I still havent seen it

[DjfunkmasterG]

It could be contrued as that, but there are those of us whom have legitimate gripes about the film. Whereas the gripes about DAWN 2004 are the fact it was called DAWN of the DEAD, but was nothing like DAWN of the DEAD. FYI, The version of DAWN 2004 you have on DVD and saw in theaters is the version shot from the Scott Frank Re-write. I have all 3 versions of the script. James Gunn's Original, Michael Tolkins Re-write and Scott Franks. James Gunn's script was the basis for the film which is why he got the credit in the opening credits and the poster... (Stupid WGA rules) however, word for word, and scene for scene was from the Scott Frank Re-write. He just took out all the campy dialogue from Gunns version and goofy moments and made them more realistic and too fit the parameters of the $26 million dollar budget. James only had the idea for the mall as it is, the character of Ana, Kenneth, and Michael. His other characters were deleted and new characters were born (Steve, CJ, Bart and Mekhi's character) They were not in the James Gunn draft that I remember, but showed up in the MT and SF re-writes. They could have taken other characters from JG's script and tweaked them, but they were not who they are now.

[Svengoolie]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, even when they don't correspond to those of their peers. I've had lots of good things to say about the original NOTLD and Dawn...but I don't feel the need to say that Land was a masterpiece, or that Dawn 04 was a piece of crap...just to pay a kind of lip service to the man who made those two films. And, not liking Land doesn't make me any less a fan of the original NOTLD or Dawn. Just like the fact that I enjoyed the Dawn remake doesn't make me any less a fan of the original NOTLD or Dawn. We became fans of the flicks, and of the genre, not because we decided we liked GAR the man...but because of the films themselves. And, like alot of the fans of those originals, I didn't like Land because it's a bad film. If it had been good, I'd praise it just as much as the originals. But it wasn't, so I won't.

[bassman]

Interesting bit of info there, DJ. And see, you say that the people who don't like "Dawn04" very much is only because of the name. This isn't true....not in my case at least and I know there's a few others that feel the same. I'm not going to get into what precisely I don't like about the film because I've done that about 10,000 times, but it's not the name. The name did bug me at first but watching it recently, the name has nothing to do with it. And see, I could turn this around and say that alot of people dislike "Land" only because it was labeled as a "masterpiece" in the advertising. I've heard alot of people say this just like you've heard people gripe about the name "Dawn of the Dead", but in reality....those two factors have nothing to do with the films. It's all in our own opinions and I just think it's ridiculous that people are arguing childishly over this.... I'm not a big fan of "Dawn04" but I will watch it. I'll show it to friends. Hell, there's been a few occasions when I've been going through my DVD rack on my own and just decided, "Hey, i'm in the mood for this". And whether you want to admit it or not, I have a strong feeling that you have or will do the same things with "Land". We became fans of the flicks, and of the genre, not because we decided we liked GAR the man...but because of the films themselves. And, like alot of the fans of those originals, I didn't like Land because it's a bad film. If it had been good, I'd praise it just as much as the originals. But it wasn't, so I won't. But why argue about it though, man? I could say the same thing that you just said except I could replace it with "Dawn04". And "Land" isn't a horrible film. It's a bad film to you. Just as I know that "Dawn" isn't a horrible film...It's just not good to me. All I'm saying is that I respect where those who dislike "Land" are coming from but I don't understand why they don't respect where those who like "Land" are coming from. Because, as I've said, although it's my personal opinion that "Dawn04" isn't that great, there are certain aspects of it that are good and although I do think "Land" is worthy to be called an entry in the "Dead Saga", I can see the flaws that it has. "Big Daddy" is the worst....whew. Someone needed to teach that big fella the ways to act like a zombie ...

[Harold W Brown]

Never mind.

[Svengoolie]

But why argue about it though, man? I could say the same thing that you just said except I could replace it with "Dawn04". And "Land" isn't a horrible film. It's a bad film to you. Just as I know that "Dawn" isn't a horrible film...It's just not good to me. I stated my opinions...and those opinions were challenged in an increasingly confrontational manner. Hence, the argument/debate. And, I stand by those opinions. Throughout this forum, here and there, I've not only stated my opinions...but have given reasons as to why I feel that way, about certain films or aspects of those films. But, most of what I've seen in response are posts that are either attacks, or posts that border on attacks. And, nevertheless....we're discussing all of this. That's what a discussion board is for. All I'm saying is that I respect where those who dislike "Land" are coming from but I don't understand why they don't respect where those who like "Land" are coming from I respect other people's opinions just fine. You haven't seen me take things to a personal level anywhere in this forum, yet. I haven't even called anyone "sweetheart" or "chief" or "kid" or told them to "move on". I've kept things entirely civil.

[bassman]

I guess Harold put it best..."Nevermind". Some people are just closed minded. And just so you know, "chief" and all that stuff wasn't meant as an insult, buddy.

[Svengoolie]

I guess Harold put it best..."Nevermind". Some people are just closed minded. I'm not being closed minded at all. As a matter of fact, I'm very open minded....I'm able to be a fan of both GAR's shamblers AND the runners of 28 Days and Dawn 04, remember? My mind's just made up. I gave Land five chances, total--3 at the theater, and twice on DVD.....which is more than it deserved, and more chances than I've ever given ANY film I've disliked on the first viewing. And, it only got worse with each sit down. Instead of giving us something new and original...instead of giving us a fresh take on the genre...all GAR did was give us an updated rehash of the original script for Day, only with the zombies as metaphors for the Arab world (instead of the homeless) thrown in to make it seem more relevant on the "social commentary" scale. On the whole, it was a failure. The performances were horrid--Simon Baker's performance was as bland as Joe Pilato's was over the top; and Robert Joy oughtta be ashamed of himself. Except for the Mexican rap from that midget's whorehouse, the soundtrack was entirely forgettable. As usual, the it lags in places, and the plot (such as it was) had holes you could drive Dead Reckoning through....and most of those holes were there just to get the zombies eating, which has always been the bread and butter of the series. In terms of dialogue, it's up to GAR's usual poor standard of profanity and racial stereotypes, and the rest is usually non-representative of the characters speaking it. I could go on and on, but by now you're not even listening, anyway. GAR laid a turd on us with this one. But, just because that turd came out of GAR's rectum, alot of the "fans" feel we have to accept it and praise it.....regardless of how they probably REALLY feel about it inside. But, as Harry said...and then as you said....nevermind.

[Arcades057]

I remember leaving the theater disappointed with Dawn '04, but not nearly as much as I was with Land. The reason why the disparity is simple: One was not touted as a masterpiece. Dawn was said to be a remake of a horror classic, which it was. Not at all on par with the original, not nearly, but a good zombie movie nonetheless. Would it have been better with the shamblers, no doubt, but the movie would've been entirely different, and maybe not in a good way. The thing is, Land was touted as a masterpiece, which it most assuredly was not. Was it a good zombie movie, a soon-to-be-priceless addition to any zombie lover's collection, no doubt about it. Was it a good movie on its own merits, having nothing to do with GAR? No, it was not. The acting was terrible, the script was almost as bad as the new SW trilogy, and the entire movie, as said by SvenGoolie, was devoted to knocking Bush and the rich while making terrorists out to seem like missunderstand anti-heroes. Had this movie been made, say, in the late nineties or even early '01maybe I would like it just a little bit more. As it stands, because of these things, I do not like it nearly as much as Dawn '04 (only the director's cut), and nowhere near as much as any of the original three. There are many things that, dare I say it, need to be fixed before I can call this movie even among the top three of the series. Will I ever watch it again? Undoubtedly. But I'll watch it for the same reasons I sit through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to get to Revenge of the Sith: Just because I feel that I have to.

[Trioxin245]

"The Legendary Filmmaker Brings You His Ultimate Zombie Masterpiece" It was all one fat lie.

[Svengoolie]

I remember leaving the theater disappointed with Dawn '04, but not nearly as much as I was with Land. The reason why the disparity is simple: One was not touted as a masterpiece. Dawn was said to be a remake of a horror classic, which it was. Not at all on par with the original, not nearly, but a good zombie movie nonetheless. Would it have been better with the shamblers, no doubt, but the movie would've been entirely different, and maybe not in a good way. I didn't know anything about the Dawn remake until about ten days before it's debut. No bs. I walked into that theater expecting either a NOTLD 90 style send up of the original, or a retro redux, like the TCM remake a few months before. Although I didn't get the climactic motorcycle raid on the mall, I still enjoyed the hell out of what I got...and look forward to a sequel, which is more than I can say for Land. The thing is, Land was touted as a masterpiece, which it most assuredly was not. Was it a good zombie movie, a soon-to-be-priceless addition to any zombie lover's collection, no doubt about it. Was it a good movie on its own merits, having nothing to do with GAR? No, it was not. The acting was terrible, the script was almost as bad as the new SW trilogy, and the entire movie, as said by SvenGoolie, was devoted to knocking Bush and the rich while making terrorists out to seem like missunderstand anti-heroes. Had this movie been made, say, in the late nineties or even early '01maybe I would like it just a little bit more. As it stands, because of these things, I do not like it nearly as much as Dawn '04 (only the director's cut), and nowhere near as much as any of the original three. That's a funny statement, there. It's like you're saying that the only thing that makes it worthwhile...its only redeeming quality...is the fact that it's a GAR flick. What does the fact that GAR made Land have to do with its overall quality? If, like in some Bizzarro World or something, John Russo suddenly came out with the best zombie flick of all time...I wouldn't care that it had John-boy's name on it. I'd still hail it for what it is. Same thing for the Dawn remake--I enjoyed it for what it was....and I could care less that it was written by the guy who wrote Scooby Doo or directed by a guy who's got nothing but commercials and music videos to his credit prior to the remake. I think we should concentrate on what's being made, instead of who's making it. There are many things that, dare I say it, need to be fixed before I can call this movie even among the top three of the series. Will I ever watch it again? Undoubtedly. But I'll watch it for the same reasons I sit through Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones to get to Revenge of the Sith: Just because I feel that I have to. Why do you feel you have to? Your thoughts, kemosabe...

[Arcades057]

Well, as I said, Sven, I didn't like the movie. The only redeeming quality that makes it stick out in anyone's mind are the words "GEORGE A. ROMERO'S" before the title. That is the only thing that distinguishes Land from another crappy CGI zombie movie, like Undead. Does that make the movie better, since it's coming from the self-professed master of the genre? Hell no it doesn't. The GEORGE A. ROMERO is the only quality that anyone who likes the movie will latch onto to defend it. As for the rest, I don't know why I feel I have to watch the crappy movies before Sith, I just do!

[Svengoolie]

Gotcha. I wonder what would have happened if the exact same movie had been released as "John Russo's Land of the Dead" or "Zack Snyder's Land of the Dead" instead of "George A Romero's Land of the Dead". Would the die hard GAR fans still defend it as the high quality zombie piece wrought with social commentary that they claim it is...or would they blast it for being the chunk of crap the nay-sayers called it as? What do you think?

[Arcades057]

You know it'd be another "Yawn '04", with the fanboys criticizing it. I think we would have liked it more had it not been a GAR film. Without all the hype it may have stood out a little more. And, of course, had GAR made Dawn '04 the same people knocking it and backing Land would pull a reverse and back the other. It's all the same, man.

[Harold W Brown]

I think we would have liked it more had it not been a GAR film. No doubt.

[bassman]

Well, as I said, Sven, I didn't like the movie. The only redeeming quality that makes it stick out in anyone's mind are the words "GEORGE A. ROMERO'S" before the title. That is the only thing that distinguishes Land from another crappy CGI zombie movie, like Undead. Does that make the movie better, since it's coming from the self-professed master of the genre? Hell no it doesn't. The GEORGE A. ROMERO is the only quality that anyone who likes the movie will latch onto to defend it. As for the rest, I don't know why I feel I have to watch the crappy movies before Sith, I just do! Not true at all....