Dawn04 sequel 'Army of the Dead' info and death

[bassman]

We've discussed the Zack Snyder developed sequel to his 2004 remake of Dawn but now there's a bit of info on what it would have been and why it thankfully has now fallen apart.

Strike had hired Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.(The Thing prequel/remake) to direct the sequel and he has confirmed that it is indeed dead. However, he also gave some good reasons as to why - Rapist zombies and hybrid zombies. No kidding...

Heijningen Jr.:

There's an extra dimension to this zombie film, because they…. they…. I'm still wondering if I should tell this…. the male zombies rape human females. Yes. And they have human hybrid zombie offsprings. It's a new take on the zombie genre, which is crazy.


The story, an original by Snyder, would have involved a father who travels into a zombie-infested Las Vegas to rescue his daugher. But whether that sounds interesting or not to you, van Heijningen believes it to be shelved permanently:

They didn’t really want us to shoot in Las Vegas – because of the expense of shooting in Las Vegas. I really don’t think it’s going to happen.




Wow. The genre really dodged a bullet with this one. Snyder was going to take the zombie baby idea one step further? :rolleyes::duh:

source (http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/dawn-of-the-dead-sequel-army-of-the-dead-will-not-renimate)

[Andy]

Honestly you guys whine and moan that its all been done and theres no original zombie movies out there, as soon as a director dares to make one you do nothing but criticsize!

[bassman]

Honestly you guys whine and moan that its all been done and theres no original zombie movies out there, as soon as a director dares to make one you do nothing but criticsize!

But dude....raping zombies?!? I honestly wouldn't mind another Dawn04 as i've really lightened up on the film over the years. My only criticism is raping zombies and human/zombie hybrids. That just sounds awful. Would you not agree?

[Christopher Jon]

But dude....raping zombies?!?
Romero already got the ball rolling with thinking zombies. It's only a matter of time before they remember what Mr. Happy is for.

Granted, it's a bit crass but if zombies are driven by instinct to eat no reason why they wouldn't be driven by instinct to wanna get it on.

And yes, it does sound awful. Definitely not the direction I'd take if Universal handed me 50 million.

[AcesandEights]

But dude....raping zombies?!?

Sounds fun!

Oh, you mean zombies that rape. Oh :(

[Christopher Jon]

Sounds fun!

Oh, you mean zombies that rape. Oh :(

I think the Zombie Diaries 1 & 2 already covered zombies being raped.

NOW IT'S PAYBACK TIME!

[bassman]

Sounds fun!

Oh, you mean zombies that rape. Oh :(

Ha! Yeah....probably should have said "rapist zombies"....

[Andy]

But dude....raping zombies?!? I honestly wouldn't mind another Dawn04 as i've really lightened up on the film over the years. My only criticism is raping zombies and human/zombie hybrids. That just sounds awful. Would you not agree?

that was sarcasm...

[bassman]

that was sarcasm...


Well.......shit. :|

Use a damn smiley or something! :lol:

[AcesandEights]

Ha! Yeah....probably should have said "rapist zombies"....

Just playing on the words, is all. Honestly, it does sound like we dodged a bullet on this one, which sucks. I'd been somewhat hopeful.


I think the Zombie Diaries 1 & 2 already covered zombies being raped.

NOW IT'S PAYBACK TIME!

:lol: I actually liked the 1st Zombie Diaries, especially considering budgetary restrictions, haven't seen the 2nd one yet. Is it really more of the same?

[Christopher Jon]

I actually liked the 1st Zombie Diaries, especially considering budgetary restrictions, haven't seen the 2nd one yet. Is it really more of the same?

I enjoyed both of them.

The second is similar but it's primarily a single story.

This time it's Soldiers, not tweens, and it picks up around the same time the first film ends so you don't have to sit through another origin story.

I think both are good examples of how to approach low and no budget films. They didn't try anything to ambitious. They wrote and shot something that didn't require a budget and I think that is where a lot of other low and no budget films go wrong.

If you liked the first you'll like the second.

[rongravy]

Ha, zombie leg hunchers. Talk about getting boned. I thought the whole baby thing in the first one was crap. It doesn't really matter to me if they made this, other than tarnishing what was decent about the first. No biggie, I just wouldn't have had any repeat viewings after the initial let down, nor owned the dvd.

[Christopher Jon]

I thought the whole baby thing in the first one was crap.
Gotta agree with you on that. I liked Dawn04 but that storyline should have been cut. A person hiding they were bitten was already a zombie movie cliche' by that point and zombie baby was just dumb. It was dumber than hanging acrobat zombie.

But, a lot of comic book nerds and fanboys thought it was cool so what do I know. Guess you can't please all of the people all of the time but you can never go wrong by showing some boobies. :)

[MoonSylver]

Sounds fun!

Oh, you mean zombies that rape. Oh :(

:lol: *ZING!*

http://iseeahappyface.com/upload/necrophilia-zombies-worst-nightmare971.jpg

:D

[Andy]

Gotta agree with you on that. I liked Dawn04 but that storyline should have been cut. A person hiding they were bitten was already a zombie movie cliche' by that point and zombie baby was just dumb. It was dumber than hanging acrobat zombie.

But, a lot of comic book nerds and fanboys thought it was cool so what do I know. Guess you can't please all of the people all of the time but you can never go wrong by showing some boobies. :)

Personally i dont understand peoples objection to the zombie baby storyline, was it sick and shocking? yes.. it was.. but zombies are not supposed to be pretty. it was good seeing a movemaker try something different and not just the same tired story arc's we have all see 1000 times before.

I Think it was a good twist and works well in the guidelines that snyder has created for himself (zombie infection passed on by bodilly fluid transfer) and im not a comic book nerd or snyder fanboy at all, also i will point out, there where zombie babies long before dawn 2004.

[bassman]

Personally i dont understand peoples objection to the zombie baby storyline, was it sick and shocking? yes.. it was.. but zombies are not supposed to be pretty.

I disagree. It was neither sick or shocking. I still remember giggling and rolling my eyes when I saw the baby pushing her stomach and realized they were really going there. Then I burst into all out laughter when they pull over the receiving blanket to reveal a purple CGI baby with the screams of a velociraptor. The entire concept was just ludicrous and the execution was down right hilarious. Anything but sick and shocking.

Could it have been executed in a different way and maybe worked without unintentional laughs? I have a hard time seeing it, but I suppose it's possible. Even as a summer action movie, Dawn04 would benefit greatly without the entire scene.

[Neil]

it's only a matter of time before they remember what mr. Happy is for.
lol!!

-- -------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------


I disagree. It was neither sick or shocking. I still remember giggling and rolling my eyes when I saw the baby pushing her stomach and realized they were really going there. Then I burst into all out laughter when they pull over the receiving blanket to reveal a purple CGI baby with the screams of a velociraptor. The entire concept was just ludicrous and the execution was down right hilarious. Anything but sick and shocking.
It was very very bad, and I just don't understand how it made it through the scripting process to the screen.

[Christopher Jon]

Personally i dont understand peoples objection to the zombie baby storyline, was it sick and shocking? yes.. it was.. but zombies are not supposed to be pretty. it was good seeing a movemaker try something different and not just the same tired story arc's we have all see 1000 times before.
Nothing wrong with filmmakers trying something new. I just thought it was silly.

I'm cool with running zombies, I'll accept that zombies retain some of their past memories, giving birth to zombie babies is where I draw the line. Now, if the mom had died and the zombie baby chewed it's way out of her tummy... that I want to see.

Rape zombies are just GTFOH

BTW, the Japanese already did it. Why stop at tentacle sex? I'm still waiting for the Godzilla, Mothra and Rodan bukkake movie.

[Andy]

lol!!

-- -------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------


It was very very bad, and I just don't understand how it made it through the scripting process to the screen.

Care to elaborate on 'bad'?

[AcesandEights]

I'm another person who wasn't really bothered by the baby subplot. I think it worked less well than it could have, but wasn't all that bad. The reveal of the newborn is what was probably, in my mind, the worst choice.

[Neil]

Care to elaborate on 'bad'?

Sure... It was another example from that film of, 'how dumb can these cardboard characters be?' ie: Everyone in the audience 100% understands she has a dead baby in her, but somehow the character(s) don't? Everyone in the audience 100% understands the zombie baby just needs to be shot, but somehow the character(s) don't? And then (if I recall correctly) a gunfight ensues over the zombie baby with some of the cardboards trying to defend it? **double facepalm**

That whole section of the story was badly written... It could have been far more intelligent, believable and therefore moving...

[AcesandEights]

And then (if I recall correctly) a gunfight ensues over the zombie baby with some of the cardboards trying to defend it? **double facepalm**

Nope.


Meanwhile, it is revealed that Luda did not escape unharmed when attacked by the security guard and has since entered the advanced stages of infection. She has been tied up to a bed by Andre, where she later goes into labor and dies. She reanimates and the baby is born. Norma checks on the couple and, seeing Luda is now a zombie, kills her. Andre snaps completely; they exchange gunfire, killing each other. The rest of the group arrives to find a zombie baby which they immediately kill.

[Andy]

I sort of agree with both here, it was quite badly written and could have been done alot better but i can also see what snyder was going for, with the whole keeping the baby and women alive, it was more down to the guy having a mental breakdown and not being able to come to terms with whats going on or able to kill his wife and child rather than.. well how you put it Neil.

I think it was a good idea, poorly executed.. but definately deserves more credit than alot of people give it.

[Trin]

I have been a strong criticizer of zombie baby in the past. And still am. It isn't shocking or unique or brilliant. It is stupidly written and a waste of precious screen time. And we lose a couple of otherwise good and capable characters to it.

The writing speaks to a bias for building tension rather than plausibility. The filming/directing speaks to a bias for shock value rather than subtlety.

Could they have all known all along that Luda was infected and dying? Yes. Could that have led them to a (heated and conflicted) decision to try to nurse her along in hopes of saving the baby? Yes. Even to the point of letting her give birth. And in the end, could they have simply showed Ana looking inside the swaddled folds of the blanket and sobbing? Absolutely. The same basic storyline could've unfolded without the idiotic plotline and goofy visuals. It would've worked fine.

[Christopher Jon]

Sure... It was another example from that film of, 'how dumb can these cardboard characters be?' ie: Everyone in the audience 100% understands she has a dead baby in her, but somehow the character(s) don't? Everyone in the audience 100% understands the zombie baby just needs to be shot, but somehow the character(s) don't? And then (if I recall correctly) a gunfight ensues over the zombie baby with some of the cardboards trying to defend it? **double facepalm**
Your half right.

Lemme bust out the DVD so I get it right.


Only Andre and Luda know she was bitten.

Andre and Luda move into the baby store and block all of the windows with sheets for privacy.

We last see Luda with the group before the passage of time montage. At this point she is fine.

After the passage of time montage, Ana offers to check up on Luda but Andre says no thanks, she's fine.

That night the power cuts out. Luda is giving birth.

Norma goes to check up on them and bring them some candles n' shit.

Luda dies. Luda comes back as a zombie. Luda gives birth to zombie baby.

Norma goes into the baby store.

See's zombie Luda tied to the bed. Busts out her gun and shoots Luda Zombie.

Andre shoots Norma. Norma shoots Andre.

The rest of the gang arrives and shoot baby zombie.

Honestly, I think some of you guys just look for things to pick apart because you either don't like the movie, haven't seen it in 10 years or both.

[Andy]

Honestly, I think some of you guys just look for things to pick apart because you either don't like the movie, haven't seen it in 10 years or both.

Its like youve been here years :D

[Christopher Jon]

Its like youve been here years
Read through a lot of old posts to steal good ideas. :)

[Andy]

I Gave up trying to defend dawn 2004 a long time ago, even though i regullarly include it on my favourite movie lists.. Alot of the guys on here took an instant dislike to it becuase its a remake of a cherished movie (by some.. not me :shifty:), while total trash like land and survival is very highly spoke of by the same people... go figure.

Basically i came to the conclusion that some people dont watch the movie, they just watch the name/director and set their opinion from that.

[Christopher Jon]

Being honest. Most zombie movies suck.

I love 'em but it's a genre with few really good movies.

Hollywood mostly ignores zombies but there have been a bunch of zombie films out of Europe that past couple of years that aren't bad. Yes, they deviate from Romero but Romero deviated from those before him and I'm not going to kill a film just because it's not a rehash of a single directors vision.

I wonder of Vampire forums go through the same stuff. Vampires can't sparkle in the sun and have sex! No, vampires look like rats with giant claws. No, vampires have super powers and can fly. Vampires turn anybody they bite. No, vampires have to give another person their blood to turn them. No, vampires hang out in front of Robert Nevil's house and have huge afros etc...

[bassman]

I Gave up trying to defend dawn 2004 a long time ago, even though i regullarly include it on my favourite movie lists.. Alot of the guys on here took an instant dislike to it becuase its a remake of a cherished movie (by some.. not me :shifty:), while total trash like land and survival is very highly spoke of by the same people... go figure.

Basically i came to the conclusion that some people dont watch the movie, they just watch the name/director and set their opinion from that.

While that may have been the case closer to the film's release, it seems to me that the opinion of Dawn04 around here has been "okay" to "good" as of late. I know a lot of people that really hated it at first but have come around to accept it for what it is. Myself included.

However, that doesn't mean we can't criticize certain aspects of the movie. Hell...I love picking at sections of the original Dawn and Day, but they're still two of my favorites. Minor complaints or annoyances with sections of the film do not mean we're picking at it simply because it's a remake of Dawn. I mean.....look at Day08 or Night3D! They're hardly mentioned around here and they're much worse than Dawn04. If we were picking on Dawn04 simply because of it's name, wouldn't those other two get brought up more often?

[Christopher Jon]

I mean.....look at Day08
That was so bad it goes without saying.

[Andy]

While that may have been the case closer to the film's release, it seems to me that the opinion of Dawn04 around here has been "okay" to "good" as of late. I know a lot of people that really hated it at first but have come around to accept it for what it is. Myself included.

However, that doesn't mean we can't criticize certain aspects of the movie. Hell...I love picking at sections of the original Dawn and Day, but they're still two of my favorites. Minor complaints or annoyances with sections of the film do not mean we're picking at it simply because it's a remake of Dawn. I mean.....look at Day08 or Night3D! They're hardly mentioned around here and they're much worse than Dawn04. If we were picking on Dawn04 simply because of it's name, wouldn't those other two get brought up more often?

I Didnt name anyone person where i easilly could have named a few, your not one of them. Most people have warmed to it your right but there are still alot of, what i would call, unjustified comments thrown about and alot of people who still havnt given it the chance they would have if it was called "Zombie Massacre" or something and all the links to dawn where taken out.

[Neil]

Nope.

I was basically right though? People were killing each other over dead people... :)

[SymphonicX]

Personally i dont understand peoples objection to the zombie baby storyline, was it sick and shocking? yes.. it was.. but zombies are not supposed to be pretty. it was good seeing a movemaker try something different and not just the same tired story arc's we have all see 1000 times before.

I Think it was a good twist and works well in the guidelines that snyder has created for himself (zombie infection passed on by bodilly fluid transfer) and im not a comic book nerd or snyder fanboy at all, also i will point out, there where zombie babies long before dawn 2004.

Are you referring to the comedy "Braindead" per chance?

The zombie baby thing...was it shocking? No. Was it offensive? No. It was just plain f**King stupid.

That was my criticism of the entire film, it was just...f**king....stupid.
Ok so it was less stupid that Ghey08, or Night3D - but I've not even entertained those films to be honest. Dawn04 may exist JUST within my stupidity threshold, ie: I will watch it but still thinks it's beyond f**king stupid. But Ghey08, Children of the Living Dead, Night3D - well these things are so obviously trash that they don't get a showing.

So in my world, all Dawn04 is, is remotely watchable. But the zombie baby? Give me a break, stupidest moment of the entire film...maybe...actually I dunno, there were so many dumb moments.

I really don't think people's impressions here of the zombie baby was "omgz, a zombie baby, nooo that's so out of order, children are sacred, I feel offended" - more a case of "oh, that's fucking stupid."

Anyway glad you like the movie!!!

-- -------- Post added at 10:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

I mean I could talk for days about every element that I hate about that film - and yeah it is mainly due to it's assosciation with the original movie. You don't remake "The Wizard of Oz", take out the yellow brick road, change the Wizard into a velociraptor, and dress Dorothy in an S+M maids outfit, and then act shocked after you've marketed to the original fans and got a backlash.

But maybe that'll be the rebuttal here - that it WASN'T marketed to the original fans - in fact it's probably fair to say that Zack Snyder wasn't even remotely attached to the original movie - apart from the obligatory references to the original movie, it's completely removed itself. So what was the point? You either remake it and keep elements that made it great, or you set a running zombie movie in a mall and called it a "loose homage".

But what you don't do, is tie up a great movie licence for another 30 years by "remaking" the film in such a lazy, and terrible eye candy way, removing everything that made the original great (fun characters, great action, sense of adventure, awesome set pieces and a small social commentary), and ensuring for the next 30 years, no one is going to make a movie with zombies and a shopping mall.

[Thorn]

But dude....raping zombies?!? I honestly wouldn't mind another Dawn04 as i've really lightened up on the film over the years. My only criticism is raping zombies and human/zombie hybrids. That just sounds awful. Would you not agree?

I can not imagine anyone supporting this concept, it is utter rubbish.

[krakenslayer]

The zombie baby subplot was awful - it played out very predictably, with lame melodrama and a rubbish CGI anticlimax. I agree with Andy that the idea was potentially a good one, but it was just handled in such a unimaginative, stale, corny and overdone fashion that any horrific or disturbing elements were smothered.

As for rapist zombies: how completely ridiculous. First of all, even if we disregard the behavioural and physiological problems involved, it would imply that zombies are some sort of different subspecies with their own zombie genes which can be passed on, which they are not - they are basically human, albeit reanimated from death - the differences are metabolic not genetic, they used to be people, they weren't conceived and born as zombies. The whole idea seems so slapdash and conceptually messy and absurd, and I fail to even imagine how it could make for a gripping and believable film. When will writers learn you don't make an original zombie film just by adding new zombie abilities, you do it by coming up with original characters, situations, and having a point worth making.

[Ragnarr]

I would assume the zombie "doing the driving" would like doing it slow, but then again it IS a Snyder zombie. Hmm...

Let's just assume that z-rape and z-babies should be quickly filed away (waaay way away) with z-astronauts going on a space mission to rape martian women, z-politicians running for office (the D after their name representing the "Dead Party"), and whatever else too much drugs and too little sleep can come up with for the genre.

[Rancid Carcass]

Let's face it... this is pretty much where it's headed:

http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy236/cattletech/porkysDead.jpg

:D

[AcesandEights]

Let's face it... this is pretty much where it's headed...

:lol: Best laugh I've had all week, straight out of left field. Well done, RC.

[Andy]

Let's face it... this is pretty much where it's headed:

http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy236/cattletech/porkysDead.jpg

:D

http://www.hollywoodtoday.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/applause.gif

[Mike70]

just when i think that i've read the craziest gor'am thing ever, i come across a thread like this.

this sounds like something uwe boll would come up with.

[Mr.G]

Romero already got the ball rolling with thinking zombies. It's only a matter of time before they remember what Mr. Happy is for.

Granted, it's a bit crass but if zombies are driven by instinct to eat no reason why they wouldn't be driven by instinct to wanna get it on.

BUT if these zeds were embalmed like the original one in Night 1990 do they even have the fluids to make Mr. Happy function? I can believe walking corpses but a lack of blood flow makes Mr. Happy unlikely!

[Christopher Jon]

but a lack of blood flow makes Mr. Happy unlikely!
Zombies are stiffs.

Stiff arms, stiff legs, stiff... :)

[SymphonicX]

I really think we should all back out of this room slowly.

[Thorn]

Let's face it... this is pretty much where it's headed:

http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy236/cattletech/porkysDead.jpg

:D


Brilliant!

[blind2d]

*Agrees with Symph and begins to do so*

[LouCipherr]

I can't believe i'm even going to bring this up, but I have to ask...

"raping" zombies? How is this possible, does a male zombie's junk still function? How is that even possible?! :lol:

[MoonSylver]

I can't believe i'm even going to bring this up, but I have to ask...

"raping" zombies? How is this possible, does a male zombie's junk still function? How is that even possible?! :lol:

Yeah, like you don't know...:nana:

It's simple: rigor mortis. Why do you think they call it a "stiffy" :lol:

http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/40602/photos/PHOTO_8194586_40602_7486305_ap.jpg

[Eyebiter]

This script has already been done... with mutants back in 1980.

Humanoids from the Deep (1980)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080904/

[MoonSylver]

This script has already been done... with mutants back in 1980.

Humanoids from the Deep (1980)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080904/

Mmmm, true to an extent. Except they had a somewhat plausable excuse for the fish men's "urges" IIRC.

Plus Humanoid on Girl action was kinda hot. :lol: :eek:

[Legion2213]

Honestly you guys whine and moan that its all been done and theres no original zombie movies out there, as soon as a director dares to make one you do nothing but criticsize!

I was (and still am) a staunch defender of Dawn04...but zombie rapists? Heck no, that sounds really shit.

It puts me in mind of that wonderful youtube parody called "revenge of the gang bang zombies" a while back?

All I can think of now is that french guys voice over..."gong bong...gong bong...gonnng bonnng" :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWFVZwS-Vg

[Christopher Jon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOWFVZwS-Vg
That was so awesome it needs to be posted twice.

[Mike70]

Being honest. Most zombie movies suck.

I love 'em but it's a genre with few really good movies.



ain't that the truth.

since we've turned to dawn 04 - i still am not a fan of the movie at all. i think it is a rather shitty and disposable, (funny saying that since we've been bitching about it for SEVEN f*cking years on here) film. my main problem with it isn't zombie babies. it is the fact that the movie just isn't done very well. it is like watching a track meet where the only event is the 100 yard dash.
there's no pacing, no depth, no feeling, no substance to it at all. it is the coke zero of zombie movies.

[CJ Markham]

I'm honestly surprised that the Dawn remake didn't get a sequel--it was very popular, and made alot of money.

-- -------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------


That was so awesome it needs to be posted twice.

Those zombies must be Russian.

Gang rape has been a time-honored pastime of the Red Army since before the Russian Revolution...

[Neil]

I'm honestly surprised that the Dawn remake didn't get a sequel--it was very popular, and made alot of money.
Me too! I wish they had done a sequel!


But I still stand by my comments that Dawn04 had some silly script choices.
1) People not seemingly overly concerned about their own survival. ie: Wondering off where in reality you'd be taking every precaution you could.
2) 'Scripted zombies'. ie: Zombie that just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and new just when to be ninja quiet, or climb up onto pipes in car parks to drop down on the survivors that were scripted to be walking under them sometime soon :) (Think the screw driver zombie in Dawn78, but over and over and over again)

Again, I'm not saying the film was bad, but if the script had just been tightened up, it could have been an epic flick IMHO.

[CJ Markham]

To address your points:

1. Again--how were they not concerned about their own survival? If anything, they seemed very proactive about wanting to live. They took lots of precautions to find other people at first--well, they did as best they could, with the signs and all. And then, when it came time to split, they did a great job fortifying the parking shuttles when they attempted to make their getaway to the Great Lakes.

Their plans might not have been perfect...but they were certainly more thought out than the survivors in the original....who flew off into the night in a stolen helicopter. According to Fran herself, they didn't even know where they were going--they didn't have food, water, or even a radio.

I dunno...why don't you be a little more specific about who "wondered" off? :D

2. "Scripted zombies"? Come on, Neil....there were just as many in the original Dawn as there were in the remake...as there are in any zombie flick.


I don't think it's a masterpiece, by any means. It's a good flick that reflects the production and writing standards in the time it was made. It was a big hit one way or the other, and it ushered in a whole new wave of young zombie fans...many of whom actually prefer the remake to the original. The same way the Night remake is preferred over the original by many younger fans. Personally, I don't think it ever could've been "epic"--I think that we got about as good as could be expected with what they were trying to do.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go with the original every time....but that doesn't mean that I think the remake is a chunk of shit, neither. No. From the very first time I saw the original as a 12 year old child in 1986, it's been part of my DNA. To this day, it was the best time I ever had watching a movie on home video (not counting the time I found my cousin Little Ronny's copy of "Little Oral Annie Takes Manhattan" two years before), and it's a movie that I've literally NEVER gotten tired of...and that's after at least 1500+ viewings.

What I see alot of in this forum are fans who are down with the original to the point where they feel they have to talk shit about the remake to...I dunno...maybe prove their loyalties. I feel no such need to do so. I'm secure enough with the quality of the original that I can look at the remake and enjoy it for what it is as well--and it'll never take the original's place in my heart OR my DVD collection.

[Andy]

I Think neil is refering to the whole dumb girl going after her dog thing which i have argued with him on several times. it is realistic if you ask me, her character is a dumb girl. :lol:

[CJ Markham]

If that's the case, well..... <shrugs>

In all fairness, though...when I walked into the theater in 2004 to see the remake for the first time, I was expecting to see the Night 90 treatment applied to Dawn of the Dead. I was blown away by the quality of the opening credits montage...which for me made the film...and spent the second half of the film waiting for the bikers to show up. :D

[Neil]

If that's the case, well..... <shrugs>

In all fairness, though...when I walked into the theater in 2004 to see the remake for the first time, I was expecting to see the Night 90 treatment applied to Dawn of the Dead. I was blown away by the quality of the opening credits montage...which for me made the film...and spent the second half of the film waiting for the bikers to show up. :D

The first 20-30 mins of it were epic, except for:-
- Ninja zombie kid from next door. ie: Defying gravity when jumping up.
- Death = immediate contact lenses? Huh? Only been dead 1 minute so why different?
- Death = immediate godzilla vocal chords? Huh? Only been dead 1 minute so why different?

These things just hit me as insulting. They imply the view that the audience are too dim to understand what's going on so need help with stupid cues!

-- -------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------


I Think neil is refering to the whole dumb girl going after her dog thing which i have argued with him on several times. it is realistic if you ask me, her character is a dumb girl. :lol:

The girl is an example, but there is a current of lack of interest in survival if memory serves!

-- -------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------


2. "Scripted zombies"? Come on, Neil....there were just as many in the original Dawn as there were in the remake...as there are in any zombie flick.

I've not seen it for a long time. So tell me if I'm right/wrong.

I seem to recall for example in a parking lot, a bunch of zombies attacking the survivors? The zombies are quiet (in their running/vocally) as required? Do I also not recall a zombie (legless?) dropping from above? Again, why is a zombie climbing around up there, and also being quiet when necessary? Am I being fair to these moments/scenes?

[CJ Markham]

The only thing I found even borderline "insulting" about the film/script was that they felt the need to be so overtly Politically Correct about the micorcosm of society that winds up in the Mall.

The black guys had to be bad-asses...and at least one had to be gangsta. The white guys (with the exception of the asshole with the boat) had to be weak and unassuming, or straight up dorks. There had to be at least one interracial couple, and one homosexual (although I've seen it argued that the truck driver woman was a lesbian).

Honestly, the PC aspect felt like it was shoved down my throat.

-- -------- Post added at 05:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 AM ----------


The first 20-30 mins of it were epic, except for:-
- Ninja zombie kid from next door. ie: Defying gravity when jumping up.
- Death = immediate contact lenses? Huh? Only been dead 1 minute so why different?
- Death = immediate godzilla vocal chords? Huh? Only been dead 1 minute so why different?

These things just hit me as insulting. They imply the view that the audience are too dim to understand what's going on so need help with stupid cues!

-- -------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------



The girl is an example, but there is a current of lack of interest in survival if memory serves!

-- -------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 AM ----------


I've not seen it for a long time. So tell me if I'm right/wrong.

I seem to recall for example in a parking lot, a bunch of zombies attacking the survivors? The zombies are quiet (in their running/vocally) as required? Do I also not recall a zombie (legless?) dropping from above? Again, why is a zombie climbing around up there, and also being quiet when necessary? Am I being fair to these moments/scenes?

You're being fair to the scenes.

But, there are just as many "jump scares" in the original.

[Neil]

But, there are just as many "jump scares" in the original.
With legless zombies being uber quiet when required, somehow jumping down from above? Really? :) That scene just smacked of daft/unnecessary to me.

And I know I'm picking on one or two scenes, but they're representative of the nature of the piece IMHO.

Again, I'm picking on negative aspects, which may suggest I'm being overly harsh on 04. My intent is simply to make my point that some questionable scripting elements seem to reduce the overall product. Had some scenes been better handled in a more solid/realistic/believable fashion, I feel the film would have been better for me...

[CJ Markham]

Again, I'm picking on negative aspects, which may suggest I'm being overly harsh on 04. My intent is simply to make my point that some questionable scripting elements seem to reduce the overall product. Had some scenes been better handled in a more solid/realistic/believable fashion, I feel the film would have been better for me...

If you applied that sentiment to the original, it would've ended the minute they closed off the Mall...and we would've missed out on the Biker raid entirely. :D

[Andy]

With legless zombies being uber quiet when required, somehow jumping down from above? Really? :) That scene just smacked of daft/unnecessary to me.

I Wouldnt say anymore daft/unnecessary than the zombie that stood perfectly still posing with store dummies, watching 2 guys go past so it can pounce the third..

[CJ Markham]

<shrugs>

Like I said--by the time the Dawn remake came out in 2004, times had changed zombie-wise. You boys can thank your own countrymen for that--"28 Days Later" forever upped the ante in the zombie department...whether the die-hards want to admit that the infected were indeed "zombies" or not. Younger audiences expected more and wanted more than stiff, shambling Frankenstein-like movements from their ghouls. The time was right for running zombies--which I've always found curious, since "Return of the Living Dead" had them years before.

Anyways...I guess my point is--don't be so quick to bash the remake simply because it was made...or because it was different from the original. If you're confident in the quality of the original, as I am, then the remake shouldn't bother you. Hell...you can even enjoy it for what it is without it being an insult to the original, or George Romero himself.

Romero himself has said that he enjoyed the remake...and, if you think he DIDN'T make a little money off it, you're crazy. In fact, the remake was the best thing to happen to Romero's career in years--because if it hadn't been for the success of the remake, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity to make Land, Diary, or Survival. And, if it's any consolation to the die-hard fans of the original, the remake, however popular and successful, is already kind of slipping into obscurity--it hasn't acheived one one-hundreth of the cult status of the original, and since there's been no sequel, for most movie goers and horror fans it's already been filed away as just "something that came out in 2004". In fact, the only people I still see talking about it are pretty much right here, so.... ;-)

[Neil]

I Wouldnt say anymore daft/unnecessary than the zombie that stood perfectly still posing with store dummies, watching 2 guys go past so it can pounce the third..

I mentioned that example from the original. But 04 delivers such unnecessary contrived scripting in greater quantity with added daftness... Legless ninja zombies? Really! :)

-- -------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------


<shrugs>

Like I said--by the time the Dawn remake came out in 2004, times had changed zombie-wise. You boys can thank your own countrymen for that--"28 Days Later" forever upped the ante in the zombie department...
I don't care if zombies shuffle or run (shufflers are more atmospheric and runners are down right terrifying!)... What I care about is the script behind them. I want believable scenarios and believable behaviour. If characters go off with seemingly little/no concern for their survival, I raise my eyebrows. If zombies seemingly know where to be to launch the best attack, and hide away, or sneak up, being ninja quiet, I roll my eyes!

It smells of poor writing to me.

AGAIN! Dawn 04 is a perfectly watchable flick. But some of its script elements unnecessarily let it down IMHO. More believable character and zombie behaviour can only lead to a more believable flick, which ultimately stands a better chance of you engaging with.

[Andy]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie :shifty:

Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies.

[Neil]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie :shifty:

Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies.

You have a point! OK! I'll trade you one "ninja legless ceiling dropping zombie" for one "pie throwing biker raiding party"! Fair deal?

[CJ Markham]

I mentioned that example from the original. But 04 delivers such unnecessary contrived scripting in greater quantity with added daftness... Legless ninja zombies? Really! :)

-- -------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------


I don't care if zombies shuffle or run (shufflers are more atmospheric and runners are down right terrifying!)... What I care about is the script behind them. I want believable scenarios and believable behaviour. If characters go off with seemingly little/no concern for their survival, I raise my eyebrows. If zombies seemingly know where to be to launch the best attack, and hide away, or sneak up, being ninja quiet, I roll my eyes!

It smells of poor writing to me.

AGAIN! Dawn 04 is a perfectly watchable flick. But some of its script elements unnecessarily let it down IMHO. More believable character and zombie behaviour can only lead to a more believable flick, which ultimately stands a better chance of you engaging with.

Compared to 85% of the material George Romero has produced over the four plus decades of his career, it's practically Shakesperian.

-- -------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------


Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie :shifty:

Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies.

If you're going to ban me for that, all I've gotta say is that I'm glad that freedom of speech is alive and well in the UK. :D

The writing behind the original is not that great--to say the least. It succeeds I think more on a concept level than because of its screenwriting. The characters in the original are not well developed, and if anything they're just two dimensional cookie-cutter characters taken from what was going on in comic books, television, films, and other examples of pop culture of the time period. As for the action, while alot of it was scripted, a whole Helluva lot was improv as well--by the crew's own admission.

I've read that Romero produced the first half of the script, pitched it to get it financed, and then wrote the second half later. That wouldn't surprise me, given what we got. When the Mall is walled off and all of the zombies inside are killed, the film is effectively over. I can just imagine George sitting there, thinking, "I've gotta get the zombies BACK into the Mall somehow--I dunno, maybe they could break in? No...that's not enough--I've gotta give them more to eat as well, because gore and feasting scenes are what made the original. Maybe some bad guys could break in to rob the joint, setting off a climactic battle for the goods...with the zombies eating everyone. Yeah...that's IT!"

And that's what we got.

It's still alot of fun to watch, and they had alot of fun making it. There's a kind of spontaneous energy to that film that George has never been able to duplicate before or since.

[Neil]

Compared to 85% of the material George Romero has produced over the four plus decades of his career, it's practically Shakesperian.
I'll give you that... If I had to watch Dawn04 or Diary or Survival... I'd watch Dawn04...

[Christopher Jon]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie
Correct or not, most casual horror fans and the majority of the planet all consider 28 days to be a zombie film or at least a derivative of the zombie genre.

If people want to call rage virus victims zombies, honestly, who gives a shit. They aren't any more inaccurate than Romero was when he called his undead zombies.

I don't recall seeing any Haitian priests in any of the Romero films. :)

[Andy]

A. The infected are alive and not dead or undead.
B. The infected do not eat flesh.
C. The infected starve to death.
D. (Most important point for the last) Both Danny Boyle, the director and Alex Garland, the writer of 28 days later have said its NOT a zombie movie.

If 9 out of 10 people tell you red is blue, does it make it true?

[Neil]

Correct or not, most casual horror fans and the majority of the planet all consider 28 days to be a zombie film or at least a derivative of the zombie genre.

If people want to call rage virus victims zombies, honestly, who gives a shit. They aren't any more inaccurate than Romero was when he called his undead zombies.

I don't recall seeing any Haitian priests in any of the Romero films. :)

I think they're close enough to be considered the same sort of genre. They're mindless 'animals' set on killing (unifected) humans...

[Andy]

I think they're close enough to be considered the same sort of genre. They're mindless 'animals' set on killing (unifected) humans...

No im sorry but their really not, its one of my personal peeves.. Dracula is miles closer to popular zombie mythology than the 28 days later infected are but you call Dracula a zombie in front of a load of vampire fans and see the reaction you get :p

[Neil]

No im sorry but their really not, its one of my personal peeves.. Dracula is miles closer to popular zombie mythology than the 28 days later infected are but you call Dracula a zombie in front of a load of vampire fans and see the reaction you get :p

If the infected's hearts happened to not be beating, and they bit rather than vomited... It would then be a zombie movie of course... Not far away is it from the outcome on the screen :)

I'm happy to consider it the same sort of genre because at the end of the day it ticks so many of the same boxes as regards the outcome on the screen.

For me at least...


As regards comparing Dracula to zombies, I can't go there due to, a) intelligence (rather than mindless), b) supernatural power(s).

[AcesandEights]

If there was anything obvious about this tired old debate then it would have fizzled a long time ago. Everyone knows that Romeroesque ghouls aren't real zombies, because there's no voodoo.

That was the debate, right?

[CJ Markham]

I'll give you that... If I had to watch Dawn04 or Diary or Survival... I'd watch Dawn04...

After that "Land of the Dead" fiasco, I didn't even bother with Diary, to be honest. I caught Survival on AMC (I believe) either last Halloween or the year before--when George showed the world that he had to be the WORST horror movie host of all time. Watching him studder through his reading off the teleprompter was almost as bad as watching Sarah Palin try to act smart. Anyways, I couldn't believe just how bad Survival was.

Regardless, after that I decided to give Diary it's day in court when I saw it listed on IFC. I think I made it through about ten minutes before I switched over to a 35 year old "Happy Days" rerun on HUB.

-- -------- Post added at 11:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------


Correct or not, most casual horror fans and the majority of the planet all consider 28 days to be a zombie film or at least a derivative of the zombie genre.

If people want to call rage virus victims zombies, honestly, who gives a shit. They aren't any more inaccurate than Romero was when he called his undead zombies.

I don't recall seeing any Haitian priests in any of the Romero films. :)

That's how I feel about it.

When it first came out, I remember seeing an ad with a quote from a review that said something like, "Finally...a zombie movie that's scary!"

That sold it for me.

[krisvds]

After that "Land of the Dead" fiasco.

I don't know. I really like that film. To me it feels more like a throwback to cheesy eighties post-apocalypse action films than a pure zombie film, but that's exactly why I like it more than anything undead related Romero did after. I like it more than Dawn04 which is an action film in its own right, just a boring one with annoying characters.