Day of the Dead(original)?

[rickyla29669]

It was always said that because of budget cuts, a budget that went from 7 million to half of that. That is the reason that the original Day was not the film that Romero wanted it to be. Why does'nt Romero recreate/remake that movie in his original vision, his crowning masterpiece. Instead of this crap thats been coming out, Day the remake, Land, an alright film that could have been so much better, and Survival, it was a joke.

[JDFP]

It was always said that because of budget cuts, a budget that went from 7 million to half of that. That is the reason that the original Day was not the film that Romero wanted it to be. Why does'nt Romero recreate/remake that movie in his original vision, his crowning masterpiece. Instead of this crap thats been coming out, Day the remake, Land, an alright film that could have been so much better, and Survival, it was a joke.

I see this is your first post. Generally speaking, many people (especially here) consider "Day" to be Romero's finest zombie film and many of us go as far as calling it the BEST zombie film period and, a few of us like me, consider it to be one of the greatest horror films ever made.

General consensus around here about much of anything is non-existent. But many of us would argue (including me) that Romero has lost his touch. If "Day" were to be re-made today, especially by Romero, it would be shit like most other horror films. Why re-make something that is perfectly good as it is? This is another debate there (remakes).

"Day" is a crowning masterpiece of cinema as is -- why mess with that?

j.p.

[shootemindehead]

Agree 100% with JDFP here. 'Day of the Dead', while bizzarely crucified (in the States at least) upon it's original release has quite rightly become to be recognised as Romero's masterpiece.

He shoudn't "remake" 'Day of the Dead', but he could perhaps take his original script and just "make" a new movie based on that.

Although, I have to admit, I MUCH prefer 'Day of the Dead' as it turned out, to what I read in the oriignal script about 12 years ago....on this very site, I may add.

[Boogiedowndead]

I consider day to be the weakest of the original trilogy

The effect are by far the best of the series.


Story wise it was weak to me.

It started out good then dragged out in the middle. Of course the ending was awesome.


I don't consider it a bad film, I just rather watch Dawn.


edit -- back to the question


I would love to see a day remake directed by George with cameos from the original.

[blind2d]

I have to disagree with the freshies, here. Day is as good as it gets, and shouldn't be tampered with. I don't think it drags at all, if you're really ready to make the commitment of watching it objectively and with full attention. To me, every second of it is important and interesting. I can understand why some would prefer Dawn, but there's a little more to think about in Day. Also, there are less humans, so that might turn some people off as well. Anyway, Day rules and remakes.... do not. See my thread about Let Me In for more on this.

[Trin]

Anyone who believes that GAR could win with the original Day script needs to give it a fresh read. It was the exact same kind of farce that Survival became.

A better question in my mind is how did the Day movie get rewritten from that Day script on the fly like that? It's a pretty remarkable transition.

[JDFP]

A better question in my mind is how did the Day movie get rewritten from that Day script on the fly like that? It's a pretty remarkable transition.

That's actually a great question, I've wondered the same thing as well.

Philly/Dubious/others? I'd love to hear how this took place. My guess is that Savini or someone else had a hand in helping with a massive re-write with Romero. The film version of "Day" is quite different from the original (not very good, IMO) screenplay.

j.p.

[MoonSylver]

That's actually a great question, I've wondered the same thing as well.

Philly/Dubious/others? I'd love to hear how this took place. My guess is that Savini or someone else had a hand in helping with a massive re-write with Romero. The film version of "Day" is quite different from the original (not very good, IMO) screenplay.

j.p.

IIRC Romero came right down to the wire on when he HAD to contractually deliver a screenplay, took a couple weeks off down there in Florida & knocked out the re-write. He couldn't do the more elaborate & highly ambitious ideas he originally had, so in his opinion he took some of the ideas & boiled them down to their essence in the re-write. He talks about it in "The Zombies That Ate Pittsburgh".

Oddly enough, I think you can see some of the echoes of that unproduced original script in "Land'.

[Mr.G]

I agree with the majority (not that it's the best of the 3) and say no to the remake. For every NOTLD 90 you get PSYCHO or The Fog. GAR needs to leave well enough alone.

[Ghost Of War]

If Day were made to the original script in the first place, I think it would have sucked a biggun. Day Of The Dead, as it is, is the best horror movie ever made, and one of the best movies ever made. Land took some of the original Day scripts ideas, and while Land is an ok film IMO, can you imagine following Dawn Of The Dead with something like that? Nah.

[bassman]

Having recently given the original Day script another read....I think some of you are being a bit harsh. Yes it's not as good as the Day we have now(the best of the series), but it's also no Survival. Okay, so the training of zombies and "circle shirts" would be very tricky to pull off on screen without being laughable, but other than that I actually thought it was a great script.

The opening scenes of the original Day script would have been incredible on screen, imo. The entire dock sequence is intense. The script is great up until the elevator opens on the island. After that, the army zeds come out and it gets a bit flimsy, but I think with the right attention it could've been handled in an appropriate way. Hell....Romero ended up handling Bub in a FANTASTIC way in the theatrical film. There aren't too many differences between Bub in the original script and the Bub we have now. Other than the leather gun slingin' belt, of course. And what happened to Toby Tyler(something like that)? I thought he was an interesting character that got dropped for some reason. Obviously Sarah was blended in with the scientists, but Tyler was just dropped. Well....I guess you could say he was kinda blended into Miguel. And the Governor! What a character that could've been! I kept picturing a Dom Delouise or Jabba The Hutt styled character. :lol:

And although I've always preferred not knowing what caused the dead to rise, I thought it was interesting to have the last dead guy not come back. And the whole exchange with Sarah and John about keeping a guard on the body until it turned to dust and the wind carried it away? Fantastic stuff. The "THE END(I promise) can fuck off, though. :p Another thing I didn't like about the original script is that Rhodes somehow didn't seem as menacing. Maybe Pilato's performance brought a lot to the table, but as written in the original script, he didn't seem all that bad...

So I think if you were to take out or adjust a few things here and there, the original script isn't SO bad. With the right TLC it could have been an awesome movie. Not the "Ben Hur" of zombie movies as they say on the documentary, but it could've been interesting. I guess we'll never really know. But I love what we have now.:cool:

[Wrong Number]

I'm really kinda surprised to hear so many people feel Day of the Dead is GARs best work. I really am curious as to why you all feel that way. While it is certainly better than some of his other work, I always felt it was by far the weakest of the original three.

WN

[DjfunkmasterG]

Day, while having hammy moments is really one of Romero's best. I think DAWN is still his Masterpiece although he prefers DAY the most. There was talk of a 3D remake some time ago, and I said even if I remade it I would eliminate the zombie army. However, Day of the Dead (original script form) was remade, it is called LAND of the DEAD.

If you read the Day script, and then watch LAND... some much stuff was carried over to LAND it is quite astounding. However, Romero himself proved how stupid the zombie army idea is/was with Big Daddy.

[bassman]

If you read the Day script, and then watch LAND... some much stuff was carried over to LAND it is quite astounding.

Having just went through it a few days ago, I would have to disagree. The only things similar between Day(original script) and Land are more smart/trained zombies, and the whole class ranking within the compound. Other than that I didn't see anything else that screamed Land of the Dead in that script...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Really?

Watch Land again... if you can stomach it. That is pretty much Day of the Dead and Romero has admitted most of Land was derived from the original Day script. :p

[bassman]

Yeah, I know Land. Seen it many times. :cool:

But what between Land and Day(orig.) seems the same to you? As I said before, aside from the class sytem within the compound and there being more than one smart zombie, I don't really see that much of a connection. Throw me some pointers, here. Maybe I missed something.

Most of it is...well....the theatrical Day of the Dead. Those two bits are the only thing I can think of that carried over to Land. Everything else that differs from the theatrical Day was just dropped entirely...

[Neil]

I see this is your first post. Generally speaking, many people (especially here) consider "Day" to be Romero's finest zombie film and many of us go as far as calling it the BEST zombie film period and, a few of us like me, consider it to be one of the greatest horror films ever made.

General consensus around here about much of anything is non-existent. But many of us would argue (including me) that Romero has lost his touch. If "Day" were to be re-made today, especially by Romero, it would be shit like most other horror films. Why re-make something that is perfectly good as it is? This is another debate there (remakes).

"Day" is a crowning masterpiece of cinema as is -- why mess with that?

j.p.

+1
5char

[BillyRay]

But what between Land and Day(orig.) seems the same to you? As I said before, aside from the class sytem within the compound and there being more than one smart zombie, I don't really see that much of a connection. Throw me some pointers, here. Maybe I missed something.



Well that's it...the whole theme of Land of the Dead was taken from the original Day script. Even after the Zombie Apocalypse, there will still be a system of "haves" and have Nots". Just replace any Reagan-era references with Dubya references.

That and smart zombies.

But I agree with folks who wouldn't want to necessarilly see a straigh remake of the original script. seriously, it needs some tweaks and rewrites.

Y'know, Rhodes screaming "Muldoooooon!" and Bub over-emoting...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well Romero has his MULDOON... he is in SURVIVAL

[darth los]

Well that's it...the whole theme of Land of the Dead was taken from the original Day script. Even after the Zombie Apocalypse, there will still be a system of "haves" and have Nots". Just replace any Reagan-era references with Dubya references.

That and smart zombies.

I agree with this sentiment.

And that's the big reason it sucked balls, imo. I know funding was given as the official reason but the script was nothing to write home about.

Me thinks his 20 year obsession to get the script he wanted made was to land's detriment.

:cool:

[bassman]

Me thinks his 20 year obsession to get the script he wanted made was to land's detriment.


And what is the excuse for Diary/Survival? :lol:

I can see where you guys feel that the original Day script is similar to Land. The biggest difference imo is that the original Day script doesn't beat you over the head with the class issue. Maybe it would've been stronger once translated to screen, but in the script it didn't feel as forced as it does in Land.

The smart zombie thing could've gone either way. Maybe it would've been great like Bub, maybe it would've been the mail man in Survival. I guess we'll never know for sure....

[BillyRay]

And what is the excuse for Diary/Survival?

Being able to do a series with continuity between films?

That he owns the rights to?

[bassman]

That doesn't answer for the quality of said films, Billy. :lol:

[BillyRay]

Well, that's where it all falls apart, I guess...:lol:

[Deaths_Shadow]

i see this is your first post. Generally speaking, many people (especially here) consider "day" to be romero's finest zombie film and many of us go as far as calling it the best zombie film period and, a few of us like me, consider it to be one of the greatest horror films ever made.

General consensus around here about much of anything is non-existent. But many of us would argue (including me) that romero has lost his touch. If "day" were to be re-made today, especially by romero, it would be shit like most other horror films. Why re-make something that is perfectly good as it is? This is another debate there (remakes).

"day" is a crowning masterpiece of cinema as is -- why mess with that?

J.p.

100% ditto!

[rawr]

This will probably piss off a lot of the hardcore, "ZOMBIES SHOULD NEVER RUN WTF!!!!!" types, but the only person qualified to remake a Romero movie without destroying my eyeballs is Zack Snyder. Although the Tom Savini Night of the Living Dead remake was okay, the acting was extremely terrible.

So if anyone should remake Day of the Dead, it should be Zack Snyder, because Dawn of the Dead was the only good Romero remake, ever.

[JDFP]

This will probably piss off a lot of the hardcore, "ZOMBIES SHOULD NEVER RUN WTF!!!!!" types, but the only person qualified to remake a Romero movie without destroying my eyeballs is Zack Snyder. Although the Tom Savini Night of the Living Dead remake was okay, the acting was extremely terrible.

So if anyone should remake Day of the Dead, it should be Zack Snyder, because Dawn of the Dead was the only good Romero remake, ever.

I, personally, liked the "NOTLD '90" remake. It didn't feel so much like a re-make to me so much as an homage to the original and a more contemporary spin on it (can you believe it's been 20 years?). You could tell there was a great deal of love that went into it. Don't be a yo-yo in comparing "NOTLD '90" to "DAWN '04" -- the first is an homage to the original, the second is a gutting of the original (it could be argued that it's a not badly done gutting -- but it's still a gutting). The "DAY" re-make is just a frakking travesty of film-making and should be burned.

As far as your second paragraph. All I have to say is: ahem, Frank Darabont.

That's all.

j.p.

[rawr]

I liked the 90s Day remake, I really did... But the acting was terrible, especially in the main character. Tony Todd was the only saving grace to that cast, and I'm sure that's where most of the cast budget went. Also, I must agree that Frank Darabont would do an excellent job on a zombie film, as TWD has proven to be better that most zombie flicks, episode-after-episode. I stand corrected.

[Yojimbo]

I, personally, liked the "NOTLD '90" remake. It didn't feel so much like a re-make to me so much as an homage to the original and a more contemporary spin on it (can you believe it's been 20 years?). You could tell there was a great deal of love that went into it. Don't be a yo-yo in comparing "NOTLD '90" to "DAWN '04" -- the first is an homage to the original, the second is a gutting of the original (it could be argued that it's a not badly done gutting -- but it's still a gutting). The "DAY" re-make is just a frakking travesty of film-making and should be burned.

As far as your second paragraph. All I have to say is: ahem, Frank Darabont.

That's all.

j.p.
Well said JD - Night 90 was pretty cool and while I don't necessarily agree with those that have declared Daramont the king and Romero as irrelevant, I think that Snyder is not fit to smell Savini's shit, let alone Daramont's or GAR's or our own Gary Ugarek's shit either!

Snyder's DOTD is a remake in name only, and while entertaining in a action movie kind of way I think it is totally inferior to NOTLD 90 (which to me is the only GAR remake that is redeemable)

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------


I liked the 90s Day remake, I really did... But the acting was terrible, especially in the main character. Tony Todd was the only saving grace to that cast, and I'm sure that's where most of the cast budget went. Also, I must agree that Frank Darabont would do an excellent job on a zombie film, as TWD has proven to be better that most zombie flicks, episode-after-episode. I stand corrected.
I did not mind the acting in Savini's remake (you obviously meant NOLD and not the DAY remake which is in a different category of stink altogether), though some of it admittedly was a but clunky. But I do think the acting overall in Snyder's DAWN IN NAME ONLY was subpar. I do agree with you, however, that TWD is head and shoulders above most of the crap that passes for zombie films these days.

[MoonSylver]

Snyder's DOTD is a remake in name only, and while entertaining in a action movie kind of way I think it is totally inferior to NOTLD 90 (which to me is the only GAR remake that is redeemable.

+1 to This.


But I do think the acting overall in Snyder's DAWN IN NAME ONLY was subpar.

I'd probably blame that on the writing. The cast was a decent-to-strong enough group of actors, who turned in (for the most part) solid performancs with what they had. But the way they were written? Eh, there's only so much you can do with THAT. :lol:

[Yojimbo]

I'd probably blame that on the writing. The cast was a decent-to-strong enough group of actors, who turned in (for the most part) solid performancs with what they had. But the way they were written? Eh, there's only so much you can do with THAT. :lol:

Good point Moon. I have seen the majority of those actors, with minor exceptions, in other works and they were undeniably solid. Poor writing coupled with a hack director would make even the most talented actors come off like Paris Hilton.

[rawr]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake.

There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling.

Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen.

[Yojimbo]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake.

There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling.

Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen.

Ok, so you don't think Snyder is a hack. I beg to differ. No need to call my opinion "ridiculous" in the same way that there would not be any call for me to dismiss your opinion in the manner that you did mine.

As far as character development is concerned, I still shit on DAWN 04, however "multidimensional" and "excellent" you think it was. Again, this is only my opinion and you are entitled to think otherwise.

The titles you cite, 300 and the Watchmen, do not sway my assessment of Snyder as a hack though I found both to be entertaining on some level, as I also found DAWN 2004 to be. I also found his Budweiser commercial to be acceptable even though I still think he is a hack and will continue to think this whether or not you think it is "ridiculous"

Again, you can agree or disagree at your discretion. Either way, these things are a matter of opinion.

Moving forward, I will not call your opinions "ridiculous", and I would ask that you extend me and my fellow posters the same courtesy.

[C:/Fodder]

I read over a script for Day of the Dead as it was originally intended to be; and it just seemed a bit too...bombastic for me. All this talk of a small society on these islands, a longer running time: I won't deny it had the feel of an "epic" film, but those kind of films just don't appeal that much to me; nor do I think the label "epic" should be applied to a zombie film.

Day '85 is a chilling and haunting film. A long shot from the great, if over the top, humour in Dawn '78. It's a polarising film, too; most people either seem to love its stark portrayal of human desperation and the ever enduring message that it is humanity which is the greatest threat to itself, not the living dead: Or they hate it for departing too far from the consumerist dreams of Dawn, or being a bit too dark.

One thing we can all agree on is, I'm sure, the glorious gore. Savini tops his previous efforts in Dawn, that's for sure.


I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake.

There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass).

While this is a discussion on Day, and you're entitled to your opinion, I beg to differ; The only characters I felt were really fleshed-out were Ana and Michael. But can you truly say that Nicole, Norma, Terry, Bart, Glen and Steve were truly fleshed out? Hell, even Andre and Luda could've been really well written; but instead, after Luda gets bitten, "We're going to disappear until near the end of the movie now guys, ok?".

[general tbag]

And what is the excuse for Diary/Survival? :lol:

money!

pretty sure he was gloating how both were made cheap.



Day is the weakest, but it shows with the small details he had a larger budget with more bells and whistles.

notld <---best-Selected by The Library of Congress NUFF SAID

[Neil]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake.

There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling.

Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen.

But the problem is not the efforts to flesh the characters out, but, a) Their behaviour, b) The events.

It's all a little bit daft and unbelievable, hence you don't believe in the situation, hence you don't believe in the characters, hence you don't ultimately care about the characters. ie:-
- Ninja zombie neighbour girl at the start: You're dead, and infected, so bounce around supernaturally?
- Demon eyes: You're dead, and infected, so within a few seconds get strange contact lenses?
- Godzilla lungs: You're dead, and infected, so within a few seconds get lung upgrades?

And of course this list just continues through the whole film unfortunately, resulting in characters doing bizarre things risking their lives for no reasons, or resulting in things like zombie being super quiet when 'necessary', and indeed legless nija zombies climbing onto overhead piping. etc etc...

The film of course is not a loss, and some of it is excellent, but it's way off what it could have been with a bit more intelligence in the writing (& characters)...

[Trin]

Hey Neil, you are hitting it on the head. The characters are fine but lose their appeal in the situation and actions.

When they sit around and concoct a plan to leave their perfectly good mall you have to wonder about them. And Zombie baby? How the actors even managed to get through that scene is a mystery to me. How stupid does an idea have to be before the actor's guild strikes?

It's no worse than any other recent zombie movie... just not something worth great praise. I still watch the first half of it. Till they stupidly go after the dog girl.

[Neil]

Till they stupidly go after the dog girl.

Exactly! Dog girl was another example! As if she'd go running around like that, or if they'd risk almost certain death going after her!

[JDFP]

Exactly! Dog girl was another example! As if she'd go running around like that, or if they'd risk almost certain death going after her!

Eh... in defense...

She was pretty hot. I would have hit that. And in a world where there's not many do-able fish left in the sea you have to prioritize.

"Dear God! One of the few attractive women left is running away! Quick! Catch her!"

:D:p

j.p.

[Trin]

She's so dumb though. The guys you were attributing that action to were old enough to not care about her youthful hotness anymore.

I was at a pizza buffet place and this super hot young chick was lingering in the buffet line right beside my table. I looked over at her, then to my wife, then I sighed. She was working up to give me the "You have no chance" look when I said, "I can't see what kind of pizza they just put up." The sigh was because I didn't care about that hot chick. I just wanted pizza. Sigh.

Yeah, she'd get left behind in a heartbeat being that stupid.

[Gryphon]

She's so dumb though. The guys you were attributing that action to were old enough to not care about her youthful hotness anymore.

I was at a pizza buffet place and this super hot young chick was lingering in the buffet line right beside my table. I looked over at her, then to my wife, then I sighed. She was working up to give me the "You have no chance" look when I said, "I can't see what kind of pizza they just put up." The sigh was because I didn't care about that hot chick. I just wanted pizza. Sigh.

Yeah, she'd get left behind in a heartbeat being that stupid.

Perfectly understandable :P

Though, that's one thing about the Original Day that just made me go o.O ... There's ONE female in the bunker. ONE. They may be the only humans left on earth, and Rhodes threatens to kill the ONE reproductive option for.... not getting back in her chair?!

[zomtom]

Even though Dawn has always been my favorite; Day is the one that scared the hell out of me the most. First of all, that damned Dr. Tongue zombie. He was before his time. Also, when they are running through those dark tunnels with the zeds in there; that fueled many a damned good nightmare. I would take that any day over that silly shit GAR is offering us now.

[Neil]

Even though Dawn has always been my favorite; Day is the one that scared the hell out of me the most. First of all, that damned Dr. Tongue zombie. He was before his time. Also, when they are running through those dark tunnels with the zeds in there; that fueled many a damned good nightmare. I would take that any day over that silly shit GAR is offering us now.

It's definately the darkest of the trilogy IMHO! I love it!

[BOBSMITH]

I've never understood folk who prefer the original DAY OF THE DEAD to either of its predecessors. The story just doesn't hold up and the lack of a budget was glaring. Most of the acting was not very good. Also, from what I understand, LAND OF THE DEAD incorporated most of the ideas and themes that Romero originally intended to use in DOTD. Since LAND it a really awful film, I suppose that DAY would also have been lousy if he'd had the budget to make the film he wanted to make.

That said, DAY OF THE DEAD is a film that grows on me the more I watch it. After my first viewing I was terribly disappointed in it, but the more I see it the more I see in it of consequence.

[Andy]

I've never understood folk who prefer the original DAY OF THE DEAD to either of its predecessors. The story just doesn't hold up and the lack of a budget was glaring. Most of the acting was not very good. Also, from what I understand, LAND OF THE DEAD incorporated most of the ideas and themes that Romero originally intended to use in DOTD. Since LAND it a really awful film, I suppose that DAY would also have been lousy if he'd had the budget to make the film he wanted to make.

That said, DAY OF THE DEAD is a film that grows on me the more I watch it. After my first viewing I was terribly disappointed in it, but the more I see it the more I see in it of consequence.

I Prefer day over dawn, but night is my favourite of all romeros movies. I personally love the dark, claustophobic nihalistic feeling of both night and day which is the perfect atmosphere for a zombie movie and i think its something that romero does really well when he does it.

Dawn is ok but i dont like the cheesiness. it ruins it for me.

[BOBSMITH]

Well, the original DAWN lacked much of a budget and the FX suffer. But overall it's my favorite zombie film. The themes and undercurrent are just overwhelming.

The original NOTLD is damned near genius. Probably the best American horror film ever made.

[Doc]

Most of the acting was not very good.

Teehee. :clown: Which, Romero zombie film does have fantastic acting? If anything "Day" suffers from more overacting if anything. The only truly bad actor was the guy who played Miguel.

[bassman]

Dawn has acting on par with day time soap operas and the syfy movie-of-the-week. Day is miles ahead of Dawn when it comes to acting.

[Neil]

Teehee. :clown: Which, Romero zombie film does have fantastic acting? If anything "Day" suffers from more overacting if anything. The only truly bad actor was the guy who played Miguel.

Some of the acting in Day was pretty good IMHO!

Pilato was great IMHO!

[Trin]

I liked the acting for the main characters in both Dawn and Day. Some of the tertiary characters were bad.

I thought Land had good acting pretty much across the board.

Diary... meh, not as much. Survival was pretty horrible outside of a few exceptions.

[JDFP]

Dawn has acting on par with day time soap operas and the syfy movie-of-the-week. Day is miles ahead of Dawn when it comes to acting.

Oh c'mon Bassy, everyone knows that Daniel Dietrich's performance as Givens was certainly Academy Award winning material!

j.p.

[AssassinFromHell]

It was always said that because of budget cuts, a budget that went from 7 million to half of that. That is the reason that the original Day was not the film that Romero wanted it to be. Why does'nt Romero recreate/remake that movie in his original vision, his crowning masterpiece. Instead of this crap thats been coming out, Day the remake, Land, an alright film that could have been so much better, and Survival, it was a joke.

The original screenplay for DAY will never get made by Romero. It would require an excess of money for an independent film and after LAND, it's doubtful that Romero would return a big shot studio to make a film. It's a nice thought, though.

And I haven't been around the forums for the better part of an eternity, but I'm guessing SURVIVAL probably didn't have a great reception. I personally didn't mind it. Not the best, but it beats what most of the industry pumps out these days.