Dawn re-make. A homage to Romero's film ? [Archive]

darth los

15-Jul-2009, 06:38 PM

I finally succumbed to watching Snyder's remake of Dawn and have mixed views.I can't quite determine whether or not I like the film or not... As an action , kick zombie ass film I quite enjoyed the action.. but compared to Romero's its missing something..

Snyders film seems like a poor homage to Romero's film. Basing the plot on the original, and using character names for shops..

Could you call it a homage, or a re-invention of the zombie films for todays generation??

Would love to know you views.

S.

Imo, the first part of your answer is the way to go. It is a remake in name only and although there were nods to fans peppered throughout the film such as the Gaylen Ross store or several cameos by original cast members I wouldn't call it a homage to GAr's masterpiece by any means. The only thing it has in common with the original is zombies and a mall. (dead rising anyone?)

I will say this though. Don't feel guilty for liking it. I love the film and I'm in the minority here. (I just don't mind my friends here bashing me for it).

Also, don't think that liking this film is somehow a slap in the face to GAr or the original because for all intents and purposes they are two seperate entities.

:cool:

bassman

15-Jul-2009, 06:40 PM

There are billions of threads around here that cover Dawn04, but I consider it an action film first. It's not much of a horror film, imo.

And as for the nods to Romero's film....they're in the film and were cool the first time around, but they don't help the fact that the film bares basically nothing in common with the original...

DjfunkmasterG

15-Jul-2009, 06:40 PM

I enjoy the film as well, another in the minority, but I know it can never replace the original. Just its own separate zombie film.

Danny

15-Jul-2009, 07:01 PM

its an allright popcorn actioney horror flick, but if they had called it something different it would have been seen in a much better light im sure.

EvilNed

15-Jul-2009, 07:27 PM

I view it as an actionfilm and not a zombiefilm. Because zombiefilms are about slow, lumbering horror and survival. Not fast paced chases through sewers with a gun in each hand. At least, that's not what I want from a zombiefilm.

sfreeman

15-Jul-2009, 07:42 PM

I found Romero's film somewhat refreshing from the mainstream zombie films. I only first found it about a year ago when my friend said it was a must see. The zombies are the nuts ! And I think its the fact that everything is in excess that makes it fun to watch.
Like when the police raid that flat at the beginning ..the blood just makes that scene for me.

I think Snyder's film had a bit more of a story to it tho, it dragged out a bit in the middle where everyone is just using the mall for entertainment, but I felt it was better with more people..

Romeros films are iconic cult films, but are all zombie films then cult if they follow his narrative ?!

s.

bassman

15-Jul-2009, 08:03 PM

I think Snyder's film had a bit more of a story to it tho

I would have to strongly disagree with you on that one. Dawn04 doesn't even come close to having a story like the original. Dawn04 has a paper-thin plot that can be applied to any popular tv series. It's the same thing done over again. There was depth and meaning to Romero's story...

darth los

15-Jul-2009, 08:31 PM

its an allright popcorn actioney horror flick, but if they had called it something different it would have been seen in a much better light im sure.

Of course it would have. And for some of us it's all too apparent that's what the problem was with the film. It's a shame how some people just can't get past a name.

:cool:

sfreeman

15-Jul-2009, 08:31 PM

How do you mean depth and meaning?

Yes you were able to get to know the characters in Romero's film and follow their fight for survival. but with more characters I found it more interesting.

As for depth are you meaning Romero's dig at 'american consumption' at the time it was being made? I also found that rather amusing too as it is infact very true...

s

DjfunkmasterG

15-Jul-2009, 09:19 PM

Romero's film dealt with excess and isolation for the fab four. So I have to agree with others there was more of story/plot.

Broken Dreams
Fantasy
Darkness
Isolation
lonliness

All those present in Romero's Dawn, but not in Snyder's Dawn.

Danny

15-Jul-2009, 10:36 PM

-that and the social commentary on the rise of mass consumerism at the time. Dawn of the dead is a smartly written film with memorable characters and a harsh undertone that criticizes the general american lifestyle of hanging round a mall and wasting time.
Dawn 04' was a mindless constant one liner fest. Enjoyable as a movie to go brain dead in front of, but wasn't remembered as anything other than a maybe rental a few months later and i very much doubt it will be broken down analytically and have essays and dissertations written about it 30 years after its release like romeros does.

Ones a classic piece of cinema, the others the same through an mtv filter, simple as that.

Monrozombi

15-Jul-2009, 10:39 PM

Theres nothing wrong with liking it, unless you start saying how much of a better film it is compared to GAR's, thinking fast zombies are better etc ;)

DjfunkmasterG

16-Jul-2009, 12:47 AM

For Runners are better. It provides some tense moments.

On a side note: I was just scanning the forum and noticed that there and numerous DAWN 04 discussions. For a movie that is generally disliked by a majority of HPotD members it gets more topic time than LAND, Diary, and even "Of the Dead."

It seems both DAWNs get more talk time than any other Dead film. So maybe there is something more to it than people are willing to accept. However, all the hate versus like talk only helps Universal in the long run because if someone hasn't caught the film yet, they might pick it up if the stumble across these threads, which also help exposure of the original films.

MinionZombie

16-Jul-2009, 10:58 AM

It only gets plenty of "discussion" because it's two camps fighting over it, and indeed, Land is often involved in those threads, so Land gets just as much "chat" about it as Yawn04 does, with your theory Sir Deej. :p

I also think the "if it had been called something different" line is just generally dismissive of those who don't like or indeed hate Yawn04 - indeed, the remake has essentially piss-all to do with the original, but the point is, is that Yawn04 is simply a terrible movie ... and as such, below is 110 reasons why.

...

Anyway - I figure this is another chance, and in the pursuit of providing different views upon this ghastly remake, here's my "110 Reasons in 110 Minutes Why Yawn04 is Crap" list again. :D

Part One:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2008/03/110-reason-in-110-minutes-why-yawn04-is.html

Part Two:
http://deadshed.blogspot.com/2008/03/110-reasons-in-110-minutes-why-yawn04.html

I thought, clearly, that Yawn04 was an absolute stinker - and I've talked about why quite a lot in the past few years in the variety of threads Dj alluded to ... but regardless, considering the topic, I figured some might enjoy seeing my Bitch List for Yawn04 again, or possibly for the first time.

(I also did Bitch Lists for the Day Remake, Children of the Living Dead, and Zombie Nosh aka Flesheater, by the by).

Neil

16-Jul-2009, 11:37 AM

I finally succumbed to watching Snyder's remake of Dawn and have mixed views.I can't quite determine whether or not I like the film or not... As an action , kick zombie ass film I quite enjoyed the action.. but compared to Romero's its missing something..

Snyders film seems like a poor homage to Romero's film. Basing the plot on the original, and using character names for shops..

Could you call it a homage, or a re-invention of the zombie films for todays generation??

Would love to know you views.

S.
It had some great moments, but also just too many dumb unecessary moments:-
- Godzilla zombies. ie: Vocal chords change when they die?
- Demon zombies. ie: Eyes change when they die?
- Dooofus humans. ie: Let's go looking around all by myself. Or let's run out into a pack of zombies with no concern for my mortality.
- Cheap shocks. ie: Zombies know when to be quiet and how to time their attacks. ie: Best example was in the underground parking lot where the zombies were quiet when necessary and timed their attacks when necessary...

Would rather watch it than Diary though!

Trin

16-Jul-2009, 02:25 PM

... but if they had called it something different it would have been seen in a much better light im sure.I continue to disagree with this point. You put zombies surrounding a mall full of survivors and you get accused of raping Dawn of the Dead. I believe that by calling it a remake and naming it Dawn of the Dead you acknowledge that you are riding the coattails of the predecessor. Name it something else and you risk people thinking you believe you are original.

Some observations:
- It is a good popcorn flick. If it comes on I tend to watch it.
- It has some real wtf moments.
- It has some moments that just plain don't work on a plot/plausibility level.
- There are parts of the movie I simply will not watch or have to grit my teeth to endure.
- I enjoy the movie tons more if I don't think too hard about what they're doing and why.
- The number and behavior of the zombies was inconsistent and off mark.
- The start was just amazing and really got me into it. The ending left me cold.

Ironically, I can say the exact same things about Land. The movies were more alike than people want to admit.

darth los

16-Jul-2009, 03:59 PM

Theres nothing wrong with liking it, unless you start saying how much of a better film it is compared to GAR's, thinking fast zombies are better etc ;)

I agree completely and take exception to the line of thinking that if you turn your brain off it's o.k.

That statement has connotations along the lines of if you like this film you must be braindead which is unfair. Why can't someone just like a film for no other reason than they just do?

:cool:

MinionZombie

16-Jul-2009, 04:22 PM

Ironically, I can say the exact same things about Land. The movies were more alike than people want to admit.

Or you could equally say, the reaction to both films is alike.

bassman

16-Jul-2009, 04:37 PM

That statement has connotations along the lines of if you like this film you must be braindead which is unfair. Why can't someone just like a film for no other reason than they just do?

Let's not get into that one again. I can see Dubious running toward us from a distance screaming "POPCOOOOORN?!?!?!?".:lol:

AcesandEights

16-Jul-2009, 05:04 PM

Trin and Neil have the right of it, I think. A good, fun movie that relies heavily on action elements and has some aspects many might find annoying if dwelt upon (raptor zombies and plot holes).

Personally, I loved the film, though. The beginning was incredible, the acting was passable to well done with, for me anyway, a few likable characters in there and it was just good fun. DVD extras were also a blast, by the way.

I can see Dubious shambling toward us from a distance moaning "POPCOOOOORN...".:lol:

Well played, Bassman, but I made a minor edit. :p

sfreeman

16-Jul-2009, 05:23 PM

I like both the zombie type films tho. the zombies in Snyders film, and films like res evil and 28 days later, make it a horror/zombie film for me.. after all iare zombie films not meant to be horror films ?
Romero's zombie's as good as they, almost patronize the other characters for not being able to get away fast enough..

I know the ending is supposed to be unfinished and the two survivors inevitably die, but why do most of these cult films end in such an unfinished way. like Donnie Darko, that film baffles me, yet i still like it..

And why are we fans of such a strange genre? My friends hate anything to do with zombie films, but I find them really interesting.

s.

Trin

16-Jul-2009, 08:50 PM

I agree completely and take exception to the line of thinking that if you turn your brain off it's o.k.

That statement has connotations along the lines of if you like this film you must be braindead which is unfair. Why can't someone just like a film for no other reason than they just do?I think the message is not that the moviegoer is braindead for liking it. I think the message is that in order to enjoy it you have to go into it with the proper mindset. Specifically, you have to leave your analytical side at the door. The movie is not going to tickle your higher functions. And if you expect it will you're going to hurt your enjoyment.

Or you could equally say, the reaction to both films is alike.True. That's an apt way to put it as well. I just find it illuminating that at the 10,000 foot level the movies have some stark similarities.

And why are we fans of such a strange genre?Maybe this is just God's way of showing us that he's still the boss man.

Neil

16-Jul-2009, 10:01 PM

Here's quite a good review I found that seems to agree with many of my opinions/views on it...

Click here (http://www.homepageofthedead.com/baps/dawn2004.html)

Trin

17-Jul-2009, 02:26 AM

That is a good, in-depth, and thought provoking interview. I found myself agreeing with it in large chunks too.

MinionZombie

17-Jul-2009, 10:59 AM

I just find it illuminating that at the 10,000 foot level the movies have some stark similarities.

But you could equally say that the movies have some stark disimilarities. :sneaky:

...

Annoying anyone yet? It's true though (because Land is way better than Yawn - but you all knew I felt that way anyway). :D:p

Trin

17-Jul-2009, 03:38 PM

But you could equally say that the movies have some stark disimilarities. :sneaky:

...

Annoying anyone yet? It's true though (because Land is way better than Yawn - but you all knew I felt that way anyway). :D:p
Keep in mind as I point out that the movies have similarities, some of those similarities are good things. Atmosphere, great first 15 minutes, some great characters (some!! a few... maybe one or two...), some wicked gore, some good action, etc.

They do have some stark disimilarities, no doubt. Especially as you get below the 10,000 foot level.

Of course we all know that one of them sucks totally and the other is awesome. The only variable is which is which in people's opinion. LOL

Except for me. I've come to enjoy them both equally. Or NOT enjoy them both equally. Depends on what part of each movie.

MinionZombie

17-Jul-2009, 04:46 PM

I wouldn't call Land "awesome" - that's reserved for Dawn or Day - but Land is definitely a good and rather enjoyable flick with some brains about it.

Yawn04 is gash ... smelly gash ... with a big poopy head. :lol:

Trin

17-Jul-2009, 06:35 PM

MinionZombie

18-Jul-2009, 10:23 AM

Well if you want thought out, there's always my 110 reasons in 110 minutes why Yawn04 sucks list, previously re-posted in this thread a few days ago. :D

Yojimbo

18-Jul-2009, 11:40 PM

Could you call it a homage, or a re-invention of the zombie films for todays generation??

Assrape is what I call it!:)

Ok, actually I didn't hate the 2004 version and found it to be entertaining. But I don't really think that it did the 1978 version justice, and in fact I do feel that it got a big-ass boost from just having the name associated with it. As I have said before, I think that the inclusion of the little homages to the original (Galen Ross store and using both Scott and Ken in the film) were thrown in there to appease the die hard fans of the original. Again, I say they should not have called it Dawn of the Dead, and should not have had it in a mall (fuck it, the entire thing could have been set in a Wallmart and it would have been the same movie)

And, again, I point out that on the commentary that fucking Hack Snyder barely gives credit for the concept to GAR where it is due. Pompus little ass!

Neil

19-Jul-2009, 07:41 AM

Well if you want thought out, there's always my 110 reasons in 110 minutes why Yawn04 sucks list, previously re-posted in this thread a few days ago. :D

Classic!

MinionZombie

19-Jul-2009, 10:26 AM

And, again, I point out that on the commentary that fucking Hack Snyder barely gives credit for the concept to GAR where it is due. Pompus little ass!

I've never listened to the commentary, mainly because the movie is gash, but also because I can't stand Snyder. His face annoys me, his voice annoys me, his style annoys me, and as for the above - the dude can go fuck himself therefore.

Yojimbo

19-Jul-2009, 04:18 PM

the dude can go fuck himself therefore.
Yeah, but do you like him? :lol:

Snyder is an overrated piece of crap. So it does not surprise me that he continues to get greenlit for the next big budget major let down.

MinionZombie

19-Jul-2009, 04:26 PM

Yeah, but do you like him? :lol:

Like him? I love him ... ... ... :lol::lol::lol:

*sarcasm overload* :D

SRP76

20-Jul-2009, 02:11 AM

I noticed something else about Dawn '04 that just doesn't feel right to me. I just now really put my finger on it.

It's the entitlement of the characters. This whole thing just falls into their laps (like our generation is supposed to think should happen to us). Here's what I mean:

When watching these movies, I (and I know damn well I'm not alone) always put myself in the shoes of the characters, to have fun "living it". Whenever a character is rewarded with something, I enjoy it the way the characters do - that's the "fun".

Now, watch Dawn '78. Our heroes ("me", as I watch and enjoy) find a mall. It's overrun, and a hundred things go wrong. Through hard work and insane risk, they get it locked down, and have their safe haven. It wasn't easy. As Ric Flair said many times, "they sweat; they bled; they paid the price". When you get to the scene where the four heroes are on the upper concourse, looking over the sea of dead bodies strewn across the floor, and they're finally safe, you get the "whew" feeling - it's been an uphill climb, but "we" finally did it.

But watch Dawn '04. You get NONE of that. A bunch of spoiled, infighting pieces of shit just get this safe haven falling into their laps. The security guys were there from moment one, all safe with zero effort. The first batch of refugees (Kenneth and them) just show up, deadbolt one door behind them, deal with a whopping two ghouls, then find the security guards. Their biggest problem from then on is "the toilet in here doesn't work". Then, you get a truckload of people who simply show up one day, and they've got safety waiting for them.

There's no effort from the Dawn '04 crew. And, since they didn't do much of anything to earn their circumstance, I (and others) don't feel that same satisfaction when they're "safe" as I do when the Dawn '78 crew accomplishes their goal. Nowhere near it, actually.

Which results in a lot more "meh", and a lot less "fun".

Trin

20-Jul-2009, 03:18 AM

MinionZombie

20-Jul-2009, 10:15 AM

That is an amazingly good observation SRP. Nicely done.

As someone else pointed out, they take their safety for granted too. As if no one else is going to think of the mall. And the zombies are never gonna get in.

It's just another instance of the movie shoving action down our throats without stopping to think about the character study, connecting with the audience, or thinking through the mindset of the people involved.

Reason #111 MZ? Or was this covered in the first 110 minutes?
An excellent observation there SRP - bloody well said, and it points out something that's always bothered me in the back of my mind, but I couldn't figure out what it was - but you got it exactly there. Damn straight.

Plus, indeed, the characters in Dawn are likeable everybodys - in Yawn they're a bunch of twatfaced arsehole one-dimensional cheap stereotypes.

Trin - I think this argument would be one of my "general" feelings about the movie, as my 110 list doesn't include things like "the issue of the title" or "the issue of remakes" or whatever - it touches on some of these wider issues, but the list is really very specific to whatever's happening on screen for the most part. :)

But yes, exactly, one of Yawn's biggest flaws is the script - and the complete lack of intelligent character study, or interesting characters, or just flat-out characters. It's all about ticking boxes - like when Max Headroom gets introduced and he's dead 10 minutes later after an intercut death realisation scene - there's no actual emotional investment, but the lazy makers of this piece of trash just think you can tick a box and you'll get a dumb-dumb sheep-like following - well nuh-uh, you bloody well won't.

You just get a bunch of twatfaced bastards moping around being idiots ... and really, really, really fucking annoying. Hell - some of the characters literally have NO NAME - they're never referred to by a name. The majority of the others only have their name dropped very quickly, long after their introduction - which says it all really, and speaks about another bad aspect of this MTV generation.

It's all about "the blonde one who gets her tits out", or "that black dude" or "the nerdy one" - whereas in Dawn it's very specifically "Fran", "Peter", "Roger" and "Stephen/Flyboy" - you hear their names throughout the film, and you get properly introduced right from the very start of the movie and you know exactly what sort of people they are, and this is then developed upon throughout the film.

That's how it's supposed to be done!

Trin

20-Jul-2009, 03:39 PM

...like when Max Headroom gets introduced and he's dead 10 minutes later after an intercut death realisation scene - there's no actual emotional investment...
I was very emotionally invested in Max Headroom... but it was because he WAS Max Headroom!! That still means something in my book. :p;)

They even kinda clowned this lack of character development. "Died without a name..." one of the nameless characters says. (Yes, I know, it was Tucker... but he might as well have been nameless)

I don't really have a problem with loads of nameless irrelevant characters. Day did that with the extraneous soldiers and the extra scientist guy. Land did that with ... well, tons of them. That's not the problem.

The problem is that the characters Dawn '04 had standing around sucked. Zombie baby daddy/baby momma/baby, stupid girl with dog, rent-a-cops, high-heel old guy, skank (okay, she was fine), selfish guy...

I liked Michael, Kenneth, Andy, and nurse-chick (Anna??)... the rest... suck. They were too integral to ignore them. And too suck to forgive them.

I also like something that article Neil posted mentioned. In Dawn '78 the zombies were characters in the movie. You could look at them and see that they were once real people. From the apartment guy husband zombie to the nurse zombie to the Hari Krisna zombie to the baseball player zombie... you can fill in the blanks of what their lives were like. In Dawn '04 you just cannot pick them out of the crowd.

MinionZombie

20-Jul-2009, 05:35 PM

I also like something that article Neil posted mentioned. In Dawn '78 the zombies were characters in the movie. You could look at them and see that they were once real people. From the apartment guy husband zombie to the nurse zombie to the Hari Krisna zombie to the baseball player zombie... you can fill in the blanks of what their lives were like. In Dawn '04 you just cannot pick them out of the crowd.

Another fine point - the zombies are just as much characters in Dawn as the four leads are ... but in Yawn is just a blur of red/brown/grey (read bloody/rotting) Veloci-screaming at you, a lazily utilised slab of loud noise thrown vaguely in the direction of a dumb-dumb MTV target audience. :(

shootemindehead

20-Jul-2009, 07:51 PM

It isn't an "homage", nor is is a "re-invention", nor is it a "re-visioning"...

It's simply an abuse of an eye-catching and familiar title and a ripoff of a good idea for a script.

That's all.

Trin

20-Jul-2009, 08:50 PM

You just have to apply the correct adjectives.

It is a failed homage. It is an uncreative re-invention. It is a short-sighted re-visioning.

darth los

21-Jul-2009, 12:51 AM

You just have to apply the correct adjectives.

It is a failed homage. It is an uncreative re-invention. It is a short-sighted re-visioning.

And being those things it's still a good film. It just sucks as a homage. Yes things can be both.

:cool:

shootemindehead

21-Jul-2009, 07:30 AM

Unfortunately, all of those adjectives imply respect for the original material and creator and I don't believe that Snyders 90 min "popcorn" farce had an awful lot of respect for Romero's original.

No, the correct adjective is "rip-off".

Trin

21-Jul-2009, 05:51 PM

He clearly invented things (zombie baby, runners) and brought his own vision to the film (action, intensity, atmosphere). So I think it qualifies as both a re-invention and a re-visioning. Having respect for the original is not required.

As for an homage I really don't know. I'd say it cannot be an homage and a ripoff at the same time. Those don't mix. But to comment on whether it is one versus the other assumes knowing what Snyder was thinking as he did it.

In my mind it was either an insulting homage or a successful rip-off.

MinionZombie

21-Jul-2009, 06:04 PM

Zombie baby was done long before Yawn04 - the first example that springs to mind is Lucio Fulci's Zombi 3 ... which also had a variety of zombies in it, shufflers for one, but also many that were very spritely - damn near ninja/kung-fu zombies at times.

Even with the runners, they were just ripping off 28 Days Later, and even carried over the same visual aesthetic - and 28DL doesn't even have zombies in it, for clavin-out-loud!

Yawn04 was a financially successful (unfortunately), sack of turds.

bassman

21-Jul-2009, 06:07 PM

Yeah....Snyder didn't really bring anything new to the table. He just ripped off multiple other sources and came out with an average action film...

shootemindehead

21-Jul-2009, 06:22 PM

Hmmmm…

Snyder didn’t “invent” running zombies. That goes back to ‘Return of the Living Dead’. Some of the Italian ripoffs also have “runners”, IIRC and Snyder probably took his cue from the success of ’28 Days Later’ anyway. As for the “zombie baby”, I think that's been tackled before, but I’m not sure. Neither of which are very “inventive” anyway.

As far as “…his own vision”, didn’t the original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ have “action”, “intensity” and “atmosphere”? There is nothing unique there, or particularly visionary. My criticism is that Snyder didn’t actually have a vision. That’s why he (or at least the producers) ripped off Romero’s idea and simply tweaked it slightly into the 90 minute MTV show that it is.

‘Dawn of the Dead (2004)’ is as much a ripoff (if not more so) of ‘Dawn of the Dead (1978)’, as Lucio Fulci’s ‘Zombie Flesh Eaters’ is.

Like that Spagetti gorefest, it is cashing in, on the success (and familiar title) of the Romero original and is pretty much devoid of any real originality.

Unlike the Fulci effort though, it is far less entertaining, especially after repeated viewings.

darth los

21-Jul-2009, 07:04 PM

Where is that dead horse icon when you need one? :confused:

You know instead of bashing a successful film ad nauseum people might want to try and analyze exactly what made the film successful and maybe congradulating instead of hating. Because whatever bad thing people have to say about snyder the bottom line is that his film beat GAr's film's ass. End of story.

Furthermore, anyone know what a self fufilling prophecy is? Why I'm sure people hate snyder's guts so much for making that film they wish him the worst and that he would just go away. If you notice it's not the people who dig dawn 04' that talk about him it's the haters who are constantly bringing him up.

So in an ironic way they're to thank for keeping him alive on these boards. I thought it would die out in time, like the venom toward uwe boll for example, but no, this hate is quick acting and long lasting. ;)

We should make a cold medicne advertisement out of it!! We'll be rich boys! I'll share it with all of you!! (trivia, what film is that from?)

:cool:

shootemindehead

21-Jul-2009, 08:47 PM

Because whatever bad thing people have to say about snyder the bottom line is that his film beat GAr's film's ass. End of story.

In what respect? If you mean money taken at the box office? Well, in an age where Adam Sandler and Rob Schnider films do well financially, that doesn't mean shit.

Likewise, one would have to compare like for like. In 1978, a film like 'Dawn of the Dead' would have been seen as a treat for a specific audience. Mainstream audiences would normally not go to such a film. These days however, gruesome horror movies are embraced by a much larger crowd and are bound to reap a more significant monetary reward.

For the record, personally speaking, I didn't actually "hate" 'Dawn of the Dead (2004)'. I just find it a rather shallow and parasitic ripoff of Romero's original.

Trin

21-Jul-2009, 10:19 PM

Yeah....Snyder didn't really bring anything new to the table. He just ripped off multiple other sources and came out with an average action film...

Hmmmm…

Snyder didn’t “invent” running zombies. That goes back to ‘Return of the Living Dead’. Some of the Italian ripoffs also have “runners”, IIRC and Snyder probably took his cue from the success of ’28 Days Later’ anyway. As for the “zombie baby”, I think that's been tackled before, but I’m not sure. Neither of which are very “inventive” anyway.
Being inventive is often nothing more than combining things in different ways. Bringing zombie baby and runners to the Dawn storyline was inventive. The whole thing with Andy and Kenneth communicating via whiteboard was inventive. The dog taking supplies to Andy was inventive. Ending with the group finding an island only to be eaten was inventive.

Whether it is lame or sucks or whatever - he really did take the basic Dawn storyline and re-invent it.

GAR taking Matheson's basic setup and changing vampires for zombies and Neville for Ben was inventive....

As far as “…his own vision”, didn’t the original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ have “action”, “intensity” and “atmosphere”? There is nothing unique there, or particularly visionary.
Both movies possessing action, intensity, and atmosphere does not make one a ripoff of the other's vision. The two movies are polar opposites with regard to action, intensity, and atmosphere. Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision.

I'm not a huge Dawn '04 lover. In fact I tend to be on the basher side. But I won't ignore the things that Snyder brought to the table.

shootemindehead

21-Jul-2009, 10:45 PM

Being inventive is often nothing more than combining things in different ways.

Perhaps. Maybe a little more "invention" and a little less poaching might have been a better idea.

Bringing zombie baby and runners to the Dawn storyline was inventive.

Again, not actually [I]that [/I ]inventive, seeing as they were lifted from elsewhere and both are terrible, terrible ideas.

The whole thing with Andy and Kenneth communicating via whiteboard was inventive. The dog taking supplies to Andy was inventive. Ending with the group finding an island only to be eaten was inventive.

The Andy subplot was a plus in '04's favor. But like the film as a whole, it grinds to nowhere and is disapointing in its conclusion. The "dog / supplies" idea may have added a new item to the mix, but the stupid cow that follows the dog was absolutely ridiculous. In addition, the grim ending has also been done to death. Nothing "inventive" there Trin.

Whether it is lame or sucks or whatever - he really did take the basic Dawn storyline and re-invent it.

Don't agree. He simply ripped off a good basic idea for a plot and added a couple of things. There's no real "invention" (or re-invention for that matter) going on.

Both movies possessing action, intensity, and atmosphere does not make one a ripoff of the other's vision.

I never said it did. But you were offering up those particular words as singular praise for 'Dawn of the Dead (2004)'.

The two movies are polar opposites with regard to action, intensity, and atmosphere. Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision.

But again, there was no vision. Snyder stole Romero's vision and simply added a couple of elements and subtracted some others, most of which were detrimental IMO.

Trin

22-Jul-2009, 03:18 PM

darth los

22-Jul-2009, 04:07 PM

All I'm saying is that it is inventive to a degree. It's not wonderfully inventive, and it draws from some tried and true idioms, but yet I've never seen a movie quite like it.

I don't get your contention that Snyder had no vision. It clearly wasn't GAR's vision that Snyder used. A movie cannot have no vision whatsoever. The director had to envison something. The opening scenes of society falling, the scene of the propane tank explosion, the sewer rescue scenes... those weren't just slapped together without having a vision.

Good points trin and is an excellent segway into my reply to shootem'. As more time passes it becomes more and more evident through statements such as "Snyder had no vision" that the venom toward this film has more to do with personal feelings as opposed to objective analysis.

In what respect? If you mean money taken at the box office? Well, in an age where Adam Sandler and Rob Schnider films do well financially, that doesn't mean shit.

Ah, but it does mean something. It means that waaaaaaaaay more people would rather watch adam sandler than a GAr flick. So much of what we discuss on this subject is intangible. Ticket sales are one way that we can measure what the public would rather see and it's not even close. Dawn 04'. Ever wonder why that is?

And before you go off on how the general public are idiots keep in mind that the majority of opinions on these boards about DAwn 04', to borrow a phrase from you, "don't mean shit". Because it may be the the majority opinion here but all other tangible evidence, including ticket sales say something else.

There comes a point when if 80% of people feel one way and 20% of people feel another the 20% who staunchly support their position have to do some introspection. It's just like if everyone in your life is telling you you have a problem and you just refuse to hear it. There comes a point where that person has to consider the posibility that everyone else is right and they're wrong. Yes, tough, I know.

I wonder when republicans will figure that out for themselves. :rolleyes:

:cool:

AcesandEights

22-Jul-2009, 04:43 PM

the venom toward this film has more to do with personal feelings as opposed to objective analysis.

So, so true, Darth.

And some very good points, Trin. :)

Yojimbo

22-Jul-2009, 05:19 PM

Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision.

I do hear what you are saying Trin, and within the parameters you have set I agree that Snyder does indeed have vision, as did the makers of Gigli, Howard the Duck and House of the Dead.

Clearly, vision alone does not a well-made film make.

But I do understand that you are not saying that Snyder made a great film and are merely making a point about the use of the term vision, or lack thereof.

Speaking as one of those who did not hate DOTD 04 and found much of it to be entertaining, I can separate my personal disdain for Zack Snyder (who I feel is fucking arrogant, and a paint-by-numbers kind of guy who did not come up with an original idea and has to rely on dudes like James Gunn who was riffing on a good original concept by GAR to put together a decent movie) from the value of DOTD 04, which though I found an entertaining way to spend a few hours I believe will not ultimately have the staying power or win out over DOTD 1978.

So, to recap what I have said in the past:

1. I think Snyder can eat shit and die, and the world will barely be affected. He is, among directors, largely replaceable.

2. I did enjoy DOTD 04 for what it is worth - I think it had a decent script and interesting storyline, though inferior to GARs original version. Practically any film school graduate could have taken the James Gunn script for the remake and, with proper funding, put together an enjoyable film.

3. While entertaining to some degree, DOTD 04 is inferior to DOTD 78 (matter of opinion, I am certainly aware) and will never even come close to replacing the original. In the long run, I feel that DOTD 04 will neither have the staying power, rewatchability nor the rabid cult fan base of GAR's DOTD 78.

4. Because he is a contemptible maggot, much too smug, suffering from that same self-entitlement disease that afflicts many in the industry, and because he exhibits little to no respect for the source material, I say again that Zack Snyder can eat my shit and die, and the world will barely notice.

In the end, let us give credit where it is due: James Gunn wrote a decent and entertaining script with some bits (like the whiteboard communication) that were new and inventive. Zack Snyder should not receive the credit or praise for those elements which are the result of Gunn's contribution to the project.

shootemindehead

22-Jul-2009, 06:46 PM

All I'm saying is that it is inventive to a degree. It's not wonderfully inventive, and it draws from some tried and true idioms, but yet I've never seen a movie quite like it.

I don't get your contention that Snyder had no vision. It clearly wasn't GAR's vision that Snyder used. A movie cannot have no vision whatsoever. The director had to envison something. The opening scenes of society falling, the scene of the propane tank explosion, the sewer rescue scenes... those weren't just slapped together without having a vision.

I think we'll have to differ on this.

I don't see vision as taking an established premise and simply adding little things that are "cool man!" Which is what Snyder did.

The scenes of "society falling apart", while good I agree, have been done before and were probably the vision of the scriptwriter and not Snyder anyway. Likewise for the the other setpieces you mention.

But that's the rub for me. Setpieces are not vision.

I could take 'Dawn of the Dead' and add a few minor things here and there, but it wouldn't mean I was exercising any vision. Snyder's "vision" was to ripoff Romero's vision and add a few things, like cliches, a rockinroll soundtrack, 28 days Later runners, strawmen characters and package it all in a 90 MTV piece.

There just isn't enough in Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' for me to say he had vision and I have seen a film like it...it was called 'Dawn of the Dead'. :D or '28 Days Later'

'Dawn of the Dead (2004)' is popcorn. It's throwaway. Insignificant. Visionless.

Exactly the opposite of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead'.

Ah, but it does mean something. It means that waaaaaaaaay more people would rather watch adam sandler than a GAr flick.

That doesn't make them good films

darth los

22-Jul-2009, 06:56 PM

That doesn't make them good films

Well, that's true but it doesn't make them bad either. :)

:cool:

bassman

22-Jul-2009, 07:00 PM

I'm gonna throw a new twist into this never ending debate....

Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws.:shifty:

shootemindehead

22-Jul-2009, 07:12 PM

Well, that's true but it doesn't make them bad either. :)

:cool:

No, their scripts do that.

I'm gonna throw a new twist into this never ending debate....

Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws.:shifty:

I disagree. I think 'Dawn 78' is an extremely well made film for the money it was made on and I think 'Dawn 04' is a mediocre ripoff regardless of what it was made for.

Trin

22-Jul-2009, 08:02 PM

@Yojimbo - Love the recap!! You hit the nail on the head!!

@shootemindehead - Where we differ is that you want to apply a minimum level of quality or creativity to allow it be called a "vision." I don't see it that way. Every movie comes from a vision, even if it is "I Am Legend" which has a myopic and dim vision obscured by dollar signs and Fresh Princes and is insulting to the masterpiece of a book it came from. It's not visionary. But it's still a vision.

I'm fine to agree to disagree on that.

There just isn't enough in Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' for me to say he had vision and I have seen a film like it...it was called 'Dawn of the Dead'. :D
Are you really willing to stand behind the assertion that Dawn Remake is just Dawn '78 with "a few minor things" and that the movies are alike?

Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws.:shifty:That's a fair statement. Hard to swallow, but fair.

Adding to that thought, I think the movies are flawed in different ways, and the nature of the flaws allows me to love one and be meh on the other.

@darth - I agree with you that sales (again, hard to swallow) are an important measure of a film's worth. Not necessarily its quality or greatness, but its worth. If nothing else the net from a film drives the industry to produce more films of that genre, director, or... shall I say... vision. :p

shootemindehead

22-Jul-2009, 08:07 PM

darth los

22-Jul-2009, 08:50 PM

Yep, because that's what it is. It's Romero's basic vision, slightly tweaked.

You do know what the implications of that is right guys? That means from now on anything that has spaceships and spandex would be a star trek rip-off, etc.......

So henceforth no other Human being is allowed to put Zombies and a mall on the same piece of cellulloid.

Make it so.....ENGAGE!!

:cool:

shootemindehead

22-Jul-2009, 08:55 PM

You do know what the implications of that is right guys? That means from now on anything that has spaceships and spandex would be a star trek rip-off, etc.......

No.

But if somebody unconnected with the franchise made something called 'Star Trek', but populated it with slightly different people and introduced some slightly different elements, started it differently and ended it differently, you might have a point.

clanglee

22-Jul-2009, 11:39 PM

No.

But if somebody unconnected with the franchise made something called 'Star Trek', but populated it with slightly different people and introduced some slightly different elements, started it differently and ended it differently, you might have a point.

:rockbrow:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew1.jpg

DjfunkmasterG

23-Jul-2009, 01:11 AM

:rockbrow:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew1.jpg

^^^^^^^^^

What he said :p

I do hear what you are saying Trin, and within the parameters you have set I agree that Snyder does indeed have vision, as did the makers of Gigli, Howard the Duck and House of the Dead.

Clearly, vision alone does not a well-made film make.

But I do understand that you are not saying that Snyder made a great film and are merely making a point about the use of the term vision, or lack thereof.

Speaking as one of those who did not hate DOTD 04 and found much of it to be entertaining, I can separate my personal disdain for Zack Snyder (who I feel is fucking arrogant, and a paint-by-numbers kind of guy who did not come up with an original idea and has to rely on dudes like James Gunn who was riffing on a good original concept by GAR to put together a decent movie) from the value of DOTD 04, which though I found an entertaining way to spend a few hours I believe will not ultimately have the staying power or win out over DOTD 1978.

So, to recap what I have said in the past:

1. I think Snyder can eat shit and die, and the world will barely be affected. He is, among directors, largely replaceable.

2. I did enjoy DOTD 04 for what it is worth - I think it had a decent script and interesting storyline, though inferior to GARs original version. Practically any film school graduate could have taken the James Gunn script for the remake and, with proper funding, put together an enjoyable film.

3. While entertaining to some degree, DOTD 04 is inferior to DOTD 78 (matter of opinion, I am certainly aware) and will never even come close to replacing the original. In the long run, I feel that DOTD 04 will neither have the staying power, rewatchability nor the rabid cult fan base of GAR's DOTD 78.

4. Because he is a contemptible maggot, much too smug, suffering from that same self-entitlement disease that afflicts many in the industry, and because he exhibits little to no respect for the source material, I say again that Zack Snyder can eat my shit and die, and the world will barely notice.

In the end, let us give credit where it is due: James Gunn wrote a decent and entertaining script with some bits (like the whiteboard communication) that were new and inventive. Zack Snyder should not receive the credit or praise for those elements which are the result of Gunn's contribution to the project.

Actually the script filmed wasn't the James Gunn version, it was the Scott A. Frank Version.

The Gunn version was nothing but Troma style exploit, while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay, which is what we ended up with.

darth los

23-Jul-2009, 01:40 AM

@darth - I agree with you that sales (again, hard to swallow) are an important measure of a film's worth. Not necessarily its quality or greatness, but its worth. If nothing else the net from a film drives the industry to produce more films of that genre, director, or... shall I say... vision. :p

That explains the remake/rehash phenomenon.

Proven comodities and formulas = big bucks, which = total lack of original creative thinking In the industry for atleast the last decade.

:cool:

Yojimbo

23-Jul-2009, 03:09 AM

^^^^^^^^^

What he said :p

Actually the script filmed wasn't the James Gunn version, it was the Scott A. Frank Version.

The Gunn version was nothing but Troma style exploit, while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay, which is what we ended up with.

I don't doubt that I may have been misinformed, but even then it's still the same argument with one different player: Zack Snyder still is not singularly responsible for whatever good visionary work is displayed on the remake. Not that he is entirely not responsible, but again the credit should be given where due. These were still not Snyder's ideas, and looking at the other films he has produced since then it is obvious that he does not have the chops to write & direct like GAR did and instead needs someone else to come up with the visionary ideas so that he can flesh these out in a manner that does not distinguish himself from any film school graduate.

Good info all the same. Thanks, brother!
:)

MinionZombie

23-Jul-2009, 09:48 AM

while Scott A. Frank took out the worst over the top moments and made a comprehensible screenplay

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol:

...

You know I had to...

...

To compare Yawn and Dawn as both being 'poorly made' (Bassman), I think is terribly unfair.

Dawn's 'flaws' merely come about from lack of money, and from an independent talent pool far away from the mainstream system.

Yawn is a big budget, by comparison, studio movie with a whole host of mainstream talent (with an added three decades of experience and technical developments) chucked at it like a wet sponge at a grubby whore. The script's heights tremble at mediocre, and lows wallow at utter shit. The characters are a disconnected rabble of wankers you don't care about in the slightest who make absolutely retarded statements and decisions frequently. It's style over substance throughout, the 'zombies' are a blurred smudge of screaming, characterless mush. The over-saturated colour palette is sickly ... *sigh* ... I could, and have historically, go on.

Dawn had the indie spirit and production, it had a battle to get onto the cinema screens, it had people cued up around the block waiting to see it, it genuinely shocked cinema goers at the time with it's gore, it has entrenched itself firmly within horror cinema history, it's smart and intelligent, it has interesting named characters, it has featured zombies who don't run and scream like a dinosaur, it's consistently considered Romero's best work to date, the cinematography is great and really takes advantage of the mall setting - indeed the lighting is very talented too considering the vast array of reflective surfaces in there - it was edited old-school fashion by Romero himself, a very talented editor ... I could go on and on and on - but you get my point.

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 12:07 PM

Yeah....I get your point, mz. But I still think Dawn78 is kind of a poorly made film. Hell....even Romero says so in that recent in-home interview.:p

This doesn't mean I don't like the film. I love it. But I can still acknowledge it's flaws. Bad acting, sometimes poor cinematography, cheesy dialogue, etc etc.

Romero's best film is Day. That's my word and I'm sticking to it!:p

SRP76

23-Jul-2009, 02:19 PM

a disconnected rabble of wankers

That may be the greatest quote I've ever read.:lol:

This doesn't mean I don't like the film. I love it. But I can still acknowledge it's flaws. Bad acting, sometimes poor cinematography, cheesy dialogue, etc etc.

I don't see how those things are even relevant. They have nothing at all to do with how good a movie is.

I could show you an incredibly detailed, wonderfully shot HD clip of the backside of some dude's sweaty nutsack. And guess what? It still doesn't make you want to look at it, no matter how well it's filmed.

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 02:41 PM

I don't see how those things are even relevant. They have nothing at all to do with how good a movie is.

Maybe not to some, but I would say acting is important. It is afterall what drives the story....:rockbrow:

And I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sweaty nut sack in HD thing.:confused:

shootemindehead

23-Jul-2009, 02:50 PM

:rockbrow:
http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/star-trek-crew1.jpg

But they're connected with the Franchise.

They ARE the franchise.

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 02:51 PM

@MZ and bassman - I'm not sure your points are really at odds with one another. I agree with both of you. MZ, those are some spot on observations with regard to the differences in movie styles. Bassman, I see the argument behind calling Dawn a poorly made film.

I tend to agree more with MZ on some points. Specifically, I think Dawn had excusable and explainable flaws whereas Yawn did not.

I'd add that compared to its peers at the time the flaws in Dawn were not so evident as when compared to a 20 year more advanced film industry. I also like MZ's points about the filming challenges and how well the film came out. I've read interviews about how hard filming Dawn was in the mall and it is amazing how well it all came out.

Personally, I don't find Dawn cheesy or the acting bad. But I'm willing to admit I have some nostalgic bias there.

SRP76

23-Jul-2009, 02:52 PM

Maybe not to some, but I would say acting is important. It is afterall what drives the story....:rockbrow:

And I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with the sweaty nut sack in HD thing.:confused:

It should be obvious: the technical details don't alter the story. You can show a nutsack perfectly, but it's still just a nutsack.

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 03:07 PM

I think what bassman is saying is that the quality of the nutsack acting has a role in determining whether the movie is good just as much as the lighting or camera work or amount of sweat.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison. The nutsack genre is mostly about action and special effects. It's not really a character study like Dawn.

AcesandEights

23-Jul-2009, 03:23 PM

I'd just like to go on record as stating that I am unsure why nutsacks are getting the short end of the metaphorical stick here. My nutsack is beautiful to behold and I don't appreciate assertions or even the possibility of idle contemplation to the contrary.

Now, maybe you all have horrid nutsacks, I don't know and I don't care a wit, but casting aspersions on the whole of nutsackdom and dragging my nutsack down in the metaphorical sludge alongside yours is not appreciated. So please, keep your nutsack negativity to yourselves.

I say good day to you, gentlemen.

Good day!

MinionZombie

23-Jul-2009, 03:57 PM

That may be the greatest quote I've ever read.:lol:

I was also quite chuffed with:

chucked at it like a wet sponge at a grubby whore
:D

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 04:07 PM

It should be obvious: the technical details don't alter the story. You can show a nutsack perfectly, but it's still just a nutsack.

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 04:13 PM

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...
Yeah, bassman is right on this.

@srp - I'm reading and re-reading your posts and I'm not sure your point is coming across clearly, nutsacks aside. Maybe you could clarify a bit.

@aces - I think it's obvious whenever nutsack commentary turns negative that it is not your nutsack in the discussion.

SRP76

23-Jul-2009, 04:19 PM

I don't consider acting and dialogue as minor technical details that don't alter the story. They are very major parts of the story...

I don't even notice acting. Exactly how do you spot an acting "error", anyway? What, something like "Peter's not supposed to shoot that zombie"? Or, "Fran's screaming would have a different pitch in real life"? Just how in hell would I know differently? Not like any zombies invaded the mall in my town; where's the basis for how they're "supposed to" be acting?

Books don't have acting at all. And a lot of them are still great. So it can't be that big a part of the story, or you'd have nothing but blank pages.

Same with the dialogue. Just what are the characters "supposed to be" saying in this situation? And just which of us has had the experience to know what a person says in that situation, in the first place?

bassman

23-Jul-2009, 04:25 PM

The difference with books is that you aren't looking at the characters. And no....I'm not talking about how he should shoot zombies. It's the facial reactions, the tone of the voice, the body language, etc.

I could say FUCK YOU to one of my friends, but depending on how I deliver the line, he could take it as joking around or as i'm really angry with him.

And I don't think comparing books to films is really fair. With books you're reading the story and interpreting how YOU want see it. You can make it whatever you want. But with films you're seeing how someone else(director) wants it to be seen...

Trin

23-Jul-2009, 04:35 PM

I suppose if we're getting to nit-picky details I'd separate dialog into what is said and how it is said.

What is said is a reflection of the plot and storyline and is in the control of the writers/director. That can have a huge effect on the quality of the movie.

How it is said is in the control of the director/actor. As bassman says, it can substantively change the meaning of the line. It can have an effect on the mood and understanding of the viewer.

Books don't require acting because they have narrative. If the descriptions and narrative in books are bad that is the equivalent of bad acting and has a definite reflection on the quality of the book.

darth los

23-Jul-2009, 05:05 PM

I don't even get the problem here. If the acting is bad then how are we supposed to become engrossed in the story?

If the people on screen don't even buy into what they're doing how can we?

:cool:

clanglee

28-Jul-2009, 02:39 AM

But they're connected with the Franchise.

They ARE the franchise.

But the creators on the new Star Trek were unconnected with the franchise. The actors were all (with the exception of Nemoy) new, the characters were all a little different, the plotline was changed. etc etc

The new ST movie fits with your entire statement really. . unless I misunderstand.. . . . . which could happen. . . . I have been known to completely distract myself and lose my train of. . . . . . wait. . . is that a turtle? Nope just a rock. . . what was I talking about again?

I don't even get the problem here. If the acting is bad then how are we supposed to become engrossed in the story?

If the people on screen don't even buy into what they're doing how can we?

:

Exactly!!

dragging my nutsack down in the metaphorical sludge alongside yours !

Nutsack sludge. . . . .It's what's for breakfast!!!

shootemindehead

28-Jul-2009, 02:23 PM

But the creators on the new Star Trek were unconnected with the franchise. The actors were all (with the exception of Nemoy) new, the characters were all a little different, the plotline was changed. etc etc

The new ST movie fits with your entire statement really. . unless I misunderstand.. . . . . which could happen. . . . I have been known to completely distract myself and lose my train of. . . . . . wait. . . is that a turtle? Nope just a rock. . . what was I talking about again?

Yep, you've misunderstood.

The new 'Star Trek' film is very much a continuation of the franchise made by francshise people... It isn't totally "Desilu / Paramount" anymore but it's still Rodenberry's legacy if you will. You just don't get to make a 'Star Trek' movie without the blessing of people involved previously.

'Dawn of the Dead (2004)' was made by people without ANY connection whatsoever to the creator (or people conncted with him, if we discount moneyman Rubinstein). It simply nicked the cool title and the cool setting and went from there....

...That turtle is cool......... :cool:

darth los

28-Jul-2009, 03:55 PM

The new 'Star Trek' film is very much a continuation of the franchise made by francshise people... It isn't totally "Desilu / Paramount" anymore but it's still Rodenberry's legacy if you will. You just don't get to make a 'Star Trek' movie without the blessing of people involved previously.

Well, just because "franchise people" are involved doesn't mean it's going to be a quality product. Look at what Russo and Streiner did to NOTLD. Need I say more?

Furthermore, look at the way Lucas completely screwed up The star Wars franchise with those shitty sequels. So having company people so to speak at the helm is not a lock.

:cool:

shootemindehead

29-Jul-2009, 10:39 AM

Ok, I think this 'Star Trek' business is getting out of hand.

:D

darth los

29-Jul-2009, 04:07 PM

Ok, I think this 'Star Trek' business is getting out of hand.

:D

So were the other points that were being made.

However, following the same logic the points made about Star Trek are on.....point.

:cool:

shootemindehead

30-Jul-2009, 12:15 PM

Hmmm...I have absolutely no idea what you mean.

bassman

30-Jul-2009, 12:46 PM

Speaking of Star Trek.....where's the DVD?!? That movie was awesome...

And a bit about the Dawn remake/Snyder: I've seen Watchmen several times now and it's actually growing on me with each viewing. So Snyder did okay in my book with this one. His films seem to be getting better as we go. Still nothing groundbreaking, but enjoyable.

darth los

30-Jul-2009, 03:23 PM

His films seem to be getting better as we go.

And isn't that all you can ask of an artist?

On that note I wish the same could be said about GAr. :(

:cool:

acealive1

31-Jul-2009, 02:38 AM

did anyone mention the helicopter yet?

bassman

31-Jul-2009, 12:00 PM

And isn't that all you can ask of an artist?

I wasn't ragging on the guy. Just saying that I like Watchmen. But my interest for the graphic novel may have something to do with that.

300 was a single viewing for the FX but never cared to watch it again, and Dawn04 was a dull action movie.

darth los

31-Jul-2009, 12:58 PM

I wasn't ragging on the guy. Just saying that I like Watchmen. But my interest for the graphic novel may have something to do with that.

300 was a single viewing for the FX but never cared to watch it again, and Dawn04 was a dull action movie.

No I wasn't accusing you of that. I was just saying that artist progress, and in some cases regress in their careers over time. They learn from the past and use it to make them better at what they do.

:cool:

Trin

31-Jul-2009, 03:53 PM

My personal opinion is that money-making art, such as movies, tend to get worse after the artist gains success.

Art and profit are joined at the hip though artists tend to not like to admit it. GAR wants his movies to be seen as art but he needs his movies to be profitable to fuel further movies.

Artists become successful by creating things the mainstream will pay for. Once they attain a certain level of success that frees them up to do things more toward their personal liking. Often that is seen as a step backwards to the mainstream that doesn't share the artist's vision.

I don't know that Snyder qualifies as an artist just because he makes things that could be considered art just like he probably doesn't qualify as a visionary just because he has a vision. I think he's trying to make money first and foremost.

Yojimbo

31-Jul-2009, 05:07 PM

I think he's trying to make money first and foremost.

I agree with Trin - clearly Snyder is concerned about the bottom line (income) first and foremost. Certainly, he cannot be faulted for that.

Whether his product will stand the test of time and be viewed in the future as anything more than a largely forgettable commercial consumable meant solely to generate short term box office revenue to serve the corporate interest remains to be seen. I maintain that in the long run if he continues to produce product in this fashion that he will not be remembered as anything more than a corporate hack - which IMO is all that he currently is.

At least Ed Wood, for example, wrote his own scripts and produced his product to follow his own vision, and in that sense he is a superior artist to Snyder as far as I am concerned.

MinionZombie

31-Jul-2009, 07:02 PM

Box Office has nothing to do with quality, just popularity.

Popularity doesn't necessarily mean quality, but it doesn't necessarily mean gash either (Dark Knight was massively popular, and it was awesome - for example).

Likewise, sod all BO doesn't mean crap ... sometimes it does ... but it's no set rule.

If Yawn04 was popular, semi-popular, or completely unliked, I wouldn't care - my hatred of it is based on the movie itself, and I think it sucks ... for at least 110 reasons. :D:cool:

Watchmen ... I'll be watching it again sometime soon - although, word to the wise, the "Director's Cut" is not available in the UK - us Brits only get the theatrical version on DVD for some reason. No doubt come December it'll be the whole kit-and-caboodle.

I do feel some of the elements of Watchman were dumbed down, or carried in such a way as you feel that Snyder & Co don't quite "get" it - for instance, I read someone who mentioned a prime example of the latter being the hacking into the head of that kiddy-killer guy by Rorschach - it became comic and OTT, rather than what it really should have been.

Other examples have been mentioned here - the obviousness of The Comedian being Silk II's father, or thingymy being the villain ... and there have been some people questioning some of the casting choices, such as the dude who plays the villain guy - it just doesn't work like you think it should, and I'd have to agree. I didn't like that guy's performance, and he was so obviously evil that there was no shock, surprise or anything from me - and I've never read the GN, nor knew about it from anywhere else, that he was the main baddie.

I'm still yet to read the GN mind you ... one day, I promise.

Yojimbo

31-Jul-2009, 08:24 PM

Box Office has nothing to do with quality, just popularity...If Yawn04 was popular, semi-popular, or completely unliked, I wouldn't care - my hatred of it is based on the movie itself, and I think it sucks ... for at least 110 reasons. :D:cool:

Right on Minion, well said! And on that subject, those 110+ reasons are among the funniest shit I have read regarding this assrape of a movie.

BTW: Dude like you needs to go out this weekend and get a copy of WATCHMEN (the Graphic Novel, that is) and bask in it's comic book superheroes gone bad goodness. You will like it - you will tell a friend. :)

MinionZombie

01-Aug-2009, 10:04 AM

Right on Minion, well said! And on that subject, those 110+ reasons are among the funniest shit I have read regarding this assrape of a movie.

BTW: Dude like you needs to go out this weekend and get a copy of WATCHMEN (the Graphic Novel, that is) and bask in it's comic book superheroes gone bad goodness. You will like it - you will tell a friend. :)
Glad you enjoyed the list, I certainly enjoyed creating the list ... as odd as that may sound.

Believe you me, the GN of Watchmen is on my to do list, but I've got a couple of other books to read before, which have been sat in line for a couple of months now, so once they're done I'll be on the lookout for the GN.

shootemindehead

05-Aug-2009, 04:05 PM

Agree for the most part on 'Watchmen' MZ. I watched it last night for the first time. But, for me, it'll be the last time too. I thought, overall, the film lacked any real umph. I never read the comic (oops graphc novel) before, so I was coming at it fresh. But, at the end I just felt let down.

Some parts were good, but as you say the "surprise" parts were no surprise. Comedyman being the father of token-superhero-girl was obvious from the start. And Oxymoron was wearing his "badguy" T-Shirt from the beginning as well.

Giving Nixon a ridiculous prosthethic nose, when everything else was played straight was a stupid idea too. I just couldn't help of thinking about Nixon in 'Futurama'. Henry Kissinger was good though.

For me and everyone else on the planet I s'pose, Rorschach was the driving force of the whole thing and the only reason I watched it til the end.

I don't know what it is about Snyder, but his films just leave me completely underwhelmed.

bassman

05-Aug-2009, 04:45 PM

MinionZombie

05-Aug-2009, 05:34 PM

Sometimes I pop in dvds to listen to the commentary while working and the other day I thought "what the hell" and gave Dawn04 a try...

I had never noticed that there's a "Wooley's Diner" in the mall until the commentary pointed it out!:stunned:

After reviewing it again, I suppose the reason I never noticed is because the super duper high contrast look of the film makes the sign appear as a large yellow blur.

And on a side note.....I now have a larger hate for snyder because of his constant use of the word "rockstar"....
So as someone who has now listened to the Yawn04 commentary - what's it like? I'm a big Yawn04 hater, as you well know ... anything I'd enjoy hearing coming from you, without me having to listen to that garbage for two hours? :D

darth los

05-Aug-2009, 06:05 PM

And on a side note.....I now have a larger hate for snyder because of his constant use of the word "rockstar"....

You needed an excuse? I thought it was just inate. :p

:cool:

bassman

05-Aug-2009, 06:15 PM

So as someone who has now listened to the Yawn04 commentary - what's it like? I'm a big Yawn04 hater, as you well know ... anything I'd enjoy hearing coming from you, without me having to listen to that garbage for two hours? :D

It's not worth the time. It's just Snyder and one of the producers sucking each other off.

And Snyder often brags about his characters and their development.:lol:

AcesandEights

05-Aug-2009, 07:04 PM

I recall the commentary being okay, but a lot of giving props to the actors (which I don't mind seeing in the commentary, as long as it's not for want of anything else to say), then some talk about the conditions of the various shoots (a blackout having taken place during a heat wave while shooting the parking lot sequence...or maybe it was the sewer sequence, iirc) etc.

I do recall a sense that Zack Snyder was not too 'on his game' when referencing the original Dawn, but I know that isn't of much surprise to people.

Now for good movie commentary, watch Platoon a second time around with 'Director's Commentary' on. That was great!

clanglee

05-Aug-2009, 08:17 PM

because of his constant use of the word "rockstar"....

:lol::lol:

I noticed that too. Hilarious.

Aside from that tho, I thought the comentary was pretty par for the course as far as commentaries go.

bassman

05-Aug-2009, 08:33 PM

Aside from that tho, I thought the comentary was pretty par for the course as far as commentaries go.

Yeah...I guess it was average for most commentaries, but I just expected it to be more informative. And as Aces mentioned above....I can't recall Snyder ever mentioning the original film outside of pointing out the chopper, actors, and small references. Almost like he hadn't seen it and someone else told him to throw the references in there. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true.:p

Jamn

12-Aug-2009, 09:20 PM

Okay, I admit I liked it and it is my favorite. Alright I said it, go easy on me I am new here. I don't think of it as a horror movie like I think of Romero's work. It is an action movie and the reason I first liked was because of the use of the different Smith & Wesson revolvers throughout the movie. To the average viewer most guns look the same and they can't tell a fake from a real one. There were several models used some were common and some were more rare like the 3" model 66 Sarah Polley has at the end on the dock. Yes I am a gun collector and my collection focuses on S&W revolvers, and for me I didn't mind the lack of plot or the depths of the characters. I like Sarah Polley and thought she was good in it. It doesn't have the political or social issues of Romero's but it had enough to entertain. As far as realistic- You would be suprised how people act in crisis situations, I think several character's actions like Steve's, and CJ's and the girl that went after her dog would be considered stupid, but could be very real. Not everyone would look out for anyone else but number 1. Sheeple are oblivious to common sense. Our world is not full of heroes.

Bone Daddy

13-Aug-2009, 08:04 PM

I enjoyed DOTD '04 and took it for what it was, a re-vamping of a classic. As far as remakes or 'reimagingings' go, it was quite good. I know purists will have issues with it and that's kool in the gang, but overall, it hit the right notes more often than not. I think Jake Webber's performance as an everyman caught up in extraordinary circumstances gave the film its heart and moral compass.

I haven't listened to the audio commentary and I'm a big fan of such, but I might skip this ,given the lackluster reviews of it here.

I have Watchmen setting unopened in my Netflix envelope, waiting for the right time to watch it interrupted. See if it grabs me.

darth los

13-Aug-2009, 08:13 PM

zombiemanTLF

19-Aug-2009, 01:00 AM

I liked DoTD 04. I don't consider it a remake, it's just a zombie movie where people hide out in a mall. it's similar to the original DoTD in that aspect, but it's still a whole different movie to me. it just shows what a different group of people would do if the world turned to shit overnight haha it kinda lines up chronologically, to me, with Night more than Dawn, but I still liked it.

bassman

19-Aug-2009, 12:00 PM

Outside these forums it's quite the opposite. In fact I've never met anyone in person who DIDN'T like the film.

You're just hanging out with the wrong people.:p

Trin

19-Aug-2009, 01:56 PM

As i have said many times, the opinion that dawn 04' sucks is the majority opinion here only. Outside these forums it's quite the opposite. In fact I've never met anyone in person who DIDN'T like the film.
My zombie lovin friends in the real world don't like DOTD '04. They think it's stupid and hackish. Which, parallels my thoughts, but I'm not nearly so harsh on it. I found some things to enjoy in it.

Just to put things into context, though, my zombie lovin friends also thought Land was stupid and Diary was a joke. They tend to be (like me) very focused on intelligent plot and realistic characters. The difference between them and me is that they won't even give the movies the time of day. They just discard them as not worth discussion. *shrugs*

bassman

19-Aug-2009, 02:27 PM

I once loaned both Dawn78 and 04 to a friend's father and after viewing them both he said that 78 was like a made-for-tv movie that would air on the women's channel and 04 was the best horror film he had ever seen.:eek:

I had no response. I just looked at him, grabbed the movies, and walked away. Made for tv? Women's channel??? And this is coming from a guy who is in his 50's - not a younger kid that can only watch films from the last 10 years. :annoyed:

darth los

19-Aug-2009, 04:34 PM

I know right. God forbid someone's opinion doesn't coincide with one's view's huh?

the nerve of some people. :p

:cool:

bassman

19-Aug-2009, 04:40 PM

I know right. God forbid someone's opinion doesn't coincide with one's view's huh?

the nerve of some people. :p

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but yeah that's true. But COME ON! A women's channel movie? That's ridiculous!

EvilNed

19-Aug-2009, 05:28 PM

Hey. I just think it's kinda cool that he views it that way, because it can be pretty tough to judge a film you love from an outsider's point of view.

darth los

19-Aug-2009, 05:51 PM

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but yeah that's true. But COME ON! A women's channel movie? That's ridiculous!

Well, kind of. His opinion is his opinion.

Even though I love the film I can totally see where he's coming from. Let's be honest. The effects are awful by today's standards, the acting is subpar and it's slow paced.

The question is, why wasn't he asking you the same thing.. :lol:

:cool:

Trin

19-Aug-2009, 08:50 PM

I once loaned both Dawn78 and 04 to a friend's father and after viewing them both he said that 78 was like a made-for-tv movie that would air on the women's channel and 04 was the best horror film he had ever seen.:eek:Hey, free speech is great and everyone can have an opinion and all that. But keep it within reason. Some people, like that guy, need to quietly disappear for the public good.

Jamn

22-Aug-2009, 01:50 AM

darth los

24-Aug-2009, 05:19 PM

I think that it's not really fair to compare effects or storyline of the two films. You really have to consider the times they were made to appreciate what they are. Take an old western made in the 50's with a current episode of COPS, and which is likely to be more violent? I loved the first Star Wars movie, saw it in theaters as a kid and I still like it today. I hated Phantom Menace, the droid war at the end was way more advanced than any of the original movies but to me it was kind of a cheesey way to go. After seeing so many movies with computer animation, I expected more imagination, I was kind of numb to it. The same way someone watching the two films at the same time for the first time would feel. I saw NOTLD when I was very young and it scared the crap out of me. My kids watched it and it was no big deal, they have been exposed to worse, sadly.

Well, it's been my experience that people will work only as hard as they have to. Meaning, if cgi does most of the work instead of combining that with their creative juices they are content to sit back with "just enough" instead of making a truly special film.

As to your second point people around here compare the films all the time and how dawn 04' doesn't compare to he original in so many aspects, which are totally legitimate points. So, in fact, they are the one's comparing the two films and how dawn 78' is so much better. So wouldn't it be only fair to point out the things that dawn 04' does better than the original?

Unlike most people we here are film buffs, GAr films inparticular but most people aren't. We appreciate slow pacing and character development. Most people don't and most would indeed want to watch dawn 04' before the original and enjoy it more.

I was commenting on the fact that his friend totally dissed the original. I subsequently pointed out numerous flaws of the film, which if you are honest with yourself you must admit. Truthfully, if i watched any other film with those flaws it would totally suck.

You can still admit it and love the movie but let's not pretend that it's not dated or that the acting is top notch because it's far from that.

My point is some things were better back then such as storyline and character development and some things are better now like the effects.

:cool:

chroniccronners

21-Nov-2009, 10:05 PM

I'm gonna chip in and say I enjoyed it. Plus it made my friend choke on his popcorn which is good.

deadpunk

21-Nov-2009, 10:45 PM

A film by any other name...

MinionZombie

22-Nov-2009, 10:46 AM

A film by any other name...
:rolleyes:

Ugh...

By any other name, it'd still be absolutely fucking shit.

...

They also don't give a stuff about Romero as his "based on a movie by..." credit is definitely shorter and more interrupted than anyone else's.

mista_mo

22-Nov-2009, 01:29 PM

I fail to see how this movie is absolute shit. Absolute shit is something like children of the living dead, not Dawn 04'. I understand that it is subject to opinion, but come on.

deadpunk

22-Nov-2009, 03:17 PM

:rolleyes:

Ugh...

By any other name, it'd still be absolutely fucking shit.

I disagree. Honestly, if they had named this movie anything else, people would not have been so bent out of shape. And more zombie fans would have given it a chance without a pre-formed opinion.

We have a tendency to compare every zombie movie to GAR works. Take one that is named after his and our expectations go up 100 fold.

MinionZombie

22-Nov-2009, 09:21 PM

I fail to see how this movie is absolute shit. Absolute shit is something like children of the living dead, not Dawn 04'. I understand that it is subject to opinion, but come on.
I've got 110 reasons why I reckon it's absolutely fucking shit. :D

clanglee

23-Nov-2009, 12:53 AM

:rolleyes:

Seriously? Are we gonna start this again?

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

MoonSylver

23-Nov-2009, 01:01 AM

:rolleyes:

Seriously? Are we gonna start this again?

It's who we are. It's what we do.:lol:

As for name comparison? I can look beyond that. '04 is a fast, flashy, MTV style action movie w/ runners, all style & no substance. But fun for what it is.

Is it shit? Mmmm...no...not IMO. I can name a dozen zed movies off the top of my head that are INFINITELY worse. But even if it IS shit, shit, like Hell, has many levels, & this is no where near the worst (CotLD, Craptaigum, Ghey '04, Zombiez, Zombies vs Vampires, Zombie Lake, Garden of the Dead, I could go on & on...)

acealive1

23-Nov-2009, 01:21 AM

Imo, the first part of your answer is the way to go. It is a remake in name only and although there were nods to fans peppered throughout the film such as the Gaylen Ross store or several cameos by original cast members I wouldn't call it a homage to GAr's masterpiece by any means. The only thing it has in common with the original is zombies and a mall. (dead rising anyone?)

I will say this though. Don't feel guilty for liking it. I love the film and I'm in the minority here. (I just don't mind my friends here bashing me for it).

Also, don't think that liking this film is somehow a slap in the face to GAr or the original because for all intents and purposes they are two seperate entities.

:cool:

i like the remake as well, its not a bad movie but i'd rather not call it a remake since it bears little in common with the original except that its set in a mall.

MinionZombie

23-Nov-2009, 09:44 AM

Zombie Lake is better than Yawn04. It's got green zombie nazis in it for cripe's sake! Plus a bevvy of naked-ass chicks swimming in a lake/showering in their garden/doing anything as long as they're naked, and it's got THIS dude in it:

http://www.horrortalk.com/reviews/ZombieLake/ZombieLake08.jpg

Howard Vernon.

...

I've actually got a mate from uni who looks just like this guy. :D

I'm pleased to have Zombie Lake in my DVD collection, I'm not pleased to have Yawn04 in my DVD collection ... but at least I got a section in my final year dissertation from it...

MoonSylver

23-Nov-2009, 10:21 PM

Zombie Lake is better than Yawn04. It's got green zombie nazis in it for cripe's sake! Plus a bevvy of naked-ass chicks swimming in a lake/showering in their garden/doing anything as long as they're naked, and it's got THIS dude in it:

It's great for a grade Z cheeseball craptacualar euro exploitation flick. Doesn't make it a particularly good movie though. If that makes sense.;)

MinionZombie

24-Nov-2009, 09:46 AM

It's great for a grade Z cheeseball craptacualar euro exploitation flick. Doesn't make it a particularly good movie though. If that makes sense.;)
But it does what it does well.

Yawn04, not so much. :elol:

MoonSylver

24-Nov-2009, 02:49 PM

But it does what it does well.

Yawn04, not so much. :elol:

Oh I think it does what it does well. Just a question of what it does...;)

MinionZombie

24-Nov-2009, 04:43 PM

Oh I think it does what it does well. Just a question of what it does...;)

Rape the audience. :skull::elol::moon::lol:

MoonSylver

24-Nov-2009, 10:14 PM

Rape the audience. :skull::elol::moon::lol:

Eh...I wouldn't go that far...I WAS thinking "be vapid, shallow, fast moving, flashy, hollow, empty of content, lacking of any deeper meaning or greater truth & place style over substance.";)

Yet I still...like(?) it...SOMEWHAT. And it will never be more than what it is.:|

MinionZombie

25-Nov-2009, 10:22 AM

Eh...I wouldn't go that far...I WAS thinking "be vapid, shallow, fast moving, flashy, hollow, empty of content, lacking of any deeper meaning or greater truth & place style over substance.";)

Yet I still...like(?) it...SOMEWHAT. And it will never be more than what it is.:|
Naaaaaah ... it's still pretty damn rapey.

---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------

Eh...I wouldn't go that far...I WAS thinking "be vapid, shallow, fast moving, flashy, hollow, empty of content, lacking of any deeper meaning or greater truth & place style over substance.";)

Yet I still...like(?) it...SOMEWHAT. And it will never be more than what it is.:|
Naaaaaah ... it's still pretty damn rapey.

MoonSylver

25-Nov-2009, 07:44 PM

Naaaaaah ... it's still pretty damn rapey.

Meh & hurm.:| Agree to disagree.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/duty_calls.png

;):lol::p:moon:

bassman

25-Nov-2009, 08:22 PM

I'm no fan of the Dawn remake, but I have lightened up on it over the last few years. It is what it is. Cheap entertainment for one or two viewings. Nothing more.

One thing that I absolutely hate about it is that it's fans don't even know it's a remake. On another board I visit a guy had this as his signature:

"When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the Earth" - TV Preacher, Dawn of the Dead

I asked him about it and he had no idea that it was a remake or that there was even an older film with the same title.

As big Romero fans, doesn't that just boil your balls?

MoonSylver

25-Nov-2009, 10:58 PM

I'm no fan of the Dawn remake, but I have lightened up on it over the last few years. It is what it is. Cheap entertainment for one or two viewings. Nothing more.

That's about where I stand as well.

One thing that I absolutely hate about it is that it's fans don't even know it's a remake...
...I asked him about it and he had no idea that it was a remake or that there was even an older film with the same title.

As big Romero fans, doesn't that just boil your balls?

YES!!!

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/internet-rage-250x300.jpg

;)