Talk:The Return of the Living Dead

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Horror High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States: Louisville This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

So it says in the cast list that this is Clu Gulager's first horror role, even though he was in a horror movie the previous year... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:B902:9301:9DEE:FFB:983B:BFB8 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This movie wasn't preceded by Night the Living Dead it has nothing o do with that movie besides both having zombies.

Try actually reading the article. "The film came about out of a dispute between John Russo and George A. Romero over how to handle sequels to their 1968 film, Night of the Living Dead. Thus, each man was able to do what he pleased with the series, while still having one another's work distinct and be considered canon. Following this decision, Russo wrote a horror novel, Return of the Living Dead, which he planned on adapting into a film script. Although the film rights were initially sold in 1979, they were passed along by several different studios and directors before finally being obtained by Tobe Hooper, for whom Dan O'Bannon was hired to write a script. Hooper dropped out of the project instead to focus on the production of another feature." Geoff B (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who worked on Night of the Living Dead went on to have their names attached to other movies. This does not make any of those movies a sequel, nor does it make Return of the Living Dead a sequel. Watching both movies makes it obvious that this film is far too inconsistent with its' "prequel" to be considered canon. The various studio hands this film passed between (according to your article) obviously kept this half- truth alive for monetary reasons. I'm sure being credited as a sequel to a far superior movie helped a great deal towards pumping out further "sequels" designed to separate fans of the genre from their hard earned money.

There is merely a reference to Night of the Living Dead.a fleeting one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.26.51 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disagree with my comments above, none of the information you cite is properly sourced. Neither here, nor in article. It should not be mentioned as any kind of sequel unless you can properly source that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.26.51 (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the OR about how zombies can be made in the movie? The trioxin rains make zombies. Trash got killed, and landed in the trioxin rain puddles. Trash ended up a zombie. Why bother talking about how it's possible the bite did it? For that matter, other than the mention of the trioxin itself, what's the point in even trying to find different methods of zombification in the film? Original research, I say. 139.57.100.104 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the article needs to be shortened. It seems perfectly fine to me. I will mention, however, that despite the fact that I understand why the author used this word, and despite that I also understand the meaning of it, the word "Zombiefication" is not an actual word.

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.2.126 (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

too long, too long, too long, too long... you don't need to read it four times to know this article is toooo long. In desesperately need of clean-up and shortening of the plot story. --200.216.236.75 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can an article be too long? Most of the movie articles on this site are too short. This one actually goes into detail about the production and release and reception of the flick and it is too long? This site makes no sense to me sometimes.

I did not notice the Trioxin Theme in the Soundtrack list. Here is also a version with some movie sounds included. –Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should mention why the film was banned in some countries. --Manfariel (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the MMO Game "The Secret World" (2012) rereleased later as "The Secret World Legends" (2017) there is a Mission called "Send More Cops" in a clear reference to this movie, the Mission starts at a Police Car and once Mission is Activated it starts out by spawning waves of Zombies to attack your Player Character.

Not sure this counts as a valid Reference: http://unfair.co/gaming/the-secret-world/the-secret-world-send-more-cops-guide-solution/

The game is filled with references to Horror Movies/Writers like the Overlook Motel at end of this same Mission being a reference to Overlook Hotel from the Shining, I only mention in the event of someone thinks it's just coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munchman1984 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the main article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Living_Dead#Related_works it is written

The same year Day of the Dead premiered, Night of the Living Dead co-writer John Russo released a film titled The Return of the Living Dead that offers an alternate continuity to the original film than Dawn of the Dead.

The film premiered in 1968, THIS here is from 1985.

So what is wrong or where is the missing film? Another film?

Other sources talk the same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Living_Dead_(film_series)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_of_the_Living_Dead_(film_series)

-- ~~ (LAZA74)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8071:8198:2c00:f22f:74ff:fe1b:7691 (talk) 06:19, 2021 June 2 (UTC)

It's "Day of the Dead" from 1985, not "Night of the Living Dead". Night is only mentioned in that quote in reference to John Russo's background as having been the co-writer. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "It is also known as the first film to ever show zombies running, as well as zombies being able to speak.". But the movie The Last Man on Earth (1964 film) also has zombies speaking and came out two decades earlier in 1964. You can view the movie on the wikipedia page. An example of a zombie speaking can be seen at timestamp 24:11.

I changed it in the article Ilja space (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That movie is about vampires that have zombie-like qualities, not actual zombies. ARZ100 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]