A Question of Remakes

[Svengoolie]

Words of wisdom, axlish. Words of wisdom. Guys like you and Craig are islands of reality in an ocean of bs.

[Mortis]

It is because of the flicks. I don't care who directed what. If I think it sucks, I think it sucks. I'm not a director or a writer, so forgive me if my reasons for not liking something aren't as explicit as some of the "pros." My mother turned me onto Night of the Living Dead 20 or so years ago, but I never knew (or probably cared at that age) who directed it until later. It just so happens that I really enjoy most of Romero's other work, too. I would have been extremely (and I do mean extremely) upset with GAR if he put the remake out as is, so no, the director has nothing to do with how I judge a film. The bottom line is that I think the remake of Dawn sucks as a whole, regardless of who directed it. Yeah, but one of the points I've been trying to make is that alot of people around here despise the remake simply because it EXISTS. Simply because it's not a GAR. Simply because it too that concept and screenplay and changed it...added to it...even surpassed the original in some ways. Those reasons, to me at least, aren't good enough. Most of us got into the zombie genre the same way Craig did--because of the flicks. Not because of who made them or who didn't make them. Why can't the merit of the flicks be enough?

[Svengoolie]

I'm not a director or a writer, so forgive me if my reasons for not liking something aren't as explicit as some of the "pros." We're not talking quantum physics, here. I said that the remake had better character development. You said it didn't. So, I simply asked you to define that term and how it applied to the two main male protagonists of both flicks. And, you couldn't do so. You wouldn't even make an attempt....which shows you're just talking out of your a$$. That's what we've got Deadman for. If you're going to cite specific reasons WHY you're taking a position, you should be able to explain them. It's like when most die-hard GAR fans are asked "why do you like these movies?" And their aped response is "I admire the socio/political commentary inherant in each film". When asked to explain that commentary, 999 times out of a thousand that fan is unable to do so and either ignores the question or attacks the person asking it. How many times have we seen that here? Too many. They might as well say "I don't know WHY GAR's flicks are smart, I just know that they are". It's because of stuff like that that Trekkies get more respect than deadheads.

[Mortis]

No, we're not, but it seems like if you don't elaborate on every fine detail, you're not worthy enough to have a respectable opinion. I didn't respond to that callout of yours because the way you presented it was rather assholish. And again, here you're saying I'm talking out of my ass like I'm some kind of idiot. I'm stepping out of this debate because I'm just not on that elite level that some people around here like to think they're on. We're not talking quantum physics, here. I said that the remake had better character development. You said it didn't. So, I simply asked you to define that term and how it applied to the two main male protagonists of both flicks. And, you couldn't do so. You wouldn't even make an attempt....which shows you're just talking out of your a$$. That's what we've got Deadman for. If you're going to cite reasons WHY you're taking a position, you should be able to explain them. It's like when a die-hard GAR fan is asked "why do you like these movies?" His response is "I admire the socio/political commentary inherant in each film". When asked to explain that commentary, 999 times out of a thousand that fan is unable to do so and either ignores the question or attacks the person asking it. He might as well say "I don't know WHY GAR's flicks are smart, I just know that they are". It's because of stuff like that that Trekkies get more respect than deadheads.

[Svengoolie]

You prove me right every time, Mortis. Thanks.

[Arcades057]

I think Sven makes a valid point. If you're going to say you like a movie because of something then you'd better be able to define what you mean by it. Just aping the whole "social commentary" thing is kind of old. I like GAR's movies because I like zombies and I haven't seen another director do it better; not Snyder, not anyone. If and when the day comes that a director gives us a movie that puts GAR's zombie flicks to shame I'll be one of the first to hop on that bandwagon. Will I like the current dead flicks less? Not at all; I'll just have new favorites.

[axlish]

Words of wisdom, axlish. Words of wisdom. Why thank you Mr. Torrence, what'll it be? The best example of the angry man's review can be found on the Zombie Farm site. I love the site but this review is... well read for yourself! http://www2.gol.com/users/noman/dotd2004.htm

[lullubelle]

Re-make to me means do the same thing over without changing anything, most of what we see today are not remakes, what made Dawn '04 good was that Snyder did not butcher the beloved characters of Dawn '78, he took story and re-did it diffrently, that made for a good viewing, Night '90, took the characters we loved and twisted them around, which to me was a mistake on Savini's part, i am not to fond of Night "90 because of that, not that remaking the movie exactly like the original is good either, example:Phycho, remake was made exactly like original and it did not work, because people gow to love this movies and grow to love the people that play the characters,i am up for re-imiginig, i think it works better, twist the story, not the characters.

[EvilNed]

I totally disagree with Sven about the remake having "better" character development. First we have to conclude what "better" character development is. Does it mean more character development, as Sven suggested earlier? In that case, no, definetly not. In a zombie adventure film running on 100 minutes where alot of scenes involve solving a problem, running from the problem, avoiding the problem (the problem most often being the zombies) then there's little time for character development. However, it might have worked had there been less characters. But what do we have? We have Michael. He's been married thrice, has had over twenty jobs and then suddenly he and Ana are in love. How do we know all this about Michael? Because he tells us. He right out tells us. In one very short scene we get to learn everything there is to know about Michael's former life. Most of the other time he spends in the mall, he either fixes the generator, fixes the buses or says that "Something needs to be done.". Ok, so for a guy who can't hold on to ANYTHING in his life, he seems awfully inclined to get "something done". More so than any other character, really. Kenneth? Yes, Kenneth has his brothers. His brothers die. Andy replaces his brothers. Andy dies. Kenneth shows absolutly no remorse over any of this. Remind me again, why is Kenneth in this movie...? At all? His scenes are like trickey character development. Just like those subplots in The 13th Warrior, we get cheated by this one. In the end, Kenneth just is. He's there. He knows how to use a gun. His brothers and friends are dead, but that's not important because Kenneth knows how to use a gun, he can provide the film with action. Ana? For being a prominent character, she loses her husband, cries (once), and after that shows real little grief. She seems to accept this world just fine, and like a college girl she goes after Michael. Again, Ana's and Michael's relationship is never established, it just quickly happens in one short scene and then it's over. Pointless, useless and once again, we are cheated. Bear in mind that all these scenes of character development are scarce, whereas in Dawn the characters had little else to do but develop. 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. Steve is a coward one scene, even though he has no reason to be, and the next scene he takes a gun and runs into zombie infested country thinking he can blast his way through. Why does he do all this? Because in every scene in which the writer could have Steve do something bad, it happened. It didn't have to make sense, but the writer figured that if Steve did enough bad things, we would see him as a bad character. Steve served the movie rather than his own character. Wow, that's some good screenwriting. This zombie adventure film, because that's what it is, is a film that's to fast for it's own good. It's like an Indiana Jones film, whenever they settle down to have a cup of coffee, the power goes out, Andy needs to be rescued, a bus is crashing through the parking lot etc. etc. As a zombie adventure film, it's nice. It definetly doesn't hold up and will be quickly forgotten, but I mean sure. I had a blast the first time through it. But the lack of sensible character development AND screenwriting makes it impossible for me to enjoy it on multiple views.

[axlish]

Great post Ned! Well thought out and written. I have to disagree with this though. It definetly doesn't hold up and will be quickly forgotten Why won't it be forgotten? Because it is one of the best zombie films of all time, hence it being so hotly debated. If people will remember Fulci's Zombie, then surely this will be remembered too.

[bassman]

It's like an Indiana Jones film.... Don't you EVER compare the "Dawn" Remake to the "Indiana Jones" films! Seriously though, I agree with everything you said. Well done.

[EvilNed]

Why won't it be forgotten? Because it is one of the best zombie films of all time, hence it being so hotly debated. If people will remember Fulci's Zombie, then surely this will be remembered too. Touché, good point. EDIT: I would also like to add, that I wouldn't mind if they made a remake of Day of the Dead in the same vein as Dawn of the Dead. But they should rename it (not call it "Day of the Dead" that is), and just re-imagine it totally. Zombie flicks are always welcome. But I welcome them more when accomplished horror writers are behind the script, of course.

[Philly_SWAT]

Here is my take..... First of all, any remake is done primarily for one reason and one reason only...to cash in. To make money. To take something that is already a proven winner, and glom onto fans love of that to almost force them into paying money to see the new one. It is a lack of guts to try something totally new, and take a chance that it might not make a buck. This holds true for Dawn04. I think that it is in fact a good movie. But I hate the fact that it steals some of the soul of the original. Many new viewers, like teenage kids who have never seen the original, will consider Dawn04 as DAWN OF THE DEAD, which it definately isnt. Many younger viewers will not accept Dawn78 for the great movie it is because it lacks the "look" of a modern movie, which they consider as the way a movie should be. I also hated the fact that there was a remake of Rollerball. The original was far superior, but many will never see it, and the remake will be ROLLERBALL in their eyes. Now don't get me wrong. Back in '78, GAR definately wanted to make money. But more than that, I think he wanted to make a movie. One that he could put his heart and soul into, and create a new work of art for the world to enjoy. This is one of the problems with modern movies in general. Rule number one is: how can we mazimize profits? Video game and toy rights are negotiated as the movie is being made. Deals to have cups at Burger King are discussed before the final edit is done. Is that about making a movie for art, or simply for profit? Now I dont have a problem with making a movie intending to make a profit, but how about making a movie to be a great movie first and formost. Won't profits flow because of that? Specifically dealing with Dawn, Dawn78 comes in at over 2 hours, even after GAR cut it down to try to satisfy those who said it was too long. There was a lot more back story. EvilNed makes many good points, such as we learn stuff about the characters simply because they tell us in Dawn04. Part of the reason for this is that there was too many characters, and part because the movie had to come in at a specific time in length. In Dawn78, we have a whole backstory with Peter and Roger, who have been fighting the zombie problem for three weeks, and even though not together for that whole three weeks, they share that common history to build their relationship. After Roger is bitten, and Peter is taking him in the wheelbarrow in the elevator he says "Look here man, I ah...." Roger replies "I know. Shut up, will ya?" Two simple sentences. Two simple sentences that show how they have come to love each other, not in a gay way, but in a way that the situation would force anyone who survived together to have. And even then, they were restrained by American values that men can not express their feelings to each other. This one scene helps show how Dawn78 is far superior to Dawn04. The original question is this thread was My question to this august assembly is: if you think it was done wrong, what do you think could've been done to make it right? I am not sure if a Hollywood film could make a movie like Dawn78, whether it is 1978 or 2006. There is no desire to spend the time to develop the movie to where the viewer has an emotional investment in the characters and the story. They have to do whatever they think will make them the most money. That is why GAR's movies are so good, they were made outside of the Hollywood sphere. And I think that is why Land is not as good, his art was compromised by Hollywood. I do not begrudge GAR making a buck now, because lord knows he did not make what he deserved off the original trilogy. I am not sure if it is a question of whether the movie was made "right" or "wrong". Like I said, I think that Dawn04 was a good movie. I like modern movies. But in general, a Hollywood movie is not going to have the TLC that a movie like Dawn78 has. So I think that Dawn04 was a well-made recent movie, but it is a shame that it had to be associated with a masterpiece of cinema, the 1978 version, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Does that answer the question?

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I totally disagree with Sven about the remake having "better" character development. Good post Ned. 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 I say tomato, you say tomato ... doesn't really work on the internet does it?

[EvilNed]

I agree with what Philly said. Dawn 04 suffers from the obvious Hollywood syndrome. You can tell that the studio executives sat down, watched the movie and sat silent afterwards, before someone raised his voice saying: "Uhm, can we fit a love relationship in there somewhere?", which spawned the very awkard relationship between Ana and Michael. Same thing probably happened with Land, I imagine, since the original Day script didn't have any romance in it whatsoever. Anyway, I think I know what I would change: I would change the screenwriter, but keep the director. Zack Snyder is obviously a director from the MTV generation, but he pulled off some nice action scenes. He was just what the zombie flicks needed. Most of the films faults comes from the script, which sucks. With a better screenwriter, the film could have been a golden boy. However, I'm a very anal when it comes to history, so I'll probably throw pop corn at the theather when Zack shows us "300", while yelling "That's not how it happened, you fools!"