Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. Weresmurf’s one of our regular chatters. When that promo reel for the DAY OF THE DEAD remake leaked recently, he was as harsh about it as anyone else, and he’s a horror nut, so I think it really pained him. A week or so later, he mentioned to me that he had somehow stumbled across a contact address for Jeff Reddick, who wrote it, and that he’d started talking to him. He asked me if I wanted an interview with the guy. Was it on my list of things to do? No, not really. But I’m always interested in giving someone their day in court, especially a guy who was so recently ravaged in our talkbacks. So here it is, a fairly dense and chatty conversation, all things considered, and one that might just make you like the guy:
It's been a long time people, you probably don't remember me, I reviewed the Batman Begins script for AICN-Downunder a few years back. Well, I've been upgraded from script reviews to actually talking to people. Recently I was lucky enough to trade emails with Mr Jeffrey Reddick of Final Destination and Day of the Dead 2007 fame. After a few emails back and forth, I bring you this! Weresmurf: Remakes seem to be a dime a dozen these days, what specifically drew you to a remake of Day of the Dead? Jeff: The biggest reason was Steve Miner. I really like him as a director and he’s done some of my favorite movies, “Friday The 13th Part 2,” “House,” “Warlock” and “Halloween H20.” I also knew that they were going to make this film whether I wrote it or not. They’d hired a director and already slotted a time to start production. The producers originally wanted to hire a non-union writer to crank out a script in 2 weeks. But I met with Steve and he liked my work. So he pushed for them to hire me and fought to give us time to work on the script. I knew there would be fan backlash. But I had to weigh that against working with a director I admire and writing a movie that I knew was going to get made. I’m also a genre fan and I knew if I didn’t do it, they would have hired someone on the cheap to bang out a script quickly. Weresmurf: Do you feel, like is voiced by a lot of viewers of cinema, that Hollywood is potentially becoming lazy or less imaginative with all the remakes that have been hitting our cinema in the last few years? Jeff: It’s not that Hollywood has less imagination, it’s that the studios are all about the bottom line. They think that if they remake a movie that’s got name recognition, there’s a better chance to recoup their investment. And unfortunately, the box office keeps bearing this out. Look, I’m sick of remakes too. But the writer’s and directors aren’t going to the studios saying, “Hey, let’s do a remake.” We all want to do something original. That’s why it’s great when movies like “The Blair Witch” and “Saw” come along. But these movies all have one thing in common…. the people who made them raised the money themselves and produced the movies on their own. Then when one of these movies is a hit…there’s a glut of copy cat films. “Final Destination” is a prime example of this. We had such a hard time selling the project, because everyone was convinced you couldn’t make a horror movie with Death as the killer. They kept saying, “You have to have a physical villain that the heroes can fight.” In my original draft of the script, the studio had me personify Death in the final showdown as “The Angel of Death.” Fortunately, James Wong and Glen Morgan were very firm in that they didn’t want to show “Death.” They crafted a great movie and when it was a success, the people who had doubts about “Final Destination” were all saying, “ Bring us something else like “Final Destination.” The truth is that most people who get involved in the movie business, do it because they love films. I’ve been watching horror films and reading “Fangoria” since I was 13. But you learn that the movie business is a “business” and the people who control the money and distribution are only concerned about making a profit. I’ve written numerous original scripts that are collecting dust, because the studios are afraid to take a chance on them. Most of my writer friends are in the same boat. This past year saw the release of “The Descent,” “Slither,” “Feast” among other original genre films. But they didn’t make the money that the glut of remakes and sequels did. I didn’t mean to go on so long on this subject, but again, the creative people behind the scenes are just as much a victim of this as the fans. At least the fans don’t have to see the remakes and can take solace in the original film. But if you’re a writer or director who’s doing this for a living, it comes down to survival. Even after the huge success of “Final Destination 1 and 3” Wong and Morgan made remakes of “Willard” and “Black Christmas.” If the studios are only producing and financing horror remakes and sequels, you follow the work. And you hope that once you build some collateral in Hollywood, you’ll be able to do more original material. It’s the same with actors. Some of them do the occasional blockbuster, so they can then get their independent passion projects off the ground. Weresmurf: When I was in AICN chat last, an interesting topic came up. We were discussing the 'great circle' of things to put it cheesily. We were discussing how horror had gone from big studio business in the 50s/60s to almost a trashy sub genre thing in the 70's/80's (Of course there were a few exceptions...) back to a big business venture in the 90's and early 2000's with the 'reinventing' of horror thanks to Scream and its dozens of imitators. How do you feel horror is heading these days, do you think it's likelier to get back to its low budget 70s 80s roots or do you think its becoming bigger and bigger business for major studios and this glut of Tween horror movies will never end? Jeff: I think there’s a lot hope for smarter, original films because there are so many smaller production companies popping up that focus on genre films. Also, with the booming DVD business, there are a lot of opportunities for new films to find an audience. I saw some great films at Screamfest this year. Two of my faves were “Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon” and “Automaton Transfusion.” “Behind The Mask” was a smart, horror movie that turned the slasher genre on its head. And “Automaton Transfusion” was a kick ass zombie film that was shot for $10,000 Dollars. The fans need to go out of their way to support these type of films if they want to see more of them. Weresmurf: What steps are you and the others taking to make sure Day of the Dead doesn’t fall into the “craptacular" category other recent releases seem to have sunk into? Jeff: On the writing front, I really just strived to write the best movie possible. One thing we didn’t want to do was try and copy Romero’s film with a bigger budget. Romero is one of a kind and it would be arrogant to try to out-Romero him. I was fortunate in that Steve Miner was very clear about what he wanted to do. So he fought to make sure that we got the time and budget to do the movie right. My original take on the DOTD remake was a lot closer to the original film. About 75% of the movie took place in the bunker and many of the key characters, and their relationships, were similar. We updated the story so that it fit with the current world climate. With our new war on terror, the political climate is a lot different than it was 20 odd years ago. So I wanted to take George Romero’s themes and explore them in the context of the world we live in now. However, there were a lot of restrictions. Because of the rights, the movie could only be a remake of DOTD. It couldn’t be connected to “Night” or “Dawn.” It couldn’t be a sequel to the “Dawn” remake, as those rights are owned by another studio. We also didn’t have the rights to Romero’s unproduced script, so using that material wasn’t possible. But during the develop process, the story ended up focusing more on the military and civilians fighting this zombie outbreak in a small town. I was able to keep the bunker. But now it plays a key role in the 3rd act…and isn’t the focal point. Several other similarities were also striped away. Do I wish they were still there… absolutely. But when I was hired, I was contractually obligated to deliver a script that satisfied everyone. So while it’s not as close to Romero’s film as I had originally hoped, it’s still a strong zombie film and I’m proud of it. I took some solace in the fact that the “Dawn” remake…which I enjoyed…was only similar to the original in that it took place in a mall. The rest of the film was different. Weresmurf: Of late, in various talkbacks on various sites, a few people seem to have some sort of vitriol against the cast that's been assembled, particularly comments about Mena Suvari as one of the characters, whilst I don‘t share their opinion personally, (va va va voom Mena!!!) what do you have to say about this? Jeff: I think the cast has done a great job. Actors act, and if they’re given a chance to play against type they often shine. Actors get pigeon holed by studios and audiences. Daniel Craig has been reviled for playing Bond. People initially scoffed at Charlize Theron in Monster. I have a theatre background, so I usually give actors the benefit of the doubt. There’s nothing worse than seeing a vapid, beautiful actress trying to play a scientist or military person. But Mena is extremely smart and tough in person and she’s believable as Sarah. We’re so used to seeing the movie “tough gal type” kicking ass, but my sis is in the reserves and I’ve met most of her friends. She and her friends are very attractive. But they can still kick a guys butt when push comes to shove. As for the characters, we thought it would be more interesting dramatically, to see how unseasoned military personnel dealt with a zombie outbreak. There have been so many movies, including “Resident Evil” and “Doom”, where hardened military badasses fight zombies or monsters. We wanted to do something different. I wrote Sarah, Salazar and Bud as late 20’s and early 30’s. Captian Rhodes was in his 40’s and Dr. Logan was in his 50’s. Mena, Nick and Stark are 27, 26 and 29, so they’re certainly not high schoolers. Actually considering the make up of the armed services today, they’re middle aged. Overall, I found the DOTD cast dedicated, down to earth and hard working. None of them thought they were lowering themselves to be in a horror movie. Weresmurf: When some footage was released online recently, it was quickly criticized by people and put down. The people pointed out things like the lighting, the look of the zombies etc. Is it true the footage was unfinished and released before the director was happy with it, and again, your personal thoughts on the reaction towards it from the public at large? Jeff: The “trailer” that showed up online was actually something that Steve Miner cut in Bulgaria for the cast and crew wrap party. It’s not even cut like a trailer, it’s more like a presentation reel. It was taken from an avid output, so the color, quality and sound were all temp. I was surprised when it appeared on the web. I called the producers and told them that they should have someone cut a real trailer because people were going to think that was the real one. But they’re waiting to do an actual trailer until the movie is finished. Oh, and that line, “It’s a bad day to be a zombie”… was adlibbed. Weresmurf: I think we all want to know... what the hell is Ving Rhames like in real life. The man just exudes cool in any movie he's starring in. He even made MI:2 watchable! Jeff: I got nothing. Ving wasn’t in Bulgaria when I was on set. I was beyond bummed, but everyone said he was really cool and professional. Weresmurf: Your experience on writing Day of the Deads remake, how was it compared to your past efforts on the Final Destination series? (Your most well known credits amongst us movie fans.) Jeff: I worked at New Line Cinema for 11 years and they’re the studio that produced “Final Destination.” I credit Bob Shaye (New Line Cinema’s founder) and his assistant, Joy Mann for my career. Bob inspired me when I was a young kid who wrote him when I was a 14 year old horror fan living in Eastern Kentucky…and Joy got me an internship at New Line when I was 19. New Line bought my treatment and hired me to write the script. When they went out to directors, I was a big fan of James Wong and Glen Morgan’s work and was really excited when they were attached to the project. They had their own ideas for the story, but Bob kept me in loop and sent me every draft of the script and asked for my input. This was incredibly respectful, because once a script is sold, the original writer is often kicked to the curb. The biggest difference is that “Final Destination” was a big studio film, based on something original I wrote, so I had a lot of creative leeway. With the “Day of The Dead” remake, I was a hired writer there were more constraints. Weresmurf: Have you seen anything filmed on Day of the dead, that you can tell us about that you were particularly proud of? Jeff: I’ve seen a rough cut of the film and thought it was a fast and furious zombie film. Once all of the gore FX’s and the final music and sound are incorporated, it’s gonna be great. I wanted to balance the action and scares with real human drama and I think those moments are the best. All of my favorite moments involve spoilers, but I really like the character, and arc, of Bud. I know there’s been some complaints about the creative direction we took, but I think it works. Weresmurf: How was it being a Zombie on the set of Day of the dead? Jeff: The geek in me loved every minute of it. It took them 3 hours to do the zombie make up…and I was as giddy as a schoolgirl on prom night. A manly schoolgirl… Weresmurf: Did you end up having a gory demise or partaking in someone’s demise? Jeff: I was bummed because I didn’t get to chomp on anyone. I have a small role scene as a deputy, who gets attacked…but the carnage is off-screen. But I did get zombified and break in to the bunker when it’s over run by zombies at the end. Weresmurf: Stark Sands, who plays Bud in the remake, (Bub's re-envisioned character for anyone who doesn't know.) has been unfairly copping a lot of flak on the message boards as of late for the changes made to Bub's original characterization. Personally I again, don't share their opinions, I find some of them outright silly, what was your reasoning for changing Bub to Bud and having him as a soldier? Jeff: From the beginning, Steve and I knew that Bub had to be in the film. And the essence of the character—a ghoul who retains some instincts from when he was alive—is the same. This theme was explored by Romero in his original “Dead” films. In “Dawn” the people who congregated at the mall when they were living, returned there as zombies. But the story is different. The remake of DOTD takes place in 24 hours…it’s a literal day of the dead. So we had to find a natural way to show this. For instance, people who were in the military before turning into zombies retain some of their knowledge about shooting guns…even though they’re impaired by the fact that they’re, you know, dead. Stark Sands, who plays Bud, was fresh off “Flags of Our Fathers.” He’s a great actor and he studied the work of Sherman Howard from the 1985 film. You’ll see a lot of that in “zombie Bud.” And yes, the character’s name is now “Bud.” The change was intentional, because “Bub” is commonly used as a dismissive term. That fit with the Romero film, since the characters saw him as just another undead creature. But he’s more than that in the new film; he’s a pivotal character who’s got a connection with the others. And yes, one of his traits before he turns is that he’s a vegetarian—but that’s a small part of who the character is and what he becomes. There are several larger traits that play into his character and role in the film. . Weresmurf: How often do movie makers REALLY look at places like IMDB.com and weigh up advice from posters there? Jeff: I can only speak for myself. I go on there more than I should. I’ve always loved movies, so I like to keep up with what’s happening out in the world. For me, it’s also a matter of trying to grow as a writer. But I know a lot of writers and directors who don’t read any press on themselves though. I’m not sure how much impact the stuff online has on finished films. I think it depends on the producers, director and writers. I knew with DOTD the fans expected certain things. And I tried to incorporate as much as I could. But a lot of the stuff I wanted to include didn’t make it into the final film. Personally, I think it’s a mistake to try to create a movie based solely on other people’s opinions. They tried that with “Snakes on a Plane” and it didn’t work. And with a forum as huge as the web, there’s no way you can please everyone. Also, with any movie you’ve already got half a dozen studio executives and producers giving their input. Add to that a director and the actors and you’ve got way too many chefs in the kitchen already. I enjoy the intelligent, thoughtful discussions. It’s cool to see the fans passion for a project. But you have to wade through a lot of shit to find it. So many of the talkbacks are people either bashing the hosts of the site, the reviewers, or each other. Weresmurf: The thing that really pisses me off personally is when I see people on a movie board, or people in real life who condemn a movie to hell before seeing anything about it. (Ok I’m guilty of trashing Uwe Bolls movies personally, but isn’t that justifiable???) Currently the hatred against Transformers is perplexing me. No ones seen a damn thing about it asides a few still concept shots and a few toys, not to mention a script that's possibly been heavily altered, yet apparently it's 'the worst thing' ever. I noticed on the boards of various sites, that the same type of hatred towards Day of the Dead? How does this affect the people making the movie? What effects does it have on you on a personal level? Jeff: Again, you learn to roll with the punches. It’s a tough business. And it’s human nature for people to build others up and rip them down. Before I worked in Hollywood, I thought making movies was simple…you write a good script, someone throws a little money your way and you get to make a great movie. But the people who control the purse strings are often only concerned with making a profit. Many of them don’t care about movies or creativity. They’re operating from a place of fear, so they’ll only finance movies that have the best shot at making money…i.e. safe films. This is true of any genre. These people don’t care about the hatred online as long as the box office numbers are high. I met a writer who worked on a highly popular comic adaptation. He had to take a bodyguard to convention appearances because he got death threats. When the hatred gets to that level, I think it’s ridiculous and petty. I know some writers who have been crippled by criticism, others that ignore it and some who try to grow from it. I hope to fall in the latter category. I’ve always taken constructive criticism well, but if I feel that someone’s just being bitchy, it’s water off a ducks back with me. But the toughest thing is trying to separate your script from the finished film. I’ve had scripts changed by people who have never written before. I wrote an MOW that was literally dumbed down because an executive thought the dialogue and plot were “too clever” for their audience. I’ve had scripts stripped down to the bare minimum because of budget and scheduling cuts. So that criticism is frustrating, because it’s often about problems that weren’t in your original script. Weresmurf: What's up next for Jeffrey Reddick, what does your future hold? Jeff: I just sold a horror pitch, which I’m currently writing. There will be an announcement soon, but it’s a high concept idea and more importantly, it’s an original, so I’m really excited about it. I’m also working on getting the financing together for a horror project that I plan to direct. That’s the only way, as a writer, to insure that your vision ends up on screen. Then, succeed or fail, you know you’ve given it your best shot. Weresmurf: Thank you so much for your time Jeff, we appreciate you answering these for us! Jeff: My pleasure. J *** Just a footnote to this interview, which has been added after the emails went back and forth. I have to say that Jeff came across as a great guy, willing to do an interview for someone he just met. All thanks to Jeff and I hope his movie does well and his career flourishes. We need more open and honest people like this out there people, so if you do or don’t support Day of the Dead, at least get out there and start supporting independent horrors like Automaton Transfusion and any others you can find. It’s the only way we can get the quality increased or we’ll be subjected to ‘When a stranger calls’ quality ‘horror’ for a long time to come! Look for Day of the Dead in cinemas in 2007 people. This has been a Weresmurf production.
