Dawn re-make. A homage to Romero's film ?

[Trin]

@Yojimbo - Love the recap!! You hit the nail on the head!! @shootemindehead - Where we differ is that you want to apply a minimum level of quality or creativity to allow it be called a "vision." I don't see it that way. Every movie comes from a vision, even if it is "I Am Legend" which has a myopic and dim vision obscured by dollar signs and Fresh Princes and is insulting to the masterpiece of a book it came from. It's not visionary. But it's still a vision. I'm fine to agree to disagree on that. There just isn't enough in Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' for me to say he had vision and I have seen a film like it...it was called 'Dawn of the Dead'. Are you really willing to stand behind the assertion that Dawn Remake is just Dawn '78 with "a few minor things" and that the movies are alike? Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws. That's a fair statement. Hard to swallow, but fair. Adding to that thought, I think the movies are flawed in different ways, and the nature of the flaws allows me to love one and be meh on the other. @darth - I agree with you that sales (again, hard to swallow) are an important measure of a film's worth. Not necessarily its quality or greatness, but its worth. If nothing else the net from a film drives the industry to produce more films of that genre, director, or... shall I say... vision.

[shootemindehead]

@Yojimbo - Love the recap!! You hit the nail on the head!! @shootemindehead - Where we differ is that you want to apply a minimum level of quality or creativity to allow it be called a "vision." I don't see it that way. Every movie comes from a vision, even if it is "I Am Legend" which has a myopic and dim vision obscured by dollar signs and Fresh Princes and is insulting to the masterpiece of a book it came from. It's not visionary. But it's still a vision. I'm fine to agree to disagree on that. No worries. Are you really willing to stand behind the assertion that Dawn Remake is just Dawn '78 with "a few minor things" and that the movies are alike? Yep, because that's what it is. It's Romero's basic vision, slightly tweaked.

[darth los]

Yep, because that's what it is. It's Romero's basic vision, slightly tweaked. You do know what the implications of that is right guys? That means from now on anything that has spaceships and spandex would be a star trek rip-off, etc....... So henceforth no other Human being is allowed to put Zombies and a mall on the same piece of cellulloid. Make it so.....ENGAGE!!

[shootemindehead]

You do know what the implications of that is right guys? That means from now on anything that has spaceships and spandex would be a star trek rip-off, etc....... No. But if somebody unconnected with the franchise made something called 'Star Trek', but populated it with slightly different people and introduced some slightly different elements, started it differently and ended it differently, you might have a point.

[clanglee]

No. But if somebody unconnected with the franchise made something called 'Star Trek', but populated it with slightly different people and introduced some slightly different elements, started it differently and ended it differently, you might have a point.

[DjfunkmasterG]

^^^^^^^^^ What he said I do hear what you are saying Trin, and within the parameters you have set I agree that Snyder does indeed have vision, as did the makers of Gigli, Howard the Duck and House of the Dead. Clearly, vision alone does not a well-made film make. But I do understand that you are not saying that Snyder made a great film and are merely making a point about the use of the term vision, or lack thereof. Speaking as one of those who did not hate DOTD 04 and found much of it to be entertaining, I can separate my personal disdain for Zack Snyder (who I feel is fucking arrogant, and a paint-by-numbers kind of guy who did not come up with an original idea and has to rely on dudes like James Gunn who was riffing on a good original concept by GAR to put together a decent movie) from the value of DOTD 04, which though I found an entertaining way to spend a few hours I believe will not ultimately have the staying power or win out over DOTD 1978. So, to recap what I have said in the past: 1. I think Snyder can eat shit and die, and the world will barely be affected. He is, among directors, largely replaceable. 2. I did enjoy DOTD 04 for what it is worth - I think it had a decent script and interesting storyline, though inferior to GARs original version. Practically any film school graduate could have taken the James Gunn script for the remake and, with proper funding, put together an enjoyable film. 3. While entertaining to some degree, DOTD 04 is inferior to DOTD 78 (matter of opinion, I am certainly aware) and will never even come close to replacing the original. In the long run, I feel that DOTD 04 will neither have the staying power, rewatchability nor the rabid cult fan base of GAR's DOTD 78. 4. Because he is a contemptible maggot, much too smug, suffering from that same self-entitlement disease that afflicts many in the industry, and because he exhibits little to no respect for the source material, I say again that Zack Snyder can eat my shit and die, and the world will barely notice. In the end, let us give credit where it is due: James Gunn wrote a decent and entertaining script with some bits (like the whiteboard communication) that were new and inventive. Zack Snyder should not receive the credit or praise for those elements which are the result of Gunn's contribution to the project. Actually the script filmed wasn't the James Gunn version, it was the Scott A. Frank Version. The Gunn version was nothing but Troma style exploit, while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay, which is what we ended up with.

[darth los]

@darth - I agree with you that sales (again, hard to swallow) are an important measure of a film's worth. Not necessarily its quality or greatness, but its worth. If nothing else the net from a film drives the industry to produce more films of that genre, director, or... shall I say... vision. That explains the remake/rehash phenomenon. Proven comodities and formulas = big bucks, which = total lack of original creative thinking In the industry for atleast the last decade.

[Yojimbo]

^^^^^^^^^ What he said Actually the script filmed wasn't the James Gunn version, it was the Scott A. Frank Version. The Gunn version was nothing but Troma style exploit, while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay, which is what we ended up with. I don't doubt that I may have been misinformed, but even then it's still the same argument with one different player: Zack Snyder still is not singularly responsible for whatever good visionary work is displayed on the remake. Not that he is entirely not responsible, but again the credit should be given where due. These were still not Snyder's ideas, and looking at the other films he has produced since then it is obvious that he does not have the chops to write & direct like GAR did and instead needs someone else to come up with the visionary ideas so that he can flesh these out in a manner that does not distinguish himself from any film school graduate. Good info all the same. Thanks, brother!

[MinionZombie]

while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay ... You know I had to... ... To compare Yawn and Dawn as both being 'poorly made' (Bassman), I think is terribly unfair. Dawn's 'flaws' merely come about from lack of money, and from an independent talent pool far away from the mainstream system. Yawn is a big budget, by comparison, studio movie with a whole host of mainstream talent (with an added three decades of experience and technical developments) chucked at it like a wet sponge at a grubby whore. The script's heights tremble at mediocre, and lows wallow at utter shit. The characters are a disconnected rabble of wankers you don't care about in the slightest who make absolutely retarded statements and decisions frequently. It's style over substance throughout, the 'zombies' are a blurred smudge of screaming, characterless mush. The over-saturated colour palette is sickly ... *sigh* ... I could, and have historically, go on. Dawn had the indie spirit and production, it had a battle to get onto the cinema screens, it had people cued up around the block waiting to see it, it genuinely shocked cinema goers at the time with it's gore, it has entrenched itself firmly within horror cinema history, it's smart and intelligent, it has interesting named characters, it has featured zombies who don't run and scream like a dinosaur, it's consistently considered Romero's best work to date, the cinematography is great and really takes advantage of the mall setting - indeed the lighting is very talented too considering the vast array of reflective surfaces in there - it was edited old-school fashion by Romero himself, a very talented editor ... I could go on and on and on - but you get my point.

[bassman]

Yeah....I get your point, mz. But I still think Dawn78 is kind of a poorly made film. Hell....even Romero says so in that recent in-home interview. This doesn't mean I don't like the film. I love it. But I can still acknowledge it's flaws. Bad acting, sometimes poor cinematography, cheesy dialogue, etc etc. Romero's best film is Day. That's my word and I'm sticking to it!

[SRP76]

a disconnected rabble of wankers That may be the greatest quote I've ever read. This doesn't mean I don't like the film. I love it. But I can still acknowledge it's flaws. Bad acting, sometimes poor cinematography, cheesy dialogue, etc etc. I don't see how those things are even relevant. They have nothing at all to do with how good a movie is. I could show you an incredibly detailed, wonderfully shot HD clip of the backside of some dude's sweaty nutsack. And guess what? It still doesn't make you want to look at it, no matter how well it's filmed.

[bassman]

I don't see how those things are even relevant. They have nothing at all to do with how good a movie is. Maybe not to some, but I would say acting is important. It is afterall what drives the story.... And I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sweaty nut sack in HD thing.

[shootemindehead]

But they're connected with the Franchise. They ARE the franchise.

[Trin]

@MZ and bassman - I'm not sure your points are really at odds with one another. I agree with both of you. MZ, those are some spot on observations with regard to the differences in movie styles. Bassman, I see the argument behind calling Dawn a poorly made film. I tend to agree more with MZ on some points. Specifically, I think Dawn had excusable and explainable flaws whereas Yawn did not. I'd add that compared to its peers at the time the flaws in Dawn were not so evident as when compared to a 20 year more advanced film industry. I also like MZ's points about the filming challenges and how well the film came out. I've read interviews about how hard filming Dawn was in the mall and it is amazing how well it all came out. Personally, I don't find Dawn cheesy or the acting bad. But I'm willing to admit I have some nostalgic bias there.

[SRP76]

Maybe not to some, but I would say acting is important. It is afterall what drives the story.... And I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sweaty nut sack in HD thing. It should be obvious: the technical details don't alter the story. You can show a nutsack perfectly, but it's still just a nutsack.