what about blood diner?!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't blood diner, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092669/combined, supposed to be a sequel to blood feast? And if so, how can it just not be acknowledged?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (2003) Discussion > what about blood diner?!!!
[deleted]
I have not seen Blood Diner, nor do I know anything about it other than it was a supposed sequel, but maybe HG Lewis didn't see Blood Diner as an actual sequel. Was he even invloved with its production?
shareI haven't seen it but I always thought Blood Diner was supposed to be more of a satire than a sequel...no? And HG Lewis wasn't involved at all, so it would be more of an hommage or something, right?
I can shuffle cut and deal but I can't draw a hand
yeah, Blood Diner was more of a satire, and a pretty cheesy/funny one. Sometimes it gets a little too stupid for it's own good and the gore isn't all that great, but it's a nice way to kill 90 minutes. The end is pretty funny too.
shareBlood Diner was actually a 1980's update remake spoof of both blood feast and
The Gore-Gore Girls (girl's face shoved into hot cooking oil is one example)
A grade z gore fest with beter acting and effects than old H.G.L. could have ever dreamed of. Of interest to fans of Lewis and or 80's gore only.
I don't know whether it's true or not but a friend of mine gave me Blood Diner and told me it was originally suppose to be a sequel to Blood Feast but there were some legal problems with getting the actual title of Blood Feast 2. I don't know if that's true or not but Blood Diner is not very similar with Blood Feast. It's only similarity is that these two brothers work in a diner in the city and are killing people to put there uncles brain into the body of an old god. It is very fun but goes a little to childish with the humor.
shareJimmy Maslon is the producer on both Blood Diner and Blood Feast 2, and according to Blood Diner actor- Carl Crew, interview here(http://www.horrorgraphs.cjb.net/)Jimmy Maslon owns the rights to Lewis' films. Though he may not have owned the rights when Blood Diner was made.
Don't you ever touch the sacrificial fluids...okey dokey?share
That is interesting and does make sense. Thanks for the clear up.
shareAlso to add a bit of extra info the film THE UNDERTAKER AND HIS PALS from around 1967 I believe, had almost the exact same plot as Blood Diner in order
of years made:
1) BLOOD FEAST
2) THE UNDERTAKER AND HIS PALS
3) THE GORE-GORE GIRLS
4) BLOOD DINER
5) BLOOD FEAST 2
See em all and compare plots if nothing beter to do.
Thanks for the info, I will have to take a look at The Undertaker and His Pals. I heard the Gore-Gore Girls was pretty good also. Thanks.
shareI've heard that Bloodsucking Pharohs from Pittsburgh at one time also was supposed to be a sequel to blood feast.
shareI have never even heard of that one. When was it made?
"It is sometimes better to live in Hell then it is to live in Heaven."
-PCyst
I'm not sure, I myself haven't seen it, but I know tom savini did the effects and it was unreleased for some time, before being finally issued in a severely cut form. However hopefully it will be out on unrated dvd.
here's the imdb info on it. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101483/
Blood Diner was originally supposed to be Blood Feast 2, but the makers decided that since Herschell Gordon Lewis wasn't involved they would just make it it's own movie. But it could easily be the sequel, only the names and a couple of facts were changed.
shareI haven't seen it in about 20 years or so, but "Blood Diner" was really nothing special, save for a few good gags. It may have been shot as "Blood Feast 2", but it was never released under that title that I am aware of. It was covered in Fangoria at the time of its release under the title "Blood Diner".
"Blood Feast 2" is infinitely more entertaining, anyway.
Jackie Kong set out to make a "tongue-in-cheek" sequel/follow up to Blood Feast. After she did not get the rights to the film the end product became Blood Diner. Which in all honesty on a purely mindless entertainment level its not terrible. Its not great, but it is watchable and has its moments. It tries to hard to be a comedy and fails with its humor (For example the two brothers dig up thier dead uncle at the beginning of the film and retrieve his Brain, Eyes and penis... BTW this is by no means a spoiler its the plot). There is absolutely nothing likeable about any of the characters, even the victims. With that said it does have its funny momemts, both intentional and not, and it has a decent amount of gore. It completely lacks the charm, feel and pacing of the HG Lewis original.
"We're together again" -Duane Bradley
[deleted]