Defending Dawn O4

[Wrong Number]

It's like a movie that starts and says based on the novel ___________. (fill in the blank). You know it has something to do with the book but don't expect a shot for shot retelling. I can't speak for anyone else, but I had no expectations of a shot by shot remake, not even close. What I did expect was SOMETHING that tied it to the original like characters, plot, etc. like the NotLD remake Savini did. WN

[bassman]

On the contrary, I can disagree Dawn '04 did not have: - the same characters - the same plot - the same vibe - the same "message" (or any for that matter) - the same type of "monsters" I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies. For example....would you not call The Fly or The Thing updates of previous works? The characters and other essential story points are changed, but it still holds to that core plot, right? I'm not saying I agree with it, as they could have put them in a grocery store and made it the zombie version of "Die Hard in a ______", but with the mall, the zombies, and the name....it's definitely an update. Just not as good as I had hoped...

[Wrong Number]

I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies. In Dawn of the Dead the mall was a critical element to the story and really a 5th main character. In '04 it could have been set pretty much anywhere with no impact to the "plot". The "zombies" from '04 were not zombies, they were more like crazies or rage victims. I do understand you Fly and Thing comparison, but just don't thing '04 had anything in it that made it a remake. WN

[bassman]

In Dawn of the Dead the mall was a critical element to the story and really a 5th main character. In '04 it could have been set pretty much anywhere with no impact to the "plot". The "zombies" from '04 were not zombies, they were more like crazies or rage victims. I agree, but that still goes back to what I was saying about us being big fans. To us those small differences do make it feel very disconnected from the original, but average joe schmoe going to catch a horror film won't know the difference. To him.... it's a mall, zombies, and named Dawn. Remake.

[Wrong Number]

I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies. For example....would you not call The Fly or The Thing updates of previous works? The characters and other essential story points are changed, but it still holds to that core plot, right? I'm not saying I agree with it, as they could have put them in a grocery store and made it the zombie version of "Die Hard in a ______", but with the mall, the zombies, and the name....it's definitely an update. Just not as good as I had hoped... I agree, but that still goes back to what I was saying about us being big fans. To us those small differences do make it feel very disconnected from the original, but average joe schmoe going to catch a horror film won't know the difference. To him.... it's a mall, zombies, and named Dawn. Remake. Maybe so, but it doesn't make them right about it

[Legion2213]

One thing I will say about Dawn 90 is that there were too many characters in there for my liking, could done with less folks tooling around and more focus on just a few survivors. It's also not Zack's fault that modern Malls/Shopping centers don't have much character anymore. And just for the record, I've never said this was the greatest movie since sliced pie, but I think it gets a hard time on this forum, especially when it's better than GAR's last few offerings (IMO of course). ---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ---------- I must have gotten on you guy's good side because i joined a month before he did and I'm still here. That's because your avatar is fucking bizare...people probably decided not to mess with the strange wierdo.

[Trin]

Fewer characters would've been better I think too. Although I felt like I knew each one enough to get by. And the ones who were spotlighted were pretty well conceived and played. My major failing with Dawn '04 is just the plot. It doesn't hang in any way. Zombie baby, girl chasing dog, people deciding to leave the mall for a boat, inability to get food to Andy and/or kill the zombies in the area... there's just too much. You're hard pressed to find areas where the plot actually does make sense.

[Mr.G]

[QUOTE=Legion2213;239120] And just for the record, I've never said this was the greatest movie since sliced pie, but I think it gets a hard time on this forum, especially when it's better than GAR's last few offerings (IMO of course). ---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ---------- Sigh...you don't need to be mean.

[darth los]

That was on tele a few weeks ago...I quite enjoyed it...Dennis Hopper was epic. It's amazing how many films that man was in. Sadly even he couldn't save that sinking ship, nor could he save land for that matter. That's because your avatar is fucking bizare...people probably decided not to mess with the strange wierdo. Sometimes it's better to be feared than liked/respected. But i like it. I can't bring myself to change it. The giraffe would be very angry with me.

[DjfunkmasterG]

We all know I enjoy the Dawn remake... However, I do agree with many people here it did have too many plots and story lines as well as characters. Here is what I would have changed if I could of called the shots or re-wrote the screenplay. Lose Mekhi and His Russian Wife - Didn't need them they only serve the purpose to give birth to zombie baby. I didn't care for zombie baby, but at least they did shoot it in the face... although off camera I would also probably drop the two security guards, keep CJ, but the other two OUT! If we get rid of the two guards we can then drop the Girl and Her father story line, although the moment she says goodbye to him before Ving blows his head off was cool, so I might have been prone to keeping it just cast someone else to play the daughter. I would have went in a completely different direction with the daughter... maybe having her stay alone and contemplate killing herself, but Anna (sarah Polly) see she is hurting and maybe comforts her and counsels her through the event. Since they're in the mall for about 34 days you could easily do this, which allows another strong character to come out for the end battle and it helps some character development between Anna and the girl because Anna lost her husband so they could relate to each other... sort of. ANDY, he gets to stay, however, I would have introduced him a little later and have them find more ways of trying to get him and his stuff over to the mall. They had the working truck from the dock before the zombies population really grew they could have made an attempt but it failed and they had to head back to the mall and try again... this would have created more zombie vs human combat scenes and would have been kick ass. Also during the rooftop conversations Andy lets on a little earlier that he is almost out of food. Since Andy and Ving connect very well int he film through the dry erase boards... this could have been a great plot device for Ving wanting to help someone and trying to figure out how he can without getting them both killed. Re-modify the escape by getting rid of the fucking mutt and instead they re-attempt Andy;s rescue which goes completely south on them and they maybe have to hold on his roof and try to figure out how they get back to the vehicles while zombie swarm the storm... Remove all the humor, except for Steve Marcus (Ty Burrell) He kind of stole the movie and since we sort of need his boat... he gets to stay. However, the boat could easily belong to one of the other group members... doesn't matter, but Steve was cool so he stays for now. Michael (Jake Webber) This is without a doubt the best character in the Dawn remake with Andy and Ving coming in second and third respectively. Keep Michaels back story and how he manipulates CJ the same... Now you have a great version of DAWN 2004. At least in my eyes.

[Trin]

Great revision Deej. I like it. I agree that zombie baby must go. Your changes to the girl are fantastic. I also liked the goodbye scene with her dad, and a post trauma suicidal subplot works for her. Lose the dog, definitely. I'm not sure on the Andy rescue gone south angle. I like the idea that there is an Andy rescue attempt. That's a good way to develop the character's reasoning ability, and the whole dog thing was NOT it. I think one major revision that would've greatly served the movie was to focus on the mall's diminishing supplies as a motivation to leave. The whole scene where they devote 2 minutes to haphazard discussion of leaving was forced and implausible. They come close to clowning themselves by having CJ reiterate the plan, making it sound stupid, yet he then agrees. The events of the movie should've occurred on the character's terms more. Too much happened spur of the moment out of the character's control. For example, the girl/dog rescue attempt through the sewers was highly implausible. No one would've done that. A better use of the same basic situation would've been a very highly thought out Andy rescue attempt, handled on their own terms. The Steve character was a missed opportunity. He was cast just to be the selfish asshole. But there is a positive aspect to being pushy and selfish - that kind of person tends to be self-preserving. Given how stupid some of their decisions were he could've been used to pound some sense into the others. That's a real fun read Deej!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Great revision Deej. I like it. I agree that zombie baby must go. Your changes to the girl are fantastic. I also liked the goodbye scene with her dad, and a post trauma suicidal subplot works for her. Lose the dog, definitely. I'm not sure on the Andy rescue gone south angle. I like the idea that there is an Andy rescue attempt. That's a good way to develop the character's reasoning ability, and the whole dog thing was NOT it. I think one major revision that would've greatly served the movie was to focus on the mall's diminishing supplies as a motivation to leave. The whole scene where they devote 2 minutes to haphazard discussion of leaving was forced and implausible. They come close to clowning themselves by having CJ reiterate the plan, making it sound stupid, yet he then agrees. The events of the movie should've occurred on the character's terms more. Too much happened spur of the moment out of the character's control. For example, the girl/dog rescue attempt through the sewers was highly implausible. No one would've done that. A better use of the same basic situation would've been a very highly thought out Andy rescue attempt, handled on their own terms. The Steve character was a missed opportunity. He was cast just to be the selfish asshole. But there is a positive aspect to being pushy and selfish - that kind of person tends to be self-preserving. Given how stupid some of their decisions were he could've been used to pound some sense into the others. That's a real fun read Deej!! Thanks... I mean here is the thing. the remake we have is what we have... it isn't bad but it isn't great. It was a little more light hearted than i would have done it, but I am not the producer or the director. My version would have been as dark as the original... the entire collapse of everything. i like your idea about the food supply, showing shots of them noticing they have less and less each day. I just feel that it could have had so much more potential... The one screenplay by Michael Tolkein was friggin awesome... it had a sequence of a fighter jet carpet bombing a major city that was totally over run, but when the studio slashed the budget by 50% they had to drop it... Thank House of the Dead for that.. Fuckers. Mike TOlkeins screenplay didnt have near the amount of humor the Scott Frank screenplay did, but they both did keep a lot of the same story elements. Why James Gunn gets full credit still bothers me, because his screenplay is nothing like what the finished movie is like at all. Find the Scott Frank Screenplay and the James Gunn Screenplay compare them and watch the movie you will see what I mean. The fucking WGA rules is what prevented Scott and Michael form getting any credit. Not trying to take away anything from James, he had some cool ideas they kept and others that were tossed out because again the budget was slashed, but his screenplay had a lot of dumb fucking characters doing even dumber things that lindy booth did going after that fucking dog. Again, I think Zack did a good job with what he had, and us sitting here re-writing the movie isn't going to change it, but from a fans perspective and as a filmmaker the stuff I suggested would have been my version of Dawn of the Dead 2004.

[Trin]

Dumb characters doing dumb things. I mean isn't that the hallmark of the curent trend in zombies? Or post-apocalyptic in general? With a dash of over-actiony? I look at some other genres and I just have to wonder where the writing went from horror. Seriously, take Lisbeth from "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and do a character and plot study. It shames everything post-apocalpyptic of the past 5 years.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dumb characters doing dumb things. I mean isn't that the hallmark of the curent trend in zombies? Or post-apocalyptic in general? With a dash of over-actiony? I look at some other genres and I just have to wonder where the writing went from horror. Seriously, take Lisbeth from "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and do a character and plot study. It shames everything post-apocalpyptic of the past 5 years. if anything one of the things that fascinates me about Romero and his Dead films (orig trilogy) is that he can write some cool ass characters. His character development is nowhere near as deep as some other writers, but he has a knack for just coming up with and making iconic characters Ben - Night Peter - Dawn Roger - Dawn John - Day McDermott - Day Rhodes - Day Steele - Day Charlie - Land The film professor - Diary Patrick O'flynn - Survival Nicotine Crockett - Survival He comes up with great characters... just the stories in the newer films are weak as hell. This is why i still have faith he can do another DAWN if he would just get back to the real basics and not half ass it.

[Trin]

if anything one of the things that fascinates me about Romero and his Dead films (orig trilogy) is that he can write some cool ass characters. His character development is nowhere near as deep as some other writers, but he has a knack for just coming up with and making iconic characters Ben - Night Peter - Dawn Roger - Dawn John - Day McDermott - Day Rhodes - Day Steele - Day Charlie - Land The film professor - Diary Patrick O'flynn - Survival Nicotine Crockett - Survival He comes up with great characters... just the stories in the newer films are weak as hell. This is why i still have faith he can do another DAWN if he would just get back to the real basics and not half ass it. Awm, man, no Riley? I know the guy has some flaws, and you are anti-Land, but the professor and nicotine are in the list and no Riley? That just makes me sad... I'm really not going to say they are great characters. Don't get me wrong, they are good characters and none of them would keep his movies from greatness. But they don't rise above the general quality of characters coming out in movies in general. And for every good character he has a wealth of really bad characters. For every Charlie there is a Pillsbury, Motown ("call me motown"), Foxy, Manolete, two dweebs shooting in the dark while on guard, etc. Otherwise I agree. He's got to get back to basics and write a good story.