A Question of Remakes

[Svengoolie]

It's a horror film, p....not a wannabe survivalist's textbook for surviving and escaping a zombie apocalypse in a mall. BTW, in the deleted scenes, it shows them gathering food and (presumably) other supplies from the mall in preparation for their escape. It also shows them fortifying the mall somewhat with furniture and stuff.

[EvilNed]

As I have already pointed out, Stephen develops and wether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For me, it's not crystal clear, but heck yeah the change is there. Just compare Stephen at the start of the film to the end of the film and tell me you don't see the difference? Saying that his mood is simply different can be applied to any number of movies, but that undermines the whole concept of character development. So Steve in the remake was in the mood to jump out of the truck with a gun to take on the zombie horde himself, but earlier in the film he just wasn't in the mood to stand and guard a damn door? Get real. But one thing you cannot deny is that Michael doesn't develop at all. From the very first scene we see Michael to the very last, he remains the same. Yes, there is a scene somewhere in the middle where Michael tells us of his past. But does he develop? Develop means you go from something to something else. Michael doesn't do this. He doesn't go from loser to leader. He's a leader when we meet him, the development has already taken place when the movie starts. The only real development in the film is C.J., but I don't think I have to explain that one since it's a pretty obvious one.

[p2501]

i'm not looking for a wannabee anything, just some degree of intelligence. frankly if my thoughts constitute a text book reference, i'm somewhat impressed. it was **** i thought up with 30 seconds of each scenerio being presented. the average (functional) person manages to overcome problems everyday, in a far more effective manner than what we were given within the context of this film. It suffers from some truly horrible screen writing.

[Svengoolie]

As I have already pointed out, Stephen develops and wether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For me, it's not crystal clear, but heck yeah the change is there. Just compare Stephen at the start of the film to the end of the film and tell me you don't see the difference? Saying that his mood is simply different can be applied to any number of movies, but that undermines the whole concept of character development. So Steve in the remake was in the mood to jump out of the truck with a gun to take on the zombie horde himself, but earlier in the film he just wasn't in the mood to stand and guard a damn door? Get real. But one thing you cannot deny is that Michael doesn't develop at all. From the very first scene we see Michael to the very last, he remains the same. Yes, there is a scene somewhere in the middle where Michael tells us of his past. But does he develop? Develop means you go from something to something else. Michael doesn't do this. He doesn't go from loser to leader. He's a leader when we meet him, the development has already taken place when the movie starts. The only real development in the film is C.J., but I don't think I have to explain that one since it's a pretty obvious one. Take about 99% of that post and substitute "Stephen" for "Michael" and you'd be correct. i'm not looking for a wannabee anything, just some degree of intelligence. frankly if my thoughts constitute a text book reference, i'm somewhat impressed. it was **** i thought up with 30 seconds of each scenerio being presented. the average (functional) person manages to overcome problems everyday, in a far more effective manner than what we were given within the context of this film. It suffers from some truly horrible screen writing. Every point you brought up (and then some) also applies to the origninal, and yet you praised it for its "intelligence" and pointed out that GAR's script featured better planning than the remakes. How so?

[EvilNed]

Take about 99% of that post and substitute "Stephen" for "Michael" and you'd be correct. Once again, I can't comment that because you won't back it up with anything. As far as I'm concerned, it seems I've won this argument. Unless you can explain to me how someone who remains exactly the same throughout the entire film can "develop", I have nothing further to say. Please name a few scenes where Michael develops, or where you can tell that he has.

[Svengoolie]

What do you want me to do? Quote myself? And, you've lost the argument. You've been unable to prove anything other than you have a complete ignorance of the mechanics of screenwriting and the definition of character development. Unless you can explain to me how someone who remains exactly the same throughout the entire film can "develop", I have nothing further to say. That's what I've been asking you to explain to me about Stephen all along. As for Michael's development, I've explained it throughout our exchange. It's too bad, really. I was hoping for an actual debate from you.

[p2501]

if anything i expect the remake to be better than the original, otherwise what was the ****ing point? in the original they made it a forefront issue to address fortify and securing the mall. In the remake they were fine with just having a 1/4 inch sheet of fracture resistant polymer between them and the zombies. the original had alot more group coheision, while the remake was basicly 7 or 8 individual stories going on without resolution, plot or point. The original featured an element of planning (at least for peter, and initially rodger) in that they formulated ways to out manuver the zombies, and picked when the fight. the remake has CJ's epic speech about how dumb the boat plan was. The original atleast had some element of subtext, that effected the characters. the remake...had...um...... that blond guy from "Medium" who was pretty good.

[EvilNed]

Look, Sven, the only thing you've proven is that there is a scene where Michael tells us of his past. Answer me this question: Does Michael develop from the first time we see him to the last time we see him? The answer is No. Just because we get some backstory on him doesn't mean he develops at all. His development has already been completed when we see him the first time. Never throughout the entire film is this issue ever brought up. Quite simply, he simply doesn't develop. I don't know why you insist on using Michael as an example either, seeing as he doesn't develop when C.J. so obviously does. Does Stephen? He develops on a small scale, but since he's not the protagonist anyway, I don't see why you're so hooked up on him. First time we see him he's quite alright. Sane. He goes deeper into depression until he snaps. I mean, is that not development? Is there not a change there? Answer me: The situation I just explained, does it involve a change? The answer is yes. Sorry, but I don't know how to make it anymore clear than that. But since you refuse to lay forth any more evidence, or point out anymore examples, I'm just going to assume you have nothing further to say.

[Svengoolie]

in the original they made it a forefront issue to address fortify and securing the mall. In the remake they were fine with just having a 1/4 inch sheet of fracture resistant polymer between them and the zombies. In the original, they lock the doors and block off the outsides with trucks. Hardly comprehensive...especially since Peter was expecting trouble. The zombies couldn't get in, sure...but the looters had no problems whatsoever. If Peter was so serious about fortifying the place, he would've then blocked the doors off from the inside with whatever he could find, instead of just leaving those doors unprotected. In the remake's deleted scenes, they lock the doors and then block them off with furniture and boxes and such. The original featured an element of planning (at least for peter, and initially rodger) in that they formulated ways to out manuver the zombies, and picked when the fight. the remake has CJ's epic speech about how dumb the boat plan was. Almost everything they did maneuver-wise was unplanned and spur of the moment, from the "ol' oke-doke" to getting the car up and running. As for the planning, sealing off the mall and blocking the entrances was half-assed, to say the least. Peter had it so "planned" that he thought to hide the entrance to the hideout from looters, but did nothing else to keep them from taking the mall with relative ease. How smart was that? Everything the Fab Four did right from the start was improvised and spur of the moment with little planning whatsoever. Hell, they took off in the stolen chopper with no food, no water, no radio, no destination, and no plan besides getting away.... Look, Sven, the only thing you've proven is that there is a scene where Michael tells us of his past. Answer me this question: Does Michael develop from the first time we see him to the last time we see him? The answer is No. Just because we get some backstory on him doesn't mean he develops at all. His development has already been completed when we see him the first time. Never throughout the entire film is this issue ever brought up. Quite simply, he simply doesn't develop. I don't know why you insist on using Michael as an example either, seeing as he doesn't develop when C.J. so obviously does. Not even. Unlike you, Ned...I showed how both characters did or didn't show development. You don't even seem to understand what the term "character development" actually means, let alone how it applies to those characters. It doesn't matter when we learn about Michael's loser past. What matters is that we did. And, what matters is that Michael is still a stronger character than Stephen, as I've already proven. Does Stephen? He develops on a small scale, but since he's not the protagonist anyway, I don't see why you're so hooked up on him. First time we see him he's quite alright. Sane. He goes deeper into depression until he snaps. I mean, is that not development? Is there not a change there? Answer me: The situation I just explained, does it involve a change? The answer is yes. Stephen is the main character of Dawn. Everything revolves around him. His character pulls all the others together. And, the entire social commentary of the film is based around him. Peter, Roger, and Fran might be more popular, or likeable...but the fact of the matter is Stephen is the main character. He doesn't change at all. The emotional stages you cited were merely symptoms of his selfishness, as I've pointed out to you before. His selfishness is his primary motivation--everything he does is based on that. Are you even reading the posts, or are you just trying to argue?

[Craig]

Svengoolie, I've defended the remake along side you, and yes you and Ned do have good points but I can't see where you yourself have explained how Michael develops, especially how he develops more than Stephen. You just seem to have stated that he does develop... Not how, or what it means for a character to develop. I may be missing the point, but what does character development actually mean to you? Ned might have more basis for debate if you can tell him. Does character development suggest change in personality? (Stephen definitely starts changing towards the end of the film) Does it suggest a more developed background story to the character? (if so then in that respect Michael may win the argument) Does it suggest relationships with other characters? (Stephens relationship with Fran does deteriorate as time in the mall goes on, as Michael and Annas relationship, just begins to surface). It could mean many things Sven, what does it mean to you?

[Svengoolie]

It's not a question of what character development means to me, Craig...it's what it actually means in terms of screenwriting and writing in general. Character development is the little tidbits which are not connected to the plot in general that help a character come alive to the audience. Stuff like personality quirks, backstory, general information about that character, etc. It's also how a character changes or grows over the course of the story. In the Dawn remake, we actually get a chance to learn a little bit about Michael. The jobs he had before the zombie apocalypse. The fact that he had three wives, and a child before the $hit hit the fan. In his own dialogue, we learn that he was basically a loser before the dead rose, and in the wake of the zombie apocalypse, he's able to finally realize his full potential and not only excell at surviving himself, but he becomes a leader as well. It doesn't matter that this information came directly from him, or that it came in the last half of the flick--it's still there. As for the original, we know nothing at all about Steven...except that he's a helicopter pilot and Fran's on again/off again boyfriend for at least the past 3-4 months. That's basically it for backstory. Although the Fab Four's initial escape is largely based upon his friendship with Roger, we know nothing at all about that friendship. For all we know, they could've met and swapped spit in a jacuzzi in the back of a gay strip club. Over the course of the film, his entire motivating factor is his own selfishness--his entire character is dominated by that....from the time he steals the helicopter and bullies Fran into leaving, to when he abandons her without a rifle to join his play pals in looting, to when he opens up on the bikers for looting his mall, and finally to when he comes back as a zombie and goes to eat his former friends. He's the same selfish prick that he is at the start of the film all the way to the end, even when he comes back as a zombie. No change. It's that selfishness that's actually the social commentary of that film. When asked to explain the social commentary behind the original Dawn, most fans either ignore the question, flame the guy asking it, or just throw out the canned response of "it's an attack on consumerism--it's set in a mall, and the zombies are supposed to be the ultimate comsumers". But, that's not really it... The film is an indictment of the selfishness of that era...the "Me" Decade...of the 1970s. And, that consumerism is really just a symptom of that selfishness. Stephen is the ultimate representation of that selfishness from the start of the film right up till the end. It's that constant selfishness that GAR is attacking, and that sentiment is present especially when you piece every bit from every different version together. See what I'm talking about now?

[Craig]

See what I'm talking about now? Yes I do.

[Sir James Forbes]

From wanker extraordinare..."You can take your ass o'er to Holiday Inn shack, if it's still there!"...to selfless hero..."Yeah, it ****in figures"... Now there's a character and a couple of lines I will remember over the years!

[EvilNed]

Unlike you, Ned...I showed how both characters did or didn't show development. You don't even seem to understand what the term "character development" actually means, let alone how it applies to those characters. -More Text- I'm sorry, but that's just what you never did. You never showed us anything about Michael, except that he has a backstory. He never develops. He never goes from point A to point B. If you're talking about learning more about him as a character, then yes we learn something about him. So you're right there. But in one scene we learn all there is to know about him. That's it for character development on the Michael department, and I'm sorry but that's grossly outshined by Stephen. We learn what Stephen's former job is, we learn that he is Fran's boyfriend and we learn that, as you say, he's selfish. We also learn he's depressed, he's unstable and not what he cracks himself up to be. I'd say that is alot more than we get to know about Michael. Michael is not a stronger character than Stephen. Let's put it this way: In the end of the remake do we care about Michael? Not in the least. Why? Because he was improperly handled. We weren't shown what Michael was all about. His backstory suggests he's a loser, his actions suggests he's a leader. Now which is it? Since it's a dumb Hollywood film, I can't say I'm yelling at the television and telling them to make up their mind, but Michael simply isn't a strong character. However, at the end of the original we have followed these guys for two hours, we have learned to like them. Their relationship with each other. We've watched them develop. Here, we care. I know I'm not alone when I say that I was sitting in my chair, really hoping that maybe on this viewing Stephen would get up in that elevator shaft. And I disagree with you on Stephen being the main character. Without Stephen there wouldn't be a movie, true. But without Peter, there wouldn't be a movie either. He's the change. He's the necessary engine. Stephen is just there to bind everyone together. I'm reading your post, and I thank you for backing up your arguments this time. It actually helps to keep this argument alive. But as I've already pointed out, Stephen does develop, his character is set in stone. It's there, alright, it's there. But Michaels? Not so much. I mean, we get one scene where he tells us how he lived. The rest is just him trying to be a leader. Over and over. What kind of a development is that? Not a good one, but then again maybe it wasn't supposed to be.

[Svengoolie]

I'm sorry, but that's just what you never did. You never showed us anything about Michael, except that he has a backstory. He never develops. He never goes from point A to point B. If you're talking about learning more about him as a character, then yes we learn something about him. So you're right there. But in one scene we learn all there is to know about him. That's it for character development on the Michael department, and I'm sorry but that's grossly outshined by Stephen. We learn what Stephen's former job is, we learn that he is Fran's boyfriend and we learn that, as you say, he's selfish. We also learn he's depressed, he's unstable and not what he cracks himself up to be. I'd say that is alot more than we get to know about Michael. Yeah, but you haven't shown how Stephen has developed. All you've shown is how his emotional state changes from scene to scene. That's not development. That's just him manifesting his own selfishness in different ways. He's reacting to the same thing...only in different ways at different stages of the film. That's not growth, or change, or development. I've explained that over and over, but you still seem to keep missing that. It's all tied into the social commentary of the piece as a whole. And, I've shown how Michael changes and that he has backstory. Both come from that scene at the dinner table. As I've said a couple of times, it doesn't matter that it didn't come at the beginning of the film--it's still there. But, we've been over this before...and the only thing you've proven is that you have a complete ignorance of the term "character development" and how it applies to this case. Michael is not a stronger character than Stephen. Let's put it this way: In the end of the remake do we care about Michael? Not in the least. Why? Because he was improperly handled. We weren't shown what Michael was all about. His backstory suggests he's a loser, his actions suggests he's a leader. Now which is it? Since it's a dumb Hollywood film, I can't say I'm yelling at the television and telling them to make up their mind, but Michael simply isn't a strong character. However, at the end of the original we have followed these guys for two hours, we have learned to like them. Their relationship with each other. We've watched them develop. Here, we care. I know I'm not alone when I say that I was sitting in my chair, really hoping that maybe on this viewing Stephen would get up in that elevator shaft. And I disagree with you on Stephen being the main character. Without Stephen there wouldn't be a movie, true. But without Peter, there wouldn't be a movie either. He's the change. He's the necessary engine. Stephen is just there to bind everyone together. Not quite. That's a matter of your own personal experience. And, as I've pointed out before, I think alot of fans confuse familiarity with the characters with character development. They've seen the same film countless times over the years, and have become very familiar with those characters and have found them likeable. That doesn't make them developed. I didn't say that Michael was a strong character, or a perfect one. I simply said he was better developed than Stephen, which I've proven. Stephen is the main character who binds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. 90% of it revolves around him. Peter is a more popular character, sure...but he's not the main character. In effect, he's even more 2 dimensional than Stephen, and reflects GAR's poor screenwriting skills. He's basically "Shaft" in SWAT coveralls, and is a manifestation of GAR's tendency to put whatever is trendy in his flicks. I'm reading your post, and I thank you for backing up your arguments this time. It actually helps to keep this argument alive. But as I've already pointed out, Stephen does develop, his character is set in stone. It's there, alright, it's there. But Michaels? Not so much. I mean, we get one scene where he tells us how he lived. The rest is just him trying to be a leader. Over and over. What kind of a development is that? Not a good one, but then again maybe it wasn't supposed to be. I haven't taken the time to quote myself over and over again to try and break through your ignorance of the technical aspects of what I'm talking about with every single post (although I have been forced to repeat myself several times)...so you already know what you can do with your "I thank you for backing up your arguments this time" crack. Again, you haven't done anything of the sort--you haven't proven anything except your own ignorance of character development. My guess is you don't really know much about the mechanics of writing, do you? You're just winging it in an argument. While that's better than the standard fan's response to all of this, it doesn't make it any less inaccurate. Since you're unable to grasp the technical concept of character development, why don't we move on? Why don't you try to explain to me the social commentary behind the original, instead?