Dawn (Original)

[LoneCrusader]

IS the original one better than the remake? I have seen the remake but not the original. I for one loved the remake and all the extra features.

[AcesandEights]

Well, it depends on who you ask, but a landslide of people coming your way are about to tell you that the Original was undoubtedly better (and they'll be right :sneaky: ).

But I did love Dawn 04. Awww, Christ, here comes another one of these threads.:shifty: ...





EDIT: PS--Why haven't you given the original Dawn a try yet, especially if you like the remake so much? Give it a shot and keep an open mind.

[MikePizzoff]

IS the original one better than the remake? I have seen the remake but not the original. I for one loved the remake and all the extra features.

GET OUT!!!!!!!!!! :clown:

[Philly_SWAT]

It is unusual that you took the time to come to and register on this site, yet have not seen Dawn78. I too liked the "remake" of Dawn, however, it does not exist in the same universe as Romero's movies. The universe that Romero created is far superior to the one that exists in the Dawn remake. The original movie seems a little dated, but if you can enjoy a movie without outdated clothing styles, etc. bothering you, then you should definately check out the original, and you will be surprised how it grabs a hold of you and makes you love it. It is without a doubt one of the best films of all time.

[ipotts85]

somehow i don't have the feeling this guy is going to 'get' the original.

i have a vision of this statement: "ohhhh the blue paint, ohhhh the bell bottoms, ohhhh the music...blab blah blah."

[EvilNed]

The remake sucks. But it's entertaining. :p

[creepntom]

GET OUT!!!!!!!!!! :clown:

yea, what this guy said

this kind of blasphemy will not be tolerated :elol: :D

[bassman]

The remake sucks. But it's entertaining. :p

Yup...

I have a feeling that if you REALLY enjoy the MTV, teenager remake....you won't like the original. But there's always the hope that you still like good films:p ...

[Adrenochrome]

The original is almost hypnotizing. It keeps your attention.

The re-make-flake is a flick you can chat on your cell phone and finger your iPod during the movie and not miss a thing.

[kortick]

you should see the original
but dont try to compare the two

view them as if they were not even the same title

let us know what you think

by the way bassman i love the beatles pic

[bassman]

by the way bassman i love the beatles pic

Thank you....the Beatles rock..

you should see the original
but dont try to compare the two

view them as if they were not even the same title

Ditto.....that's a good piece of advice...

[Murat365]

The remake sucks. But it's entertaining.

as a film its more associated with the likes of 28 days later- entertaining but really don't touch the GAR films for social message and style

[EvilNed]

I found 28 Days Later to be both clever, and scary. Much like Romeros films.

Obviously, 28 Days Later is not a zombiefilm, but I would still place it in the "zombie film" category. If that makes any sense. :p

[FleshMask]

Dawn 04 had the running zombies, and running zombies look like running people... not like dead coming back to life.

28 days later was about infected people, and not the dead.

Of course the running zombie is a way to spice up the horror genre for the ADHD generation of young kids, who play or watch dozens of hype games and movies.

Movies now aday lack the feel of horror, and lean toward action.
Many tend to mistake "thrillers" for "horror".

Hey, that's my old people rant for today.


you should see the original
but dont try to compare the two

view them as if they were not even the same title


Yep, it wasn't a remake.. it was another movie all it's own.

[tju1973]

IS the original one better than the remake? I have seen the remake but not the original. I for one loved the remake and all the extra features.

I liked both... Dawn of the Dead ('78) is more entertaining to me, and I can watch it daily, but Dawn ('04) is more of a popcorn movie that I watch every so often.

I did like the way Dawn -'04-- started-- the first 15 or so min were great-- the rest of the movie-- so-so.

Watch what you dig...

:)

[livingdead7]

In my opinion, Dawn 78 is far and above the remake, in just about every aspect imaginable. I for one got irritated at the remake ignoring some of the accepted facts regarding zombies...so to speak...such as the fact that no reanimated corpse could run, except maybe a minute after death. It's not a question of how the person dies...it's a simple fact of rigormortis. The body would be unable to move efficiently enough to move fast, let alone run. Another problem I had with the remake was the fact that you only came back if you died after being bitten. These are just two things you can't change...in my opinion anyway.

[MinionZombie]

It's also that the zombies shouldn't be capable of understanding how to use their bodies. Think about it - when you're drunk, you're not really capable of running, a swift shamble perhaps but no more. Zombies are like babies or toddlers trying to walk, they can't figure it out, they don't know how to coordinate their movements, but as they exist longer they begin to get used to it - but by then they're unable to run because they still don't have enough skill to do it. Besides, their muscles would be all buggered up from lack of nourishment (yeh I know zombies don't eat for food, but you know what I mean, the human body does eat for food and requires actual nourishment).

As for folk who say running zombies are scarier - ANYTHING running at you is scary. Even if Jessica Alba came tear-assing towards you, mouth frothing and nothing but rage in her eyes you'd crap your pants - she'd still look hot, but it'd be scary. GAR's zombies slowly gather until they're en mass and you can't fight against them and then you're surrounded and you don't know what to do - THAT is scary, being caught off guard and surrounded. Through mankind's inaction we destroy ourselves...that's scary.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I found 28 Days Later to be both clever, and scary. Much like Romeros films.

Obviously, 28 Days Later is not a zombiefilm, but I would still place it in the "zombie film" category. If that makes any sense. :p

Agreed ... BUT ... you should really take 28 Days Later out of the "zombie film category" and put it back into the "post apocalypse genre" where it belongs ;)

[AcesandEights]

It's also that the zombies shouldn't be capable of understanding how to use their bodies. Think about it - when you're drunk...

I know the running zombie thing doesn't make much sense to some people, but really--it's a different movie, a different universe. Ideas like running zombies don't make much sense in Romero's universe (but apparently evolving zombies do). Two different universes, two different paradigms.

If it bothers you on an aesthetic level or is somehow verboten due to a belief that GAR says zombies don't run, so they just can't, that's your taste and there's no need to defend it. On a note of personal preference, I think zombie movement should (normally in films) be determined by the rate of physical decay and likely trauma to limbs and central nervous system. I don't think olympic level sprinters are the way to go (again, in my ideal movie), but think there can be cases made for fairly fast, shuffling gait by some of the recenty deceased. But again, these are a matter of taste.

[roger_19]

are you kidding. the original dawn of the dead is superior to the remake. you should watch it now. It has a deeper message against consumerism and society's obsession with materialism etc. plus it really has that sense of dread about the beginning of the end of the world etc.not to mention tom savini's amazing gore effects. in dawn 2004 you only see a slight shot of a zombie taking out some guy's guts. in dawn 1978 you're in for a gut eating fest.

[MinionZombie]

Zombies can stumble swiftly, like a toddler will do when it's getting confident, but the whole point in zombies is that they aren't people, they don't understand normal life. They have one goal - eat people - surely because they have no developed understanding then that means they wouldn't have a developed understanding of how to operate their bodies.

It's also down to rot and decay and wounds and so on. To me, 'zombies' that run and leap and screech like banshees are just wrong/silly/funny in a 'laughing at you' kinda way. It's like a vampire not drinking your blood. Or a werewolf that doesn't turn with a full moon.

I'll shut up now...Top Gear is a comin'...

[DeadCentral]

As for folk who say running zombies are scarier - ANYTHING running at you is scary. Even if Jessica Alba came tear-assing towards you, mouth frothing and nothing but rage in her eyes you'd crap your pants - she'd still look hot, but it'd be scary. GAR's zombies slowly gather until they're en mass and you can't fight against them and then you're surrounded and you don't know what to do - THAT is scary, being caught off guard and surrounded. Through mankind's inaction we destroy ourselves...that's scary.

I couldn't agree more on your entire post MinionZombie. the 2004 version is on my tv right now & it just doesn't have the same thrill to me...I'd rather watch the extended american version of the original for REAL scares... it's the atmosphere that's set in Romero's film as well, that impending doom that creeps up when you can still hear the sound of the corpses hitting their hands on the glass....everything fels cozy until you're reminded of the situation by that sound.

[Guru ofthe Dead]

I agree about running dead people. George Romero's dead are what would be discribed as close to the truth. Come on after a body has died it gets stiff and if it did come back then the muscles would stay that way. These superhuman dead are too Hollywood. We all know being cornered by slow moving dead will be more terrifying than just getting it over with. I hope I'm not rambling. :)

[DeadCentral]

Not at all Guru, the slow movers keep the tension in the inevidibility of your demise....they move slowly but that just keeps the anxiety level higher, because sooner or later...they WILL get you....:elol:

[ipotts85]

in the dawn 'remake's' defense, running flesh eaters is a different scary...like has been said many many times - they are two different movies, and aside from sharing a name, have absolutely nothing in common with each other...

of course the original is still champion (duh).

[Guru ofthe Dead]

ipotts85 and DeadCentral I agree on both accounts. Yes the running dead are a different kind of terror, you can't get away by just running you must think and find something faster to get a way if you can. The slow dead you may run and once again like DeadCentral said you won't be able to hide because they will find you. Just ask Flyboy, he found out the hard way. Oh yeah they are different movies. However the original in my opinion is the best. No CG, fake crayon looking blood, blue makeup, and good old-fashion splatter. Tom Savini is the man.:cool: