Dawn 78' Vs Dawn 04 [Archive]

AcesandEights

07-May-2009, 11:43 PM

Welcome, Luke404!

There has been a lot of talk here, and on the old boards before the upgrade, about this subject. Some folks doggedly hate Dawn04, some really enjoy it and others appreciate it as something that is more of an action film with zombies, as opposed to a full fledged horror movie.

Me? I love Dawn04, but--as many here will agree--it doesn't touch the original.

Remakes are often discussed in the 'Remake' section of the forums and talk relating to both Dawn and Dawn04 (some call it Yawn 04 around here :( ) spills over into the 'Dead Discussion' forum from time to time.

Some of the threads that feature opinions (pulled from a quick forum search) are as follows:

First (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=11529)

Second (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=10198)

Third (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=5856)

Fourth (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=6530)

Fifth (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=5148)

Sixth (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=2518&highlight=introduced)

Cheers.

walkingdead04

07-May-2009, 11:45 PM

Deadman03

08-May-2009, 12:04 AM

fleshy

08-May-2009, 12:05 AM

Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" is not a bad film overall but it suffers from a number of mis-steps and ideas that could have / should have been dropped in the first place, like the ridiculous zombie childbirth and the running corpses themselves...and where Romero's long script and running time leaves the viewer satisfied at its end, Snyder's film seems rushed at its end.

walkingdead89

08-May-2009, 12:06 AM

I think Dawn 04 did a good job of not messing with the predecessors. Sure, we have our little niggly things like how long it takes a bite to kill someone, how long it takes a zombie to reanimate - yes, those things are somewhat inconsistent in the later movies compared to earlier ones. But by and large (so far - crosses fingers) none of the later movies bring into doubt major events or series defining behaviors from the earlier ones.

MoonSylver

08-May-2009, 12:08 AM

Agree w/ all of the above (welcome all new members BTW!). Decent action flick. Not deep. Not really horror. Shallow. 78 is Coca Cola, 04 is Coke Zero.

clanglee

08-May-2009, 12:31 AM

Ahhhh. . and so we can now pass the torch to the next generation for the Dawn debate. :hyper: I think I just dropped a tear.. . . .

bigticket

08-May-2009, 12:32 AM

I must be one of the few who actually enjoys Dawn 04...Diary was okay, and so was land, but the overall feeling i got from them was "wow, This is the 1st George Romero movie I've seen in theaters". And that is it. I saw it because it was a George Romero film, not because it was a zombie film, and that is the type of fanboyism I am so against- seeing and supporting a movie because of an attached name.

I hope Zach gets behind the seat and directs another zombie film- perhaps continuing where Dawn 04 left off, or maybe pull a Romero and tell another story in the same setting.

It's sad to say, but i'm more excited at the prospect of Zach helming another film then Romero

Mike70

08-May-2009, 01:08 AM

welcome one and all.

this is going to be our monthly new dawn/old dawn hate fest thread. i don't care for yawn 04 at all. i think it vacuous, obvious, and devoid of merit. in fact, i just got rid of my copy of it along with a bunch of other shit i didn't want anymore (thank you half-price books).

isn't slightly weird that all these folks joined within an hour of one another and posted in the same thread within minutes of one another? :shifty: in all my years here i don't remember that happening before.

oh and by the way, this thread is in the wrong place. should be over in dead discussion.

Crappingbear

08-May-2009, 02:48 AM

I didn't really have a problem with Dawn 04, its ok for what it is and Sarah Polly is ok to look at. But, its a "watch once" and put away while the original we have viewed bajillions of times.

On the flip side, I prefer Night 90 over the original and think its a good homage to the original. Day is my least favorite of the original trilogy, land was kind of bleh and I didn't like Diary at all; in fact I barely sat through it once and have pretty well erased the memory from my mind.

So, here are my favs of Romero and the remakes

1. Dawn
2. Night 90
3. Night original
4. Day
5. Dawn remake
6. Land
7. I guess Diary by default since I don't have anything else to put before it.

slickwilly13

08-May-2009, 02:54 AM

I just took notice of the number of 1st time posters that registered this month in this thread. Rather odd.

Yojimbo

08-May-2009, 03:27 AM

isn't slightly weird that all these folks joined within an hour of one another and posted in the same thread within minutes of one another? :shifty: in all my years here i don't remember that happening before.

I was just thinking the same thing...odd and unlikely, though I have to admit that there are some interesting points brought up, albeit it on the wrong part of this site.

Welcome all of you new members...or possibly bots with good taste!:lol:

Kaos

08-May-2009, 03:47 AM

Thread moved.

Trin

08-May-2009, 03:58 PM

Mike70

08-May-2009, 04:36 PM

bassman

08-May-2009, 04:43 PM

:lol:

you just might be on to something here, trin. i'd go one farther on your suggestions: don't make another zombie movie. the world already has enough 15 year olds who think you invented the genre.

I wouldn't be surprised if Snyder himself believes he invented the genre. He always seems like he's full of himself. But I could be biased because he's one of those people that I just want to knock out when I see his face...

As if I haven't stated it before in the 9.2 billion threads just like this one(search feature, people!): Dawn04 is an action movie with zombies. And not a very good one. See it once and then forget it...

darth los

08-May-2009, 07:53 PM

I think Zach Snyder is posting as all the new members trying to drum up discussion in hopes of getting interest in a sequel in the works. :elol::p;)

Hey Zach, if that works for you please do a couple of things in the next one:
- No zombie babies
- A little more justification to leave the safe place
- Everyone who dies comes back, not just the infected
- Make sure the zombies eat cows (hahahahaha - j/k)

Well, I'm of the mind that there are veeeeeeeerrrry few coincidences in life and I don't think this is one of them. Something's up with that.

But ya, i love Dawn 04' and all but till' this day I can't for the life of me fathom whyy the hell they would leave the mall.

I realize that their supplies were running low and that they had just been trauamatized by recent events but rushing out into a city of canabalistic track stars isn't doing anyone any favors.

:cool:

Yojimbo

08-May-2009, 08:13 PM

Well, I'm of the mind that there are veeeeeeeerrrry few coincidences in life and I don't think this is one of them. Something's up with that.

:cool:
I am even more suspicious now that I realize that these three first time posters- who were seemingly so all fired up about posting their thoughts that they created this thread and then had what appeared to be a lively discussion at the time - have since fallen silent. I can understand one random dude not posting, but three new arrivals all not posting...really, it seems improbable from a statistical standpoint.

Listen- you smell that?

darth los

08-May-2009, 08:39 PM

Listen- you smell that?

That would be a great sig dude.

It's almost identical to the ghostbusters line: "Listen! You smell something!?!

:cool:

Yojimbo

08-May-2009, 09:00 PM

That would be a great sig dude.

It's almost identical to the ghostbusters line: "Listen! You smell something!?!

:cool:
You called it, brother!

(Actually, I meant it that way but misquoted:o)

Dommm

09-May-2009, 02:32 PM

But ya, i love Dawn 04' and all but till' this day I can't for the life of me fathom whyy the hell they would leave the mall.

Well if I remember correctly a silly little dint had run out to save her dog, which then meant a rescue party had to head out, and the person who was supposed to be watching the door wasn't, this meant the zombies got into the mall, and they all had to leave.

3pidemiC

09-May-2009, 05:21 PM

facepalm

krakenslayer

09-May-2009, 05:35 PM

I kind of liked the remake the first time I saw it, but recently I sat down to watch it again and I didn't even get as far the opening credits. I find Zack Snyder's style of direction and Niven Howie's editing to be heartless and irritating - even during the supposedly calm opening scenes, no single shot lasted more than about three seconds. Even when Ana is watching Vivian learn how to rollerblade, the act of actually skating a few feet down a quiet suburban street is presented from about four different angles from different takes with no more than a couple of seconds per shot. It's supposed to be a serene, peaceful encounter, and yet it's shot like a car chase. It's ridiculous.

Trin

11-May-2009, 03:45 PM

Well if I remember correctly a silly little dint had run out to save her dog, which then meant a rescue party had to head out, and the person who was supposed to be watching the door wasn't, this meant the zombies got into the mall, and they all had to leave.
The scene in question is where they sit around and talk about leaving the mall based on one character's stupid comment. The scene where CJ points out how stupid it is and then agrees to go along with it anyway. It came way before stupid girl + stupid dog scene.

The whole predication of the scene was a joke. Snyder knew he couldn't make them leave the mall without some lip service as to why. But it was the most abbreviated and nonsensical conversation ever. He couldn't tear himself away from action sequences long enough to give time to the thought process and rationale of their situation? Everyone knows that *eventually* they'd be forced to leave the mall. A tiny restructuring of the plot and dialogue and it would've made sense. But noooooooo... we need more explosions!!

And wasn't this supposed to be a horror movie? Why aren't they scared to death to leave the mall? I would think at least half of them would be so scared of going back outside that they'd sooner starve to death. (I might be one of them faced with that situation)

I agree with Bassman... action movie with zombies. See it once. Hell watch it over and over again if you like explosions. But don't compare it to Dawn '78.

And I'm still waiting for explanation how so many new posters came into the same thread....

darth los

11-May-2009, 04:09 PM

Well if I remember correctly a silly little dint had run out to save her dog, which then meant a rescue party had to head out, and the person who was supposed to be watching the door wasn't, this meant the zombies got into the mall, and they all had to leave.

Well, they were planning to leave the mall before that happened. They had been making preparations for days, ever since the incident with the baby gave them an epiphany.

That just made it happen quicker than they wanted and caused them to rush the process which resulted in several deaths.

The whole reason the dog was even over there was to bring Andy some food so he could regain his strength and be strong enough to participate in the escape.

:cool:

Mike70

11-May-2009, 06:29 PM

I find Zack Snyder's style of direction and Niven Howie's editing to be heartless and irritating - even during the supposedly calm opening scenes, no single shot lasted more than about three seconds. Even when Ana is watching Vivian learn how to rollerblade, the act of actually skating a few feet down a quiet suburban street is presented from about four different angles from different takes with no more than a couple of seconds per shot. It's supposed to be a serene, peaceful encounter, and yet it's shot like a car chase. It's ridiculous.

jesus h. the editing in that movie is atrocious and like you said, heartless. i really do not get how switching shots every 3 or 4 seconds adds anything to a film, unless you are trying to induce epileptic seizures in half the audience. it's more irritating to me that just about anything else in modern cinema. this goes hand in hand with shit cinematography. the asshole that shot yawn 04 should be made to study the work of people like sven nykvist, john alcott and russell carpenter, so he can see how you actually shoot a fucking movie.

darth los

11-May-2009, 06:37 PM

the asshole that shot yawn 04 should be made to study the work of people like sven nykvist, john alcott and russell carpenter, so he can see how you actually shoot a fucking movie.

I think he might have one upped that. He obviously got a job doing the camerawork on the gears of war games whever dudes run. Man I hate that shaky ass thing. :annoyed:

:cool:

Trin

12-May-2009, 03:20 PM

darth los

12-May-2009, 05:24 PM

I wasn't really put off by the filming in Dawn '04.

But movies that did leave me hating the filming style were 28 Day, 28 Weeks, and, yes, Diary. I could barely sit through the epileptic style of 28 Days/Weeks.

Well, you know how trends are. They'll be followed until it just doesn't rake in the cash any more. Then, the copycats will just have to see what other original ideas they can "hack".

It's just like a couple of years back with all of these "torture porn" films like hostel who's sole purpose was just to show gross stuff on screen with no plot to speak of. When that was no longer a moneymaker we got into the Whole Seth Rogen Comedy era where the dude comes out with a new film every other month it seems like. (IMO, that sun has almost set as well. each successive film get boringer an boringer.)

Pretty soon that won't be profitable and they'll again have to figure out from what genre/style the public wants to get their next movie fix from.

:cool:

DjfunkmasterG

13-May-2009, 08:57 PM

Well its been 5 years now, so wait another 15 and we will have the remake of the remake.

darth los

15-May-2009, 07:58 PM

Well its been 5 years now, so wait another 15 and we will have the remake of the remake.

That's crazy deej. When I read what you wrote it hit me how fast time flies man.

Yes, it's been 5 years. But ya ever notice that dawn 04', love it or hate it. gets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more airtime around here than LOTD?

I'm just sayin'. :rolleyes:

:cool:

Yojimbo

16-May-2009, 10:28 PM

And I'm still waiting for explanation how so many new posters came into the same thread....
I agree, what happened to this folks in the interim?

I think it is obvious that there is some funky stuff going on with this group, so I now call them out to prove that they are real, bonafide new members and not just one guy being funny, or a bunch of bots.

Do you hear that bigticket, walkingdead89, walkingdead04, luke404, and fleshy? I see that one of you, deadman03, has already been banned. So I am calling the rest of you all out. Post or begone!

Danny Terror

18-May-2009, 04:43 PM

:rockbrow: Yeah .... To all you new Mystery-Posters.:

Curious, are you? O.K. DAWN '04 SUCKED. BAD. One of the worst films I've ever seen. A Complete Fucking travesty. Go watch it again yourselves and honestly try and be convinced that this piece of shit has any Value. I HAAAAATED it back when it came out and despise it even more over time. It's totally gay and everyone knows it. Fuck you guys.

P.S.-When i got the Land of the Dead two-pack as a gift it came with this other worthless disc. I promptly took it out of the packaging whipped the dvd against my wall so hard that it shattered into a million pieces and then I stoped the living shit out of the cover under my Boot. Still wondering ' bout our thoughts?? Begone you whimps .........

Danny T.

deadkrank

19-May-2009, 02:40 PM

DjfunkmasterG

19-May-2009, 02:53 PM

Mike70

19-May-2009, 03:01 PM

While you may hate DAWN 04, many of us like it, or at least enjoy it, and it BLOWS LAND out of the water. Last time I had read a LAND discussion was what 6 months to a year ago, yet DAWN 04 keeps popping up.

i wonder if it keeps popping up because assholes keep coming to this place thinking we are all ga-ga for it.

yawn 04 can suck my dick. i think that movie is a vacuous piece of cinematic weasel shit. further, the MTV generation catamite that directed it is also a piece of weasel shit. i would rather have to sit through land 25 times in a row than watch yawn 04 even once more in its entirety.

sfreeman

19-May-2009, 03:07 PM

DjfunkmasterG

19-May-2009, 03:28 PM

I would say yes and no.

The remake will be forever engrained into the zombie cult, but it is not a cult classic by any means, nor will it ever be. It is just a remake of classic horror film. Without the original film their would have been no remake, and nothing about DAWN 04 really stands out to bring it to the status of the original DAWN, which is why even people like myself who like the remake, still feel the original is untouched by its existence. While I feel Zack pulled off a great action zombie horror flick, he never delved into the character development or the collapse of society like Romero did, plus Snyder version is more aimed at the ADHD generation, and thats fine. It is basically the Transformers film for Zombie fans.

Romero's original captivated a genre, not only horror but the zombie subgenre by pushing the boundries never pushed in horror before, with the visceral explicit gore throughout the film, plus the indie nature of the film and the overall look at societys hunger for consumerism all became a mitigating factor in how the original DAWN received cult status.

Romero's DAWN is not so much a horror film as it is a chracter study, something the remake is not and never tried to be.

Danny Terror

19-May-2009, 04:52 PM

i wonder if it keeps popping up because assholes keep coming to this place thinking we are all ga-ga for it.

yawn 04 can suck my dick. i think that movie is a vacuous piece of cinematic weasel shit. further, the MTV generation catamite that directed it is also a piece of weasel shit. i would rather have to sit through land 25 times in a row than watch yawn 04 even once more in its entirety.

:cool: Thank's man. Newbie huh? Yeah O.K. dude. I just don't post much here as I'm a busy guy. But not a Newbie.
Oh, and Dawn '04 Blows LAND out of the water?? Jesus Christ I hope your not serious. Land isn't exactly the greatest Zombie flick, but ....

Oh well. Your entitled to your opinion for sure.

DjfunkmasterG

19-May-2009, 04:58 PM

Dude you are a newbie... 25 posts member less than a year... equals newb.

However, i don't mind newbs, always need fresh blood in the forums, but slow your roll on the BS.

While you think DAWN 04 sucks other thinks its enjoyable.

I am one of those... But I feel LAND sucks, and believe me I wanted to kick ass as much as the next guy.

Danny Terror

19-May-2009, 05:15 PM

Yeah O.K. Newbie. Ha! Ha! I've been reading this site for years !

Anyway, it's kool. Let's just agree that we love Zombie movies and have fun.

AcesandEights

19-May-2009, 05:27 PM

Let's just agree that we love Zombie movies and have fun.

:thumbsup: A sentiment I can get behind.

MinionZombie

19-May-2009, 05:31 PM

hey guys,

im currently writing an essay on why zombie films are often referred to as cult films.. the films set are dawn of the dead and its remake..

so i have to talk about its production, stylistic and historical factors..

I loved Romero's Dawn of the dead, but am un-sure about the re-make. Do you guys reckon the re-make could be called cult ?

I'm so stuck on this essay, I would love some help :D

Cheers
Dawn of the Dead often gets called a "cult film" - but what does "cult" actually mean? Cult is supposed to mean something with a dedicated following with low numbers - Dawn of the Dead definitely has a dedicated following - VERY dedicated, like many horror movies - but the numbers of followers are far from small.

So in one respect Dawn can be considered cult, but in another sense it technically can't - semantics I guess, but still.

...

As for Yawn04 (I hate that piece of pish), it's definitely not cult - it's simply mainstream.

Yawn04 doesn't have the rabid following that Dawn78 has. It doesn't have the hoardes of fans willing to get tattoos of zombies on their arms, chests and backs. It doesn't have the sheer volume of related merchandise, it doesn't have the long-standing cultural impact and importance - plus - it's a remake, it's not it's own thing, it's just some cash-in.

...

That's my view anyway - good luck with the essay. :)

capncnut

19-May-2009, 08:30 PM

As for Yawn04 (I hate that piece of pish), it's definitely not cult...
Nope, it's more like c**t. :D

Yes, it's been 5 years. But ya ever notice that dawn 04', love it or hate it. gets waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more airtime around here than LOTD?
It was the same over here when it played on Sky Movies, it was on every other day. Another possible reason why I dislike it so much.

DAWN '04 SUCKED. BAD. One of the worst films I've ever seen. A Complete Fucking travesty. Go watch it again yourselves and honestly try and be convinced that this piece of shit has any Value.
<shakes hand>

MinionZombie

19-May-2009, 08:54 PM

Nope, it's more like c**t. :D

Very true. :)

Mike70

19-May-2009, 09:02 PM

Curious, are you? O.K. DAWN '04 SUCKED. BAD. One of the worst films I've ever seen. A Complete Fucking travesty. Go watch it again yourselves and honestly try and be convinced that this piece of shit has any Value. I HAAAAATED it back when it came out and despise it even more over time. It's totally gay and everyone knows it. Fuck you guys.

bravo.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44724000/jpg/_44724277_crowd416.jpg

seriously, yawn 04 is a mammoth, titanic turd. i laugh my ass right off every single time one dickhead or another comes on here and tries to enlighten us as to what a masterpiece this tripe is. twice nothing is still nothing. yawn 04 is nothing but a track meet with yowling zombies in it.

why is it that the first line of fanboy defense is the uber lame line "you must not get it"? that isn't even uber lame it is just plain fucking stupid.

darth los

20-May-2009, 05:42 PM

I liked the remake.I just did not like the mall they used.It was to phony.
I think it would of been great if they shot it at The Mall of America? If I was to pick a mall to take cover in during a zombie crisis it would be The Mall of America.

That's one thing that struck me funny. The mall in the original was huge, or atleast it was filmed that way. The mall in the remake was very clausterphobic. The one in the original also felt like one of the characters in the film. That's how intrigal it was to the storyline. The remake could have been filmed anywhere and still would have been virtually the same film.

Begone? maybe you should begone, newbie.

While you may hate DAWN 04, many of us like it, or at least enjoy it, and it BLOWS LAND out of the water. Last time I had read a LAND discussion was what 6 months to a year ago, yet DAWN 04 keeps popping up.

I for one absolutely love dawn 04' and I'm not going to apologize for it. WTF is with this juvinile "if you like dawn 04' then you must suck balls attitude"!?!
It's like an obsession or mental defect or something.

You want to rail against a truly sucky film that has disrespected the GAR legacy then look no further than NOTLD 30th anniversary edition. There's plenty of ammo there.

I for one can't stand LOTD and have only watched it twice yet you don't hear me bringing up how sucky I think it is in every other thread.

Yes we get it, some think it sucks goat balls. Duely noted. Can we please move on now? It is only your opinion after all which in the big scheme of things, don't mean shit.

:rant:

:cool:

triste realtà

20-May-2009, 10:43 PM

http://revver.com/video/86829/george-romero-on-dawn-of-the-dead-2004/

Trin

21-May-2009, 03:47 PM

I don't believe that Dawn '04 could be considered cult. For all the reasons that Minion says - the movie is a mainstream horror cash-in that tries to pat itself on the back for knowing that Romero made a great movie, but fails to realize WHY Romero's movie is great. As DJ says, it's the Transformers of zombie movies. Whether you liked the movie or not is really not the matter at hand. In either case the movie wasn't cult.

I love Darth's comment about the mall in Dawn '78 being one of the characters. It was the focal point of the story. The decisions they made revolved around the structure, layout, and amenities of the mall.

Compared with Dawn '04 where the mall could've been a Wal-mart for all that it mattered. In fact, a Wal-mart would've been better social commentary for today's society and Dawn '04s place in it.

darth los

21-May-2009, 04:57 PM

I love Darth's comment about the mall in Dawn '78 being one of the characters. It was the focal point of the story. The decisions they made revolved around the structure, layout, and amenities of the mall.

Thnx. ;)

If you think about it we debate runners/shamblers ad nauseum but one aspect about the two films has escaped us til' this point. Forget which one is "better" what we really should be doing is analyzing how these enemies differ thus changing the circumstances the protagonists in each respective film have to endure.

The very nature of the enemy to a large degree forced decisions on the respective groups.

For example, In Dawn 78' they were just riding around looking for a place to go. What does that mean?

1)They had options !! :stunned:

2) It couldn't have been THAT dangerous out there.

They debated the merits of scavenging the city vs. countryside. They had plans to go to canada, etc.. It was like they were on a sightseeing tour visiting airports, malls and what not.

This of course is up until they saw virtually every material thing they could ever need in the mall and decided to stay there. This to me is a big part of where the commentary about consumerism comes in. ( As well as other parts of the film of course).

Now let's take a look at Dawn 04'. The nature of their enemy severly limited their options. They could never have roamed the countyside like the others did. That's suicide, as we saw in the flms final scene. There's no way they could have "survived on the road all through this thing". Or even head out to restock supplies. They were where they were and they were just going to have to make the best out of it.

They were just content to find refuge from the madness outside and it just happened to be in a mall, because as has already been pointed out, the film could have been filmed virtually anywhere.

:cool:

DjfunkmasterG

28-May-2009, 12:30 PM

That's one thing that struck me funny. The mall in the original was huge, or atleast it was filmed that way. The mall in the remake was very clausterphobic. The one in the original also felt like one of the characters in the film. That's how intrigal it was to the storyline. The remake could have been filmed anywhere and still would have been virtually the same film.
:cool:

Funny you should say that. The mall in the remake was actually very small, infact it was pretty old and they ended up gutting it and refurbishing it for the movie. Now its just a home to condos and townhouses.

What looked like two floors was really only one floor. The elevator doors were actually a facade that led to the outside parking lot. The mall is really tiny and they only used half of it. the other half was sort of in use by a grocery store and a drug store.

darth los

28-May-2009, 05:03 PM

Funny you should say that. The mall in the remake was actually very small, infact it was pretty old and they ended up gutting it and refurbishing it for the movie. Now its just a home to condos and townhouses.

What looked like two floors was really only one floor. The elevator doors were actually a facade that led to the outside parking lot. The mall is really tiny and they only used half of it. the other half was sort of in use by a grocery store and a drug store.

You've enlightened me sir.

I knew there was something off about it the first time I saw it in theater. I don't know what techniques were used in order to try and pull off an area being bigger than it really is but they didn't do it very well.

:cool:

AcesandEights

28-May-2009, 05:26 PM

I knew there was something off about it the first time I saw it in theater. I don't know what techniques were used in order to try and pull off an area being bigger than it really is but they didn't do it very well.

Really? Seemed like a small galleria-type of mall to me. Though I do think some sweeping interior shots from an above floor to a lower and likewise could have established a more panoramic sense of the interior.

Then again, I think GAR purposefully used such shots to establish the large interior world of the shopping mecca, full of almost limitless goods and products--a world unto itself and a tempting trap, of sorts. While the more simplistic Dawn 04 used the mall as an isolated interior, turned prison, without much of the nuance of the original film (of course ;)).

darth los

28-May-2009, 06:44 PM

Really? Seemed like a small galleria-type of mall to me. Though I do think some sweeping interior shots from an above floor to a lower and likewise could have established a more panoramic sense of the interior.

Then again, I think GAR purposefully used such shots to establish the large interior world of the shopping mecca, full of almost limitless goods and products--a world unto itself and a tempting trap, of sorts. While the more simplistic Dawn 04 used the mall as an isolated interior, turned prison, without much of the nuance of the original film (of course ;)).

I'm a big dawn 04' fan but even though you're pro-whatever you have to call them out when something is done wrong. The moment you cease to do that you become a hypocrite, lose all credibility and everything you say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

With that said, That's why GAr is truly a master he was able to create that wide open atmosphere he wanted as well as many other things in that film on what is relatively speaking a shoestring budget compared to what snyder had to work with.

Which is evidence that technology makes people lazy. Why be creative and innovative? Most times it's because you're forced to. The moment you have a 100,000,000 dollar budget and cgi in your arsenal it seems as if all imagination goes out the window. And that goes For snyder as well as most everybody else.

:cool:

Skippy911sc

28-May-2009, 07:08 PM

I'm a big dawn 04' fan but even though you're pro-whatever you have to call them out when something is done wrong. The moment you cease to do that you become a hypocrite, lose all credibility and everything you say has to be taken with a grain of salt.

With that said, That's why GAr is truly a master he was able to create that wide open atmosphere he wanted as well as many other things in that film on what is relatively speaking a shoestring budget compared to what snyder had to work with.

Which is evidence that technology makes people lazy. Why be creative and innovative? Most times it's because you're forced to. The moment you have a 100,000,000 dollar budget and cgi in your arsenal it seems as if all imagination goes out the window. And that goes For snyder as well as most everybody else.

:cool:

I agree with most of what has been said, but I think the overall imagery of the mall was to lend to the main theme for the movie itself...cosumerism. Why do we need a mall this big...why do we covet these items/products...etc...etc... I agree that the mall itself was a castmember of the 78 version...and it was not pivotal in the 04 version, however modern movies (and 04 does fall into this realm) are strictly for entertainment purposes (for the most part...and don't start whining about small art films)...what is the major theme of the torture porn movies??? anyone...anyone??? Dawn 04 should have been titled differently and then this discussion would be about how it was great...don't rip off the master and no harm will come to you. Although imitation is the truest form of flattery..right?

darth los

28-May-2009, 07:35 PM

Dawn 04 should have been titled differently and then this discussion would be about how it was great...don't rip off the master and no harm will come to you. Although imitation is the truest form of flattery..right?

Truer words were never spoken.

Also, we've been saying that for a while now. Dawn, 04' is really a quality film (how many zombie film can you honestly say that about?) yet most here can't get past the name which is a shame.

:cool:

DjfunkmasterG

28-May-2009, 07:40 PM

I agree with most of what has been said, but I think the overall imagery of the mall was to lend to the main theme for the movie itself...cosumerism. Why do we need a mall this big...why do we covet these items/products...etc...etc... I agree that the mall itself was a castmember of the 78 version...and it was not pivotal in the 04 version, however modern movies (and 04 does fall into this realm) are strictly for entertainment purposes (for the most part...and don't start whining about small art films)...what is the major theme of the torture porn movies??? anyone...anyone??? Dawn 04 should have been titled differently and then this discussion would be about how it was great...don't rip off the master and no harm will come to you. Although imitation is the truest form of flattery..right?

Dawn 04 is not a rip off, even in name, you guys put way too much stock into a title, if you just look at it as another chapter in a book called DAWN of the DEAD then you won't get so antsy about it.

Its not like Zack set out to rip anything off, infact he did try to pay a few nice homages in the film, but its not like he or the writers sat there and said we're going to rip off the first film, because they didn't the stories are completely different.

Remember titles are not copyright protected. Also if you are wanna cry rip off on DAWN remake you better also call it on DEAD RISING the game. Don't even stoop to, well its a game, ahhhh, no matter what, tis set in a mall, and clearly references DAWN of the DEAD, hence why Rubinstein is suing for copyright infringement. Hell Dead Rising rips off DAWN more than the 04 rehash does, and the 04 version is really neither a remake or rehash.

None of the original Characters, even by name come back. Location and story are completely different, the only common factors are zombies and a Mall.

Much hypocrisy arises out of the debate about DAWN 04, but no matter how you slice it, dice it mince it and mash it, DAWN 04 is basically a stand alone film.

darth los

28-May-2009, 08:41 PM

Dawn 04 is not a rip off, even in name, you guys put way too much stock into a title, if you just look at it as another chapter in a book called DAWN of the DEAD then you won't get so antsy about it.

Its not like Zack set out to rip anything off, infact he did try to pay a few nice homages in the film, but its not like he or the writers sat there and said we're going to rip off the first film, because they didn't the stories are completely different.

Remember titles are not copyright protected. Also if you are wanna cry rip off on DAWN remake you better also call it on DEAD RISING the game. Don't even stoop to, well its a game, ahhhh, no matter what, tis set in a mall, and clearly references DAWN of the DEAD, hence why Rubinstein is suing for copyright infringement. Hell Dead Rising rips off DAWN more than the 04 rehash does, and the 04 version is really neither a remake or rehash.

None of the original Characters, even by name come back. Location and story are completely different, the only common factors are zombies and a Mall.

Much hypocrisy arises out of the debate about DAWN 04, but no matter how you slice it, dice it mince it and mash it, DAWN 04 is basically a stand alone film.

Great points deej, I agree with all of it and I'll also add that, although not a direct rip-off, doesn't the title Dead Rising" sound just a little too similar to "Dead Reckoning"? :confused:

But you're right the hypocracy most haters have for this film is rediculous.

And don't get me wrong anyone can hate anything they please, that's not the point. It's the reasons they give for hating it, some of which you pointed out, that fall like a house of cards upon scrutiny.

:cool:

DjfunkmasterG

29-May-2009, 06:17 PM

Great pints deej, I agree with all of it and I'll also add that, although not a direct rip-off, doesn't the title Dead Rising" sound just a little too similar to "Dead Reckoning"? :confused:

But you're right the hypocracy most haters have for this film is rediculous.

And don't get me wrong anyone can hate anything they please, that's not the point. It's the reasons they give for hating it, some of which you pointed out, that fall like a house of cards upon scrutiny.

:cool:

I have my moments Darth :p

Trin

29-May-2009, 10:27 PM

Dawn 04 should have been titled differently and then this discussion would be about how it was great...don't rip off the master and no harm will come to you. Although imitation is the truest form of flattery..right?Titled differently would've just resulted in a different set of problems. Then it's a rip off from an upstart that doesn't even have the respect to acknowledge the original. Personally, I think that set of problems would've been harder to overcome. At least as a Remake it is tipping its hat to the original.

...the only common factors are zombies and a Mall.And that's all it takes. Dawn '78 was so iconic that having "zombies and a mall" is enough to be standing on its turf. Everyone knows it, and that's why Dead Rising is battling over it.

Much hypocrisy arises out of the debate about DAWN 04, but no matter how you slice it, dice it mince it and mash it, DAWN 04 is basically a stand alone film.All hating aside, I wouldn't say it's a rip-off. It introduced too many concepts unique to itself, as Deej mentions. So whether you like the movie or not it stands on its own as a movie.

But it also cashes in on the name of its predecessor. To say it is not tied to the apron strings of 20 years of Dawn fandom is just blind.

darth los

02-Jun-2009, 03:29 PM

And that's all it takes. Dawn '78 was so iconic that having "zombies and a mall" is enough to be standing on its turf. Everyone knows it, and that's why Dead Rising is battling over it.

Dammit!!. I was just about to say the same thing.

John russo certainly seems to think zombies and a mall equal royalties.

:cool:

AcesandEights

02-Jun-2009, 04:18 PM

Yeah, Trin, this was a pretty well balanced post (somewhat rare in Dawn '78 v. Dawn 04 thread) with a lot of good points, man. Well said :thumbsup:

darth los

02-Jun-2009, 09:41 PM

Yeah, Trin, this was a pretty well balanced post (somewhat rare in Dawn '78 v. Dawn 04 thread) with a lot of good points, man. Well said :thumbsup:

I believe you just came up with an Idea for a never ending thread dude. Nay, that can constitute a new forum section akin to dead discussion since this topic never seems to die. Hmmmmmmm........ :confused:

:cool:

Trin

02-Jun-2009, 10:02 PM

Never-ending thread = "Why people dislike Land vs. Dawn '04" :p:eek:

Legion2213

17-Sep-2009, 09:38 PM

I prefered Dawn 04 to Land of the Dead and Diary of the dead...

I am not Zack Snyder. :p

Doc

18-Sep-2009, 03:04 AM

Hey, your alive! Strange, too I was actually thinking about HPOTD a day or two ago, and remembered you. Welcome Back!

zomtom

25-Feb-2011, 08:00 AM

Say what you want about Dawn 04'; the first ten minutes were epic. It had it's strong points and I'm a fan. Does it hold a candle to Dawn 78? Hardly. That being said, Romero's Dawn had that STUPID pie throwing scene. Without that scene, that movie could have been perfection; in my opinion.

Trin

25-Feb-2011, 02:48 PM

You're right about Dawn '04 and the first 10 minutes. They were pretty epic. I'd say the same thing about the first 15 minutes of Land.

The pie fight scene may have been stupid but it didn't hurt the movie for me. I didn't really even care about it until joining HPOTD and hearing all the gripes about it. Now I hate it just because it's so overused as evidence that Dawn '78 was not so great as I want to believe. lol

I'd say that zombie baby in Dawn '04 is every bit as stupid as the pie fight, and that part DID bother me right from the first viewing. I hate zombie baby. I'm glad they shot it.

AcesandEights

25-Feb-2011, 03:30 PM

I'd say that zombie baby in Dawn '04 is every bit as stupid as the pie fight, and that part DID bother me right from the first viewing. I hate zombie baby. I'm glad they shot it.

I never quite understood the active griping and dislike of the zombie baby in Dawn '04. Is it the premise you think or how it was used in the film, Trin?

I'm honestly wondering.

bassman

25-Feb-2011, 03:42 PM

krakenslayer

25-Feb-2011, 04:17 PM

However, the pie fight makes perfect sense for those Bikers in Dawn. It's not that silly. It's basically exposition for the gang and their general mindset on the situation surrounding them.

I totally agree with this.

Andy

25-Feb-2011, 06:26 PM

The zombie baby was a silly concept on top of horrible execution. Just an abomination from the start all the way to the finish.

I never understood why people think this is such a silly concept? If a women is pregnant and gets bite, and we have established that in snyders universe, it is a virus and passed on by bodilly fluid transfer, then it seems perfectly logical to me that a unborn baby would also become infected and die, then reanimate inside the women.

I agree it could of been better executed, but it was a good idea i think.

bassman

25-Feb-2011, 06:34 PM

Trin

25-Feb-2011, 07:57 PM

The zombie baby was a silly concept on top of horrible execution. Just an abomination from the start all the way to the finish.

However, the pie fight makes perfect sense for those Bikers in Dawn. It's not that silly. It's basically exposition for the gang and their general mindset on the situation surrounding them.
Agreed 100% on both topics.

The pie fight (along with a lot of the biker gang's flippant activity) was evidence of how they were treating the zombie apocalypse. They'd long since gotten over that these were potentially friends and loved ones. They had a "kid in a candystore" mentality. They were not overly concerned about the dangers. They'd obviously learned how to survive. It was good fodder to show us how they'd respond to reason or intellect, thus magnifying the plight of the survivors.

Zombie baby was just a bad idea. It came off to me as, "Oooh, look what cool thing we thought of." The black guy clutching to the idea of delivering his baby into the world as if it was some kind of destiny, while watching his girl devolve into a mindless thing, and all the while concealing the threat to the group. It's just a big pile stink sandwich. Yes, it's not out of bounds for the phenomenon. That's not good enough to make it watchable.

Andy

25-Feb-2011, 11:01 PM

Sure, theoretically it's possible within the realm of the film, but as an idea to sell to an audience it's just absurd. Just because it can be done doesn't mean that it should.

I've often wondered if they considered having the newborn jump up and run around. Now THAT would've made it enjoyable. :p

I Still dont understand what your trying to say, surely the idea if a corpse coming back to life and attacking the living is absurd? Everybody here seems to be able to see past that ok.

I Think its a interesting idea and one thats been rarely done in movies and i think thats what snyder was trying to do, something different. Sure it could of been done alot better, but i think the idea is far from absurd, i think its a good idea.

blind2d

26-Feb-2011, 02:37 AM

I liked it in that Brian Keene book, y'know, the baby zed at the beginning. Besides being runners, I think it's cool. Y'know? I mean, we had the kids in Dawn, so why not take it a step further and go to babies? Of course, they're harmless since they don't have teeth yet... actually, this is creeping me out right here...

zomtom

26-Feb-2011, 07:54 AM

Trin

26-Feb-2011, 10:37 PM

Andy

27-Feb-2011, 02:36 AM

If you wanna get creepy with the kiddos then your best bet was Survival. The time period was right to have the survivors stumble across a day care or hospital and hear crying... only to discover the basinets were inhabited by zombie babies. That would be horrific... imagining the children dying and reanimating on the maternity ward just from being left alone.

Something more horrific in survival than the acting or storyline?! NEVER!

MinionZombie

27-Feb-2011, 11:25 AM

If you wanna get creepy with the kiddos then your best bet was Survival. The time period was right to have the survivors stumble across a day care or hospital and hear crying... only to discover the basinets were inhabited by zombie babies. That would be horrific... imagining the children dying and reanimating on the maternity ward just from being left alone.

Although Survival did have zombie children - which was pretty darn creepy in itself.

Your above idea is indeed horrific ... that would be one chilling-as-all-get-out scene! :eek:

acealive1

27-Feb-2011, 05:59 PM

how could they even call this a remake? it bears no resemblance to the original except sarah polley looking like a gaylen ross clone

paranoid101

27-Feb-2011, 07:46 PM

how could they even call this a remake? it bears no resemblance to the original except sarah polley looking like a gaylen ross clone

Would call it more of a re-imaging than a remake tbh

BTW I love both films so I'm going to stay out of the argument lol

rongravy

28-Feb-2011, 01:13 AM

I know this may sound kind of evil, but I when I saw that baby in 04', part of me hoped Anna was going to take the little dead creep and fling him upside a wall. Splat!! It would have made the dead baby scene more horrible which is what it needed.

I immediately pictured that scene in Freddy Got Fingered where Tom is swinging that baby around by the umbilical cord when I read your post.
Something like that?

blind2d

28-Feb-2011, 01:21 AM

Ah, FGF... classic Tom Green... "Would you like some sausages?"
Skateboarding at the beginning was the best part. Sex Pistols!
Anyway, yeah, babies. All day.

rongravy

28-Feb-2011, 01:35 AM

Ah, FGF... classic Tom Green... "Would you like some sausages?"
Skateboarding at the beginning was the best part. Sex Pistols!
Anyway, yeah, babies. All day.
Doooooooooooood.
To be honest, the first time I saw FGF, I thought it was the worst piece of shit.
I watched it later after it came out on DVD or whatever for like $5, and realised how much of a genius he was. I wore out that copy, I need to grab another.

Anyway, back on topic: What was the topic? Oh yeah. The old one is better, no comparison. I don't like fast zombies, I'd be toast since I smoke like a chimney. The new one served its purpose, though. Kinda helped breathe life back into the genre.

acealive1

28-Feb-2011, 03:34 AM

Would call it more of a re-imaging than a remake tbh

BTW I love both films so I'm going to stay out of the argument lol

true. but in today's world (when the film was remade) woulda been perfect for a complete story remake. it woulda been scary

Danny

28-Feb-2011, 03:40 AM

THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1294935859143.gif

*really?

Mr. Clean

02-Mar-2011, 03:45 AM

THIS ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1294935859143.gif

*really?

LMAO...Too f-ing funny man

Yojimbo

06-Mar-2011, 07:33 AM

I gotta admit that I did enjoy DAWN 04 on some level - but Zack Snyder is still a hack in my book. Pitting DAWN 04 against LAND, however, I would take LAND over DAWN 04 any day, Big Daddy's bad screentime notwithstanding.

I mean, even Children of the Dead -which was a proper piece of shit- had some redeeming moments, but those do not make the film itself worthy of a viewing.

Along those lines, though: Even though I also dug Diary to some extent, I must admit also that DIARY was composed of characters that I found myself not giving a damn about. While Survival was not problem free, at least it had some characters that were better developed. That waif boy, however, is among those characters that I seriously wanted to see get torn apart by the ghouls.

Eyebiter

07-Mar-2011, 04:03 PM

darth los

07-Mar-2011, 04:50 PM

I never understood why people think this is such a silly concept? If a women is pregnant and gets bite, and we have established that in snyders universe, it is a virus and passed on by bodilly fluid transfer, then it seems perfectly logical to me that a unborn baby would also become infected and die, then reanimate inside the women.

I agree it could of been better executed, but it was a good idea i think.

Agreed.

Is it any sillier than the pie fight? Surely they could have found another way to blow off steam.

Is it any siller than a dude (tony buba?) checking his blood pressure in the middle of a horde? Which one is more likely to have the audience rolling their eyes? Zombie baby or a dude oblivious to a horde of undead canibals in order to see if his cholesterol is high? :rolleyes:

Dawn 78' s probably my fav film of all time, defo top 5, mostly for sentimental reasons but let's not get nuts here.

:cool:

Trin

07-Mar-2011, 05:05 PM

Dawn of the Dead 2004 is easy to watch for pure entertainment value. With Land of the Dead there are so many glaring errors and logical inconsistencies that it's difficlut to watch the entire movie. Dead Reckoning is a cool vehicle, but the rest of the film...
I think both movies had the characteristic that to really enjoy them you have to turn off your brain. I think Land makes it a tad more difficult because your brain expects to be able to remain on with any GAR movie. I mean, Dawn 2004 just makes no sense start to finish from a plot perspective and no one holds that against it. Land gives you a scrap of plausibility to cling to then rips it away.

Which one is more likely to have the audience rolling their eyes? Zombie baby or a dude oblivious to a horde of undead canibals in order to see if his cholesterol is high? :rolleyes:
I just gotta say, zombie baby wins the eye roll contest with me hands down. I just cringe every single time that part of the movie comes around. I'll turn off the TV rather than sit through it. I can watch the movie up to that point. I can watch the movie after that point. But I turn off zombie baby.

bassman

07-Mar-2011, 05:08 PM

The heart monitor and pie fight are ways of showing the bikers' complacency among the dead. They've been "living on the road all through this thing" and have lost the good sense to keep on their toes. Imo, the two shouldn't really be compared. One fits within the telling of the story, while the other is a pure "OMG letz shock em wit da dead babiez!".:p

darth los

07-Mar-2011, 05:22 PM

"OMG letz shock em wit da dead babiez!".:p

It's interesting how one scene can either be enjoyed or render the film unwatchable. Fair enough if only for the text talk line. Good stuff.

:cool:

blind2d

09-Mar-2011, 04:34 PM

See... yeah... I liked Land, though... like, more than most here, I'd say... But whatever, right?

Doc

10-Mar-2011, 07:31 AM

See... yeah... I liked Land, though... like, more than most here, I'd say... But whatever, right?

The heart monitor and pie fight are ways of showing the bikers' complacency among the dead.

Pie fight fo sure.

But, Heart monitor biker is still one of the most ridiculous scenes in the entire trilogy fo me.:D I guess the Mexican hat-wearing biker was just one of the stupid ones? :|

See... yeah... I liked Land, though... like, more than most here, I'd say... But whatever, right?

In other words, it's your favorite!

Admit! You know it to be true!:p;)

blind2d

10-Mar-2011, 03:06 PM

Of the new three, maybe, yeah... Dawn still does it for me, though... Especially the Peter... Peter! scene... every time, man.

Trin

15-Mar-2011, 04:56 PM

The more I watch Diary or Survival the more I like Land. Land is very watchable now.

I was one of the people who said that Land would not get better over time, and I admit that this is directly in contradiction of that opinion, but this isn't a win for Land. So not a win.

Tom Price

23-Mar-2011, 09:39 PM

I was so pumped up going to see LOTD.
I was going to smash the outside glass case and steal the poster,..
after I saw it I left the lawbreaking to others.

Sorry
Thought this was the Bland vs Yawn area

zomtom

29-Mar-2011, 07:39 AM

Alot of you grew up with tapes or dvds and you were able to watch these movies whenever you wanted to, so I guess you take them for granted. I guess you can be a little more critical. I actuallysaw NOTLD 68 the year it came out. It was the second feature at a drive-in in Elmsford, New York. I was only ten years old at the time but it scared the living hell out of me and I have loved zombies ever since. It was some years before Night ever went on tv, and obviously even more years before Dawn came out. What I'm trying to say in short is I try to be more lenient when it comes to a zed movie because I remember a time when you had to wait years to see one.

Wrong Number

29-Mar-2011, 02:57 PM

I saw NotLD in high school when the Science Fiction club rented a 16mm copy. DotD I saw in the theaters when in it's original release when it was at the $1 movies (on it's way out). I'm so thankful to my friend that insisted we see it rather then the other movie playing. Of course, I worked the midnight shift at the time as a security guard at a large creepy manufacturing plant/compound by myself and I had to deal with being insanely jumpy at work that night.

WN

AcesandEights

29-Mar-2011, 04:11 PM

It was the second feature at a drive-in in Elmsford, New York

I'm in Westchester currently (grew up further north in Mid-Hudosn Valley), very cool to see someone who lived (or passed thrw?) the area. Any idea where the drive-in was in relation to current landmarks? I don't know Emsford too well, but I've worked in Tarrytown in the past and been to the cinemas around Greenburgh and the Saw Mill River cinemas in the past.

zomtom

30-Mar-2011, 07:45 AM

I'm in Westchester currently (grew up further north in Mid-Hudosn Valley), very cool to see someone who lived (or passed thrw?) the area. Any idea where the drive-in was in relation to current landmarks? I don't know Emsford too well, but I've worked in Tarrytown in the past and been to the cinemas around Greenburgh and the Saw Mill River cinemas in the past.

I can't remember the road it was on tho there was a huge store called Masters across the road from it. I remember we used to drive back home to Yonkers on the Saw Mill River Parkway. When I read World War Z, that just blew me away because I didn't have to use too much of my imagination to envision it.

erisi236

11-Apr-2011, 04:35 PM

I really liked Dawn '04 right up until the 3rd act of the film, then it just really falls apart. The characters just behave in such a mindless way towards the end that it really takes me out of the flick.

Ragnarr

24-Aug-2011, 08:10 PM

I agree, the orignial is simply a masterpiece.

Dawn 04 isn't a zombiefilm, it's an actionfilm. It's fast-paced, annoying and riddled with cheap scares.

It plays too much on clichés for me to enjoy it as anything else than popcorn fun. And when a zombiefilm steeps to that level for me, it ceases to be a zombiefilm. Or even a horrorfilm.

Dawn04 riddled with cheap scares? Are you saying cheap scares unlike the meaty, wholesome scares from Dawn 1978 like:

-The "manikin" zombie that somehow remains perfectly still until Roger comes running by in that store? (the one that was dispatched via screwdriver)
-The zombie that just pops out from around the corner to grab Peter (somehow knowing he was there without seeing him) in the scene when Stephen can't decide whether to run towards Peter or head back to the staircase? (I think zombies just popped out of nowhere to grab Stephen too in that scene)
-The undetected zombie Stephen bumps into hurrying out of the airplane hangar?

Not for nothing, but "cheap scares" are used as fillers in just about every horror movie.

Trin

25-Aug-2011, 06:43 PM

Ragnarr makes some good points. Dawn '78 is not without its cheap scares. The mannequin zombie really stands out as the worst in my mind. The others I'm more okay with because I think they are at worst bad execution. Zombies popping out from around corners is not *that* out of line with a mall filled with zombies. The mannequin zombie though is a bad idea that contradicts zombie behavior in addition to being poorly executed.

As for the last page's discussion on pie fights and silly moments... I stand behind the idea that the silly moments displayed by the biker gang work within the movie to display their general disposition in dealing with the zombies. Forgetting the actual pie fight for a moment, several other things are less onerous. Like the biker trying to take jewelry. Or smashing the TV. Or even using the blood pressure cuff. Those are things that someone let into an empty, vacant mall might do... akin to a kid in a candy store. The general attitude of the leaders of the bikers was to let the group blow off some steam, and they didn't consider the zombies much of a threat.

The pie fight itself was a bad idea and not good execution of this idea. It did come off as gimicky and cheap. While Dawn '04 had it's bad spots... I'd be hard pressed to come up with something as blatantly silly and out of place in Dawn '04.

Andy

25-Aug-2011, 07:23 PM

AcesandEights

25-Aug-2011, 07:35 PM

The biker with the fascination for the blood machine obviously dosnt think the zombies where a threat even when they encircled him and where closing in.

I thought that was one of the stupidest parts of the original dawn.

That part used to annoy the hell out of me, but then I just chalked it up to him being high on a cocktail of various illicit substances, but it's still annoying.

Andy

25-Aug-2011, 07:59 PM

I cant take the original dawn seriously, largely due to that scene aswell as the mannequin zombie.. Its far stupider than anything in the remake if you ask me.

bassman

25-Aug-2011, 08:15 PM

I agree that dawn has it's silly moments, but at least the mannequin moment wasn't actually written into the script. As we all know from the documentary and commentary, it was a quick addition to fix the continuity problem with the jacket around Roger's body.

The pie fights and even to a small extent, the blood pressure guy kinda make sense to me in a weird way. It seems like something those cocky bikers would be comfortable with. Not that i'm really defending Dawn as a perfect movie. It's pretty bad. Day is where it's at. :cool:

Andy

25-Aug-2011, 08:29 PM

Ive seriously never liked the haminess of the original dawn, i think its the weakest of romeros original trilogy to be honest, its a alright film but compared to the other 2, its dated very badly. i could name zombie flicks by around a dozen directors from the same time period i prefer to dawn. fulci, lenzi, o'bannon, grau, raimi.. i could go on but i wont :lol: i think i dislike dawn a little bit more everytime i see it and i cant quite lay my finger on the specific reason. Its not the 1970s feel as i love old movies but the general haminess, i dont know how else to describe it..

Night of the living dead and day of the dead have both matured like a fine wine over the years, dawn of the dead has matured like a bad curry.

bassman

25-Aug-2011, 08:33 PM

I agree, Andy. But for some reason Dawn is still like comfort food to me. I recognize it's not very good and it hasn't aged well, but something about it just comforts me. As i mentioned a few days ago in the shoutbox, I used to LOVE falling asleep with the original trilogy. Something about them all relax me. Which is strange considering they're horror films....

Andy

25-Aug-2011, 08:39 PM

I Absolutly love night and day, i dont want this to be another 'Andys slagging romero off again..' topic, my 2 favourite movies of all time..

I think what bothers me about dawn is the fact that its not really a horror film, its a ok movie but its more of a action adventure movie with some comedy in it where-as night and day are both horror/thriller movies and I am a total horror movie geek too, everything from night of the living dead to psycho to nightmare on elm street and childsplay, i am a total sucker for a horror movie even if its shit :lol:

Thats whats putting me off dawn i think, everytime i watch it, im reminded that its not a horror film just a little bit more.

AcesandEights

25-Aug-2011, 08:43 PM

So both Dawns are fun for what they are....action flicks with zombies? :lol:

Some fanboy is bound to go ballistic-spazmotic over that eventually.

MikePizzoff

25-Aug-2011, 08:47 PM

So both Dawns are fun for what they are....action flicks with zombies? :lol:

Some fanboy is bound to go ballistic-spazmotic over that eventually.

I'm holding myself back!

Gryphon

25-Aug-2011, 09:36 PM

I find it's really very simple. What am I in the mood to watch most often? I have all the Romero movies on Blu Ray (and the 2004 Dawn as well).

What do I watch out of all that, most often? Day of the Dead. Sometimes I'll watch old Dawn + Day. If I have a long boring day at home, Night + Dawn + Day.

If I'm angry for some reason, or in a bad mood, maybe I'll watch Dawn '04 for a catharsis :) But, then I'll calm down by watching... well, Day of the Dead! :D

Ragnarr

25-Aug-2011, 10:46 PM

Don't get me wrong; I still enjoy watching the original Dawn. It's just some of the scenes were weird. Here's a few more besides the ones already mentioned that make me scratch my curly top:

Fran closes the store door on the Nun zombie's skirt. She slightly opens the door just enough to release the trapped skirt, then closes the door again. The Nun zombie kinda looks at her politely, then goes off to follow the other zombies chasing Peter, Roger and Stephen because you see as a zombie, she wants to eat them. She is not for some reason pawing at the door where Food is... I mean, where Fran is.

Then you have the Hari Krishna dude. He happens to (get this) stagger in the opposite direction of Peter and Stephen (obvious food), happens to open one of like 20 doors (yes, the one that goes down that long maintenence hallway), staggers all the way down the maintenance hallway to the exact door that leads up to Fran. Now he makes the long, slow "dinkle dinkle dinkle" climb up the stairs (so fast in fact that Fran only has time to stack 3 boxes against the door), then uses his super Krishna powers to push open the door barred by Fran and the heavy boxes, I mean C'MON NOW!

blind2d

26-Aug-2011, 01:41 PM

Trin

26-Aug-2011, 05:40 PM

Dawn '78 is still a horror movie for me. It is scary. The atmosphere is creepy. The subject matter is horrific. I think to call it an action flick opens the door to calling any movie an action flick simply because it has action in it.

The behavior of zombies to ignore humans at times has been discussed before and it's a common element in GAR's movies. Whether it is Bub being trained or Big Daddy focusing on a larger goal, or the nun just not being interested. It's never bothered me because it's clearly part of GAR's intent for his zombies. In fact, in the case of the nun, I think it's an interesting element. Was she able to overcome the urge to feed due to how she lived her life?

The Hare Krishna scene is one of the scenes that I have a hard time watching because it makes my skin crawl when he gets so close to defenseless Fran. Why did he go to the stairway instead of following the food? Maybe he was smarter than the others and was hoping where they came from had more food with no competition for it. Maybe he heard Fran opening and closing the door. We know that not all the zombies were lured with food. It's not terribly out of line with the general zombie behavior.

I don't get the whole campy/hammy opinions. I can see it as dated. I can see how a few of the scenes don't fit quite well enough. But the core acting to me is very good. I do agree that compared to Dawn '04 it is more campy and more silly. But when I look at the body of horror movies I was watching in and around that time I just don't see it as bad compared to its peers.

AcesandEights

26-Aug-2011, 05:56 PM

Dawn '78 is still a horror movie for me. It is scary. The atmosphere is creepy. The subject matter is horrific. I think to call it an action flick opens the door to calling any movie an action flick simply because it has action in it.

Agreed. Despite some of the comic book aesthetic and questionable shticks Dawn is still a horror film, especially compared to so much of the crap passed off under the same title in this day and age.

Ragnarr

26-Aug-2011, 09:25 PM

Even in death, the Hare Krishna proves his superior strength to mere mortals.
But seriously? Dawn is great. It's just great. You guys need to get out more.
Why didn't the remake do it right? There was no sense of hopelessness.... of isolation... I know that feeling, and it's terrifying. Snyder had no terror. No... real threat. Just for a few brief seconds in a few scenes before the very very stupid ending. They didn't even have to work at closing up the mall, for crissakes! No, Dawn original is where it's at. An examination of the human condition in times of crisis. And the boxes weren't that heavy, and were stacked inefficiently. - 2D

I agree with you that Dawn78 had that creepy feeling of being trapped more so than Dawn04. Also, Romero's zombie outbreak is actually more threatening than Snyder's zombie outbreak solely because Romero's zombies are created by any death whatsoever (heart attacks, gunshots, etc.), whereas Snyder's can only be created by becoming infected.

With regards to Snyder's Dawn not being terrifying, I would respectfully direct your attention to Dawn78's "terrifying" pie fight, seltzer squirtings, and that goofy song "The Gonk" played both earlier in the film and during the ending credits. Snyder's character's actually did barricade the mall doors or at least one of them (the footage is in the outtakes section of the dvd's extras).

Also agree with you regarding the end of Snyder's film, although I would probably rate it with only one "very" instead of two. :)

-- -------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

I don't get the whole campy/hammy opinions. I can see it as dated. I can see how a few of the scenes don't fit quite well enough. But the core acting to me is very good. I do agree that compared to Dawn '04 it is more campy and more silly. But when I look at the body of horror movies I was watching in and around that time I just don't see it as bad compared to its peers.

Don't misunderstand me, I totally dig Dawn78. It has its good points that Dawn04 lacks just as Dawn04 has good points that Dawn78 lacks. I guess with two different director styles, any discussion can easily turn into an apples and oranges sort of debate. I like both movies, each solely for what they are.

Andy

27-Aug-2011, 01:06 PM

Dawn '78 is still a horror movie for me. It is scary. The atmosphere is creepy. The subject matter is horrific. I think to call it an action flick opens the door to calling any movie an action flick simply because it has action in it.

Dawn isnt a horror movie! its not scary, the atmosphere is goofy and while the subject matter is horrific, the way its presented is incredibly cheesy! Its a fun action flick but its dosnt register on the horror scale. I found driller killer scarier than dawn :lol:

The behavior of zombies to ignore humans at times has been discussed before and it's a common element in GAR's movies. Whether it is Bub being trained or Big Daddy focusing on a larger goal, or the nun just not being interested. It's never bothered me because it's clearly part of GAR's intent for his zombies. In fact, in the case of the nun, I think it's an interesting element. Was she able to overcome the urge to feed due to how she lived her life?

The Hare Krishna scene is one of the scenes that I have a hard time watching because it makes my skin crawl when he gets so close to defenseless Fran. Why did he go to the stairway instead of following the food? Maybe he was smarter than the others and was hoping where they came from had more food with no competition for it. Maybe he heard Fran opening and closing the door. We know that not all the zombies were lured with food. It's not terribly out of line with the general zombie behavior.

Do you really want to get me started on a argument that involves big daddy :lol: Zombies ignoring food flies in the face of everything else thats setup about zombie behaviour in romeros universe. In fact, if i can just use a quote from dawn to illustrate this..

The normal question, the first question is always; are these cannibals? No, they are not cannibals. Cannibalism in the true sense of the word implies an intrapecies activity. These creatures cannot be considered human. They prey on humans. They do not prey on each other, that's the difference. They attack and they feed only on warm human flesh. Intelligence? Seemingly little or no reasoning power, but basic skills remain a more remembered behaviors from normal life. There are reports of these creatures using tools. But even these actions are the most primitive, the use of external articles as bludgeons and so forth. I might point out to you that even animals will adopt the basic use of tools in this manner. These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct. We must not be lulled by the concept that these are our family members or our friends. They are not. They will not respond to such emotions.

That wraps up perfectly what zombie behaviour should be, was the nun able to overcome her urge to feed due to fran saving her life? i sure as hell hope not becuase if thats it, thats another reason to add to my growing 'reasons to dislike dawn' list. Read the last line of that quote again, These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct. We must not be lulled by the concept that these are our family members or our friends. They are not. They will not respond to such emotions.

Which is right, its a core zombie characteristic. I get so pissed off at romero contradicting himself like this, he does it in all his films :lol:

I don't get the whole campy/hammy opinions. I can see it as dated. I can see how a few of the scenes don't fit quite well enough. But the core acting to me is very good. I do agree that compared to Dawn '04 it is more campy and more silly. But when I look at the body of horror movies I was watching in and around that time I just don't see it as bad compared to its peers.

I seriously wish you lived on this side of the pond trin becuase i would love to have you round to my house to watch romeros movies and discuss, we'd have a great time. The campiness/haminess is so hard to explain without actually sitting watching it. Its everything about the film, the characters, the zombies, the make up, the music, the settings, the general atmosphere.. its as camp as dale winton judging a speedo contest :lol:

Dont get me wrong, i enjoy the original dawn but i enjoy it for what it is, an over the top, cheesy boys action film. Not a horror, and that for reason it dosnt touch day or night in my book.

blind2d

28-Aug-2011, 05:15 PM

The horror part is Flyboy. Some of the funny, but most of the horror. And Fran. And Roger. And... geez. Whatever.

Trin

30-Aug-2011, 08:52 PM

Do you really want to get me started on a argument that involves big daddyYeah, I think I do. The forums have been too quiet. And I have a lot of free time. :D

I get so pissed off at romero contradicting himself like this, he does it in all his films
I think this statement sums up the disagreement here. You are arguing how you want the zombies to be, not what GAR portrays. What I'm suggesting is that if you examine all the examples of odd zombie behavior throughout the movies, then the nun and hare krishna zombies aren't such huge departures.

Don't get me wrong, I like what Dr. Rausch describes as zombie behavior, and if I had my way all zombies would abide by his description. But Dr. Rausch was only describing the largest population of zombies... the ones that were causing problems. He's not concerned with the smaller percentage that is wandering around not paying attention to much of anything, and he's certainly not in a position to see the ones who are learning.

Take a look at the zombies in Day that refuse to approach the pen gates. They're a slap in the face to Dr. Rausch's description, yet no one is taking huge exception with Day.

I seriously wish you lived on this side of the pond trin becuase i would love to have you round to my house to watch romeros movies and discuss, we'd have a great time.
That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... :evil::eek::sneaky::elol:

The campiness/haminess is so hard to explain without actually sitting watching it. Its everything about the film, the characters, the zombies, the make up, the music, the settings, the general atmosphere.
I think our difference in opinion here is as much age related and what we grew up watching as anything else. Compared to the other junk horror I was watching at the time, Dawn '78 felt very modern and polished. And some of my favorite TV from that time was Dr. Who, which set a different standard for campy.

Neil

30-Aug-2011, 09:36 PM

Dawn isnt a horror movie! its not scary, the atmosphere is goofy and while the subject matter is horrific, the way its presented is incredibly cheesy! Its a fun action flick but its dosnt register on the horror scale. I found driller killer scarier than dawn :lol:
Depends on your frame of mind...

Consider this. I saw "The Exorcist" twice at the cinema a matter of a week or so between viewings. The first time was in a nigh on empty cinema, and the film disturbed the b-Jesus out of me! The second time was a late at night and the cinema was full of after-pub-youngsters, who absolutely killed the film by their constant sniggers and laughs.

Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor.

And I'd say the same about Day too! It's even darker in many ways... And at least it's more accessible if only due to its high production values.

blind2d

31-Aug-2011, 01:51 AM

Neil saves the day again.

rongravy

31-Aug-2011, 04:09 AM

That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... :evil::eek::sneaky::elol:

I'd be down for that, as I liked Land!!!
(Of course, I'd have to bitch about Big Daddy, and fawn/jizz about Asia. I do love her so...)

Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor.

Yeah, I think alot of younger folk who've had the benefit of CG don't get Dawn like those of us who had to do things like, ohhhh... play outside instead of fiddle with our iPhones, or XBOX don't get the fear that movie can put in you as a child of days past. I'm not as big a fan of even b/w Night, but the nightmares I had as a child over that stuff was scary as hell. Mostly involving losing a loved one...
I think some of the argument against Dawn04 is kind of flimsy, as the original is guilty of some of the same. Sure, it doesn't stand up to the original that probably shaped many of our beliefs on the whole shi-bang, but it did help kickstart the genre again, and whet our appetites for more, more, more.
My main problem was sprinter zombies, as I'd be winded before I even hit half a block away.
We just don't want to see anyone fiddle with what we know and love. I can definitely understand the dislike of Diary, and the hate for Survival. But dayumn...
I'd still love to see someone let George have full say and budget on the epic tale I still think he has in him. Fanboy or not, he ain't washed up yet in my book.

Neil

31-Aug-2011, 09:37 AM

I'd still love to see someone let George have full say and budget on the epic tale I still think he has in him. Fanboy or not, he ain't washed up yet in my book.
I think 1980s George, yes... But I think (a bit like John Carpenter) he's lost his mojo now...

Trin

31-Aug-2011, 02:46 PM

I think 1980s George, yes... But I think (a bit like John Carpenter) he's lost his mojo now...
I think he never had the mojo we attribute to him. As we've all debated for a while now, the people around him make a lot of difference. What I'd like to see is GAR take a more advisory role in the next Dead project and letting someone fresher take over the actual filmmaking. It might result in a better movie today plus would be a nice way to pass the baton to the next generation of zombie filmmakers, thus assuring his legacy continues.

Neil

31-Aug-2011, 02:54 PM

I think he never had the mojo we attribute to him. As we've all debated for a while now, the people around him make a lot of difference. What I'd like to see is GAR take a more advisory role in the next Dead project and letting someone fresher take over the actual filmmaking. It might result in a better movie today plus would be a nice way to pass the baton to the next generation of zombie filmmakers, thus assuring his legacy continues.

Having hand typed in two of his scripts (Dawn & Day), I get the feeling Romero had a very good idea of exactly what he wanted those two films to be, and made it happen. I think Dawn and Day are pretty solid reflections of his film making abilities.

Andy

31-Aug-2011, 05:38 PM

Yeah, I think I do. The forums have been too quiet. And I have a lot of free time. :D

OK ill bite the bait, ANY director who thinks that the concept of 'big daddy' is a good idea is a desperate hack. Even Ewe Boll hasnt sunk that low (yet).

Happy?

I think this statement sums up the disagreement here. You are arguing how you want the zombies to be, not what GAR portrays. What I'm suggesting is that if you examine all the examples of odd zombie behavior throughout the movies, then the nun and hare krishna zombies aren't such huge departures.

Don't get me wrong, I like what Dr. Rausch describes as zombie behavior, and if I had my way all zombies would abide by his description. But Dr. Rausch was only describing the largest population of zombies... the ones that were causing problems. He's not concerned with the smaller percentage that is wandering around not paying attention to much of anything, and he's certainly not in a position to see the ones who are learning.

Take a look at the zombies in Day that refuse to approach the pen gates. They're a slap in the face to Dr. Rausch's description, yet no one is taking huge exception with Day.

I Think bub is acceptable becuase i do not accept that bub is learning. My personal theory is that bub is mimicking actions dr logan has shown him and thats all.

And i dont agree that its down to my opinion of what zombies should be, it is romero contradicting himself all the time that annoys me. I like all kinds of zombie movies with different behaviors in all of them, from night of the living dead to day of the dead to return of the living dead and evil dead, because they are all consistent with their own rules. What romero does bothers me in the same way as if you sat down to a dracula movie and it was established that the vampire dies if its exposed to daylight and then a few scenes later, you see the vampire walking down a street in broad daylight. Thats what romero does with his zombies.

That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... :evil::eek::sneaky::elol:

Id do that but be prepared to listen to me moan for 3 or 4 hours :P

I think our difference in opinion here is as much age related and what we grew up watching as anything else. Compared to the other junk horror I was watching at the time, Dawn '78 felt very modern and polished. And some of my favorite TV from that time was Dr. Who, which set a different standard for campy.

Possibly, although i like junk horror and low budget movies. I love alot of old campy horror movies and thats probably why i don't totally hate dawn.. but i still stand by my statement that its the weakest movie of the original trilogy.

Depends on your frame of mind...

Consider this. I saw "The Exorcist" twice at the cinema a matter of a week or so between viewings. The first time was in a nigh on empty cinema, and the film disturbed the b-Jesus out of me! The second time was a late at night and the cinema was full of after-pub-youngsters, who absolutely killed the film by their constant sniggers and laughs.

Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor.

And I'd say the same about Day too! It's even darker in many ways... And at least it's more accessible if only due to its high production values.

I Get what your saying but i still dont think Dawn is a horror movie, its not any less of a movie for it, its a good ole cheesy 70's action movie and it is good, but theres nothing horrifying about it.

Neil

31-Aug-2011, 06:21 PM

I Get what your saying but i still dont think Dawn is a horror movie, its not any less of a movie for it, its a good ole cheesy 70's action movie and it is good, but theres nothing horrifying about it.

Don't agree... It's like saying "The Exorcist" isn't a horror movie, because the body count isn't high enough. As I said before, if you want to laugh your way through "The Exorcist," it's easily done... So it's not horror? But if you read between its lines, and let it wash over you, its frikkin terrifying!

Same with Dawn - If you judge it by its cover, of course it's just a low budget splatter action flick. But if you buy into the subtext, and go into this alternative reality, it's horrific alright. Damn horrific!

There's a reason why it's given me (& others by the sounds of it) more nightmares than anything else...

But of course different people get different things from different films. Some people gel with some movies, while other don't. Simple as...

Ragnarr

02-Sep-2011, 07:26 PM

Don't agree... It's like saying "The Exorcist" isn't a horror movie, because the body count isn't high enough. As I said before, if you want to laugh your way through "The Exorcist," it's easily done... So it's not horror? But if you read between its lines, and let it wash over you, its frikkin terrifying!

Same with Dawn - If you judge it by its cover, of course it's just a low budget splatter action flick. But if you buy into the subtext, and go into this alternative reality, it's horrific alright. Damn horrific!

There's a reason why it's given me (& others by the sounds of it) more nightmares than anything else...

But of course different people get different things from different films. Some people gel with some movies, while other don't. Simple as...

Agreed. Everything is a matter of perspective. If I were to place a can of Diet Coke on a table in front of a group of people and tell them, "say something true about what I just placed on the table", one person may say "it's an aluminum can" (true), another may say "it's a soft drink" (true), and so on. Same goes for our perceptions of Dawn78 or Dawn04. Neither flick would be found in the comedy section of your local video store, but whether it's placed in the action, thriller, or horror sections totally depends on the pimply-faced store clerk's perspective.

bd2999

12-Sep-2011, 05:53 PM

One of the issues I have found is it depends a great deal on the situation you watch the movie. I think if one sits down and watches the original Dawn of the first time and just watch it they flat out will not think it is scary. Which is fine. If you actually watch it and follow the story, it is slow for modern viewers so that can be harder, than it causes you to think and that IMO puts the seed of horror in there. Horror to me is not about the body count. Sure slashers are horror movie icons but at the same time they are not the scariest movies. To me the most effective horror films are the ones that have messages to them that get you to think what if this happened would it go any different. Horror is more than jump scares.

The Exorcist, as stated above, is a dumb movie for many who watch it now because it is sort of slow and has some goofy moments, Rosmary's baby has an unexpected ending that some people just do not like. But at the same time all of them can get under your skin if you truely watch them. And to me that makes them horror.

Ragnarr

12-Sep-2011, 08:05 PM

As I stated elsewhere, the reason why Romero's vision of the zombie apocalypse is so much more creepier than Snyder's vision is that in Romero's, ANY death will result in a zombie whereas a victim needs to be bitten to become a zombie in Snyder's flick. So a group of survivors in Romero's version can be considered safe from the hordes outside a boarded up house, but it would take only 1 natural death of a survivor inside the house to endanger everyone there. Really makes you want to sleep alone in a situation like that, eh?

Romero's zombie outbreak would also spread faster than Snyder's I'd think. In Romero's, zombies would just spring up en mass from morgues, hospitals, funerals homes, cemetaries, traffic accident fatalities, all potentially in a single night. In Snyder's version, it'd start off very incidental and wouldn't actually become a serious threat for quite some time.

Neil

12-Sep-2011, 09:35 PM

Was that stated? In Snyder's film you had to be bitten?

bassman

12-Sep-2011, 10:03 PM

Mike70

13-Sep-2011, 12:29 AM

in dawn 04 it seems to be spread only by bites (or so it appears). people that simply die, die and stay dead.

then again, i don't really care. i need 9 more posts for 5,000 and the fuckers are not going to write themselves.

Ragnarr

13-Sep-2011, 04:23 AM

The old woman the gets shot to death in the gunfight with the gangsta. They're about to shoot her in the head when Sarah Polley says something like "she wasn't bitten, wait and see". I seem to remember that, anyway...

At the coffee shop, Ana mentions, "I think it's the bites." Also as bassman stated, Ana said that Norma (the older woman) wasn't going to come back because she was killed by gunshots. I thought all of you knew that Snyder's zombie creation was exclusively through infection. I knew. The ol' Ragmeister doesn't miss a trick you see! Go me!

Neil

13-Sep-2011, 10:44 AM

Christopher Jon

03-Feb-2012, 01:41 AM

Might as well be debating Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

I enjoyed both Dawns. Both have some cool shit and both have some WTF? shit.

zombi3skater

09-Apr-2012, 03:57 PM

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland

MinionZombie

09-Apr-2012, 05:35 PM

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland

I'm glad some of the new blood of the fanbase recognise the distinction between infected flicks and zombie flicks, although as much as I hate Yawn04, I'd say it's still dead people ... but they flipping well run (I've made my thoughts on that issue very clear in this thread, I'm sure :lol:) ... 28 Days Later though, aye, definitely NOT zombies - the simple fact that in 28DL they starve to death after a month says it all. Zombies don't starve to death ... humans do, as do humans infected with a virus that's akin to 'super rabies'. Oh, and the fact that Garland and Boyle - the two key creative creators of 28DL - have both explicitly stated as a matter of indisputable fact that 28DL flat out, in no way, ain't a zed-flick. End-of, on that, really. :sneaky::D

Neil

09-Apr-2012, 07:38 PM

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland

It still frustrates me to hell that 04 could have been soooo much better just for:-
1) No superhuman screams, movement and daft contact lenses.
2) Rediculously stupid survivor antics.

If they'd just left dead people dead, and not felt the need to supercharge them up with ninja moves, godzilla screams and daft contact lenses it would have been an improvement. And if the survivors had just acted like normal people, rather than individuals behaving like they didn't care about survival (because of a poor script), it would have been an improvement.

YES, the film was OK, but it could have been great!

Zombo

16-Apr-2012, 03:29 PM

I watch all these movies, but I gotta say I prefer the shambling zombies to the rage-infected kind. But that's just me.

MinionZombie

16-Apr-2012, 05:16 PM

I watch all these movies, but I gotta say I prefer the shambling zombies to the rage-infected kind. But that's just me.

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x61/RinLockhart/high-five.png

:cool:

Zombo

16-Apr-2012, 05:25 PM

Heh! Back atcha!

CJ Markham

15-May-2012, 08:24 PM

It still frustrates me to hell that 04 could have been soooo much better just for:-
1) No superhuman screams, movement and daft contact lenses.
2) Rediculously stupid survivor antics.

If they'd just left dead people dead, and not felt the need to supercharge them up with ninja moves, godzilla screams and daft contact lenses it would have been an improvement. And if the survivors had just acted like normal people, rather than individuals behaving like they didn't care about survival (because of a poor script), it would have been an improvement.

YES, the film was OK, but it could have been great!

The contact lenses didn't bother me--any more than the day-glo colors of the zombies in the original did. In fact, I've heard it said (on more than one occasion) that if George Romero had the money when making the original "Dawn of the Dead", that he would've liked to have used the same type of contact lenses used in "The Exorcist", "The Incredible Hulk", and "Salem's Lot"--you know, the creepy mirror kind, to give his zombies the impression that they didn't have any pupils left...that the only thing left inside of them was nothing. The kind of dehumanizing thing done in comic books over the years. And, for those ready to cry "bullshit", remember the look of the zombies in the "Night of the Living Dead" remake--they were wearing contacts, too...

As for the screams and superhuman speed,--oh, well. They did it in "28 Days Later", so maybe they figured they had to follow suit. By then, times zombie-wise had clearly changed...and stiff, shambling corpses that you could just walk away from (an observation made by Babs in the "Night" remake) just didn't seem all that scary anymore. Besides, on a technical, physiological level, I've seen some pretty good arguments as to why running zombies are more realistic than stiff ones, but that's a whole 'nother show, Maury.

The survivors in the remake cared about survival--there was lots of planning in their actions, compliments of the guy who sold TVs at Best Buy. The little redhead girl was technically "stupid" for going after the dog, but she was just 16, after all. And, truth be told, I wouldn't have let MY dog get sent out into a sea of zombies--there would've been alot of "Reservoir Dogs" style drawing of guns before that would go down, I'm here to tell you... But, even if my dog HAD been sent, and was in danger, I would go out after her long before I'd go after alot of the people I saw huddled in the Mall.

Anyway, the "suvivor" mentality CAN indeed degenerate into a selfish free-for-all...and anybody who thinks that it would automatically be "all for one and one for all" has never been in a situation where sheer survival was in question.

In closing, I don't think that the script was poor. It simply reflects the changes that have taken place in film making since the original came out over thirty years ago. And, if the Dawn remake were REMADE now, it would be different as well...and there would be more for people to bitch about online.

:D

Andy

15-May-2012, 08:28 PM

I like this guy :D

babomb

04-Jun-2012, 08:01 AM

Which is evidence that technology makes people lazy. Why be creative and innovative? Most times it's because you're forced to. The moment you have a 100,000,000 dollar budget and cgi in your arsenal it seems as if all imagination goes out the window. And that goes For snyder as well as most everybody else. That's not entirely true. That's only the case when people rely on technology to patch up the holes in an already mediocre script or production ethic. CG is just a tool, just like a camera is just a tool. For instance, Lord Of The Rings. I'm not a fan of that genre and frankly I found those films rather boring. But I do give credit to not only Peter Jackson, but the entire team for pulling off an incredible series of films that utilized digital technology in very creative and innovative ways. This is due almost entirely to having a really great creative coordinator who not only understands the limitations of the technology, but who's input in the whole process from script to distribution is valued highly. You have some directors and cinematographers that are too full of themselves, and see every decision in a selfish way and pride themselves in not compromising their own vision. It's a delicate balance there. Because directors in most cases are not and were never CG artists or coordinators. If you're utilizing CG in a film, it's best to allow the input of those who are familiar with the technology to have the right amount of influence over the decisions made regarding it.
That's why the best films that utilize CG are the ones that push the limits of the technology. Because the directors are forced to rely on those who know about the technology in order to pull it off because they run into a wall that the directors themselves are unable to get over otherwise. It's a common misconception with CG that it's an easy fix. It only seems like an easy fix if you don't understand the technology. CG brings together all other disciplines of traditional art. A CG artist doesn't just know how to use a computer and a 3D application, the artist understands the fundamentals of light, color, form, cinematography.
My point is that it isn't technology that makes people lazy. Those people were already lazy, and that just shows through by their use of the technology.

Trin

05-Jun-2012, 02:39 AM

I think the general problem here is that filmmakers have new toys and they want to use those toys to the distraction of other things. CGI is not a bad thing, but it has become the vessel upon which creativity succeeds or fails. And there is only so much visual wonderment to a movie.

Lord of the Rings is a great example of a franchise that took visuals to a very high level with innovation and creativity and just plain talent. But the story was written for them so they didn't need to spend a ton of time there.

Dawn '04 and some other recent films (28 Weeks Later, I Am Legend) devoted attention to the visuals to the detraction of the story. In all those cases the action scenes were fantastic visually but simply made no sense from a plot, storyline, character development or plausibility perspective. (Note that 28 Days Later doesn't fit this profile - it was far more character and storyline driven)

Even Romero got sucked into it. Survival has some of the worst CGI zombie gags in the business. Without the CGI toy to play with maybe the movie would've been better.

Filmmakers need to remember that a movie is first and foremost a story. Everything else is window-dressing.

Neil

17-Jun-2012, 05:59 PM

Christopher Jon

17-Jun-2012, 06:18 PM

So Dawn 04 was on TV last night. I tuned in and it confirmed my memories of its weak script (in places).

I turned on and soon I was confronted with the sequence with the group of new arrivals licking their wounds in the mall. The fat girl had been bitten and was incredibly ill, and indeed with a few minutes, she took a couple of last gasping breaths, and then stopped... Dead! So what do the half dozen other survivors do in the room? Knowing the world has gone to hell with the dead rising? They..... put a blanket over her and carry on as if nothing's happened. Who'd have believe it when a minute later up she gets and tries to bite their arses. Are we suppose to buy these individuals are so dim? That they really have so little consideration for their own survival? I don't buy it! And from recollection this is happens over and over...
At that point in the movie they hadn't figured out the cause for the zombies. It's actually due to that scene that the nurse chick comes to the conclusion that it's the bites that spread the zombie virus. They discuss it shortly afterwards at the coffee shop. Which is why shortly after, they shoot the dad who had also been bitten. The script isn't as weak as you think it is.

Now, hanging ninja zombie... I've got no excuses for that silliness.

A big difference between the two movies and the characters actions is the amount of information they had before they got to the mall.

In DOTD 78, the zombie thing had been happening for at least a couple of weeks and the characters had some idea of what was happening and how the zombie virus was spread.

With DOTD 04, the characters all go to the mall on day 1, they don't really have any idea of what is happening aside from the dead are attacking the living. The characters in DOTD 04 behave very much like the characters in NOTLD, they make dumb some dumb decisions because they don't know any better.

Neil

18-Jun-2012, 07:19 PM

At that point in the movie they hadn't figured out the cause for the zombies. It's actually due to that scene that the nurse chick comes to the conclusion that it's the bites that spread the zombie virus. They discuss it shortly afterwards at the coffee shop. Which is why shortly after, they shoot the dad who had also been bitten. The script isn't as weak as you think it is.
I understand that... And it's as week as I think it is :)
- They knew the dead were rising.
- Many, if not all of them had seen dead people get up and proceed to chow down on the living.
- The fat girl was getting extremely ill, extremely quickly and looked ghastly, from.... a bite from a zombie.

...and none of this resulted in the slightest concern when she died? Not two brain cells in the whole room could fire off to consider maybe, just maybe, she might hop up and bite their arses?

It was silly and felt unbelievable that none of these folks would consider it or care about their survival. Almost on par with ninja-silent-pipe-hanging-legless-zombie!

I understand what they were attempting in the scene, but it crashed and burned due to characters behaving like a script needed them to behave, rather than how people really would behave.

SymphonicX

24-Jun-2012, 10:35 AM

Neil

25-Jun-2012, 07:36 PM

I really really like 300, and really enjoyed the Watchmen!

AcesandEights

25-Jun-2012, 08:38 PM

I really really like 300, and really enjoyed the Watchmen!

I really enjoyed Watchmen, and 300 was the highest grossing gay porn of all time. Hard to argue with that sort of success, but Symph nailed it. This guy can make a decent film, but needs some constraints and tight reins, none of which mark him as a good, let alone great, director and certainly not a passable creator of original content.

Andy

25-Jun-2012, 10:16 PM

Oh god, and it continues...

Had a discussion about apprehension of anything Snyder touches with a friend the other day....everything he's done that's been good, has been someone else's idea - except this film, which was bad.

The thing that was *his* idea, was probably the most offensive movie made in 2011 - Sucker Punch.

Everything of his people have enjoyed, have been word for word, shot for shot lifted from another source - and all his good work is really attributed to the writers of the graphic novels he's been charged with adapting.

So Superman's saving grace is that Nolan and co. are writing it....but just look at Snyder's back catalogue. This guy, IMO, is much worse than Uwe Boll. This man is a destroyer of licences.

Even if you marginally like or even love the remake of Dawn, you shouldn't be able to deny that it's a bit of a shame that the name "Dawn of the Dead" and concept of zombies in malls is now tied up completely for another 30 years....or until they reboot it. Especially as it was so lavishly squandered on this movie....which even if you remove it's massively disappointing title, is actually very shallow and thin on the ground in every aspect except gore and action.

I Really dont think its fair to compare Snyder to Boll, for one thing snyder does actually put some effort into his movies. I Dont think its fair to compare him to the classics either, like Romero.

Comparing Romero to Snyder is like comparing sirloin steak to a cheeseburger, sure a sirloin is great and more satisfying but that said, i enjoy a cheeseburger. Comparing anything to uwe boll is like comparing it to very rotten dogshit thats come from a very sick dog.. nothing else quite gets that low. Maybe im going soft in my old age but i wouldnt even put Land of the Dead that low..

SymphonicX

27-Jun-2012, 02:03 PM

MinionZombie

27-Jun-2012, 04:41 PM

Uwe Boll wins over Snyder for me not because of the effort they are percieved as making, or not....(in Boll's case) it's just because Boll has destroyed...what? One movie licence? House of the Dead? (I am so not researching this dude's films on IMDB) - so you know what, I can handle losing that one!

I suppose the problem with Boll is, aside from making utter dross, he's ruining numerous videogame franchises in terms of movie adaptations. Such things are usually shite most of the time anyway (Max Payne, and rated PG-13, anyone?), but there are the odd good one now and then (Silent Hill, even though it's not amazing it's still a decent flick) ... Boll has mangled numerous titles such as FarCry and Postal.

Snyder, as I've said before, is only good at copying the work of other - much greater - artists. I really dug Watchmen (particular the extended cut), but if it wasn't for the quality of the source material (and Snyder sticking religiously to the pages laid out before him - like he did with 300 aka "the gayest movie homophobes ever called their own") then what do you have? Sucker Punch - that's what ... and what a fetid fart that was. All mouth and no trousers (literally and figuratively), with such a bizarre moral compass.

And we all know what I think of Yawn04... :sneaky::D

rongravy

27-Jun-2012, 09:19 PM

Dang, Uwe Boll is nuttier than a peach orchard boar, ain't he?
I didn't even realize he was the guy who ruined House of the Dead.

Neil

28-Jun-2012, 08:27 AM

Snyder, as I've said before, is only good at copying the work of other - much greater - artists. I really dug Watchmen (particular the extended cut), but if it wasn't for the quality of the source material (and Snyder sticking religiously to the pages laid out before him - like he did with 300 aka "the gayest movie homophobes ever called their own") then what do you have?
While I can sort of see what you're saying, that does come across a little harsh on the guy. I mean he didn't just put the comic book infront of a camera and shout action did he? - Give the man a little bit of credit :)

SymphonicX

28-Jun-2012, 04:08 PM

While I can sort of see what you're saying, that does come across a little harsh on the guy. I mean he didn't just put the comic book infront of a camera and shout action did he? - Give the man a little bit of credit :)

Actually, I think he did....

Each shot storyboarded directly from the comic, and all the dialogue and voice over lifted from the comic too....then the DoP composites the shots to the source material, and Snyder basically says "you stand here, you stand here, I'm off to get a coffee and a donut".

Well I'm sure he'll say he did more....personally I don't buy it. The stuff is a direct adaptation and he left no room for any sort of interpretation from the actors nor himself.

Watchmen WAS good - don't get me wrong, but it was still too long, almost too much detail, very overblown and sat perfectly with how the graphic novels were written - that's the thing about film, we all know it doesn't directly translate and the ten page monologue from this or that character can be condensed into two shots of clever filmmaking - which Snyder hasn't achieved with any of his movies....

As for Boll -turns out he's also a destroyer of licences but I certainly wasn't queuing up to see Far Cry....video game movies as generally shite anyway, with the exception of Silent Hill as MZ rightly pointed out...

Yojimbo

12-Jul-2012, 01:59 AM

I really enjoyed Watchmen, and 300 was the highest grossing gay porn of all time. Hard to argue with that sort of success, but Symph nailed it. This guy can make a decent film, but needs some constraints and tight reins, none of which mark him as a good, let alone great, director and certainly not a passable creator of original content.

Agree that Snyder's sucesses are when he emulates shot for shot from other sources- and still he is such a douche that he borders on a massive fail. The whole telegraphing that Ozymandias is a bad guy the first time you see him on screen in Watchman comes to mind as the act of a cheesy hack of a director.

babomb

12-Jul-2012, 11:37 PM

I understand what they were attempting in the scene, but it crashed and burned due to characters behaving like a script needed them to behave, rather than how people really would behave. I think this same thing about every zombie movie I watch. And I'm in no way saying this in defense of Dawn04. Just as a general thing I've noticed, and something that seems to always be out of place. I have a hard time understanding when and how a person would come to the conclusion that the dead are rising and attacking the living. A person is much more likely to think that they are stuck in a dream. What would it take for a person to accept the idea that the dead are rising and eating the living? I think the last survivor would die without accepting that as the reality of the situation. Without ever even seeing that as a possibility of the reality of the situation. I think that most people could watch these events play out multiple times, but in hindsight they would think that they are either remembering the incident in a distorted way, have somehow been drugged and hallucinated parts of it or all of it, or that there is some scientific explenation that they are just not privvy to.

Even though I'm a fan of the zombie genre, I can't see myself ever coming to the realization that the dead are rising to eat the living. Even if I were watching it happen in front of me, and having medical experts explain to me that it is indeed happening. My mind would still be searching for a plausible explenation. Because the dead don't rise to eat the living. It just does NOT happen. And I've yet to see a zombie movie that realistically depicts this with that in mind. Somehow, the characters always make this impossible realization. Which to me is more of how a script requires them to behave rather than how a person would ever actually behave under those circumstances.

I think that faced with these circumstances, a person could never actually accept that and remain an effective survivor. Which is why I think it's a mistake to make that assertion in any zombie movie. It's something that should happen in the mind of the viewer but never actually said in the film. Which means the characters WOULD make alot of stupid mistakes, because the reality of the situation is that of utter chaos and confusion. From the perspective of a typical survivor in that situation, severely injured people are attacking other people and tearing them apart. It would be a while before people would even come to the conclusion that people are being eaten. You would have to witness an attack from a safe location to observe that. You would never turn on the TV and see anyone informing the public that people are attacking other people and eating their flesh. You might see something like that being said on youtube, but people would not just accept it.

DEAD BEAT

13-Dec-2012, 10:03 PM

When i heard a ramake of Dawn was in production i was really excited. I love the 1978 G. Romero version of "Dawn of the Dead", but it 'dawned' on me that this was another lame remake.

Whereas Romero's favourite monsters are a slow, rotting, shuffling horde whose sheer number and relentless advance is very much part of their creepy menace, Snyders zombies are ridicolously fast. They have no problem racing at 25MPH toward their victims. There are some who find this particular addition to "zombie attributes" exciting, but I found it to be a completely absurd.

You know what 1 of the worse things about having fast zombies vs. slow is that you lose a lot of the great scenes of survivors who are in the middle of the hoards slaying zombies!

Example the truck scene where Rodgers jumping from truck to truck, or when they are running past the zombies to get to the department stores or even the pie in the face! lol In Yawn 04' you cant even be on ground level with them for a minute with out someones nuts being ripped off! ;)

Neil

14-Dec-2012, 10:22 AM

In Yawn 04' you cant even be on ground level with them for a minute with out someones nuts being ripped off! ;)

Unless you're chasing after a dog with absolutely no common sense or concern for your mortality! (Am I being unfair - Can't remember the scene well!)

MinionZombie

14-Dec-2012, 12:55 PM

Unless you're chasing after a dog with absolutely no common sense or concern for your mortality! (Am I being unfair - Can't remember the scene well!)

No, you're not being unfair at all - that was one of the most idiotic moments in that piss poor excuse for a movie (and no, my problems with the flick wouldn't be fixed if it was re-named something else, in case anyone out there suggests it :sneaky:). That silly girl going after Mr Chips or whatever its name was ... dozy bint ... leave it to her to mess up an already idiotic plan.

Dead Beat is also quite right - the shamblers allow for that sort of feeling you used to get as a child when you played that game where "the floor is lava, don't touch it!" and you'd have to traverse the room by only climbing on the furniture. The floor is right there inches away, and you could so easily land on it ... likewise with shamblers, they're not leaping at you like raptors (thank heaven for that!), but they're so close and they're only getting closer as you faff about getting from one vehicle to the next, or figuring out your plan of action, or whatever. And yes, you do lose that close proximity tension - again, kind of like playing British Bulldogs, or tag, or any number of games when you were a kid - the point being that, the feeling generated by these scenarios featuring shamblers, has a sort of primal vibe to them. A sensation that goes right back to your youngest years, which burrows right down into the fight-or-flight reflexes, and the part of the brain that sends shivers across your flesh.

Runners have never, and can never, achieve that.

Neil

14-Dec-2012, 01:26 PM

Dead Beat is also quite right - the shamblers allow for that sort of feeling you used to get as a child when you played that game where "the floor is lava, don't touch it!" and you'd have to traverse the room by only climbing on the furniture. The floor is right there inches away, and you could so easily land on it ... likewise with shamblers, they're not leaping at you like raptors (thank heaven for that!), but they're so close and they're only getting closer as you faff about getting from one vehicle to the next, or figuring out your plan of action, or whatever. And yes, you do lose that close proximity tension - again, kind of like playing British Bulldogs, or tag, or any number of games when you were a kid - the point being that, the feeling generated by these scenarios featuring shamblers, has a sort of primal vibe to them. A sensation that goes right back to your youngest years, which burrows right down into the fight-or-flight reflexes, and the part of the brain that sends shivers across your flesh.

Runners have never, and can never, achieve that.

True but.... stick with me here...

There's a phone app game, along the lines of zombies/infected. When you run it, your phone will show you the local position of other survivors/infected. When an infected gets next to a non-infected, they then become infected, and so on, until everyone is infected (dead). The thing is, the infected have a longer range on their map/radar...

Anyway, in the account I heard, one guy playing it decided to go to the middle of a nearby park so he had a clear line of sight. His radar was clear, but a good distance away he saw someone who was clearly a non-infected (survivor) running with a crow of people after them (clearly infected). They caught the individual...

He then watched as the entire herd looked down, and then immediately looked up in his direction, at him, and then started running straight for him full speed...

Now that's what runners give you...

Andy

14-Dec-2012, 02:51 PM

Unless you're chasing after a dog with absolutely no common sense or concern for your mortality! (Am I being unfair - Can't remember the scene well!)

Slightly unfair, i believe the scene was written to demonstrate exactly the characters stupidity. Do you really think in a zombie apocalypse that a teenage girl thats just lost her dad would be the most reasonable and intelligent person around?

Anyway, personally i know the argument (Runners vs Shamblers) will never reach a conclusion because while i like both, i like them both in totally different ways. To me, They are different monsters each with their own merits and drawbacks and this argument is about as logical as trying to argue pepsi vs apples.

And MZ, still holding onto a grudge.. its been 8 years man.. :bored:

capncnut

14-Dec-2012, 04:10 PM

The shamblers allow for that sort of feeling you used to get as a child when you played that game where "the floor is lava, don't touch it!" and you'd have to traverse the room by only climbing on the furniture. The floor is right there inches away, and you could so easily land on it ... likewise with shamblers, they're not leaping at you like raptors (thank heaven for that!), but they're so close and they're only getting closer as you faff about getting from one vehicle to the next, or figuring out your plan of action, or whatever. And yes, you do lose that close proximity tension - again, kind of like playing British Bulldogs, or tag, or any number of games when you were a kid - the point being that, the feeling generated by these scenarios featuring shamblers, has a sort of primal vibe to them. A sensation that goes right back to your youngest years, which burrows right down into the fight-or-flight reflexes, and the part of the brain that sends shivers across your flesh.
^ Pretty much.

I associate slow-moving things with the dead. I associate fast-moving things with the living. I like my zombies to shamble and moan like an old pervert, not sprinting down the road and squealing like pigs.

MinionZombie

14-Dec-2012, 06:06 PM

The dog chasing girl's dad died within 10 minutes of their arrival on-screen, however by the time they pissed off on their stupid plan (even the characters admit it's a daft plan, and even the one smart guy in the whole group gives up and goes with it after stating it was a bad plan) a bunch of time has passed, so she'll have got used to her loss ... besides, she didn't seem that emotionally bereft when she was shacking up with that goofy security guard apprentice.

A grudge? If I think a movie is shit over a long period of time, that's just a consistent opinion. I've not even spoken much about Yawn04 in the last couple of years.

facestabber

22-Dec-2012, 05:31 PM

Regardless of opinions on Dawn 04 it is my belief that Dawn 04 was the catalyst needed to spawn a new era of the zombie genre. Before that it was dead. Even though I can't stand Land of the Dead I dont believe it would have been made without Dawn 04. And certainly a tv show about zombies probably doesnt happen.

Admittedly I enjoyed Dawn 04 but probably more because there was nothing else. To see the living dead on the big screen was a sense of relief and enjoyment. Now I realize Dawn 04 has flaws and as time as worn on I have found that I enjoy it less. I dont hate it like I hate Land but its not as enjoyable for me. The acting and script were weak.

Thank god TWD took over and is completely re-writing what equals great story. TWD has set a standard that surpasses Romero IMO.

JonOfTheShred

24-Dec-2012, 01:31 AM

It's funny, because as much as I lampooned World War Z in the other thread for being a disgrace to zombie cinema, and how it completely disrespects the source material, I still love Dawn of the Dead 2004 to this day. When I first saw Dawn of the Dead 2004, I was 16 years old, and it resonated very well with me. I had seen zombie movies before then, but thinking back I'm pretty sure Dawn '04 is the movie that inspired my spiraling descent into crazed zombie-obsession insanity. ;) And while I see all the flaws in the movie as plain as day, I can watch it and enjoy the movie. Hell, I also loved Land of the Dead, and think despite a few hiccups it's one of the better zombie movies out there. Although Dawn '04 certainly strays from the original, I still definitely get a sense of passion in it that I couldn't see in the WWZ trailer.

Maybe it's because of my bias, but Dawn '04 seemed like a love letter to the concept of the original, meets 28 Days Later, and for cheesy action I dig it. The first 15 minutes of Dawn '04 were intense the first time you see it. WWZ, based on just the trailer of course, feels more like a straight cash-in, even more cookie cutter (what with obvious CGI) and cliche-ridden story-wise (man forced by government to get his hands dirty to save his family) than what some of you refer to as Yawn '04.

Day of the Dead 2008, on the other hand, had ZERO redeeming qualities and makes Dawn '04 look like Night 1990 in comparison. Then Night of the Living Dead 3D, on the other hand, with Sid Haig as the mortician, wasn't all that bad, even if it was a shitty cash-in I remember watching it with extremely low expectations and being pleasantly surprised. Maybe my opinion would be more jaded now after being spoiled with the Walking Dead. Who knows.

krisvds

05-Jan-2013, 07:11 PM

Even though I can't stand Land of the Dead I dont believe it would have been made without Dawn 04.

sigh.
Even though I can't stand Yawn (in fact where i first looked upon it as an enjoyable action flick i have come to seriously detest it after repeat viewings) I don't believe it would have been made without the far superior original: ;)

I still don't get all the hate Land gets. Never have. Diary and Survival (for the record, i like both) yes, but Land? Sorry, no.

MinionZombie

06-Jan-2013, 12:49 PM

Trin

07-Jan-2013, 06:05 PM

As an aside, regarding Land, over time I have moved from a Land Lover to a Land Liker. There's still loads I really dig about the flick, but gradually with repeated viewings there have been little things here and there throughout that irk me. Things where I think "if only he'd tweaked that just a little bit this way or that way, then that little element would be better". I still dig the movie, but there is a list of little irksome things about it which accompanies each viewing nowadays.
I've done the same from the opposite side. I'm not a Land hater anymore. I'm a Land disliker. My basic list of likes and dislikes is still the same. The irksome things are still irksome and I still feel frustrated that the movie could've been far greater with some rather smallish changes. But the characters and the setting are really good imo and my appreciation of those two aspects alone has grown, and is almost enough to pull me into the "like" category.

I maintain that Diary and Survival make Land an easier movie to like. :)

clanglee

08-Jan-2013, 03:54 AM

Hey Trin!! Nice to see you still around. And totally agree with you on that point. Land has grown less irksome as the years pass.

Having said that. . .

http://www.troll.me/images/jackie-chan-whut/why-is-this-thread-back-again.jpg

EvilNed

10-Jan-2013, 11:40 AM

krisvds

10-Jan-2013, 06:59 PM

The Dead is very much worth keeping. Do check it out! You'll love it.

Legion2213

04-Mar-2013, 01:03 PM

The Dead is very much worth keeping. Do check it out! You'll love it.

What he said.

Cracking movie, one of the best modern zombie flicks for a long time!

bassman

04-Mar-2013, 01:16 PM

I thought it was rather generic and a bit boring. Not horrible by any means, just nothing truly special. In a genre where 95% of the efforts are crap, it makes the mediocre ones seem better.

Legion2213

04-Mar-2013, 01:25 PM

I thought it was rather generic and a bit boring. Not horrible by any means, just nothing truly special. In a genre where 95% of the efforts are crap, it makes the mediocre ones seem better.

It's possible that the beautiful African setting also elevated it somewhat, but still, I really enjoyed it.

krisvds

30-Mar-2013, 07:18 AM

The Dead generic? I can understand some of you guys think it's boring because of the oppressive feel of the film. It's all dread and no hope ... In that sense it could not be farther removed from 'fun' and 'safe' depictions of the zombie apocalypse out there, like the TWD series. It's very different from what this genre had to offer these past few decades (Shaun, Zombieland, 28 days/weeks, Land, Dawn remake, TWD series, ...)

In fact it's so different from any other zombie film since the seventies/early eighties that it's anything but generic.
I suggest giving it another shot.

Morto Vivente

09-Apr-2013, 01:27 PM

I watched The Dead a few weeks ago, good enough to watch again. I loved the setting. A truly bad z-movie, Flight of the Living Dead. It's sooooooo bad !

Silentdawn

20-Aug-2013, 01:01 PM

ref Dawn 78' Vs Dawn 04

I never saw 04 as a remake, while it was ye olde zombies at a+mall ....it was like a different mall with a different vibe intro and outro...not so hot on running zombies but the highish production values half decent script and acting hung together well enough. Its not the movie i would of made but if asked to do a clone i would of probably reached for a lot of things they reached for.

That is to say that Dawn 04 was a good enough movie to stand on it own feet....and good enough to be just another movie you watched regardless of genre.

I have watched it twice, and perhaps one day i will watch it a third time...sure it was weak in places but as clone ish style movies go it was ok. They added a 101 well executed motifs, id didn't suck hairy sack of potatoes....UNLIKE almost every other zombie wanna be film ive watched

Its gets the " Hey i didn't suck really bad award" ...and then some !

I saw 78 not long after it came out, it always was and always will be the gold standard, because it did all the right things. Its a B movie with an A rating and while its possible to beat it your not going bury it alive any time this century that's for sure.

Geordie9

18-Oct-2013, 01:45 PM

i wasnt happy that they jumped on the dawn bandwagon and made a remake of it. I have watched it but i dont like it as a remake

Ragnarr

28-Nov-2013, 01:00 AM

I liked The Dead although I had a problem with the character's logic (or lack thereof lol). How in the name of Jupiter's BALLS do they think it's okay to only setup a perimeter of wire & tin cans to keep them safe for the night when they KNOW the undead are shuffling around everywhere? I mean damn, sleep up in a tree or at the very least make a perimeter circle of cut bushes placed next to each other facing outwards, THEN weave your wire & tin cans into the bushes.
Naa, we'll just sleep on the ground... it'll be fine. CHOMP! :bored:

Suicycho

29-Jan-2014, 01:59 AM

I not sure Snyder had much control over Dawn04. Watching the movie with the directors commentary on, there are a couple of scenes where he flat out states he had no idea why they filmed those scenes, he was just doing what he was told.

MinionZombie

29-Jan-2014, 11:09 AM

FunkyPertwee

23-Mar-2014, 05:27 AM

I'm watching Dawn '04 tonight.

Wow is this a hilariously bad film! I went and saw it when it was new and bought the DVD when it came out and watched it a good bit in the 2000's, but wow, this thing didn't hold up at all. Luckily its just bad enough to be funny without being boring.

I honestly hope the Nostalgia Critic reviews it for Halloween soon. Its old enough by now to warrant such a treatment.

Skinrash

12-Apr-2014, 09:51 AM

Saw this when it came out and never bothered to watch it again. A okay zombie film on it's own, but as a remake of Dawn of the dead, it falls flat.

Legion2213

09-Aug-2014, 09:21 PM

I can sort of understand why people get bent out of shape about name-rape or whatever, but on the other hand, when I watched Dawn 04 or WWZ, it's not like they kept displaying the name of the film on the screen every 5 seconds and shouting "YOU ARE WATCHING DAWN 04!!!"

I just enjoyed them for what they were, 90 minutes of a bit of blood soaked zombie action. I mean, if you watched a movie called "watching paint dry whilst standing on a giant smelly turd" that was really good, the name wouldn't bother you that much. :)

bd2999

13-Feb-2015, 03:17 AM

Meh, I enjoyed the movie. I prefer the original, but the movie was enjoyable. I would take it over WWZ in a second and the first bit of it was very good. I think the main draw back was with there being too many characters. I do not get people saying it is horrible, does not hold up and so on. Seems to still be fine to me. One of the better zombie films produced recently really. I prefer the Dead and Dead 2 for atmosphere and more of a classic feel but this was a good movie.

Hopegiver

17-May-2016, 08:19 PM

Don't think I ever posted my review....
When I asked a very difficult question: Which do you like better, this was my review back in 2004.

As with many movie re-makes, it has its strengths and weaknesses. However, before I answer that question, I want to present this review.

Zack Snyder’s (Director) version is packed with good action, great special effects and a great adaptation of Romero's script. The first time I walked out of the theatre after watching the movie I was very excited and praising the movie to high heaven. It met all of my expectations and exceeded a few of them as well. After a second viewing, I feel confident in being able to give a thorough review and comparison.

Now, I like that the movie starts with a lot of action and some audience jumping moments before the opening credits even roll. Ving Rhames does an excellent job as a lead character. Some of the gore scenes were top notch and were the result of fantastic special effects team (lead by David LeRoy Anderson of “Men in Black” & “Nutty Professor” fame), my most favorite being an exploding head due to a shotgun blast. The writer (James Gunn) took liberties with the original script but kept a lot of key elements for the die-hard Romero fans.

A list of things that are key elements to me as a die-hard fan:

The mysterious origin of the dead- I am extremely proud that Gunn did not try to improve the script by coming up with a cause. It is so much more powerful to have an unknown cause.
The mall-One of the most important elements is being able to secure the mall and isolate yourself from the zombie hoard. In comparison; the original characters had to TAKE the mall first, this 2004 group had it locked up before their arrival. Also there is a lot less time spent “enjoying” the mall in this new version.
Good characters get bit and/or die-There is nothing like having a good character ripped away from you, it makes for good reaction and emotion.
Comedy-I think the element of comedy is paramount to making a good movie. In zombie films a perfect way to contrast the dark subject. The original had stumbling zombies that came across as goofballs and even one scene with pies in the face, yes I said pies! This new version has more dialogue comedy with such great one-liners as “She died without a name? … Damn.” & “Okay, let’s draw straws and the loser runs across the parking lot with a ham sandwich”
The pregnancy-One character is pregnant and makes you wonder what will become of her and her baby. In this version we find out, as the mother is infected and will become a zombie and it makes for some very interesting dramatic scenes. You suspect that the disease may affect the baby but you are just not sure until the final moment before it is destroyed. In the original, the mother is not bitten but the fate of her impending baby’s birth is left to your imagination. At least in the final scripted version. Which brings me to my final point.
Two endings-The original script had two endings. There was the on-screen version where two of the main characters get away and fly off to an unknown future. Then there was the alternate script that has one of the last survivors taking his own life and the final character killing herself. In this new version, the end has the surviving characters sailing off into the sunset as the end credits begin to roll. However, after a few frames of credits there is a jumpy quickly cut shots (a la home cam-corder) of the survivors continuing their journey on the open sea. Through these clips we see the characters making to an island where a zombie hoard awaits them and BAM! you have a not so nice ending revealed amidst the final credits. Wicked cool way to have two endings on the same reel!!
A word on the zombies. Romero fans are used to the slow shuffling of the classic zombies. Slow methodic zombies are a hell of lot more scary to me than ones that run. Because of their speed, they are a little less believable. Also Romero’s zombies seem to have more depth. There are monsters that will eat you, but you can see how they were once human beings in the way they move and act. Snyder’s zombies seem to be specifically only monsters that will eat you and must be destroyed. On that note, I am also ecstatic that Gunn kept the well-known method for stopping a zombie in this version. The classic shot in the head.

How great it was for Romero fans to have two great cameo appearances in this version. Ken Foree, who played a major character role in the original version, makes a brief cameo as a reverend touting his classic statement “When there’s no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth”. I’ll bet he never thought he would be saying those same words on screen 26 years later. It was also thrilling to see a quick cameo by Tom Savini. Savini is the master special effects artist who made the Romero film come to un-life with gory and nightmarish zombies and effects.

For moviegoers who have never seen the original, this is a great movie on many accounts. The acting is good, the special effects horrifically wonderful and the action fast paced & exciting. The new generation of horror fans will love the job that Snyder and Gunn did, even if they miss the classic elements and references.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Now I can answer that question. Which one do I like best? The original. This new version is awesome and I love what it does for the horror genre and as a tribute to Romero’s vision. I will of course be on pins and needles awaiting the DVD release, however, as “Dawn of the Dead” it will have to take a back seat to the original.

JDP

26-May-2016, 06:53 PM

The Dawn remake was not as bad as I imagined it would be, but as should be expected from most remakes, it is not as good as the original. It just does not have the same charm as the original with its quaint 1970s environment and the then still developing "shopping mall culture" it seeks to critique. Very rarely does a remake match or actually surpass the original movie. One such rare example of this happening was Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The brilliant 1978 remake is actually even better than the 1956 original.

Hopegiver

30-May-2016, 04:57 PM

...One such rare example of this happening was Invasion of the Body Snatchers. The brilliant 1978 remake is actually even better than the 1956 original.

I agree, the '78 version of IOTBS was outstanding!!

Neil

30-May-2016, 07:59 PM

I agree, the '78 version of IOTBS was outstanding!!

The first 10 minutes or so of the remake had some good elements. But the insta-contacts/dyno roars on death annoyed the hell out of me...

shootemindehead

31-May-2016, 03:17 PM

http://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/article_main_wide_image/public/images/306529.jpg?itok=fL-4eOBv

JDP

02-Jun-2016, 03:13 AM

http://cdn2us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/article_main_wide_image/public/images/306529.jpg?itok=fL-4eOBv

One of the best movie endings ever.

rees1977

25-Mar-2017, 04:27 PM

78 version no doubt hate the fast moving zombies

Hopegiver

28-Mar-2017, 10:33 PM

78 version no doubt hate the fast moving zombies

Even now, when I watch the re-make I have to remind myself that it is not so much a re-make as it is an homage to the original. That the zombies are faster is at Synder & Gunn's liberty;their way to expand on the way the crisis progresses and unfolds.

LivingDeadGuy

07-Apr-2017, 01:03 PM

JDP

07-Apr-2017, 02:32 PM

The way i feel about it is the 1978 version had some poor quality special effects but it gave a message about how the world is going to hell due to mankind's selfishness. The 2004 remake on the other hand had better quality special effects but lacked the social commentary that Romero had given about our society.

Also I dont mind the fast zombies at all i admit that there were times when they were scary. But i personally like the slow zombies better because they are eerie.

Gore-wise, the original film is also way superior to the remake. I found the remake to be rather "tame" in that department. The remake only has better makeup, that's it. Everything else is better in the original.

LivingDeadGuy

07-Apr-2017, 08:17 PM

Personally I felt like Day of the Dead and Lucio Fulci's Zombie had better gore effects than Dawn of the Dead.

JDP

07-Apr-2017, 10:11 PM

Personally I felt like Day of the Dead and Lucio Fulci's Zombie had better gore effects than Dawn of the Dead.

Yes, but certainly not the Dawn remake. It was very tame in comparison to pretty much any of those 70s and 80s films.

halepauljeff

10-Apr-2017, 03:12 PM

'Dawn of the Dead' ('04) is an abysmal and abhorrent piece of celluloid. No comparison! Upon seeing '78 for the first time; renting it from the local video store in a clamshell VHS case, I was never quite the same. So, of course, there's a bias on my part.

LivingDeadGuy

10-Apr-2017, 05:24 PM

My main problem with the Dawn of the Dead remake was the offensiveness of it. Like the part with the televangelist claiming that God was punishing mankind with zombies for having 'men on men' relationships and abortions. Not because of the fact that humans are always murdering and hurting each other out of pure selfishness or the fact that we are slowly destroying our entire planet to the point of it eventually not having enough resources left for anyone to survive on.

I think Romero's reasoning behind the world ending makes more sense than Snyder's reasoning.

Hopegiver

18-Apr-2017, 01:39 AM

...Upon seeing '78 for the first time; renting it from the local video store in a clamshell VHS case, I was never quite the same. So, of course, there's a bias on my part.
Fair enough. Again, the original is still my all time favorite movie. Now is there anything you liked about the '04 version?

LivingDeadGuy

18-Apr-2017, 05:13 AM

Fair enough. Again, the original is still my all time favorite movie. Now is there anything you liked about the '04 version?

The one thing I admit to liking is the remix of the song "getting down with the sickness". Lol

JDP

18-Apr-2017, 07:15 AM

Another thing: the remake did NOT feature the biker gang assault on the shopping mall. How can you have a Dawn remake without a rendition of one of its most iconic sequences??? It's like if someone made a remake of Fulci's Zombie and there was no rendition of the shark vs zombie sequence, or the splinter-through-the-eye scene, or the group of zombies munching on Mrs. Menard's corpse sequence, or the Conquistador zombies rising from their graves sequence... total BLASPHEMY!

Note: obviously with the super-athlete zombies of the Dawn remake there could not be a biker assault on the shopping mall sequence. This is one of the disadvantages of introducing these exaggeratedly fast zombies that make Usain Bolt look like a turtle in comparison. In fact pretty much no one would have a chance of surviving if zombies were so fast, even an armed biker gang like the one in the original Dawn would be overwhelmed by them pretty fast.

LivingDeadGuy

18-Apr-2017, 11:58 AM

:eek:
Another thing: the remake did NOT feature the biker gang assault on the shopping mall. How can you have a Dawn remake without a rendition of one of its most iconic sequences??? It's like if someone made a remake of Fulci's Zombie and there was no rendition of the shark vs zombie sequence, or the splinter-through-the-eye scene, or the group of zombies munching on Mrs. Menard's corpse sequence, or the Conquistador zombies rising from their graves sequence... total BLASPHEMY!

Note: obviously with the super-athlete zombies of the Dawn remake there could not be a biker assault on the shopping mall sequence. This is one of the disadvantages of introducing these exaggeratedly fast zombies that make Usain Bolt look like a turtle in comparison. In fact pretty much no one would have a chance of surviving if zombies were so fast, even an armed biker gang like the one in the original Dawn would be overwhelmed by them pretty fast.

Well on the other hand that's exactly what makes the fast zombies scary is the fact that realistically nobody would ever be able to survive them. While I do enjoy the shamblers more they kind of give the human characters too much of a fighting chance because they are so slow and easy to kill. Also I kind of like zombies that are intelligent enough to use weapons like the ones in Nightmare City, the shibito in the Siren games, and of course Bub in Day of the Dead. To me nothing is more terrifying in a zombie outbreak than a zombie coming at you with a blade or gun. :eek:

Hopegiver

28-Apr-2017, 05:24 AM

The one thing I admit to liking is the remix of the song "getting down with the sickness". Lol

Oh, yeah. Very lounge singer-esque! Lol

- - - Updated - - -

JDP,
- - - Updated - - -

I love that you posted the question....then provided a great answer.

LivingDeadGuy

02-May-2017, 01:13 AM

MinionZombie

02-May-2017, 10:40 AM

One thing that sorta bothered me in the original version was the female character chain smoking while she was pregnant. I know this was an old movie made back when everybody used to smoke and drink but doing so could have been potentially harmful to her unborn baby. But like I already know this movie was made in the 70's and I'm sure a lot of women did the same thing during their pregnancies because they didn't know better.

You've already answered your issue - it was the 1970s. :D

In the 1950s/60s you had Doctors, of all people, smoking in their office while examining patients. Hell, Doctors at one point even appeared in advertisements recommending particular brands of cigarettes. Smoking was once considered a decided luxury and something that was the preserve of the well off and highly educated.

Smoking while pregnant in the 1970s was just part of the landscape. Totally wrong as something to do, as we now know, but at the time it was either not even thought about or people didn't give a shit. Totally bizarre by today's standards, but film provides an interesting opportunity to examine parts of how our society used to be. You look at something like Mad Men, for example, and the sheer amount of drinking they did during work hours. Hell, that was still going on in the 1980s as a matter of total routine. I even recall visiting my Dad's office when I was a very small kid and I clearly remember the drinks cabinet that was there to pour clients a generous helping of Whiskey! But it was the norm back then.

LivingDeadGuy

02-May-2017, 02:19 PM

You've already answered your issue - it was the 1970s. :D

In the 1950s/60s you had Doctors, of all people, smoking in their office while examining patients. Hell, Doctors at one point even appeared in advertisements recommending particular brands of cigarettes. Smoking was once considered a decided luxury and something that was the preserve of the well off and highly educated.

Smoking while pregnant in the 1970s was just part of the landscape. Totally wrong as something to do, as we now know, but at the time it was either not even thought about or people didn't give a shit. Totally bizarre by today's standards, but film provides an interesting opportunity to examine parts of how our society used to be. You look at something like Mad Men, for example, and the sheer amount of drinking they did during work hours. Hell, that was still going on in the 1980s as a matter of total routine. I even recall visiting my Dad's office when I was a very small kid and I clearly remember the drinks cabinet that was there to pour clients a generous helping of Whiskey! But it was the norm back then.

Haha true. Times really have changed and even though movies and tv shows are unrealistic for the most part they do provide us with a window into the decades that they were filmed or set in. :)