNL when he told nerds like you at a Star Trek convention to get a life.
OMGsomeone re-edited "Hell of the Living Dead" and and they had some fun trying to make it a little better. The inhumanity!!!!
LOL
So, kindly, beep off. Just because you jerk off to this film, doesn't mean I have to respect your ego about it.
I posted a free movie. You didnt have to pay to watch it. You don't like it? Then don't watch it. PROBLEM SOLVED.
I do people a favor, give them something for nothing, and they cry like little babies about it. Sheeeeeesh. -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:22 PM)
Why are you so angry? All I said is that maybe you should change the title of this thread so as not to mislead people. You're doing me a favor? I already have the film (the original version), so why do I need to watch your's?
-
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:31 PM)
No one likes being falsely accused.
Plus I didn't have to post this at all. I did just as a kind gesture to the community.
I also did it "for the sake of interest." So there was fair warning there.
I'm not trying to rewrite the history of the film. Not trying to make a buck. Not trying to force anyone to do anything they don't want to.
So, hey, bingo, you are the one making an issue out of this. Not me. I'm just asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt.
You want to make fun of me for being fooled? Fair enough.
Accusing me of a fan edit or a hoax? Uh, no.
And to answer your question. You don't have to WATCH MY version. No one is asking you too.LOL You're the one upset on some level about it.
Someone gives you something FREE, you can turn it down. Say, "Nah, I already ate" or "Nah, I like my version better." BOOM! PROBLEM SOLVED.
But you shouldn't attack people anonymously online or falsely accuse them.
Yes, I'm doing you a favor. I offered you a fun alternate version of a film. If you watched it, didn't like, so what? It's not like I promised you an early cut to Star Wars Episode 7 and gave you a Rick Roll music video as a joke.
My intentions were in good heart here.
There is NOTHING disrespectful of posting a free version of film that is already known for many titles, many ripped off themes, etc. The film is practically in the public domain for all those reasons. If anything, it only serves to be ironic.
So lighten up. Just bad etiquette on your part, mate. -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:36 PM)
So lighten up. Just bad etiquette on your part, mate.
You're telling me to lighten up after you just flamed me on a public forum? That's fresh. Again, whether or not you made this fan edit is not the point. I just think you should reflect that in your post instead of telling people "it's a rare director's cut" when it clearly is not.
If you want to discuss this like an adult I can oblige you, but please no flaming. It's very immature. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:41 PM)
I think at worst.we are BOTH guilty of that.
Want to start over?
If you want to make fun of me for being fooled, then that's fair game.
Just asking you to stop accusing me of being in on some conspiracy to hurt collectors of this already silly movie.
Fair enough, mate? -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:55 PM)
Nobody is making fun of you for "being fooled". But since you're admitting to it I guess it's safe to say that this thread doesn't offer what it claims to.
It's just an alternate modern cut, or fan edit. Watch it and enjoy if you want to, but I would suggest changing the thread title and description so that users won't be "accidentally" misled. Personally, I prefer the original; and I don't think the changes in the new edit offered anything of value. That's my opinion.
Case closed. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 09:21 PM)
Fair enough.
But given the lower traffic of this thread and the obscurity of the subject matter involved, I don't feel the need to change anything.
I'm not sure yet of the intention of the correspondence. If he is performing a Banksy style art prank and the information is meant to be part of the art, then there is no more reason for me to change it any more than the Blair Witch guys should be asked to put a disclaimer on their site saying "this isn't really true" or the Coen Brothers being forced to admit "Fargo" is NOT based on a true story.
Plus I never said for sure I was fooled. Have to re-watch it closely again, been a while.
But if in my communiques the source of this alternate cut admits some foul play, surely I will delete this thread.
Cheers, mate.
P.S. CASE CLOSED?? Watch too much Matlock as a kid? Yeah, you're a regular Erin Brockovich on this thread, blowing the lid off the great "Hell of the Living Dead" conspiracy. lolololololol Again, I stand by my original advice: GET A LIFELMAO
Later mate. -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 07:25 AM)
I'm not sure yet of the intention of the correspondence. If he is performing a Banksy style art prank and the information is meant to be part of the art, then there is no more reason for me to change it any more than the Blair Witch guys should be asked to put a disclaimer on their site saying "this isn't really true"
So, even when presented with irrefutable proof that this is a hoax you refuse to change the title of the thread to "alternate cut" or something of the like and choose to keep "rare director's cut" as the official title?
Please tell us again how you're not deliberately misleading? The intentions of your "correspondence" is moot.
I think you are behaving overly aggressive. Instead of remaining calm and relaxed you've chosen to go on a rage-rant in this thread. I'm not acting like the kid here. Maybe you think I'm defending the wrong film? Again, it's not about the quality here. I just don't like the spreading of misinformation.
Now continue raging, because you're only making yourself look bad. -
Hateful8 — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 07:50 AM)
I posted a free movie, a fan cut or other wise.
Either watch it or don't.
That's the point.
I'm not a reporter and I'm selling you anything, so I don't owe you anything in terms of verifiability.
I emailed the guy who fed me all the information in the above thread. I linked the email to this forum. If he comes around to defend himself against you complaints, take it up with him. Just leave me out of it for now on.
Irrefuatble evidence????
lololololololollolol
You are delusional. This is an internet thread, an obscure one at that. Not a court of law. And you don't get to be the judge. You get to be the guy who stated his opinion.
You stated your opinion. I get what you are saying. I'm just don't care. That's all the power you get here.
Unless you worked on this movie, or are related to Mattei (lol), then I don't see why this is so personal to you.
If you pushed my buttons, it is because I did something nice in sharing thisfor free. Not easy uploading a big file online. Who whines about getting something for nothing? Oh yeahyou.
This isn't the Mona Lisa you are defending here. It's a film that, ironically, is already guilty of plagiarism (i.e. that Goblin score? They used without permission and without paying them royalties. The band simply chose not to sue them.and that's one of many sins in the way of plagiarism this film suffers fromSo this film is open season for this kind of thing, if what you are claiming is true. I just happen to like this cut better than the others).
I've been getting great feedback online, mostly from those thanking me for posting a free copy of a film with better light levels where now they can actually see something. So what if some extra tidbits of the film changes it from one silly plot point to another? As if this movie ever made sense anyways (the original who dunnit plot about scientists making a gas to solve world hunger by making the 3rd world eat each other plot line is as stupid as anything else in this movie..lololololand never is satisfactory resolvedmaybe that's why I dig this plot, at least SOME explanation is given that ties everything togetherless plot is not the same thing as a good plot and leaving too much to mystery, like this film is notoriously known for, just cheats the audience anywaysso maybe that why this version of the film speaks to me). For everyone else, the film is still, in spirit, the same goofy film (for the most part..98% intact) that people love to hate for all the campy reasons you mentioned. This NEW cut just happens to have tighter ending and a little more plot exposition. But not enough to change the overall tone of the filmwhich many people have thanked me for uploading simply because they get to watch a free movie. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Why spend any time b-itching about it at all? Don't you have bills to pay??? This is how you spend your timelike some internet Batman fighting the crime of fan edits.. Don't quit your day job, Charles Bronson..lol..
It's clear you are not changing my mind about this. But you keep arguing anyways. That's the problem, since you are asking. When most people get something free, they say thank you. If this isn't your cup of tea, then you could've ignored it. This is not about your fear of misinformation. If that really bothered you, you wouldn't have time for something absurd like thisyou'd be too busy protesting your govt over the NSA or a half-dozen other offenses. So I call bu ll sh it on that. You are just taking this, and me, too seriously. Don't flatter yourself, Woodward and Bernstein.
The only one making himself look bad if YOU mate. Mostly because you are still holding onto an argument going no where and that has little real-life consequence.
How is that working out for you?
CASE CLOSED -
Film_Myths — 11 years ago(August 15, 2014 08:14 AM)
This isn't the Mona Lisa you are defending here. It's a film that, ironically, is already guilty of plagiarism (i.e. that Goblin score? They used without permission and without paying them royalties. The band simply chose not to sue them.and that's one of many sins in the way of plagiarism this film suffers fromSo this film is open season for this kind of thing, if what you are claiming is true. I just happen to like this cut better than the others).
Again entirely not the point here. You are arguing about the quality of this film, which I could care more about; but I don't. There's not a single person here who will not admit that this is a bad film. So again, moot point on your end. You're just ignoring the facts and derailing the conversation to meet your own needs because you simply have no sources to verify anything. And if, by some chance, your "correspondent" does happen to stop by and back you up it won't make any difference. You could dig up Bruno Mattei himself and bring him here, but the fact of the matter is when you have 2000's car spliced into a 1980 film pretending to be a "rare director's cut", it just destroys everything you say; not to mention the other little details.
I'm going back to work now, but please continue raging.