A Question of Remakes

[Svengoolie]

To Evil Ned: Did I say that the remake had perfect characters? Nope. I simply stated that the characters in the remake were better developed than in the original. And, I stand by that statement--in your own post, you summarized what we were able to learn about those characters. Even what little we knew about them was still more than we knew about the characters in the original. And, there's something you left out--character development isn't just the little things that help us get to know those characters, it also applies to how those characters change and grow over the course of the story. And, once again, the remake shows alot more of this than GAR did with his script. I'd also like to note that any screenwriter who writes such a one-dimensional character such as STEVE should be banned from writing anything ever again. If that's the case, then GAR should've had his screenwriter's union card revoked in 1968. You are not alone in your thoughts and opinions, but that still won't stop his own personal thoughts and opinions being classed as "certified and proven facts" ... even if they are only classed as such in his tiny little world Instead of trying to insult me, Deadman...why didn't you ever try to become involved in this thread in a constructive manner, like so many of the other posters did? Answer: You're unable to. And, why is "certified and proven facts" in quotes when I never made any such statement to that effect?

[EvilNed]

I'd be inclined to reply to your post, but seeing as you didn't back up your arguments with anything, I have little to defend. Saying "I stand by my statement, Dawn '04 has better character development, and Romero should have had his union card revoked in 1968!" doesn't just win you the argument, you know.

[Svengoolie]

Actually, I was just thinking the same thing....but do to time restraints (my family is here for the Easter Holiday) my computer time is a little limited. Look for a more comprehensive reply on Monday. But, it IS refreshing to finally meet someone on this forum who's able to respond with intelligence and something that goes beyond "no it's not" for a change.

[EvilNed]

Alright, I'll stay tuned. I had a similar argument over at the IMDb message boards a few weeks ago, so I'm all geared up.

[Svengoolie]

Actually, I don't see it as an argument. Your ability to actually discuss the films you love is a refreshing change of pace. I love the original Dawn for what it is--good stuff and flaws alike. Or else I wouldn't be here in the first place.

[HLS]

In a nutshell, the ways I would change Dawn04: - Drop some of the characters. There seemed to be too many to deal with. - No running/growling zombies(personal preference) - Make it less of an action film and more of a impending doom type deal. All in all, Dawn04 is an okay action film for occasional viewings but I would probably enjoy it alittle more if they had taken a few more notes from Romero's Dawn. Sounds good to me, the movie seemed overly relaxed. I would like to see more fear of doom in it, like Day gave me. It needs a real feeding frenzy, slower moving zombies. I liked Dawn04 but It did not scare me.

[Svengoolie]

To EvilNed: Rather than get into a disorganized, 9000 word **** fest about each and every character, in my initial request to the "fans" posting here I asked them to define "character development" and explain how it applies to the two main male protagonists of each Dawn. So, here goes.... Character Development is the little things that aren't necessarily essential to the plot that helps a character come alive to the reader or audience--personality quirks, backstory, motivations, etc. It's also how a character grows or changes throughout the course of that story. In the original Dawn, the main character is Stephen--he's the one that holds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. But, when it comes down to it, he's as shallow, selfish, and two-dimensional as Steve in the remake is....and what we DON'T know about him is way more than we DO know about him. We know nothing at all about his backstory, other than the fact that he's a helicopter pilot, and that he's been Fran's on-again/off-again boyfriend for at least the last 3-4 months. He's a coward who's only worried about his own wants and needs...and other than that, he's pretty bland, overall. Over the course of the story, he doesn't really change at all--with the exception of becoming both a better shot and a zombie by the end of the flick, he's still the same selfish jerk he was at the end of the flick that he was at the beginning of the flick. Case closed. In the remake, we have Michael--a natural born loser who, in a type of strange, ironic, doomed coincidence...finally gets the chance to realize his full potential and become a leader in the face of the zombie apocalypse; something the wannabe survivalists that are attracted to this genre should be able to appreciate. We learn a little about his history from him (and, it doesn't matter that that history came from him in--what was the point you were trying to make with that, anyway?)...and that little bit is still ten times more than we know about Stephen from the original. Over the course of the story, he becomes something he never could in normal life--a leader...and is even able to form a successful relationship with Ana, which he was unable to do with his three ex-wives. In short, we know something about Michael, and he grows and changes as a character over the course of the film. Unlike Stephen from the original. Hence, he's a better written character. I think alot of fans think that the characters in the original are more developed simply because they're more familiar with them. They've grown to love the Fab Four because they've watched the original countless times over the past 25 years or so. Even though they're two dimensional, they've grown on the fans that way...and in an attempt to defend the original, they throw out terms like "character development" and "social commentary" because they want to say something....anything...good about the original (and, in some cases, while dissing the remake), but they just aren't sure what to say, so they just ape what they see others saying--even when it's inaccurate. The characters in the remake are better written than the ones in the original, but that doesn't mean they're more likeable to some. It's all a matter of taste.

[Adrenochrome]

........ It's all a matter of taste. That should end the debate................or, does it? *I stare at you with my best Vincent Price "sneer" *

[Svengoolie]

Not quite, Adreno... The question here isn't whether or not the Fab Four are/were more likeable than the characters in the remake. The question here is whether or not the characters in the remake were better written, technically, than those in the original. That's the point I've been trying to make. A good analogy for all this would be cars: One guy has a 71 Cougar XR-7 that burns as much oil as it does gas, has no A/C, gets 1 mile to the gallon, and has a broken 8-track player in the dash. But, it's got that classic style and balls-to-the wall power. The other guy has a brand new Mustang, and everything works on that bad boy. It's got a brand new, efficient engine, doesn't leak oil, and gets 30 miles to the gallon. But, it doesn't have the look or style of the classics...and it's got one of those breathalyzers that won't let you start her up if you've had more than two beers. Is one more likeable than the other? That's a matter of opinion. But, technically, the Mustang is a better car...and I'm not going to say that "the Cougar gets better gas mileage" when it clearly doesn't. Or that a broken 8-track player is better than the CD player in the Mustang. See where I'm going with all this?

[EvilNed]

Stephen is definetly leagues ahead of Michael in the "character" department. Problem is I think that you like to see things in black and white, like in Hollywood films (and in the Dawn remake) instead of seeing the greyscales of reallife. Now, now, I'm not saying Stephen is a perfect character. But he's a damn good character. Problem with the original Dawn is that most of the characters there are shown as they would probably be in reallife: Quite depressed. Remember the scene where Fran and Stephen are switching the TV off and on? If that's not a great, pointless scene that shows just how depressed they both are then I don't know what is. But Stephen seems to be locked in some kind of strange "hope" place. Everyone in the film except Stephen realizes that the world is gone. But the scene where Stephen tries to switch on the television... "They might come back on..." Was he that depressed in the start of the film? No, in the start of the film he was quite stagnant about what he wanted. He believed that the world would end, he even told Fran so: "Somebody has got to survive." yet as the film progresses he goes off into looney land. Probably because he can't cope with being one of the survivors. I mean, who do you rely on when the world is gone? That's also why he sees the raiders as bad guys. The other survivors don't see them as bad guys in the same way, because the world is gone. They've accepted it. Stephen hasn't. Fighting raiders makes sense in his world, because he's doing the right thing. Also, Michael doesn't evolve/develop in the remake at all. From the moment we see him he's the same guy he'll end up being for the entire film. There's a short scene where he explains he's a loser, but we never see any of that in the film. Remember the scene at the beginning where Michael realizes they have to shoot that guy who's been bitten? In the end, he makes the exact same decision. I mean, that alone proves my point that Michael doesn't evolve at all.

[Adrenochrome]

That's the point I've been trying to make. here's the point I ALWAYS try to make,.....and, it's one of yours...."........ It's all a matter of taste."

[Svengoolie]

I thought you said you were "geared up for this", Ned.... Re-read the definition for "character development" and tell me how it applies to Stephen in the original. There's nothing there--we know little or nothing about him, and he doesn't change at all by the end of the film. He's entirely two-dimensional, without any depth. Now, is Michael perfect in that respect? Nope. And, I never said he was. But even the little we know about him, and the ways he changes and grows over the course of the film, put him light years ahead of Stephen in terms of character development. And again, the fact that Michael isn't SHOWN to be a loser isn't a valid point--he was a loser before the zombie apocalypse, not after. After the rise of the dead, he was finally allowed to reach his fullest potential. That's the point. We don't see his history of loserness simply because we don't see him before the dead rise.

[EvilNed]

I clearly pointed out how Stephen developed and how Michael didn't. I mean, do you want me to quote myself or...? Michael didn't develop one inch throughout the entire film, whereas Stephen. Well... Compare the Stephen in the opening scene to the scene with the television. It's quite obvious.

[Svengoolie]

I clearly pointed out how Stephen developed and how Michael didn't. Actually, you didn't do any of that, Ned. That's not development.... His aggressiveness at the beginning of the film, his sense of withdrawl in the middle, and his re-assertiveness at the end (when the bikers break in) are all symptoms of the same thing--his selfishness. As I said--he's the same selfish jerk at the beginning of the film that he is at the end. How his emotions vary from scene to scene are motivated by that selfishness and nothing else. That's not development, or change. That's a two-dimensional, stagnant character. As for Michael, he DID change, and found success in the zombie apocalypse. Whether or not we actually SAW that loserness is not the point. His backstory set the stage for that change. I mean, do you want me to quote myself or...? Nope. I just want you do explain to me how Stephen was better developed...or even developed at all...based on the definition of character development. So far, you've been unable to do so.

[p2501]

jumping in late here, but to answer the initial question about Dawn. 1) an effective escape and evasion plan for once they got on the boat. they brough no navigational equipment, maps, or guidance supplies. and don't toss me that "well it got blown up in the bus excuse". **** that. if i were in that situation. i'd of had a map book taped to my body, a back up sextant, and a GPS handheld jammed up my . 2) Andy. A) he should have been thinning the heard outside of the mall. .22 bricks run 500 rounds and i've never seen a gun store that doesn't carry atleast 4 cases of bricks at all times. running through that kind of ammo even on a 2 shots 1 kill basis. that parking lot would have been cleared. b) the have an oxy torch, yet they could'nt have thought to lure the zombies to one side of the mall, lower the torch onto the top of that packaging truck, and slice a drop hole in the top of the cargo area? come on i hashed that out while still watching the fraking movie opening night. then you just drive up. Andy tossed the entire store into the hole, and ya'll drive away gun nut in hand for a nice dinner. 3) armor. they were in a fraking mall, and no one though. gee some sort of bite protection might come in handy? 4) radios. no one brought a goddamn radio on the boat? 5) a deployment plan for the marina. was there one? no really? god i ****ing hate that movie. the only good thing about it was the Robot Chicken sketch featuring Ving Rhames.