No Dawn of the Dead Sequel??

[DeadJonas190]

DJ, I may be misreading your argument with Ned, but are you saying that the movie is not a remake or that it was not marketed as a remake or both? Not trying to take sides here, but I can't recall at any point when it was marketed as a remake, even though it is. Sure, us fanboys/fangirls here and on other zombie forums called it a remake, but I never recall it being marketed as a remake. However, anyway you look at it, the film was made once before and was made again, so therefore it is a remake. Re-envisioning was a word invented along the lines of the word "Quadrilogy" because it sounds better than the word that actually applies (remake and tetraology respectivly). That said, I like Dawn '78 much better than Dawn '04, but they are both entertaining in their own ways.

[EvilNed]

WRONG NED! Half assed thoughts like that is what will keep you out of the really good schools, or keep you from getting really good jobs. Again, show me where this film, in all of it's promotion (TV, RADIO, TRAILERS, ADS IN MAGAZINES) was marketed as a remake. You can't. You are just some fan who is ****ed that a first time director made a zombie film that stomped the ass out of a long awaited half assed sequel by Romero himself. Personal attacks and only reading what you want to read is what will keep you from getting into really good grade schools. But don't worry, you'll grow out of it. Dawn of the Dead. A remake. Fact. Marketed as a remake? How could you avoid it? They only had to post a poster with zombies, the title and the tagline on it and it would automaticly be marketed as a remake. Hyped as a remake? Yes. So once again, I'm right. I don't see what the big fuss is. And since half of your post is complete JIBBERISH, filled with your own opinions, attacks on me and on my views on Land and Dawn, it's kind of sad. Stop seeing what you just want to see, and start seeing WHAT I'M TYPING. I'm saying that whoever says he was let down by the Dawn remake because of the title, has a case. A title like that is guaranteed to be automaticly marketed and hyped as a remake. How can it not be? "Fans, like yourself will continue to believe what you want to believe. I on theother hand go with cold hard facts." I just quoted that line, because I felt it was so stupid, it's almost delicious. Classic way of cramping your own style, right there!

[MinionZombie]

I say again, had it not been for GAR and "Night", there'd be no modern zombie genre, hence no Yawn04. Yeh, it's fun to be the annoying person who flipsides in such a way...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dawn of the Dead. A remake. Fact. Marketed as a remake? How could you avoid it? They only had to post a poster with zombies, the title and the tagline on it and it would automaticly be marketed as a remake. Hyped as a remake? Yes. So once again, I'm right. I don't see what the big fuss is. Again wrong. Just because the poster had zombies and a tagline on it doesn't mean it was MARKETED as a remake. You should really look into marketing, especially for films before you make a statement such as this. However, since you're being stubborn I am not going to bother. You should really get a clue. And since half of your post is complete JIBBERISH, filled with your own opinions, attacks on me and on my views on Land and Dawn, it's kind of sad. Stop seeing what you just want to see, and start seeing WHAT I'M TYPING. I'm saying that whoever says he was let down by the Dawn remake because of the title, has a case. A title like that is guaranteed to be automaticly marketed and hyped as a remake. How can it not be? They have no CASE. You have no CASE. it is YOU who wants to believe what you want to believe. Don't sit and tell me to stop seeing what I want to see. It is you that is only seeing it one way.... do you know why? Because of the title. Your whole argument has been nothing except the title of the film. You made NO other valid argument, nor shown anyone one other shred of evidence that it was MARKETED as a remake. You ask how can it not be marketed as a remake? Easily. During your entire ad campaign (trailers, TV spots, Full page ads depicting the poster) you don't say "a remake of the George A. Romero classic." In any of marketing have you seen that, or anything like that? NO, because if you had you would have brought me some proof and this argument would have ended. Instead you continue to say the say BS. You sound like a broken record. "Fans, like yourself will continue to believe what you want to believe. I on theother hand go with cold hard facts." I just quoted that line, because I felt it was so stupid, it's almost delicious. Classic way of cramping your own style, right there! ? why is it stupid? how does it cramp my style? you are projecting that exact statement with every post while I have given you the proof and differing statements to prove DAWN 2004 was not MARKETED as a remake. "All you have given me is a mouth full of greek salad." DJ, I may be misreading your argument with Ned, but are you saying that the movie is not a remake or that it was not marketed as a remake or both? Not trying to take sides here, but I can't recall at any point when it was marketed as a remake, even though it is. Sure, us fanboys/fangirls here and on other zombie forums called it a remake, but I never recall it being marketed as a remake. However, anyway you look at it, the film was made once before and was made again, so therefore it is a remake. Re-envisioning was a word invented along the lines of the word "Quadrilogy" because it sounds better than the word that actually applies (remake and tetraology respectivly). That said, I like Dawn '78 much better than Dawn '04, but they are both entertaining in their own ways. Although it does use the title DAWN of the DEAD, it really isn't a remake of the original film. Like most posters here have said. That is not DAWN of the DEAD, the only thing in common is the mall and zombies. Which makes them exactly right, and which makes it even clearer that it WAS NOT a remake. Although the term remake is used very loosely what really is a remake? To me 1998's Pyshco is a remake. Night 90 is a remake. DAWN 2004, not a remake, even if it is classified as a remake by general standards. Also, you are right Dead Jonas... DAWN 2004 was never marketed as a remake.

[Svengoolie]

Looks to me like Ned has about as much a grasp of the concept of marketing as he does character development..... Oh, and just one more thing... I say again, had it not been for GAR and "Night", there'd be no modern zombie genre, hence no Yawn04. Yeh, it's fun to be the annoying person who flipsides in such a way... I guess you've never seen The Last Man on Earth, then--the gritty, low-budget B&W Vincent Price classic that GAR "ripped-off" (and those are his own words there) featuring a hero barracaded in his own home against an army of shambling, undead creatures....

[Adrenochrome]

Looks to me like Ned has about as much a grasp of the concept of marketing as he does character development..... "I got a Harley-Davidson. Does that turn you on? Harley-Davidson?"

[MinionZombie]

pfft, like I give a fudge. GAR was the guy who polished and re-moulded a small idea into the diamond he created. Everybody is inspired by something or copies a little bit here and there, it's been going on for decades and decades, it's not like GAR's the first or last to have used inspiration. Like Orson Welles said, it had been going on long before he got into the business and even Citizen Kane himself copied stuff he liked. Big whoop.

[EvilNed]

DJ: I rest my case You should try reading my post next time. Might make it easier to argue with me. Right now, you're arguing against something I never contested in the first place. It's quite funny to watch, mind you, but please read my post next time.

[Hawkboy]

I guess you've never seen The Last Man on Earth, then--the gritty, low-budget B&W Vincent Price classic that GAR "ripped-off" (and those are his own words there) featuring a hero barracaded in his own home against an army of shambling, undead creatures.... Well, that film is an adaptation of the Richard Matheson book "I am Legend" as was "Omega Man" and the upcoming Will Smith film "I am Legend"

[DjfunkmasterG]

DJ: I rest my case You should try reading my post next time. Might make it easier to argue with me. Right now, you're arguing against something I never contested in the first place. It's quite funny to watch, mind you, but please read my post next time. You never had a case, yet you still beat the same dead horse. I read your post, the same moronic ramblings you stated in previous posts and they were all inaccurate. Your case isn't rested, you never had a case to rest!

[EvilNed]

If that makes you sleep at night. Anyway, I'll give you one thing (which just so happens to be the only thing about my argument you adressed), and that's that Dawn of the Dead was never right out marketed as a remake for Dawn of the Dead. But the marketing hype (articles, magazines etc. etc. etc.), and overall hype of the film was obviously filled with this. Don't deny this. Now, this hype gets to the fans, the fans want to see a Dawn of the Dead remake, or at least something that resembles that film. What they get is something completly different, infact it's so far away from the original as possible without breaking the "Zombie genre" bounds. Now, I'm not sure wether you'll agree with this or not, but I'm pretty sure I can assume these are all facts so your opinion on this matter is not needed. This caused hype is what my argument is all about. And I still think that marketing a film as Dawn of the Dead, showing zombies and using the original tagline qualifies as right out BEGGING to be called a remake... Which, ironically, it was also called.

[DjfunkmasterG]

If that makes you sleep at night. Anyway, I'll give you one thing (which just so happens to be the only thing about my argument you adressed), and that's that Dawn of the Dead was never right out marketed as a remake for Dawn of the Dead. But the marketing hype (articles, magazines etc. etc. etc.), and overall hype of the film was obviously filled with this. Don't deny this. Now, this hype gets to the fans, the fans want to see a Dawn of the Dead remake, or at least something that resembles that film. What they get is something completly different, infact it's so far away from the original as possible without breaking the "Zombie genre" bounds. Now, I'm not sure wether you'll agree with this or not, but I'm pretty sure I can assume these are all facts so your opinion on this matter is not needed. This caused hype is what my argument is all about. And I still think that marketing a film as Dawn of the Dead, showing zombies and using the original tagline qualifies as right out BEGGING to be called a remake... Which, ironically, it was also called. Fair enough, as long as you agree it was never marketed as a remake. However, yes I agree, the fan hype/internet buzz hyped it as a remake.

[bassman]

I don't want to get into the middle of your heated arguement here, fellas, but....are remakes EVER marketed as a remake? Honestly, I can't really think of any remake that mentioned the fact that it's a remake within it's own trailer or poster... Then again, sometimes I just can't think at all....so I might be talking out of my a**. Let me know if that is the case here ....

[DjfunkmasterG]

You may be correct. Even the Night 90 version wasn't marketed as a remake, but it is more of a remake than DAWN 2004. I think Texas Chainsaw 2003 was the only film marketed as a remake.

[EvilNed]

Fair enough, as long as you agree it was never marketed as a remake. However, yes I agree, the fan hype/internet buzz hyped it as a remake. I have no quarrels with the remake on this subject, I'm simply proving that those who are disappointed at the film (or were, initially) because of the title, have a case. A title like that, obviously comes with some expactations.