The very convoluted Romero 'Dead' series

I just got the UE of Dawn and in watching all the discs I thought about the 'dead' series in all it twistid glory.

The series can go:

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead

...however there's the 30th anniversary cut that can replace Night. You can also replace Night with the Night remake. But the remake of night can be followed by the remake od Dawn (as their original versions were in the same series). But the euro cut of Dawn is followed by Lucio Fulci's Zombie and there's an upcoming 'sequel' to Day (Day of the Dead: Contagion).

Am I missing any parts to this ever expanding series of films?

[Paff]

Convoluted?

Pretty simple to me:

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead

remakes, alternate versions, are not part of ROMERO's Dead series. Nor are unrelated movies that try to be sequels (Zombie).

[SEANVALEN]

Well remakes like Night of the Living Dead had Romero input, it's up to you isn't it, what you think belongs in some series law? The remakes are like offspring, somehow connected, you can't ignore it totally, as it's there for those who want it. For the record, I like the night remake, and dawn.

Sometimes a modern feel to things, some people like it.

I'm talking in terms of creative and economic connection between films....Romero made three films but with the rights all over the place the series takes on all these divergent paths...

We'll need like a Crisis on Infinite Earths kind of thing to fix this

If wer're counting Zombi 2, we'll have to count every movie bearing the Zombi name. If i'm not mistaken, this would go up to Zombi 5: Killing Birds.

Romero has made three zombie films...
Night - Excellent
Dawn - Good
Day - Awful
and is in the process of making a fourth. Personally I believe Romero is in for a very big dick up the ass. He's not use to working with producers who want control over the film. Given some of the early remarks on preproduction... it's a losing battle. Romero will not make the film he wants to, which may be a good thing, but will end up making the film the producers/$$$ wants.

[Guyver99]

It's not convoluted at all IMHO. To me, the trilogy reigns supreme.

Night
Dawn
Day

Anything that doesn't have Romero directing is just there to cash in on the "dead franchise." The remakes are for the audience that wants their movies to be modernized. Fulci's Zombie 2 is a good movie but let's face it--we know it was made to cash in on Dawn of the Dead (even if those that were involved claim otherwise). Even the remake of Dawn has fast moving zombies because the MTV generation generally want faster faced, more up tempo action.

[X-human]

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Land of the Dead

Night of the Living Dead
Return of the Living Dead
Return of the Living Dead II
Return of the Living Dead III
Return of the Living Dead IV
Return of the Living Dead V

Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary Edition
Children of the Living Dead

Night of the Living Dead
Dawn of the Dead
Day of the Dead
Day of the Dead 2

and of course the Zombi spin off which I won't even begin to cover.

I don't really think the Night remake replaces the original nore is really followed up by the Dawn remake. But the Night remake is written by Romero, I think it is an important consideration in the Dead series.

I wouldn't consider ROTLD a sequel to Night of the Living Dead. In ROTLD, the characters talk about the movie NOTLD. So, in the ROTLD universe NOTLD is a movie, just like it is to us.

Originally Posted by Deaddevilman

Night - Excellent
Dawn - Good
Day - Awful

Funny that, my list goes in the reverse order to that, guess we have different tastes

[Erick H.]

The original DEAD trilogy was Romero's baby.The RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD films were based on a screenplay by one of Romero's partners on the original NIGHT. There was a legal tussle bettween Romero and this guy about sequels/spin offs.The result was that the courts gave Romero's former associate the rights to use the "LIVING DEAD" in a title while Romero ended up with the rights to use "DEAD" as a title,hence his sequels were not titled DAWN OF THE LIVING DEAD or DAY OF THE LIVING DEAD.Fulci's ZOMBIE (which I like),is indeed a cash in on DAWN's success,BUT was made prior to DAWN's release in Italy,so in terms of detail,it dosen't directly rip off DAWN.Actually,I always thought ZOMBIE felt kinda like a splatter version of Ken Weiderhorn's SHOCK WAVES(which has an island setting and even shots of Zombies underwater).
There,convoluted enough for ya ?

yup!

You could make a neat divergent reality flow chart of the films starting with the four Romero films as the 'real' timeline

[old-boo-radley]

Zombie is the film Romero wishes he'd have made.

[Mortis]

Pfft.

Originally Posted by old-boo-radley

Zombie is the film Romero wishes he'd have made.

[X-human]

Originally Posted by Erick H.

There was a legal tussle bettween Romero and this guy about sequels/spin offs.The result was that the courts gave Romero's former associate the rights to use the "LIVING DEAD" in a title while Romero ended up with the rights to use "DEAD" as a title,hence his sequels were not titled DAWN OF THE LIVING DEAD or DAY OF THE LIVING DEAD.

Romero talked about that in an interview and never mentioned a court battle, he said he and John A. Russo both agreed to split it down the middle and each go their own ways with the sequels.

When Russo went to Tom Fox for the sequels (after Dawn's success) he sign a bad contract and Fox was able to weasle the sequels away from him (And I don't blame him, Russo is a idiot). Children of the Living Dead was Russo's attempt at getting another sequel series going that he would own.