A Question of Remakes

[Svengoolie]

We're living in an age of mediocrity where almost everything in the horror genre is unoriginal, and the staples of our diets are remakes, sequals, and out-and-out rip-offs of foreign films. Out of the three, remakes seem to be the most prolific, and most profitable to the studios...and on the whole, most seem to be done better than the other two alternatives. In 2004, the firm of Snyder and Gunn brought us a remake of GAR's 1978 classic, Dawn of the Dead, and started a civil war amoung us deadheads. The traditionalists were blasting it before they even saw it, while some of the more progressive of the bunch embraced it for what it 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? To help you guys along with your answers, let's look at the different ways to do a remake: 1. The Retro Redux--like TCM or King Kong. 2. The Re-imagining--the way the Dawn Remake was done. 3. The Update--ala the NOTLD remake in 1990 Your views, boys and ghouls.....

[bassman]

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.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

In regards to the Dawn of the Dead remake ... i thought it was strong enough to stand on it's own, and lets face it ... it wasn't REALLY Dawn of the Dead was it? I wouldn't change ANYTHING about it ... except for the title.

[Craig]

Dawn 04, as far as the re-imagining goes, I love it, and its' vicious, running zombies. They could have changed the title, but the whole Mall thing would make it kinda seem like a Dawn rippoff.

[Svengoolie]

Well, here's my response...and it might suprise you guys since I enjoyed the Dawn remake as-is and have defended it pretty effectively on this and other forums. I didn't start surfing the web for fun until March 9th, 2004....exactly ten days before the remake made its debut. Up until then, I'd used computers at work occasionally, but never went surfing. I had absolutely no idea that the remake was coming out, or even that these forums existed. One of the first things I typed into my search engine was "Dawn of the Dead", and low and behold, I got the trailer for the remake. I was excited as phuck, and couldn't wait for it to come out...especially after the retro-redux of TCM the October before. And, that's what I was expecting. I was expecting a remake that followed GAR's original screenplay more like the NOTLD remake stuck to the original. I was expecting zombies in bell-bottom jeans and KISS t-shirts stumbing around as Three Dog Night or something played in the background....and I was looking forward to it. What I saw disappointed me in that respect, but I still admired the remake for what it was (although I was MOST upset that there was no motorcycle raid at the end). I think it's a great flick that trumped the original in alot of ways, although it will never replace the original for me in my heart of hearts. And....call me "crazy", call me a "pervert"...but I'd STILL love to see a faithful, retro-redux of both Dawn AND Day of the Dead!

[Mortis]

I thought the remake of Dawn was junk. All they did was throw in a mall and cash in on the Dawn name. I'd like to know how many people who saw the remake have seen the original.. or even knew there was an original.

[erisi236]

remakes are A-Ok by me. Even if the movie turns out to suck it usually generates interest in the original, which can never be a bad thing

[Svengoolie]

Okay....as an extention of this topic: Say GAR HAD been attatched to this one...say at least to write the script...the way he was on the NOTLD remake. Would you have been satisfied with what he gave us....based on his remake performance the first time around? Would a phoned-in rehash of a 25 year old script been preferable to what we got, just because GAR's name was on the cover?

[erisi236]

sadly if GAR had been more involved with Dawn04 it probably would have made 20 million less at the box office

[Mortis]

Atleast there wouldn't be any running zombies. Okay....as an extention of this topic: Say GAR HAD been attatched to this one...say at least to write the script...the way he was on the NOTLD remake. Would you have been satisfied with what he gave us....based on his remake performance the first time around? Would a phoned-in rehash of a 25 year old script been preferable to what we got, just because GAR's name was on the cover?

[Svengoolie]

LOL! True, true..... Atleast there wouldn't be any running zombies. Well, in response to that...alls I gotta say is that times have changed. When we were kids 25 years ago, Boris Karloff as "Frankenstein" and Bela Lugosi as "Dracula" just weren't scary anymore. The old stuff that was scary forty years before just wasn't scary any more. We'd moved on as a society, and we'd moved on as fans....and that's what the first revolution in horror, spearheaded by GAR and Carpenter and the rest of the pimp squad, was all about back then. The kids of today feel the same way about GAR's shamblers, for the most part....and are looking for something new. About ten years ago, when my little niece and nephews were getting cocky about not being scared of monsters and such, I decided to give them a GAR zombie triple feature. They were bored to tears, and didn't find the shamblers scary at all. In fact, they were so bored they thought I was actually punishing them for something by making them watch those flicks...especially Day. Then, I brought out the big guns and put on The Exorcist...and they felt the same way. When I told them that those flicks were the scariest flicks around when I was their age, they looked at me like I was high on PCP or some ****e. Times have changed. You can stick your head in the sand, and they're gonna come up behind you and bite off your a$$...

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Just because "times have changed" ... does not mean that times have changed for the better. I would in fact say that times have changed for the worse in almost every case ... in the case of movies we are only seeing so many remakes, re-envisioning (whatever the fcuk that is supposed to mean), rehashes, blatant cash ins etc etc because too many people lack imagination these days and for the most part the people who control the money are fast running out of ideas and are too scared to take risks on fresh and original ideas/scripts/formulas. The Dawn of the Dead remake, the original, and those pesky kids being a prime example.

[Rottedfreak]

Dawn remake was entertaining enough alot more then the original. But then the original was never intended to entertain, it could have turned out alot different as GAR had the initial idea of an apocalypse and people rushing to a mall and then he conjured up the image of the apocalypse being perpetrated by zombies.

[bassman]

But then the original was never intended to entertain..... Never intended to entertain? Are you serious? What was the point of it, then? A long commercial for the mall? I believe that the purpose of the film was to entertain. In fact, I believe you could say that is the basic purpose behind every film....

[rikimaru]

i would say its the basic thing in most films. these days the basic premis of some films is making money... sad but true. i think also if your nephews saw the movie when they where 18 or so they may understand why its scary. Zombies fast and slow scare me to this day... being eaten just freaks me out i think.