Part 2 -The only 'true' sequel? - Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2006) Discussion

[–] SEARLAM 19 years ago

part 2 was the only good sequel but i admit parts 4 and 5 look cool i hope they have a good soundtrack like the first 2 it took me ages to i got the soundtrack to part 2 but i agree part 2 is the only true sequel.

MEGADETH RULE!

reply

[–] Zorin-2 19 years ago

I agree, Part II was the only "true" sequel as it tried to keep the feeling of the first film with the comedy and gore, thought not as good I will admit. Part III had some interesting concepts, but it didn't feel like it belonged in teh series. It could stand on its own with a different title. Parts 4 & 5 look absolutly terrible from the trailers. I will stick to the first two films.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zorin-2 19 years ago

Uh...first of all, James Karen and Thom Matthews played different characters than they did in the first one. That is why they are back. It was a treat for fans of the first film to see them again.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

Ok, Mr tech..

At the end of ROTLD new dead people came to life.. Where are those.. Oh you got proved wrong again.

2,3,4 and 5 is the same movie from start to finish there is no sequel.

To bring someone who died in the first as someone else in 2 is stupid marketing.

It's like Lucas doing Star Wars Episode 7 and having vader back but calling him Darth Dope. Because if there was more than one suit then where was all the doubles? Don't tell me that leaders of a Empire would not have a double thats just insane.

First off: may I suggest you learn basic grammar.

Second: 2 is a sequel yet not a direct sequel.(ie not continuing exactly were the last left off)

Third: 3 is also a sequel.

Forth: Having the actors come back and play different parts in the sequel is all part of the humor.

Fifth: Bring back actors for the sequel in different rolls has also been done in Lamberto Bava's demons series.

Sixth: Comparing your analogy(way over exaggerated) to the actors coming back to play different rolls in the sequel is moronic. The characters in the original that they played were no where near as important of people as Vader is in the Star Wars Mythos.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

You just typed a whole lot of "Blah Blah Blah" over nothing. And bringing in the stuff about the 1st Amendment is just right silly. I didn't say he couldn't speak his mind I just pointed out that if he wanted to make a point perhaps he should use some grammar learn by most in grade school. Someone might take him seriously instead of thinking he's some moron and brushing off.

reply

[–] roswell_uk 19 years ago

The First Amendment protects you from your speech being restricted by the Government, it does not mean you can say anything you want, that is why they have libel, and slander laws on the books. I mention it because you allude to the fact you have the freedom of speech here, and you do not.

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

First of all, I am not slandering you, and I'm not committing libel. Daddamaggot already did that when he inadvertently called the user a moron by telling him to learn basic grammar.

Second of all, Freedom of Speech protects you from the government making laws on your freedom of speech. So unless, I broke a slander or libel law, I can still tell you to kiss off because I don't care about my grammar.

Defamation, Libel & Slander: Overview
Defamation is a legal action sounding in tort based on an intentional or reckless public false statement that injures another person's reputation. Libel and slander are types of defamation. Generally, libel is defamation in print and slander is spoken defamation. Court cases have blurred the line between libel and slander, however. Defamation is governed by state statutes or common law. To find defamation statutes for a particular state, go to MegaLaw's state law pages and conduct a statute search.

Now, from what I wrote, I have not injured Daddamaggot's reputation because I have not made any reckless public false statement toward him.

On the other hand, Daddamaggot has injured the reputation of the other forum person because he instigated that forum person is bad at grammar. Could be a false statement because that person may be excellent at grammar, but instead just didn't bother with the time, because:

After all, this is just a forum.

So in all actuality, libel and slander laws don't protect me from myself, so yeah, it is ok to spell with bad grammar. Yeah, it isn't against the law. Yeah, it is ok to tell the whole world I don't care. So where you get off accusing me of breaking slander and libel laws, I don't think so. I will, again and again, speak my mind without committing libel or slander to another person. So *BEEP* you - wait a sec, obviously what I'm trying to say may seem obscene here, but doesn't break slander and libel laws because I'm not injuring the reputation of another person, only the reputation of myself. but you know what "I DON'T GIVE A DAMN". The only thing you can do is just tell me you don't give a damn too, because I am not breaking any laws.

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

2. Actions in Defamation:

a) The elements of a defamation action are as follows:

i) The plaintiff must prove publication of the defamatory statement. Publication means the making known of the defamatory statement, after it has been written or spoken, to some person other than the person of whom it is written or spoken;

ii) The plaintiff must prove that the defamation refers to the plaintiff; and

iii) The plaintiff must prove that the statement is defamatory. Simply put, a defamatory statement is "a false statement to a person's discredit".

b) Upon proof of publication, the law makes several presumptions in favour of the plaintiff:

i) That the statement is false;

ii) That it was published with malice; and

iii) In the case of libel or slander per se, the plaintiff has suffered damage.

c) Defences:

i) Truth.

ii) Fair comment: The defendant is allowed to comment on facts truly stated, as long as the comment is fair and the defendant is not motivated by actual malice.

iii) Privilege: On certain occasions, the courts have held that policy and convenience require that a person should be free from responsibility for the publication of defamatory words. These occasions are constitute privileges.

Privilege may be absolute, such as statements in the House of Commons or the courts. It may be qualified, in that it may be lost if the publication is unnecessarily wide or made with malice.

iv) Innocent dissemination: This last defence is potentially very important in cyberlibel and will be discussed later in the paper.

reply

[–] roswell_uk 19 years ago

Second, 1st Amendment of the Constitution dictates Congress shall pass no laws that constricting freedom of speech.

So as long as the 1st Amendment remains, please keep you're learn how to spell and learn grammar phrases to yourself

I don't believe I ever said you had slandered, or committed libel against me, in fact as this was my first post in the thread, and it was a comment on your usage of the First Amendment as a defense, does not even make sense.

What I pointed out, is the fact that you quoted the First Amendement as to mean you have the right to say anything you want, however you want.
Amazon, IMDB nor Daddamaggot is a Government entity or agent so I was questioning the relevance of you quoting the First Amendment when it clearly does not apply in this case.

I am likewise familiar with the Slander, and libel laws -- after all I am the one I brought them into the topic. They were not meant to mean anyone was committing slander, or libel but to give an example of why using the First Amendment defense as protection of your right to say anything, to anyone is mistaken as it only pertains to the Government.

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

Hey, I'm sorry roswell. I'm just tired of these peeps trying to tell another person what to do - like learn basic grammar - who the hell do they think they are in the first place. All I wanted to do is remind them how they do have a right to not care about grammar in the forum.
Really, telling a person to learn basic grammar is just a cheap shot to belittle that other person in making yourself feel so much better than them.
As I take it, the forum isn't a formal way of writing but much like a chat channel, which means that people speak through the internet like they would through their mouth. How many people do you know who speak grammatically perfect. Honestly, I think you would sound pretty lame, if you actually thought about a noun and verb, indirect and direct object for every sentence you said.

To Daddamaggot:
So you can't tell me to learn basic grammar: I already know advanced grammar.
And you can't stop me from using bad grammar, because I just don't care about it that much in the forum.

reply

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

If that guy(darkbagpiper) talks like that in real life I feel bad for him. He must have a heck of a time getting his point across to people.

reply

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

You have way too much time to obsess over something that didn't even concern you in the first place. You had to rush in and be the hero to the feeble minded. I suggest you stop now before you dig yourself a hole-o-idiocy you will never be able to climb out of.

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

read a book, know one talks grammatically perfect. Even famous authors state this. I don't have to care, Daddamaggot. Who the hell are you, and why do I need to impress anyone. I don't mind being an idiot on a forum page. No one here knows me in the first place. So go *beep* yourself with your two dogs. Oh, I forgot, you watch alot of movies because the dvd hole is big enough for your johnson to jack off too while you hope their was at least some sexy zombie in the movie. Maybe, we should call you Daddy *beep* Anyone, you don't hurt me none, so go *beep* yourself. Oh by the way, I do have a over-compulsive way of never dropping a subject so if you want me to stop talking, you better stop replying to me or put me on ignore.

by the way, 2 billion people in the US
about %10 of them go to college
about %10 of them go to high school
about %50 of them drop out
the other %30 don't even get to go to school

the %10 of those that go to college are probably the only ones whom ever really learn basic grammar. The rest just forget it. So I'm pretty much sticking up for the majority here, not the minority. i.e. you rich people, fascists, people who have no tolerance, rascists, so if you want to tell people to learn basic grammar, you have the right to say it because of the 1st Amendment, but you know what, we have the right to say go *beep* yourself because of the 1st Amendment. There is absolutely no one I have to impress on this forum. Not like I really intend on borrowing any money from anyone, so go *beep* yourself. Not like I really am looking for any investors, so go *beep* yourself. Not like I really care about anyone here. I only care about the subject of the forum, and when you broke that rule and attacked another person by telling them to learn basic grammar, you broke the subject of the forum. So here I am, standing up for what I think is right. Telling you to go *beep* yourself. Don't forget you're the one who created me. You're the one who said, learn basic grammar. Now you're one who created the likes of me. I will not stop because I have always fought for what I believed in, keeping in mind the principles of the constitution before the laws of the government and state.

Bye bye

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

Oh by the way, people have more qualities than just their grammar.

If all you care about is how people write and spell and talk, then I feel sorry for you, because that's boring.

Alot more passion to a person floats around them that you can't even imagine.

An artist never thinks about word grammar because they learn of the grammar of visuals.

A welder never has to learn grammar because they know the grammar of melting to pieces of metal together.

Look how far President Bush got, and the way he speaks.

reply

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

First off it's "no" not "know"...

But that was a cheap shot on my part. I Apologize.

Resorting to profanity and petty name calling? For shame! You really showed me! Ha! It's ok lil'fella no need to give yourself a stroke over me. So much entertainment from just one thread...

My point was that if he used basic grammar people might take him a seriously.

"Never come to a battle of wits unarmed"

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

I'm sorry, but when I get on a topic, I don't quit.

You don't know who that person is, and if they do care about whether to be taken seriously.

Heck, life is to important to take serious when you live in a country full of apathetics.
Here's an example of the US.

During a person's pursuit of happiness, they become selfish and apathetic because the only way to achieve true happiness is not to care about anything going on in the world.

I only use the profanity and petty name calling as example that I speak my mind and use the 1st Amendment to its fullest.

If you knew me in person, you would see a someone that doesn't take crap from anyone, and from my experiances in life, this is the only way to get ahead.

So yeah, I intend to stick up for the less-fortunate, when it comes to others who try to bully their topic into submission, just for the fact that no one stuck up for me in my entire life.

Caring what others think about me is the least thing on my mind because I can achieve my goals in other ways. Caring so someone else can get their word out and be taken serious is more important to me than someone who tries to degrade that person's word.

I'm done with this topic.

reply

[–] Gorebag 19 years ago

I like how you seize the chance to make this thread all about you. You have to be one of the most self indulgent people I have ever come across. The only reason you feel you need to "help" other people out is that it strokes you massive ego. "Me this" and "I that." You managed to make a topic about ROTLD sequels into a forum for you to display "How great you are."

reply

[–] claymation69 19 years ago

Yeah, I have a tremendous amount of self-respect and pride. Call it a massive ego if you will. Remember the phrase "how can anyone respect you if you don't respect yourself."
Always look out for numero uno before you look out for anyone else, but make sure you don't forget about anyone else either. That's my motto.

reply

[–] libra113 18 years ago

I LOVED Part 1 and 2 they have a place of honor in my DVD collection (even if the DVDs themselves are sometimes lacking but that's another story). What I can't figure out is why the people who made 3-5 seem to think they're making Romero movies or something. Why can't they just make their movies using the guidelines set up by the first two? Ever hear the old saying: "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

http://dawnofthedeadfanfiction.bravehost.com/index.html

reply

[–] Gorebag 18 years ago

LOL

reply

[–] MindFever 18 years ago

Call it a massive ego if you will. Remember the phrase "how can anyone respect you if you don't respect yourself."

claymation69:
There you go with extremities again... you took this too litelarly. OVERCONFIDENCE is an extreme of being confident of what you KNOW, for example. (this is supported by pure knowledge).So,please think before you say anything un-nerving again.This would mean that you dont respect anyone else's judgement and dont consider alternatives - this is verry unwise.

reply

[–] MindFever 18 years ago

by the way, 2 billion people in the US
about %10 of them go to college
about %10 of them go to high school
about %50 of them drop out
the other %30 don't even get to go to school

claymation69:
hehehe,how cute:) I mean,i know how overconfident some Americans are...but 2 BILLION people?!:) oh my god... You then talk about the Right of freedom of speech(whatever you call it - im not US citizen).This is an international movie database and people can even shut you up if you seem annoying.Sure you can say whatever you want, but you cant make other people think the same as you do... 1+1=2 ;wich means You slandering people + your overconfidence based on poor judgment = you are verry unpopular

People please, you will get an ulcera or something... :)

reply

[–] pesatyel 19 years ago

Exactly. In fact, they comment on being in the first movie as well. Thom Matthew's character comments on how it feels like deja-vu ("you, me, them").

I consider it a sequel in that it kept all the elements of the first movie AND advanced the story.

Also, something that seems to be forgotten, is that both 1 and 2 are horror COMEDY. The characters reactions to the events, for example ("Watch your tongue boy if you like this job! Like this job?!?")

3 forgot about the comedy part and tried to do straight horror (the only reason there were funny parts is because zombie movies have an inherent funny factor, IMO). The "zombies" were more mutant monsters than zombies.

4 and 5 appear to be just as bad (I'm recording them to watch later) as it appears the zombies are just the regular run-of-the-mill zombies, which is NOT what the ROTLD zombies are.

reply

[–] jsmith592 19 years ago

O.K., um where do I start. Obviously, you have never seen an actor play two different roles in two different movies. Some the same actors appeared in Return of the Living Dead 2, but were completely different characters than they played in part 1. This is part of the tongue and cheek comedy of part 2. C'mon, did you really think it was Michael Jackson dancing at the power plant near the end of the movie??

reply

[–] josephlikens 19 years ago

yep. there is even a line about it seeming like they had done all that before. been a while since i broke out mu ancient copy of part 2, but i know that's in there cause i thought it was funny.

reply

[–] spublius 19 years ago

So far, I think the first film was the better film to be quite honest. I don't think of Part III as a mistake. It was a darker film with darker comic elements. Granted, the ending reminded me of a Shakespearean tragedy.

I'm hoping that Part IV and V are good films, I don't expect them to be better than the first.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] undeadmachine669 19 years ago

Part two is a sequal learned in the same school as Evil Dead 2. Its almost an alternate vision of part 1. Part 3 is pure crap. I'm sorry, but that movie is horribly boring and not funny at all. That is just my opinion, of course, and I don't want to discourage any true zombie freaks from watching it. What parts 4 and 5 really need is the same level of campy humor mixed with cheesy gore found in the first two films. And yes, The Return flix are false sequals to Night of the Living Dead, but they hold their own weight just fine.

reply

[–] seekandannoy 19 years ago

Except that Evil Dead 2 is a continuation and not an "alternate vision" of the first.

reply

[–] teklock 19 years ago

It's a little of both. You really don't have to see Evil Dead in order to see Evil Dead 2, because the entire first 15 minutes or so is basicly a quick remake of the first film before it continues on.

reply

[–] stickbaby 19 years ago

ahh i a can forgive them for the 2 and the three even though the are things in there that i am imbaressed to watch with other people present...true sequel.?.uh mabey..most eightees looking? yes well there was only he two in that decade..so.. uh im still looking for the buzz i got off the first one ! i have it on dvd and i wouldnt buy the other two...i have watched no. 1 heaps . the will never b a true sequel and i am not getting my hopes uop with 4 or 5..i saw land of the dead a few days ago ..ifeel sad that i cant let go of the desolate feeling of the earth being over run by the dead...so i will keep wathching these films forever...even if i might be chasing that "true sequel"..

reply

[–] CACROWE 19 years ago

COpying Resident Evil?? where do you think the idea for Resident evil came from??
You can only do the "zombies from the graveyard" bit so many times.Would you really pay to see the same thing again?

reply

[–] skinlesslemon 19 years ago

i thought part 2 was utter *beep* not funny and just generally piss poor
but 3 was fun with some intriuging ideas and a damn pretty lead

reply

[–] lngjon 19 years ago

But the thing with the super-soldiers was a pretty apparent resident evil ripoff. The father was the Nemesis, right down to the spinning barrel mini-guns.
And ROTLD started out with the chemical being appropriated by the government, not Hydra-tech. Hydra-tech is a ripoff of Umbrella.
But you're right, the whole anti-establishment (in this case, anti-corporate) thing was established by the original ROTLD.

reply

[–] big50701 18 years ago

I'm not up-to-date with Resident Evil the game, but Return of the Living Dead Part 3 showed the potential for super soldiers before the Resident Evil movie. Although I am not up-to-date on the game, so ROTLD 3 might have seen that in the game.

reply

[–] zombiedude245 18 years ago

jasonvorhees69 u shut up!..part 2 is the best sequel of the return of the living dead series..3 - 5 is crap!..if u dont like parts 1 or 2 then u are not a true return of the living dead fan..go to your romero series..

________________________________________________________
I'm not crazy, I'm just mentally insane.

reply

[–] syphus 19 years ago

I agree for now, cause I haven't seen ROTLD 4 or 5. However though I do think ROTLD 2 was basically just a rehash of ROTLD 1. I mean really. It was funnier but the same movie. Part 3 just went more in the direction of a straight up horror movie. I didn't really find it all that appealing although the zombie girl was hot.

reply

[–] Jhjohnnyreb 19 years ago

The only thing that pretty much connects all five films together is the notorius Trioxin gas. I mean you'd think that the military would've got smart and destroy all the remaining barrels after all that has happened.

However, I don't believe ROTLD II is a rehash, it's just set in a different town in another state, Westvale, California. Doesn't Col. Glover say 'Not Again' when he sees the fallen Trioxin barrel in part II?

Now Part 3 was disappointing, it seems like it completely ignores 1 & 2. ROTLD II had a lot of humor but 3 had zilch. I'm glad they're bringing back the comical elements that 1 & 2 had for the next two installments.

reply

[–] TheColossalAvenger 19 years ago

Yeah, Colonel Glover says that. A few weeks ago, I saw ROTLD 3 for the first time in a few years. I don't know, it seemed a lot dumber than what I remembered.

reply

[–] thevideostoreguy 19 years ago

You really can't count any of the last three as sequels, because if you do, the continuity is so badly wrecked it's unrecognizable.

Look, in the beginning, the first two, the ROTLD zombie was basically a sped-up Fulci zombie who could talk, strategize, and was largely invulnerable. This is why it was so insulting to true zombie movie enthusiasts who were looking for Romero physics.

Now, these things not only bastardize Romero physics (a shot to the head WILL kill them now), they also will be neutralized with, of all things, sufficient ballistic trauma. Not only can you shoot them in the head, you can shoot them plain old ANYWHERE now and they'll fall over, if you shoot them often enough. Check out all the gutshots from SMG fire in "Necropolis." And they fall over just as quick as if you'd got them with one lone headshot.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] midnight_wanderer 19 years ago

Yes, I agree. I like part 3 because right when I saw it I feel in love with Melinda Clarke & she is still one of my favorites but part 3 was the most depressing movie I have ever seen. I mean if you're a person who cares for others a lot like me then that movie will work you over good. I just got into the whole thing of the main guy having a girlfriend that looked that damn good & they were on top of the world & then she is all the sudden laying in his arms dead. If that really happened to my girlfriend I would never be the same again.

Don't wander into abandend churches for Czakyr will grab you from underneath the watery grave.

reply

[–] bunny_carlos 18 years ago

When you think about it, with a low budget and shooting in typical LA locations, 3 was the best because it also had a story. It had the upset boy trying to keep some sort of stable home life and when he loses his girlfriend, all he wants is for things to be the same.

Plus, it doesn't rely on large crowd scenes with multiple mutilations to carry the plot.

4 and 5 seemed to deal with "Oops, we started an outbreak. Run Away, run away!"

"I'm not an idiot man...I watch T.V."
-Scooby-

stay warm

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RyanB744 18 years ago

First of All I have been a fan of the Romero/Russo Film NOTLD.ROTLD was in fact at one time A true sequal. The Black comic elements came as Dan O'Bannon Took over as Diretor from Tobe Hooper.The first was beyond doubt a great movie.Part 2 Was not as great, but good on it's own.3 was a complete departure from the black comic element. Yeah it's funny, but not intentionally.No offense but Yuzna blew it. Romeo and juliette as a zombie movie c'mon man. 4 and 5 Are not as bad but more of an reconcillition of the Romero/Russo mythos with the O'Bannon mythos. A simle explanation would also be the various trioxins are differant through out the films.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jasonvorhees69 18 years ago

shut up part 2 was not a sequel it was a joke 3 was average but watchable
u moron

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] centipedeattack 18 years ago

agreed.
part 2 was boring and stupid.
part 3 was a fun movie even if it wasnt a "true" sequel whatever that means.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CoCage 18 years ago

Part 2 was just as fun as the first one.
Part 3 was good but the zombies were eating flesh instead of brains.
Part 4 had zombies eating brains and flesh, the film was actually quite enjoyable. But I wish they just kept the brain eating part only and not both.
Part 5 on the other hand which took place after 4 was not so goog because the plot was stupid. I mean come on taking the 2-4-5 Trioxon and making into a drug pill for people to get high off was stupid. The surviving teens from part 4 knew what the trioxon could turn you into a zombie or bring the dead back to life yet they did it anyway to make cash. The only entertaining thing was when the new Tarman was trying to get a ride waving a "rave or bust" sign to go to the rave and eat peoples brains.

reply

[–] claymation69 18 years ago

In Part 3, I remember the girl eating brains in the back of the truck.

reply

[–] CoCage 18 years ago

Thanks for helping me remember.

reply

[–] DementedZombieHorrorFan 18 years ago

To me Part 2 was a true Sequel one thing I couldn't understand in part 4 and 5 is you have the characters from part 4 return in part 5 not playing different characters but the same characters from the previous one and they didn't know what was going on

reply

[–] wwinter86 10 years ago

Part 2 is definitely the best sequel by far. But part 4 is more like a Return of the Living Dead than Part 3.

reply