No Dawn of the Dead Sequel??

[Geophyrd]

Welll, this sucks. Unlike many, I really dug DoTD.

While in Chicago promotion his film Slither, which Universal Pictures will release on March 31st, James Gunn told Bloody Disgusting a little scoop about what his plans were for his next feature film.

All he could tease was "it's a film about Satan." But he also expressed that he had no interest in doing the sequel to Dawn of the Dead, while producer Eric Newman chimed in telling the audience that "as of right now there are no immediate plans for a sequel".

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060306i.php

[MoonSylver]

D'04 (in my mind) kinda falls into the same catagory as the american Godzilla or the Hulk. All had huge hype & initally made a boatload of money, but went on to suffer from bad word of mouth & negitive feedback from diehard fans.

There was originally a lot of noise about there being sequels to the aforementioned movies, but due to the above, nada

[DjfunkmasterG]

D'04 (in my mind) kinda falls into the same catagory as the american Godzilla or the Hulk. All had huge hype & initally made a boatload of money, but went on to suffer from bad word of mouth & negitive feedback from diehard fans.



I disagree, I see more diehards ragging on the travesty caled LOTD then I see them ragging on DOTD04.

[AssassinFromHell]

I disagree, I see more diehards ragging on the travesty caled LOTD then I see them ragging on DOTD04.

Of course, because in today's world, a pompous child is a better writer than the man who created a modern version of a genre and has created countless hits.

I mean, I'm not saying that people can't get rusty. But Land of the Dead's faults were just as overrated as the Dawn of the Dead remake's. People slammed Land of the Dead for Big Daddy. It wasn't Big Daddy that was bad, it was Eugene Clark's acting...

But I'll shut up, before we get another debate. Thanks for posting this, interesting news.

[tju1973]

I actually liked them both, but I left Dawn04 more satisfied than I did Land...

wierd..


or sad...

:rockbrow:

[panic]

I was looking forward to a further look at the Dawn04 world. Regarding which is least flawed, Dawn04 or LOTD, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Few have changed their minds based on what they've read in these forums...

[erisi236]

they're both good soild zombie flicks, better yet the both NEW soild zombie flicks, even bestest yet there're both new soild zombie flicks with a real budget! :cool:

[AssassinFromHell]

I've loosened up alot on Dawn 04, but I still don't like it. It stole the name and manipulated what Dawn of the Dead is, just for money. Just my opinion.

Land was flawed too. Acting in some areas (*cough*Clark*cough*) was rather weak. But I enjoyed it more, despite it having more action than a normal zombie flick.

[Andy]

i know alot of people didn't like dawn04 but i kinda did.. i mean, come on, it would of been alot worse if he'd actually tried to redo the original dawn. aside from the name, the 2 films have virtually nothing in common, and i kinda like the idea of fast moving zombies. gives the genre a twist.

[MinionZombie]

THANK F*CK FOR THAT!!!

One Yawnorama04 was enough thank you very much.

[bassman]

THANK F*CK FOR THAT!!!

One Yawnorama04 was enough thank you very much.

I'll second that. It's a shame that a couple of good actors got sucked into that p.o.s.:rolleyes:

[erisi236]

geeze, what do you guys want in a damn ZOMBIE movie?? Dawn04 was a breath of fresh air crowded with the likes of Oasis of the Dead, Fleasheaters, Zombi5, and on and on, you're all too harsh. :)

[Andy]

ahem... all?
i was sticking up for it :|

[erisi236]

Haters know who they are. :D

[bassman]

Yawn04 was a breath of fresh air.....for people who enjoy MTV crap.:p

I just think it was trying too hard to please the teenager audience rather than the intelligent film-goers. Basically, I think it was a very generic and plain "weekend teen flick" to be a remake of a very intelligent film....

There are certain aspects of it that I enjoy....but overall it's nothing more than a "run, run, run!" action flick with very little story.

[Humor Tumor]

Yawn04 was a breath of fresh air.....for people who enjoy MTV crap.:p

I just think it was trying too hard to please the teenager audience rather than the intelligent film-goers. Basically, I think it was a very generic and plain "weekend teen flick" to be a remake of a very intelligent film....

There are certain aspects of it that I enjoy....but overall it's nothing more than a "run, run, run!" action flick with very little story.

QFT. I found the film okay at most. Enjoyable if you want to skimp on the story. I see no chance of a sequel, as I think first they should build some decent characters first.

[bassman]

QFT? Whats that mean?

You'll have to excuse me...im not too good with the internet lingo:dead:

[erisi236]

"quite f***ing true" would be my stab at it. :)

[bassman]

makes sense...

[mista_mo]

a shame...I liked Dawn 04, quite alot. A sequal would be better and could improve on the first ones weak points.

[bassman]

No offense mista, but you've just proven my point. You're 17, right? You enjoyed Yawn04, right?

[MikePizzoff]

Crucify me, but, I actually enjoyed Dawn 04. Don't get me wrong, I still get infuriated by the fact that it uses the Dawn name. But when I over look that fact, I dig it. I mean it's kinda corny and is obviously marketed toward the MTV generation. I felt the "directors" cut was slightly better because it had more character development. I've stated my opinion many times in the past, but go ahead and bring on the flaming. :mad:

[SPOILER BELOW]

I guess I would like to see more on what happened when they reached the island in the end.

[mista_mo]

bassman311, I do believe I said I enjoyed Dawn 04..hmm..yes, yes I said I did. I don't take offense, I normally would but I've got enough on my boat right now then to get ****ed at something as unimportant as this. So what if I enjoyed the movie? No big deal, ALOT of people did, and ALOT of the people who liked it weren't my age. and you'll find that I have admitted in a previous post that I like action films, but don't think that just cause i'm only a youngin' doesn't mean I don't like movies that are emotional. everyone has a part of them that loves the Dawn of the dead 04 kind of movies, but I also love other ones..hell, The Green Mile and Forrest Gump are two of my favourite films, and I've cried during them (not ashamed to admit it).

and the flaws I was thinking of in Dawn were the lack of plot, and character development in the film. If these were addressed in a proper sequel, the film would be great.

[bassman]

Thats the same way I feel, Mike. It's a decent popcorn/action flick to watch every now and again but it has no shelf life. In another 5-10 years no one will remember it(besides us die hard zombie fans) but the original "Dawn"will live on forever.

It's good for a viewing or two.....but I can't watch it multiple times like Romero's films.

[mista_mo]

I'll give you that..usually I watch the 1st 25 mins of the movie then shut it off and put in Day and watch the whole thing tho..I like it but...damn

[Andy]

lets not have this turn into a flame thread eh guys? i like alot of you and i'd hate to have to start dishing out warnings, ATM the policy on flaming here is keep it in private. (private messages). now i know nothing too heavy has been said yet, and im just nipping this in the bud so to speak :)

dawn 04 was pretty good i thought, ok its no where near as good as the original dawn and i dont think anyone was seriously expecting it to be. as i said in a previous post, the name aside, it has nothing in common with the original dawn and it hink when you watch it as its own film and put the original out of your mind, its not half bad.

the fast moving zombies are great i think, they give a good twist and do give a breath of fresh air to the genre and i am not MTV generation and anyone who says i am will regret it :)

on the other hand i do think dawn'04 suffers from lack of character development, virtually no plot and is too heavilly reliant on special effects. but then again what film dosn't these days? alot of the same negative points can be said about LOTD, its just the way the film industry has gone.

[Humor Tumor]

QFT? Whats that mean?

You'll have to excuse me...im not too good with the internet lingo:dead:
Quoted For Truth.

I'll just explain the other one I use often

ITT= in this thread

[MinionZombie]

Yawn-o-mania04 summed up by moi...

Technically proficient, totally, retardedly lacking in both direction and script - perhaps one of the dumbest movies ever (leave nice, safe mall for death island...yehhhhh) with a bunch of hastily concocted characters who at best, barely prick past the surface of "being an asshole".

I coulda crapped a better script, thank you very much. :cool:

[Scousezombie]

I'm 31, and not a fan of MTV at all, but I did find Dawn 04 a lot more enjoyable than LOTD, and probably on par with NOTLD 90.

There were certainly things I would have changed - fewer characters, longer running time, more camera time on the zombies and a more intelligent plot (the explanation of why they had to leave the mall that was in the earlier version of the script should have been retained, for instance).

However, the film had a tremendous atmosphere of dread and danger, and a sense of society breaking apart overnight. I never once felt those emotions during LOTD, once you are encouraged to start rooting for the zombies how are you supposed to be frightened of them? If LOTD had been a product of anyone other than GAR, I think it would have had a much rougher reception.

I'm sorry that there will be no return in the near future to the bleak and perilous world that we glimpsed briefly during the Dawn remake...

[mista_mo]

Agreed. Hey, sorry Andy about almost startin a flame war, I'll try to be on my bestest best behaviour.

With LOTD..I really wasn't frightened that much...at all...I mean, in a zombie movie, I look at the zombies as the enemies...not the friends. I don't want to cheer for em, I want to see em die...well stay dead. Dawn 04 scared me alot more...Fast zombies scare the bejesus outta me. nuff said

[MinionZombie]

Personally I found Land the scariest film, gave me a good few jolts in the seat. Also, I find it much more terrifying that slow-moving zombies can manage to take over the world - because the humans just f*ck everything up. Besides, IF zombies existed they'd move slow and like a drunk baby - they'd be incapable of running around and leaping over hurdles and acting like a twenty-something on two hits of ecstasy, lol.

[Andy]

actually i think it'd be more realistic for zombies to be fast moving when they first "revive" then slow down over time..

and mista dont worry i was speaking to a few people not just you :p

[mista_mo]

Personally, I think that zombies would be much more terrifying when they first revive...I mean come on, they're fresh. They'd be able to move faster and maybe (in my world) they'd be a hell of alot smarter then older ones..I mean, their brains wouldn't be subject to the decomposition that would be found in the older ones...hell, they could be able to do most of the things we could do based on their memory..at least to me anyway. then they'd slow down and get stupider...

[MinionZombie]

Whatchu chattin' about, Willis?

Zombies are stupider when they first revive, ergo incapable of being in control of their bodies to the point of running full speed. You must crawl, then walk and then you can run ... but hopefully GAR zombies will never run :)

Running zombies suck - and if anyone says "what about 28 Days Later", they were "infected"...not zombies.

[Craig]

I like most stabs at the zombie genre, Evil Deads' weird possesed zombies, Dawn 04s' fast zombies, 28 Days Laters' not actually dead zombies, and GARs' slow paced zombies.

I love the zombie genre as a whole, and being born after GARs' first 3 movies means that they were not my first influence into the zombie world, giving me a wider perspective than the people who's first (normally meaning favourite) zombie experience was one of GARs' movies, making me not biased for, or against the remake of Dawn.

I just love zombies and the whole concept of them in general, not just from a film perspective.

[Mike]

I think it is a shame that there won't be a sequel to Dawn 04. I enjoyed the film and believe that there is a lot of potential for an interesting sequel. Granted it came no where near the complexity or intelligence of the original, but Dawn04 was just a fun ride and an enjoyable one at that.

[jdog]

this movie let me down. i was so exited to see it when it first came out , i even ditched work early to see it opening night. only to be disapointed by this pile of a flic.
i'am glad there is no sequel.

[AssassinFromHell]

this movie let me down. i was so exited to see it when it first came out , i even ditched work early to see it opening night. only to be disapointed by this pile of a flic.
i'am glad there is no sequel.

But listen to the fans, this movie was a classic. James Gunn was better than George Romero. His characters were very deep and well-developed. The scenarios were believable, and everything flowed well. Zack Snyder was like Hitchcock, maybe even better! He moved this timeless classic well, with his work behind the camera. Then the actors. Mekhi Phiffer was simply amazing, with his very believable performance as the boyfriend of a chick who dies with a child in the whom, and goes insane. Simply amazing. This film is going to go down in history of the greatest zombie flick of all time. Better than Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead...hell, all of them!!!

...Sarcasm is my favorite tool. You spot it above? :p

[Adrenochrome]

...... Zack Snyder was like Hitchcock, maybe even better! He moved this timeless classic well, with his work behind the camera. Then the actors. Mekhi Phiffer was simply amazing, with his very believable performance as the boyfriend of a chick who dies with a child in the whom, and goes insane. Simply amazing. This film is going to go down in history of the greatest zombie flick of all time. Better than Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead...hell, all of them!!!

...Sarcasm is my favorite tool. You spot it above? :p

LOL, man I'm STILL laughing --- very funny!!

"Mekhi Phiffer was simply amazing, with his very believable performance as the boyfriend of a chick who dies with a child in the whom, and goes insane. Simply amazing.

Man, I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while....:D :D :D

[Harold W Brown]

Opinions are subjective, so you'll never convince anyone one is better than the other. However, here is a math question. Hard to argue with math.

Original Dawn budget - 1.5 million (though Tony Buba will tell you it was 250k)
Remake budget - 28 million (almost 20 times the budget of the original.)

How do you make a film with THAT much more money, yet convey not a tenth of the scope of the original? Aside from the cool helicopter shot of the remake near the beginning, there's no scope to the remake. Original - TV station meltdown, tenement apartment, redneck zombie hunt. The remake gets right to the mall and stays there. Even the mall never has a decent wide shot of the inside. They spend all their time in one little wing of the mall, and most of that in a ****ing coffee shop.

If you're judging it on using your budget creatively, there's no contest as to which film is more impressive. Gunn owes someone some money...

[Andy]

my main problem with the dawn remake was that the first 10 minutes, i thought, where absolutly amazing. it was great. and it sets the standard for the rest of the film.

unfortunatly its not a standard thats lived up, as soon as the opening credits have finished rolling, its downhill fast.

[AssassinFromHell]

I thought the beginning was great. It jumped right into things without delay, and it didn't do it in a kiddie-type fashion. When Ana emerged from her house to see a world gone to hell. It's unreal. But after they went to the mall, things in the film went downhill. And by the end, I was seeing how many popcorn kernals I could throw into the air and catch with in my mouth.

But here's one thing I have to say. Be thankful the script went through revisions. James Gunn's original version was horrible. Whoever hired James Gunn should be taken out and shot. That was just the worst move that could be made, and it overshadowed Zack Snyder's debut to the big screen, which wasn't half bad. It still was overhyped by the Dawn of the Dead remake fanatics.

[MinionZombie]

Yeh I always thought "WHY with the James Gunn" to write a big Hollywood action 'horror' flick - the dude had come fresh from Tromaville ... not exactly your big budget studio that's known for it's great writing.

They should have given me the job :D

[Cartma7546]

Although a part of me would like to see yet another zombie movie hit the screen, I don't really see where they could have gone with the story. The only way a sequel could have been done is if they started fresh with an all new cast of characters.

[BlueRoseRomeo]

I have to say that I am a fan of the original Romero Dead series. I may not know all the facts about all the movies or anything that would call me an expert but I really enjoy them. I have watched all of them many times...including Land of the Dead, which it seems that a lot of people don't like. Yes I also bought The Dawn04 remake....but if that’s what you think is the worst zombie movie I ever seen then well your wrong. I have House the Dead.... still not the worst but that is kind of off...What is it with the video game cut ins during the movie.

OK I am rambling. Why did I reply to this? I am a horror movie fan...no matter what type it is I like it. My favorite type are zombie related and will always be that way. Why did I buy Dawn of the Dead 04? Cause it was a blockbuster...no. Because it has some one in it I liked...no. Because it was a zombie movie and it looked decent. Dawn04 to me was a whole new movie...Yes it was a zombie movie in a mall...but it was a new way of looking at a classic. Fast movie zombies instead of slow...and some funny scenes that I laugh about with my girl every time we see it. So it wasn't the perfect movie. I have heard people that didn't like xXx or xXx 2 because it was unrealistic or because they didn't like Vin Diesel or Ice Cube, maybe because they didn't do a good job. I went into that movie just for one thing...to be entertained. I try not to pick at the movie too much and I find I like it a lot more. Same with all the zombie movies...or anything else I see. They are just entertainment. If I don't like it...fine...I won't watch it again. Maybe the plot was weak...but I still liked it. Maybe it could have used this or that...ok but that doesn't mean it's a horrible movie. I guess my point is It was a decent movie with its own thing made from an idea from the past. Honestly I don't think people know how to make original movies anymore. Everything has been done but if it came down to watching another stupid comedy or another reality TV show I would watch a bad zombie movie any day.

I am sorry if this post ticks anyone off. I am just putting in my 2 cents...I am not bashing anyone here or expecting to be bashed. I respect your opinion so respect mine.

[AssassinFromHell]

Hey BRR, I have to say this. I disagree with alot of what you said. But I also have to say, this is a great post. It's good, and you get your opinion across with detail that alot of people fail to include. This is a great work. Bravo! :)

[Head Shotz]

:rockbrow: What were some of the original ideas that got yanked from the DOTD4 that I have been hearing about? Someone said there was a different reason why they left the mall. Due tell.

[BlueRoseRomeo]

I would probably just buy a sequel either way unless it reaaaaaly stunk. Partly so I could have the set. Some day...though I know alot hate them...I want to own Return of the Living Dead 2 and 3 on DVD ( I have the first one on DVD but the 3rd on VHS)

[Svengoolie]

Guys...the fact that James Gunn isn't interested in doing a sequel, and the fact that the studio is saying "there are no IMMEDIATE plans to do a sequel" or whatever, doesn't mean that there won't be a sequel.

Another writer can be hired to pen a script, and a sequel can be green-lighted at any time.

I'd lay five to one that we'll see a sequel to Dawn '04 before we'll see a sequel to Land...

[bassman]

I'd lay five to one that we'll see a sequel to Dawn '04 before we'll see a sequel to Land...

Ehh, I don't know. Romero has said that they are already talking about a sequel to "Land". So I guess the sequel to "Land"(Or next "Dead" film) is one step ahead of Yawn04's sequel.

[EvilNed]

I hate the fact that Dawn of the Dead bears the title "Dawn of the Dead". Because it's not a remake of the original, nor is it a re-imagening of the original story. The only resemblence with this version and the old one is the mall.

Had they named it something else, like "Running Zombies vs. Ving Rhames" (because that's what it's all about) I would probably have enjoyed it alot more. But, meh. Now I just can't help but constantly compare this film to the original, and you know it's inevitable. When you do a remake, it WILL get compared with the original.

The running zombies looked stupid, they growled like dinosaurs and really: They were more like the rage infected victims in 28 Days Later than real zombies. I mean, why did they growl? Why did they constantly look mad and angry?

Also, the script was really bad. I know most zombie films have poor scripts, but seeing as this had "Dawn of the Dead" slapped on the cover I expected something better. James Gunn is just lousy at writing characters.

Give us a indirect sequel. But don't call it "Dawn of the Dead 2".

[BlueRoseRomeo]

I wonder how many of the uneducated people think that Land of the Dead is tied on with the Dawn04?

[jdog]

I wonder how many of the uneducated people think that Land of the Dead is tied on with the Dawn04?
i sure as hell hope no one thinks that these two movies are tied together. it woul make GAR look bad.

[DrSiN]

my main problem with the dawn remake was that the first 10 minutes, i thought, where absolutly amazing. it was great. and it sets the standard for the rest of the film.

unfortunatly its not a standard thats lived up, as soon as the opening credits have finished rolling, its downhill fast.

I kind of agree. The first 10 minutes were some of the most intense screen time of any horror movie. Incredible pacing, awesome action and everything you should expect from a video/commerical director.

After those 10 mins, the movie falls apart (mostly due to script) in to a typical Hollywood Horror/Action movie. The action is still pretty good (the escape from Andy's is pretty damn sweet) but it's just an action movie and loses it's soul. Replace the zombies with aliens and it could have been "Aliens 5 : Here on Earth"

Frankly, I think Zack did a great job with what he was given. The real problem was the script. It had it's moments but in truth it loses it's heart and begins to drag. Someone should have told Gunn that the problem with an ensamble piece is it takes time to setup the characters and if you don't purposely spend that time, your characters end up being flat and forgetable. Throw 10 characters in a set of rooms for an hour and you end up caring about none of them. Can anyone even name the blond girl who get's sawed?

Btw.. Day had this problem to a much lesser degree and Land even more so (too many characters, none of them interesting). At least Dawn2K4 had Anna.

But if you took the movie on it's own merits and didn't prejudge (that really rules you out Assassin) it was a fun ride. Was it the second coming, no, but then neither was Land.

[BlueRoseRomeo]

Hopefull no one does get Dawn04 and Land mixed together...but I bet there are those who do...I wonder why They called it Dawn anyway? And why did Romero break from the Night, Dawn and Day thing and do Land?

[Head Shotz]

Aaaaaa, what would you call it, Dusk of the Dead? Early Twilight of the Dead? The street lights are on and its time to come inside johnny Dead?:evil:

[NumberOneGARFan]

Why do sooo many people compare Dawn of the dead 04 to the original? It can't be done. GAR pays too much attention to detail and story that comparing them is just plain retarded. More retarded than the Day of the dead sequal. You don't see people trying to compare Day of the dead with the sequal. You can only compare small details such as why there was no gun shop inside the mall. Why the mall wasn't deserted like the original. And whats with all the bashing. Of course it wasn't a Romero flick, but it wasn't that horrible. :skull:

[MinionZombie]

Although "Day of the Remake" hasn't been made yet, so comparison isn't possible yet. But yeh, Yawn04 has bugger all to do with Dawn in reality. What does it have in common with GAR's? The name, some cameos and a mall as a main setting. That's it. Purely and simply trading on the good name and well-earned success of GAR's flick.

[DjfunkmasterG]

:rockbrow:Someone said there was a different reason why they left the mall. Due tell.


The original reason they left the mall was because the zombies became smarter as their zombieness progressed on. At one point of having been in the mall for a month Kenneth and Michael were sitting on the roof watching the zombies in the parking lot. about 40 zombies tip over a panel truck and the rest of the crowd helped push it against the side of the mall so they could gain access to the fire escape. As the zombies got on the fire escape, Kenneth and Michael run inside and blot the outside door to the roof. Everyone thinks there safe until the zombies start swarming around the skylight. Suddenly the skylight gives away and the zombies come falling into the mall.


:rockbrow: What were some of the original ideas that got yanked from the DOTD4 that I have been hearing about?

One IDEA was when the survivors arrived in the truck they originally couldn't fit it into the parking garage. However getting it stuck also put a huge hole in the structure and let some zombies get through. Michael went outside to reposition the truck and decided to drive it around the lot running over the zombies... The helped thin the crowd a bit and allowed him to better re-position the truck to block the gaping hole.

Now this wasn't entirely cut... Basically it was combined with Norma backing up the truck to the loading dock. As she does it she runs over some zombies. So in essence you still get the best of both worlds, although watching them drive the truck around and mowing down zombies would have been pretty cool.


Yawn04 has bugger all to do with Dawn in reality. What does it have in common with GAR's? The name, some cameos and a mall as a main setting. That's it. Purely and simply trading on the good name and well-earned success of GAR's flick.


Well earned success? Trading on the good name?

Damn, the thoughts of some DAWN haters amazes me!

Minion, I like you so don't take this the wrong way. This comment is aimed at all whom have an issue with the remake of DAWN of the DEAD simply because of the name.


Who the PHUCK cares if it used the name? Honestly, if your only gripe with the remake is the name then you really have no merit for your argument. Do you know why? Because the stories are completely different.

How many films carry the same name, yet have different premises. Here is an example, the remake of Shaft. It has a different story, but you don't see people bitching about that film.

There are lots of films with the same name, but are totally different films. You don't see people who love a film titled.... I dunno... (example) "Tell me Why" which is about a woman who leaves a man and he wants to know why she left... bitching about a film also called Tell Me Why which might be about a guy who kills a woman, but the womans very close sister wants to know why he did it.

Why is the name such an issue. No one here has made a solid argument about that. None of the hatera have any other reason to bitch about the remake other than the title. Seriously, it is a weak, very very weak argument. The whole thing is you haters have no reason to hate it, but you want to remain loyal to some man who made a film 30 years ago because he made a good film and it clicks with you some where. You p*ss and moan about a remake which was...

A. completely different in story
B. A really good action film
C. Did better financially

Because it has the name DAWN of the DEAD. Do you really know how infantile that is, and absurd an argument that is for anyone to read or listen too. I mean come on... you don't see the BLAND haters bitching about the title... Hell No! We bitch because LAND just plain sucked. The only thing DAWN04 haters bitch about is the name of the film, and it is a pathetic argument at best. :mad:

[EvilNed]

The name mattered back when the film was released, because alot of people were probably expecting a remake, or at least a zombie film in the same vein as the original. So it's not a stupid argument, and it very much holds up. As it is now, it doesn't have anything to do with the original at all, even if that's what the name implies.

That's why it's also a valid argument. Alot of people were disappointed. I know I was, but at least the film was entertaining.

[MinionZombie]

I have an issue with the name thing because it really does mean they're just trading on the success of a name, if the film has fudge all to do with the original, why does it need the title? To trade on someone else's success, that's why.

But that's not the only reason why I dislike the film. I dislike it mostly because of the poor script, as well as many other bits and pieces, which I've stated many times before here and on Loom.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The name mattered back when the film was released, because alot of people were probably expecting a remake, or at least a zombie film in the same vein as the original. So it's not a stupid argument, and it very much holds up. As it is now, it doesn't have anything to do with the original at all, even if that's what the name implies.

That's why it's also a valid argument. Alot of people were disappointed. I know I was, but at least the film was entertaining.

You do realize remake doesn't exactly mean a shot for shot, plot for plot remake. It just means being remade... doesn't have to be the exact same.

The only true shot for shot remake was Pyscho and look how fricking bad that turned out.

Funny how no one bitched about NIGHT 90. That isn't the exact same either. It has a completely different ending.

[MinionZombie]

The Hills Have Eyes remake is a remake. The Thing remake is a remake. Those had many similar elements between the films, especially the first. Yawn04 had fudge all to do with the original film bar a mall.

*hypnotised by the Stormare*

[kortick]

I am amazed at how much feelings there still are
so far after both films have come and gone

of course the remake doesnt compare with the original

but the remake was fun in its own way

did it have flaws? you bet it did
did land have problems of its own? oh yeah

dont try to compare the films
not the remake to the original not to land not to anything

take them as they are

the only valid point is they should not have used the name dawn of the dead as the title

it should have been its own film with its own title
and had a disclaimer saying
"based on the work of GAR"

that would have made things a lot easier for everyone

[Svengoolie]

A disclaimer? What for?

GAR was mentioned in the credits. That is enough. They weren't trying to cash in on the GAR name and rep with the remake--most of the new fan base this film helped to create never heard of GAR going into the theater this time around...and a good deal of those who did didn't care.

Personally, I see it as a catch 22...and I think the die-hard GAR fans would've ripped into the remake one way or the other. Hell...people were blasting this film before they even saw it; the same way they were praising Land before they saw it (and still praise it regardless of how they really feel about it).

As it stands, they rip into it for not being enough like the original (amoung other things. But, if it had been more true to the original, they would've blasted it for having a lack of originality.

It all reflects a fan loyalty in which the fans are insecure over the quality of the original--thus they feel the need to bash and nitpick any other zombie outings to justify that loyalty.

[Hawkboy]

I think we would have had more people angry here if they had a done a shot for shot remake of Dawn instead of taking the basic premise and going in their own direction.

The fact people get so angry on here about the Dawn remake makes me think there is a lot more going on with their hate than the just the film, so I doubt there is much point discussing it. Oh well I think I will anyhow! :)

I thought The Dawn remake was beautifully done as they made their own movie with the original Dawn story. I don't want to see the EXACT same thing again, otherwise what is the point??? Go see the remake of Psycho that is a shot for shot of the original instead. For me it's, Bring something new to the table or why bother do something in the exact same way thats been done before.

Another fantastic thing the remake did was keep the ****ty power/death/Industrial heavy metal soundtrack out (Until the end ..which didn't really annoy me too much) as that type of music does nothing to scare or frighten in a film ... it only gives headaches.

By the way who here loved the film but was let down by the end credits)

Oh, and the Acting is fantastic in the sequel as well. Gotta love little Sarah Polley! I could see a way of re working Day to have big boobed Canadian sweetheart Sarah Poley making her way to the Us Military Bunker. Could be cool!

And YES we all know the remake didn't have the subtext that Georges original did... but they weren't going for that. And thats fine... they wanted more thrills and spills, no problem!!! Make it your own, put your own stamp on it.

As for no dead sequel, well that kind of saddens me as I find Day to be the least of the series and certainly could benefit from a reworking....



How many films carry the same name, yet have different premises. Here is an example, the remake of Shaft. It has a different story, but you don't see people bitching about that film.


Well let's be honest the Shaft remake was sooo weak that the few people who paid to see it forgot it existed the next day. There is only one John Shaft in the mind of the public and it ain't Sam jackson!

[Adrenochrome]

I thought The Dawn remake was beautifully done as they made their own movie with the original Dawn story

Whoa.
To remake a classic proves unoriginality.
Why not just make an ORIGINAL zombie movie? Why "re-make"?
People get angry because they want something NEW, NOT a Hack's version of an old story.

P.S. I'm still waiting on Svenburny's review of the NEW Bad News Bears.

[Svengoolie]

Whoa.
To remake a classic proves unoriginality.
Why not just make an ORIGINAL zombie movie? Why "re-make"?


The same could be said for NOTLD 90.

In fact, I think that applies to NOTLD 90 more than it does Dawn 04--the only things the Dawn remake have in common with the original (save for a couple of homages) is a name, zombies, and a mall setting.

[Hawkboy]

Whoa.
To remake a classic proves unoriginality.



That statement would be true if something wasn't done differently with the remake. That is not the case with the new Dawn.

Let me get this straight..... I'm not a big fan of remakes but if you HAVE to do one, Dawn 04 was just about as perfect a way to go about it that I can think of.

I have to ask do you also hate Remakes of songs? I HATE people who re-do songs and have them sound the same but if you can put a new arrangement behind it and add your own voice to it... I'm always very anxious to hear.

[Adrenochrome]

That statement would be true if something wasn't done differently with the remake. That is not the case with the new Dawn.

Let me get this straight..... I'm not a big fan of remakes but if you HAVE to do one, Dawn 04 was just about as perfect a way to go about it that I can think of.

I have to ask do you also hate Remakes of songs? I HATE people who re-do songs and have them sound the same but if you can put a new arrangement behind it and add your own voice to it... I'm always very anxious to hear.
Come on! If an artist can't be "original", they should NEVER claim to be an artist.

[Hawkboy]

So you are saying Da Vinci should not have painted the Last Supper because it had been done before???? Sorry your statement doesn't wash...

[Svengoolie]

People get angry because they want something NEW, NOT a Hack's version of an old story

Yeah, but...they DID get something new.

As has been pointed out in this very thread--the only things the original and the remake have in common (besides a couple of homages) are zombies, a mall, and a title.

[Marie]

[QUOTE=They spend all their time in one little wing of the mall, and most of that in a ****ing coffee shop.QUOTE]

OMG, it just came to me... The Dawn Remake.... is actually "Friends" of the Dead!

M_

[Adrenochrome]

So you are saying Da Vinci should not have painted the Last Supper because it had been done before???? Sorry your statement doesn't wash...
you have GOT to be kidding! Whoa! Did you read back before you posted?


Yeah, but...they DID get something new.

As has been pointed out in this very thread--the only things the original and the remake have in common (besides a couple of homages) are zombies, a mall, and a title.
Bah, go swallow some pills and watch The Bad News Bears! Bucky;)

[DjfunkmasterG]

it should have been its own film with its own title
and had a disclaimer saying
"based on the work of GAR"

that would have made things a lot easier for everyone

The film has that disclaimer. On the poster and during the opening credits.

"Based on A screenplay by George A. Romero"

And the title was fitting. Because essentially it was DAWN of the DEAD, just not the DAWN of the DEAD you guys are use to it. I hate to say this but the meaning DAWN is:

dawn Pronunciation Key (dôn)
n.

1. The time each morning at which daylight first begins.
2. A first appearance; a beginning: the dawn of history.

#2 is the fitted meaning of this word when used with DAWN of the DEAD. I hate to admit it but the remake using the title is more fitting because in the remake it really was the DAWN of the DEAD. Romero's DAWN already had Zombie running around for 3+ weeks. The remake had it happening about 24 hours prior to the first scene of the movie. So DAWN of the DEAD is a perfect title for the remake.

[EvilNed]

You do realize remake doesn't exactly mean a shot for shot, plot for plot remake. It just means being remade... doesn't have to be the exact same.

The only true shot for shot remake was Pyscho and look how fricking bad that turned out.

Funny how no one bitched about NIGHT 90. That isn't the exact same either. It has a completely different ending.

Remakes usually tend to bear some resemblance to the original. Nuff said.

[Hawkboy]

you have GOT to be kidding! Whoa! Did you read back before you posted?


No I'm not kidding. If everyone followed what you have said in this thread, Leonardo should not have bothered to paint the Last Supper because it had been painted before. According to you that had NO ORIGINALITY, and he was not an artist because of it.

Now I'm not being rude here, but can you actually defend your assertions by using something else that the word "Whoa"?

[Adrenochrome]

No I'm not kidding. If everyone followed what you have said in this thread, Leonardo should not have bothered to paint the Last Supper because it had been painted before. According to you that had NO ORIGINALITY, and he was not an artist because of it.

Now I'm not being rude here, but can you actually defend your assertions by using something else that the word "Whoa"?
Times change. Humans Evolve. Why Re-Make? Crawl out of the dark ages and advance. Create. Be original. Nuff said. (is the term "Nuff" acceptable?)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Remakes usually tend to bear some resemblance to the original. Nuff said.


Horsesh*t

DAWN04 bears some resemblence.

Zombies
Mall
Survivors
Flesh Eating
End of the World
Famous Tagline quoted

nuff said.... a'ight! :D

[Adrenochrome]

Horsesh*t

DAWN04 bears some resemblence.

Zombies
Mall
Survivors
Flesh Eating
End of the World
Famous Tagline quoted

nuff said.... a'ight! :D
gotta love the term "Nuff" woot woot!

[DjfunkmasterG]

gotta love the term "Nuff" woot woot!


:D

Especially when using it to end a debate. Nuff said is like saying HA HA HA HA PHUCK YOU! :D

[Hawkboy]

Times change. Humans Evolve. Why Re-Make? Crawl out of the dark ages and advance. Create. Be original. Nuff said. (is the term "Nuff" acceptable?)

Yes exactly "Times Change, Humans evolve", what better way to put a new spin on an old story? Then and only then should you redo something.

By the way you haven't answered the Da Vinci question yet....

The Term WHOA wasn't my problem, it was the fact that it was ALL you could come up with to defend your view point.

"Nuff Said" has worked for Stan the Man in the last 50 years so it works for me! :)

[axlish]

Nuff rhymes with muff so it is ok by me.

Zach Snyder is am impressive artist and director in my book. He created some shots that I had never seen done before, or since.

[Adrenochrome]

:D

Especially when using it to end a debate. Nuff said is like saying HA HA HA HA PHUCK YOU! :D
LOL:D


Nuff rhymes with muff so it is ok by me.

Zach Snyder is am impressive artist and director in my book. He created some shots that I had never seen done before, or since.
Oh AX, you are NOT serious,...are you? What shots? I'm curious? (ALL of Yawn'04 was of the Sh*ttywood style, if you ask me)

[tju1973]

LOL:D


Oh AX, you are NOT serious,...are you? What shots? I'm curious? (ALL of Yawn'04 was of the Sh*ttywood style, if you ask me)


It was what it was-- a popcron flick, but I liked it all the same...of course me being a "Nazi" and all..:skull:

I usually go into remakes not expecting anything-- that way I am not dissapointed that much--

Now if Megaforce, Convoy, or Krull would be remade-- that is going TOO far...

:)

[Hawkboy]

A Megaforce Sequel would not be asking too much however...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Nuff rhymes with muff so it is ok by me.

Zach Snyder is am impressive artist and director in my book. He created some shots that I had never seen done before, or since.

Kudo's Axlish. Stand-up against the oppressors. Hold up your sign, and wave it proud. PHUCK the MAN :D

[axlish]

LOL:D


Oh AX, you are NOT serious,...are you? What shots? I'm curious? (ALL of Yawn'04 was of the Sh*ttywood style, if you ask me)

The first shot(s) that really impressed me were the overhead suburbia shots. Then the shots using the rig attached to the back of Ana's car. Then the overhead CGI shot of the truck slamming into the gas station. I could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, but I won't :) These types of shots are not in other movies that I have seen.

Zach Snyder is a damn fine director!

[Adrenochrome]

Zach Snyder is a damn fine director!
I guess this is a case of "we will have to agree to disagree":D


peace

[axlish]

I guess this is a case of "we will have to agree to disagree":D


peace

Tell me this. Was he a better first time film director than Rob Zombie? I think he was, and I like House of 1000 Corpses.

[Adrenochrome]

Tell me this. Was he a better first time film director than Rob Zombie? I think he was, and I like House of 1000 Corpses.
I prefer Rob's first time as a director. It's all about taste I guess.

[ipotts85]

the dawn "remake" was a good film. some people here trash it because it stole the name, but you can't compare the two. they are two COMPLETELY different films. it's that simple. yes it stole the name, but no wonder - it's a cool f*cking name. just enjoy it for what it is. a fun, cool film. enjoy the original for what it is - a work of modern art, with engaging themes and subtexts.

and for the record, in fifteen years, land of the dead will be a classic.

[Adrenochrome]

A Megaforce Sequel would not be asking too much however...
Could they keep the "Thumb Kiss"?
Megaforce is one of my favorite Cheese Flicks EVER!
Barry Bostwick in gold tights, man....*picks nose*....that creeps me out.
Who would you get to play the role of Ace Hunter if remade? Hmmmm, maybe get both Brad Pitt AND Angelina Jolie to play dual leads; one as Ace and one as Hunter?
Please, if Hollywood is reading this, someone shoot me!!!!:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

[MinionZombie]

I have to say that the shots used didn't stand out to me, all the stood out was that *surprise surprise* they go all Private Ryan with the cinematography towards the end, I HATE that sh*t, it's used everywhere. *grrr*

[cinezombi]

A Day Remake would be nice and not that day 2 crap. That was garbage.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Tell me this. Was he a better first time film director than Rob Zombie? I think he was, and I like House of 1000 Corpses.


I think Zack was way better than Rob Zombie. He still is better than Rob Zombie. Although I will give credit where credit is due, Rob did a fine job on his second outting as director.


I have to say that the shots used didn't stand out to me, all the stood out was that *surprise surprise* they go all Private Ryan with the cinematography towards the end, I HATE that sh*t, it's used everywhere. *grrr*

I take it you don't like Chaotic filmmaking. I think it worked effectively, but you have to have a taste for it.

[MinionZombie]

I like chaotic filmmaking, but that private ryan look used (shutter speed or something) is used EVERYWHERE, once it was special and a cool technique, now it's just reused and reused and reused *sigh*.

Chaotic filmmaking can be achieved without resorting to using that gimmick. E.G. when the chick escapes from the motel in Devil's Rejects, sling a camera over your shoulder and barge it, cut in some other angles, use your music effectively, build the tension up beforehand and bingo. Chaos. That's my take on it, I've just seen that private ryan thing far too much since it came out 8 years ago.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Actually in DAWN04, they just used an 8mm camera. SPR used an 8mm camera. When you shoot 8mm and blow it up to 35, plus doing it handheld will give it that chaotic look.

Now a days you don't have to mess with Shutter Speed anymore. About 90% of all films made are done on NLE's and all most all NLE's have a plug in for Shutter Speed settings. It is a very cool tool when editing. :D

[cinezombi]

<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="movie" value="http://www.tagworld.com/-/World/TwPlayer.swf" /> <param name="FlashVars" value="videoURL=promotions/snakesonaplane.flv&autoPlay=false&author=snakesonaplane&guid=1" /> <embed allowScriptAccess="never" src="http://www.tagworld.com/-/World/TwPlayer.swf" flashvars="videoURL=promotions/snakesonaplane.flv&autoPlay=false&author=snakesonaplane&guid=1" quality="high" width="425" height="350" name="sampleplayer2" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="never" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /> <br><a href="http://www.tagworld.com/snakesonaplane" style="text-decoration: underline;font-size: 11px; font-family: verdana;padding-left:110px">

[DjfunkmasterG]

<param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /> <param name="movie" value="http://www.tagworld.com/-/World/TwPlayer.swf" /> <param name="FlashVars" value="videoURL=promotions/snakesonaplane.flv&autoPlay=false&author=snakesonaplane&guid=1" /> <embed allowScriptAccess="never" src="http://www.tagworld.com/-/World/TwPlayer.swf" flashvars="videoURL=promotions/snakesonaplane.flv&autoPlay=false&author=snakesonaplane&guid=1" quality="high" width="425" height="350" name="sampleplayer2" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="never" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /> <br><a href="http://www.tagworld.com/snakesonaplane" style="text-decoration: underline;font-size: 11px; font-family: verdana;padding-left:110px">


I don't speak Link-enese. :p

Any chance of a complete english translation.

[cinezombi]

10
9
http://www.snakesonaplane.com

[cinezombi]

Sorry for the link theads new to forums:D

[EvilNed]

Horsesh*t

DAWN04 bears some resemblence.

Zombies
Mall
Survivors
Flesh Eating
End of the World
Famous Tagline quoted

nuff said.... a'ight! :D

You know you're desperatly looking for things that tie both of the films together when you cite the tagline as one of the things the movies have incommon. 'NUFF SAID! :p

Anyway, I think you know what I mean when I said it has little or nothing to do with the original.

As for Zack Snyder as a director: He's a good action director and he has nice shots (at least in what we've seen so far). But remember, these are characteristics shared by Russel Mulcahy...

[Svengoolie]

You know you're desperatly looking for things that tie both of the films together when you cite the tagline as one of the things the movies have incommon. 'NUFF SAID!


I wouldn't go that far...especially since all the things he posted were fairly obvious to the casual observer.

'NUFF SAID!:D

[DjfunkmasterG]

Anyway, I think you know what I mean when I said it has little or nothing to do with the original.



How many remakes really have anything to do with the original? They always change the characters in some way shape or form. All you're doing is stating a case of them not bringing back the original story and characters. Guess what... Zack Snyder said it best."That DAWN of the DEAD was already made. There is no need to remake that film".

He was right, so he did his OWN version based on the screenplay given to him. However, it is still DAWN of the DEAD! just not THE Dawn of the Dead you want it to be.... and ya know what, "Tough Titty Said The Kitty, But The Milk Is Still Good." :D

DAWN 2004 will always be DAWN of the DEAD 2004, and it will always be titled DAWN of the DEAD and all the ****ing and moaning about it on this forum isn't gonna change the title on the video box or DVD case.

[Adrenochrome]

How many remakes really have anything to do with the original? They always change the characters in some way shape or form. All you're doing is stating a case of them not bringing back the original story and characters. Guess what... Zack Snyder said it best."That DAWN of the DEAD was already made. There is no need to remake that film".

He was right, so he did his OWN version based on the screenplay given to him. However, it is still DAWN of the DEAD! just not THE Dawn of the Dead you want it to be.... and ya know what, "Tough Titty Said The Kitty, But The Milk Is Still Good." :D

DAWN 2004 will always be DAWN of the DEAD 2004, and it will always be titled DAWN of the DEAD and all the ****ing and moaning about it on this forum isn't gonna change the title on the video box or DVD case.
Why couldn't Hack Snyder make his own, original zombie movie? Why insist on needing a jumpstart and a name-drop?

[DjfunkmasterG]

Wasn't his choice...


He wanted to do an R-Rated film. he turned down SWAT to do this simply because it was R-Rated. When you think about it, it is his own zombie film. Forget the title DAWN of the DEAD having anything to do with the original film. This is a new DAWN of the DEAD.

Arguing merits on the title means nothing. I could easily call DEADLANDS Night of the Living Dead or DAWN of the DEAD. Essentially it has elements of both films relating to the context of the title based on the dictorial definition.

[Adrenochrome]

Wasn't his choice...


He wanted to do an R-Rated film. he turned down SWAT to do this simply because it was R-Rated. When you think about it, it is his own zombie film. Forget the title DAWN of the DEAD having anything to do with the original film. This is a new DAWN of the DEAD.

Arguing merits on the title means nothing. I could easily call DEADLANDS Night of the Living Dead or DAWN of the DEAD. Essentially it has elements of both films relating to the context of the title based on the dictorial definition.
But, you DIDN'T call your film that. You gave it an original title. That means alot.

[EvilNed]

How many remakes really have anything to do with the original? They always change the characters in some way shape or form. All you're doing is stating a case of them not bringing back the original story and characters. Guess what... Zack Snyder said it best."That DAWN of the DEAD was already made. There is no need to remake that film".

He was right, so he did his OWN version based on the screenplay given to him. However, it is still DAWN of the DEAD! just not THE Dawn of the Dead you want it to be.... and ya know what, "Tough Titty Said The Kitty, But The Milk Is Still Good." :D

DAWN 2004 will always be DAWN of the DEAD 2004, and it will always be titled DAWN of the DEAD and all the ****ing and moaning about it on this forum isn't gonna change the title on the video box or DVD case.

Except for the fact that it's a zombie film (and that PART of the film takes place in a mall), it has no resemblence whatsoever. This is obviously what disappointed many people. It's the kind of film that could definetly have been renamed, and the people would just have seen the numerous references to the old film as homages, nothing else.

[Adrenochrome]

Except for the fact that it's a zombie film (and that PART of the film takes place in a mall), it has no resemblence whatsoever. This is obviously what disappointed many people. It's the kind of film that could definetly have been renamed, and the people would just have seen the numerous references to the old film as homages, nothing else.
Exactley!!!! Hell, why not one of those SUPER STORES?? Like a Wal Mart type thing?

[DjfunkmasterG]

But you guys are looking at the wrong way. it isn't DAWN of the DEAD. It is another chapter of DAWN of the DEAD.

[Adrenochrome]

But you guys are looking at the wrong way. it isn't DAWN of the DEAD. It is another chapter of DAWN of the DEAD.
No. It's a Hack trying to make a buck.

[DjfunkmasterG]

then you should be pointing the finger at Richard Rubinstein, not Zack Snyder. His Paycheck for DAWN was the minimum directors fee for first time Union/Studio backed feature over $10,000,000.00. He made $100,000 to direct DAWN of the DEAD. ($13,500 a week for 8 weeks of work)

[Adrenochrome]

then you should be pointing the finger at Richard Rubinstein, not Zack Snyder. His Paycheck for DAWN was the minimum directors fee for first time Union/Studio backed feature over $10,000,000.00. He made $100,000 to direct DAWN of the DEAD. ($13,500 a week for 8 weeks of work)
regardless, why not make an original flick instead of name-dropping? Yawn'04 is a terrible, predictable yawnfest. It SCREAMS Hollywood, NOT originality.

[DjfunkmasterG]

he did make an original flick. Like all of you said it has nothing to do with DAWN of the DEAD.

[EvilNed]

But you guys are looking at the wrong way. it isn't DAWN of the DEAD. It is another chapter of DAWN of the DEAD.

No, you're looking at my argument the wrong way. I'm simply saying that if someone says they were let down by the film itself (because of the title), they have a good point and they have an argument. I believe the film would have made alot of zombie fans happier had it not struck out as trying to be a remake of the original flick.

And saying that it's another chapter of Dawn of the Dead doesn't make sense, since you've been saying it's a remake in your other posts (but not a direct remake). So how can it be both?

[Svengoolie]

I'm simply saying that if someone says they were let down by the film itself (because of the title), they have a good point and they have an argument.

Why is that a good point?

Being "let down" by a film simply because of the title is the dumbest reason to trash a film I've ever heard.


I believe the film would have made alot of zombie fans happier had it not struck out as trying to be a remake of the original flick.


That statement might apply to the people posting here, and the die-hard GAR fans at large...but the general public (and most horror fans by and large) didn't care--and the film was a success that brought in a whole new fan base for the zombie genre who ultimately prefered the remake to the slow-moving original.

[Tri0xin]

One would expect a Dawn '04 sequel. Money talks in Hollywood, and if I remember right, Dawn '04 was a hit at the box office. By that rationale, there will be a sequel. I wouldn't expect anything like the first one though. It will probably be something along the lines of the From Dusk Till Dawn sequels, straight to video or something. I also wouldn't get your hopes up about Zach Snyder and James Gunn having anything to do with it either.

[NumberOneGARFan]

A little bit off topic from the original thread but what the hell. I believe that Dawn '04 was original in the fact that it has all new scenes, ideas, and charactors. I don't think its such a slap in the face to GAR because it kinda pays tribute to the film he created 26 years earlier. He enjoys the fact that someone would want to do a film based on his work because he never does remakes of his own. Also the remake helps sales of the original masterpiece believe it or not. So a remake or a sequal to a remake is not so bad as long as it doesn't effect the originals reputation. which it doesn't. It was something new and entertaining. Don't agree with the idea of running zombies though. :rockbrow:
A sequal might not be so bad as long as it is done right. :skull:

[DjfunkmasterG]

A little bit off topic from the original thread but what the hell. I believe that Dawn '04 was original in the fact that it has all new scenes, ideas, and charactors. I don't think its such a slap in the face to GAR because it kinda pays tribute to the film he created 26 years earlier. He enjoys the fact that someone would want to do a film based on his work because he never does remakes of his own. Also the remake helps sales of the original masterpiece believe it or not. So a remake or a sequal to a remake is not so bad as long as it doesn't effect the originals reputation. which it doesn't. It was something new and entertaining. Don't agree with the idea of running zombies though. :rockbrow:
A sequal might not be so bad as long as it is done right. :skull:


This is exactly my point as well. Everyone needs to quit their bitching about DAWN 04. It only helps the original film.

When the Ultimate DVD box set came out, that week it was the #12 seller in the USA. Not bad for an almost 30 year old film. The remake only helps the original. Of course Romero sees peanuts out of it because Rubinstein owns the rights.

[Svengoolie]

And...don't forget, DJ:

If it wasn't for the success of Dawn 04, the fans never would've got Land of the Dead.

Whether they actually liked it or not.:sneaky:

[Danny]

very true.:bored:

[Adrenochrome]

And...don't forget, DJ:

If it wasn't for the success of Dawn 04, the fans never would've got Land of the Dead.

Whether they actually liked it or not.:sneaky:
Success of Yawn'04? It's already in the discount bin at Wal Mart! It's forgotten.

[Danny]

yeah but it revived intrest in the 'holy trilogy' of zombie films , so its all good, and like romero himself said "the first 15 minutes of dawn (he means yawn 04) were breath taking but the rest of the film...meh".

wise words from a wise man.....with really bad glasses.:lol:

[EvilNed]

Why is that a good point?

Being "let down" by a film simply because of the title is the dumbest reason to trash a film I've ever heard.

I've heard worse. Besides, people were not let down by it's title but obviously it's legacy as well. You don't slam a title like "Dawn of the Dead", claim it's a remake and then deliver something completly different and expect people to accept the fact that it's a re-imagination. OBVIOUSLY, people are going to have expactations, and obviously alot of them are going to be let down. In this case more so, since it strays completly from the source material.



That statement might apply to the people posting here, and the die-hard GAR fans at large...but the general public (and most horror fans by and large) didn't care--and the film was a success that brought in a whole new fan base for the zombie genre who ultimately prefered the remake to the slow-moving original.

Yeah, the film was a success. So?

[DjfunkmasterG]

I've heard worse. Besides, people were not let down by it's title but obviously it's legacy as well. You don't slam a title like "Dawn of the Dead", claim it's a remake and then deliver something completly different

Ummmm, Zack Snyder never said DAWN 2004 was a remake. He always called it a re-envisioning. He was very straight forward about that.


So your argument is invalid. :confused:


yeah but it revived intrest in the 'holy trilogy' of zombie films , so its all good, and like romero himself said "the first 15 minutes of dawn (he means yawn 04) were breath taking but the rest of the film...meh".

wise words from a wise man.....with really bad glasses.:lol:

Yet the man can't seem to do the same thing for his film LAND. Where was the kick ass 10-15 minute opening? Strange. He sang some praise to DAWN2004, but he couldn't pull off a decent follow up to his own legacy. It's a friggin shame really.

Maybe he should stay in the underground. He stuff was 20 times better.


And...don't forget, DJ:

If it wasn't for the success of Dawn 04, the fans never would've got Land of the Dead.

Whether they actually liked it or not.:sneaky:


Exactly. DAWN 2004 paved the way for LAND to be made. Show some friggin respect to DAWN 04, otherwise you would have no LOTD to praise. :D


Success of Yawn'04? It's already in the discount bin at Wal Mart! It's forgotten.



So is LOTD. I see more used copies of LOTD at Gamestop than I do the DAWN remake.

[EvilNed]

Ummmm, Zack Snyder never said DAWN 2004 was a remake. He always called it a re-envisioning. He was very straight forward about that.


So your argument is invalid. :confused:

What Zack Snyder called the film and what the film was marketed/hyped as are two different things. He could have called it a comedy if he wanted too, still would have been an attempted remake of an old zombie flick.

Also, I'm pretty sure Resident Evil and 28 Days Later hade a greater influence on Land's eventual greenlit than Dawn 04 had. And Land is still superior to that film.

[DjfunkmasterG]

What Zack Snyder called the film and what the film was marketed/hyped as are two different things. He could have called it a comedy if he wanted too, still would have been an attempted remake of an old zombie flick.

Also, I'm pretty sure Resident Evil and 28 Days Later hade a greater influence on Land's eventual greenlit than Dawn 04 had. And Land is still superior to that film.


Resident Evil 1 had no impact because that was a flop in the USA
28 Days later helped a bit, but DAWN04 was the majoring contributing factor.

DAWN 2004 was never marketed as remake, nor hyped as a remake. It was the zombie/GAR fanboys who typecast the film that way. Not once during the entire marketing campaign for the film did it say REMAKE. The media and people like DAWN04 haters typecast the film as a remake.

Your arguments are invalid dude.

[Adrenochrome]

Resident Evil 1 had no impact because that was a flop in the USA
28 Days later helped a bit, but DAWN04 was the majoring contributing factor.

DAWN 2004 was never marketed as remake, nor hyped as a remake. It was the zombie/GAR fanboys who typecast the film that way. Not once during the entire marketing campaign for the film did it say REMAKE. The media and people like DAWN04 haters typecast the film as a remake.

Your arguments are invalid dude.
Well, I hate the film (Yawn'04) because it's predictable and boring.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well, I hate the film (Yawn'04) because it's predictable and boring.


Now that i am cool with. :D

[Adrenochrome]

Now that i am cool with. :D
I've watched it. I've tried to like it. I just can't.

[Danny]

same here, except, the opening, just like romero, form the opening screens to when she crashes her car its all gold the town beeing overrun cars crashing on the highway and the bus driver pulling her out her car was all fantastic, but after she got out here car it whent downhill so fast it was like a fat chick off a diving board.:lol:

[EvilNed]

DAWN 2004 was never marketed as remake, nor hyped as a remake. It was the zombie/GAR fanboys who typecast the film that way. Not once during the entire marketing campaign for the film did it say REMAKE. The media and people like DAWN04 haters typecast the film as a remake.

Your arguments are invalid dude.

I wonder how a zombie film called "Dawn of the Dead" is not marketed as a remake. That's got to be a feat, if anything.

Seriously, the film is considered a remake, and it was hyped as a remake. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

[Danny]

u-huh, saying "reinventing" just makes it sound like youve improved upon it.

[bassman]

"Re-imagining"?....

I wonder if guys that are busted at a car chop shop would say the same thing.

"I'm not stealing it for parts, officer.....I'm re-imagining it...."

[MinionZombie]

Breathtaking? Hmmm...better than expected, but I wouldn't say breathtaking. The Omaha assault in SPR - that's a breathtaking opening. Completely different movies, but that's my take.

Best light I've seen Yawn04 in is in the background of Smart Tech in "The 40 Year Old Virgin", the black guy screaming "oh sh*t!" was hilarious.

[Danny]

"Re-imagining"?....

I wonder if guys that are busted at a car chop shop would say the same thing.

"I'm not stealing it for parts, officer.....I'm re-imagining it...."

damn thats funny.

[Adrenochrome]

... it whent downhill so fast it was like a fat chick off a diving board.:lol:
you know her too? LOL jk

[MinionZombie]

You speak the truth Ned, in all the press for the movie I saw (bar the pandering TV trailers) the advertising trades on the link to the established cult status of GAR's flick. In interviews/reviews etc it's also "a remake of the George Romero cult classic" - I've read/heard that time and again in concern to this flick.

[Danny]

kinda like how films like sliver try to associate themselves with shaun of the dead.


you know her too? LOL jk

yeah shes my momma:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I wonder how a zombie film called "Dawn of the Dead" is not marketed as a remake. That's got to be a feat, if anything.

Seriously, the film is considered a remake, and it was hyped as a remake. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Dawn of the Dead was hyped on the net by fanboys as a remake. It was sold as a re-envisioning. It is people like yourself who believe a bunch of B.S. that it was marketed as a remake.


Show me one shred of evidence that DAWN 2004 was marketed as a remake. Even in the commentary Zack calls it a re-envisioning.

No wishful thinking about it.


You speak the truth Ned, in all the press for the movie I saw (bar the pandering TV trailers) the advertising trades on the link to the established cult status of GAR's flick. In interviews/reviews etc it's also "a remake of the George Romero cult classic" - I've read/heard that time and again in concern to this flick.

again, by the media. You read what the media prints. When i was on set they never used the word remake. remake was a banned word so to speak.

[EvilNed]

Dawn of the Dead was hyped on the net by fanboys as a remake. It was sold as a re-envisioning. It is people like yourself who believe a bunch of B.S. that it was marketed as a remake.


Show me one shred of evidence that DAWN 2004 was marketed as a remake. Even in the commentary Zack calls it a re-envisioning.

No wishful thinking about it.


A re-envisioning is still a remake. I ask again, how do you NOT market a zombie film called "Dawn of the Dead" as a remake? Simple answer: You can't. It's considered a remake and it was hyped as a remake. There's nothing else to it, and anything else is just wishful thinking to try to prove something that's not there.

If you're of the opinion that bashing the film because of it's title is stupid, then you are entitled to it. But saying that this argument is flawed because ZACK SNYDER doesn't THINK it's a remake? Did these fans really walk into the movie theathers, NOT THINKING this was a remake? Do you honestly believe that just because Zack Snyder says on the commentary that he considers this a re-imagening, that this will automaticly make all fans feel the same way?

[DjfunkmasterG]

A re-envisioning is still a remake. I ask again, how do you NOT market a zombie film called "Dawn of the Dead" as a remake? Simple answer: You can't. It's considered a remake and it was hyped as a remake. There's nothing else to it, and anything else is just wishful thinking to try to prove something that's not there.

If you're of the opinion that bashing the film because of it's title is stupid, then you are entitled to it. But saying that this argument is flawed because ZACK SNYDER doesn't THINK it's a remake? Did these fans really walk into the movie theathers, NOT THINKING this was a remake? Do you honestly believe that just because Zack Snyder says on the commentary that he considers this a re-imagening, that this will automaticly make all fans feel the same way?

WRONG NED! Half assed thoughts like that is what will keep you out of the really good schools, or keep you from getting really good jobs. Again, show me where this film, in all of it's promotion (TV, RADIO, TRAILERS, ADS IN MAGAZINES) was marketed as a remake. You can't. You are just some fan who is ****ed that a first time director made a zombie film that stomped the ass out of a long awaited half assed sequel by Romero himself.

Your misquotes and disillusional thoughts of some faux marketing campaign, not too mention your p*ss poor argument that the title is the only reason to bitch, make you look more the fool every reply you make.

Again, other than MEDIA HYPE (Newspaper articles/Reviews/ and Internet articles) The legitimate marketing campaign for DAWN2004 not once promoted the film as a remake. Not one TV ad(tv trailer) or Radio spot said remake. This is your only argument to defend your dislike with the film, and it is still p*ss poor.

Learn to admit the following:

DAWN 2004 was never MARKETED (KEYWORD MARKETED) as a remake.
DAWN 2004 is the Primary reason Romero was able to get money for LAND.
IF IT WASN"T FOR DAWN 04's success there would have been NO, I repeat NO, LAND of the DEAD.
The Majority of the main audience who went to see DAWN 2004, had no frigging clue it was a remake of an older film.


Keep arguing it was marketed as a remake and you make yourself out to be a fool. You can claim HYPE all you want. Hype is what SANKES ON A PLANE has, HYPE is FAN BASED, hence yes, it was HYPED as a remake... but never marketed as one. So get your facts and definitions straight.

DAWN of the DEAD 2004, not only a superior film to LAND of the DEAD, was NOT marketed as a remake.

Fans, like yourself will continue to believe what you want to believe. I on theother hand go with cold hard facts. When it comes to DAWN 2004, other than the production teams and a few other close insiders I know as much about this film as some Hard core DAWN 78 fans know about it. (The original)

[MinionZombie]

I'm going to be one of those annoying people who flipsides it :D

Without GAR's well-deserved success and his trilogy there'd be no Yawn04.

I just couldn't resist. This thread just refuses to die doesn't it ... I'm half tempted to use my powers and close it, but there's a part of me that gains sick pleasure in watching you get all fired up over the flick :p

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm going to be one of those annoying people who flipsides it :D

Without GAR's well-deserved success and his trilogy there'd be no Yawn04.

I just couldn't resist. This thread just refuses to die doesn't it ... I'm half tempted to use my powers and close it, but there's a part of me that gains sick pleasure in watching you get all fired up over the flick :p


KUDO's MAN. Keep it open. let us all see how the pyschosis plays out. :p

[MinionZombie]

No problem, it'll be useful evidence for the FBI after everyone subscribed to this thread loses the plot and goes postal at exactly 12:32 on June 1st ... oh yes, it's all part of my plan you know. I've injected the cure into my bloodstream, so I'm immune to my own evil plan ... you lot are all doomed though, totally boned. :elol:

[Hawkboy]

Wether you like the film or DON'T like the film there would be NO "Land of the Dead" if the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was not succesful. If you balk at that then you are just refusing to accept reality.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Wether you like the film or DON'T like the film there would be NO "Land of the Dead" if the "Dawn of the Dead" remake was not succesful. If you balk at that then you are just refusing to accept reality.


HEAR HEAR! :D

Preach the truth brother. Preach it!


I'm going to be one of those annoying people who flipsides it :D

Without GAR's well-deserved success and his trilogy there'd be no Yawn04.

I just couldn't resist. This thread just refuses to die doesn't it ... I'm half tempted to use my powers and close it, but there's a part of me that gains sick pleasure in watching you get all fired up over the flick :p

You're right. Without the original there woul dhave been no 2004 version

[ipotts85]

is it so unimaginable to like them both for different reasons?

of course the makers of dawn 04 were riding on the original's coattails,that's why they picked the title and the mall.





but who cares?

[Hawkboy]

I love both!!!
Both have individual strengths and weaknesses!!!

[DeadJonas190]

DJ, I may be misreading your argument with Ned, but are you saying that the movie is not a remake or that it was not marketed as a remake or both?

Not trying to take sides here, but I can't recall at any point when it was marketed as a remake, even though it is. Sure, us fanboys/fangirls here and on other zombie forums called it a remake, but I never recall it being marketed as a remake.

However, anyway you look at it, the film was made once before and was made again, so therefore it is a remake. Re-envisioning was a word invented along the lines of the word "Quadrilogy" because it sounds better than the word that actually applies (remake and tetraology respectivly).

That said, I like Dawn '78 much better than Dawn '04, but they are both entertaining in their own ways.

[EvilNed]

WRONG NED! Half assed thoughts like that is what will keep you out of the really good schools, or keep you from getting really good jobs. Again, show me where this film, in all of it's promotion (TV, RADIO, TRAILERS, ADS IN MAGAZINES) was marketed as a remake. You can't. You are just some fan who is ****ed that a first time director made a zombie film that stomped the ass out of a long awaited half assed sequel by Romero himself.


Personal attacks and only reading what you want to read is what will keep you from getting into really good grade schools. But don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Dawn of the Dead. A remake. Fact. Marketed as a remake? How could you avoid it? They only had to post a poster with zombies, the title and the tagline on it and it would automaticly be marketed as a remake. Hyped as a remake? Yes. So once again, I'm right. I don't see what the big fuss is.

And since half of your post is complete JIBBERISH, filled with your own opinions, attacks on me and on my views on Land and Dawn, it's kind of sad. Stop seeing what you just want to see, and start seeing WHAT I'M TYPING. I'm saying that whoever says he was let down by the Dawn remake because of the title, has a case. A title like that is guaranteed to be automaticly marketed and hyped as a remake. How can it not be?

"Fans, like yourself will continue to believe what you want to believe. I on theother hand go with cold hard facts."

I just quoted that line, because I felt it was so stupid, it's almost delicious. Classic way of cramping your own style, right there! :D

[MinionZombie]

I say again, had it not been for GAR and "Night", there'd be no modern zombie genre, hence no Yawn04. Yeh, it's fun to be the annoying person who flipsides in such a way...

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dawn of the Dead. A remake. Fact. Marketed as a remake? How could you avoid it? They only had to post a poster with zombies, the title and the tagline on it and it would automaticly be marketed as a remake. Hyped as a remake? Yes. So once again, I'm right. I don't see what the big fuss is.

Again wrong. Just because the poster had zombies and a tagline on it doesn't mean it was MARKETED as a remake. You should really look into marketing, especially for films before you make a statement such as this. However, since you're being stubborn I am not going to bother. You should really get a clue.



And since half of your post is complete JIBBERISH, filled with your own opinions, attacks on me and on my views on Land and Dawn, it's kind of sad. Stop seeing what you just want to see, and start seeing WHAT I'M TYPING. I'm saying that whoever says he was let down by the Dawn remake because of the title, has a case. A title like that is guaranteed to be automaticly marketed and hyped as a remake. How can it not be?

They have no CASE. You have no CASE. it is YOU who wants to believe what you want to believe. Don't sit and tell me to stop seeing what I want to see. It is you that is only seeing it one way.... do you know why? Because of the title. Your whole argument has been nothing except the title of the film. You made NO other valid argument, nor shown anyone one other shred of evidence that it was MARKETED as a remake.

You ask how can it not be marketed as a remake? Easily. During your entire ad campaign (trailers, TV spots, Full page ads depicting the poster) you don't say "a remake of the George A. Romero classic." In any of marketing have you seen that, or anything like that? NO, because if you had you would have brought me some proof and this argument would have ended. Instead you continue to say the say BS. You sound like a broken record.



"Fans, like yourself will continue to believe what you want to believe. I on theother hand go with cold hard facts."

I just quoted that line, because I felt it was so stupid, it's almost delicious. Classic way of cramping your own style, right there! ?

why is it stupid? how does it cramp my style? you are projecting that exact statement with every post while I have given you the proof and differing statements to prove DAWN 2004 was not MARKETED as a remake. "All you have given me is a mouth full of greek salad." :D


DJ, I may be misreading your argument with Ned, but are you saying that the movie is not a remake or that it was not marketed as a remake or both?

Not trying to take sides here, but I can't recall at any point when it was marketed as a remake, even though it is. Sure, us fanboys/fangirls here and on other zombie forums called it a remake, but I never recall it being marketed as a remake.

However, anyway you look at it, the film was made once before and was made again, so therefore it is a remake. Re-envisioning was a word invented along the lines of the word "Quadrilogy" because it sounds better than the word that actually applies (remake and tetraology respectivly).

That said, I like Dawn '78 much better than Dawn '04, but they are both entertaining in their own ways.

Although it does use the title DAWN of the DEAD, it really isn't a remake of the original film. Like most posters here have said. That is not DAWN of the DEAD, the only thing in common is the mall and zombies. Which makes them exactly right, and which makes it even clearer that it WAS NOT a remake. Although the term remake is used very loosely what really is a remake? To me 1998's Pyshco is a remake. Night 90 is a remake. DAWN 2004, not a remake, even if it is classified as a remake by general standards.

Also, you are right Dead Jonas... DAWN 2004 was never marketed as a remake.

[Svengoolie]

Looks to me like Ned has about as much a grasp of the concept of marketing as he does character development.....:D

Oh, and just one more thing...


I say again, had it not been for GAR and "Night", there'd be no modern zombie genre, hence no Yawn04. Yeh, it's fun to be the annoying person who flipsides in such a way...


I guess you've never seen The Last Man on Earth, then--the gritty, low-budget B&W Vincent Price classic that GAR "ripped-off" (and those are his own words there) featuring a hero barracaded in his own home against an army of shambling, undead creatures....

[Adrenochrome]

Looks to me like Ned has about as much a grasp of the concept of marketing as he does character development.....:D

"I got a Harley-Davidson. Does that turn you on? Harley-Davidson?"


:D

[MinionZombie]

pfft, like I give a fudge. GAR was the guy who polished and re-moulded a small idea into the diamond he created. Everybody is inspired by something or copies a little bit here and there, it's been going on for decades and decades, it's not like GAR's the first or last to have used inspiration. Like Orson Welles said, it had been going on long before he got into the business and even Citizen Kane himself copied stuff he liked.

Big whoop.

[EvilNed]

DJ: I rest my case :lol:

You should try reading my post next time. Might make it easier to argue with me. Right now, you're arguing against something I never contested in the first place. It's quite funny to watch, mind you, but please read my post next time.

[Hawkboy]

I guess you've never seen The Last Man on Earth, then--the gritty, low-budget B&W Vincent Price classic that GAR "ripped-off" (and those are his own words there) featuring a hero barracaded in his own home against an army of shambling, undead creatures....

Well, that film is an adaptation of the Richard Matheson book "I am Legend" as was "Omega Man" and the upcoming Will Smith film "I am Legend"

[DjfunkmasterG]

DJ: I rest my case :lol:

You should try reading my post next time. Might make it easier to argue with me. Right now, you're arguing against something I never contested in the first place. It's quite funny to watch, mind you, but please read my post next time.


You never had a case, yet you still beat the same dead horse. I read your post, the same moronic ramblings you stated in previous posts and they were all inaccurate.

Your case isn't rested, you never had a case to rest! :sneaky:

[EvilNed]

If that makes you sleep at night. :)

Anyway, I'll give you one thing (which just so happens to be the only thing about my argument you adressed), and that's that Dawn of the Dead was never right out marketed as a remake for Dawn of the Dead. But the marketing hype (articles, magazines etc. etc. etc.), and overall hype of the film was obviously filled with this. Don't deny this.

Now, this hype gets to the fans, the fans want to see a Dawn of the Dead remake, or at least something that resembles that film. What they get is something completly different, infact it's so far away from the original as possible without breaking the "Zombie genre" bounds.

Now, I'm not sure wether you'll agree with this or not, but I'm pretty sure I can assume these are all facts so your opinion on this matter is not needed. This caused hype is what my argument is all about. And I still think that marketing a film as Dawn of the Dead, showing zombies and using the original tagline qualifies as right out BEGGING to be called a remake... Which, ironically, it was also called.

[DjfunkmasterG]

If that makes you sleep at night. :)

Anyway, I'll give you one thing (which just so happens to be the only thing about my argument you adressed), and that's that Dawn of the Dead was never right out marketed as a remake for Dawn of the Dead. But the marketing hype (articles, magazines etc. etc. etc.), and overall hype of the film was obviously filled with this. Don't deny this.

Now, this hype gets to the fans, the fans want to see a Dawn of the Dead remake, or at least something that resembles that film. What they get is something completly different, infact it's so far away from the original as possible without breaking the "Zombie genre" bounds.

Now, I'm not sure wether you'll agree with this or not, but I'm pretty sure I can assume these are all facts so your opinion on this matter is not needed. This caused hype is what my argument is all about. And I still think that marketing a film as Dawn of the Dead, showing zombies and using the original tagline qualifies as right out BEGGING to be called a remake... Which, ironically, it was also called.


Fair enough, as long as you agree it was never marketed as a remake. However, yes I agree, the fan hype/internet buzz hyped it as a remake.

[bassman]

I don't want to get into the middle of your heated arguement here, fellas, but....are remakes EVER marketed as a remake?

Honestly, I can't really think of any remake that mentioned the fact that it's a remake within it's own trailer or poster...

Then again, sometimes I just can't think at all....so I might be talking out of my a**. Let me know if that is the case here:D ....

[DjfunkmasterG]

You may be correct. Even the Night 90 version wasn't marketed as a remake, but it is more of a remake than DAWN 2004.

I think Texas Chainsaw 2003 was the only film marketed as a remake.

[EvilNed]

Fair enough, as long as you agree it was never marketed as a remake. However, yes I agree, the fan hype/internet buzz hyped it as a remake.

I have no quarrels with the remake on this subject, I'm simply proving that those who are disappointed at the film (or were, initially) because of the title, have a case.

A title like that, obviously comes with some expactations.

[Tri0xin]

I just hope the Day of the Dead remake is as good as Dawn '04. Dawn '04 and Return of the Living Dead are the two best non-Romero zombie movies in existence, I think. As much as I am against the Day remake, I still hope it's as entertaining as Dawn '04 was and is.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Don't get your hopes up. Taurus Entertainment, the people behind DAY of the DEAD 2, are producing this. I smell crap fest.

[EvilNed]

At least this one has some budgets, and a director familiar with the horror genre.

I hope they do a re-imagination, ala Dawn of the Dead remake. Basicly, I want another zombie film.

[MinionZombie]

Hear ye, hear ye, "Day of the Remake" will suck copious amounts of man-shaft.

I have forseen this in a premonition...:eek:

[erisi236]

Hear ye, hear ye, "Day of the Remake" will suck copious amounts of man-shaft.

I have forseen this in a premonition...:eek:


I too have felt a disturbance in the Force :dead:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I too have felt a disturbance in the Force :dead:


:lol:

AWESOME Quote :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

I've loosened up alot on Dawn 04, but I still don't like it. It stole the name and manipulated what Dawn of the Dead is, just for money. Just my opinion.

Even though it is your opinion allow me to retort.

Everyone, thinks what DAWN of the DEAD is, is what Romero brought to the horror genre. That is not the sole reason of DAWN of the DEAD or the meaning. Even though both films share the same title each can have a different meaning.

Romero's DAWN was about the DAWN of a new society in the wake of a zombie apocalypse.

Snyder's DAWN was about the rising of the dead.

DAWN has many meanings and the remake just explored it from the more literal meaning. A more in your face approach. Whereas Romero did it with more depth and exploration.

So one film cannot rip off the other because they are completely different.

[bassman]

Even though it is your opinion allow me to retort.

Everyone, thinks what DAWN of the DEAD is, is what Romero brought to the horror genre. That is not the sole reason of DAWN of the DEAD or the meaning. Even though both films share the same title each can have a different meaning.

Romero's DAWN was about the DAWN of a new society in the wake of a zombie apocalypse.

Snyder's DAWN was about the rising of the dead.

DAWN has many meanings and the remake just explored it from the more literal meaning. A more in your face approach. Whereas Romero did it with more depth and exploration.

So one film cannot rip off the other because they are completely different.

But there is one major difference, regardless of name and story.....

One of them is a good film and the other isn't:) ....

[Rottedfreak]

Look on the bright side without a sequal it leaves the film open to a expanded universe unlike a certain quadrology that has inconsistent zombies and chronology. It's rediculous Romero has a stab at the remake with "their meant to be dead and all messed up!" so explain to us how in Day and Land they manage to keep up with humans who run from them and where their strength to tear people apart came from George.

[Khardis]

Of course, because in today's world, a pompous child is a better writer than the man who created a modern version of a genre and has created countless hits.

I mean, I'm not saying that people can't get rusty. But Land of the Dead's faults were just as overrated as the Dawn of the Dead remake's. People slammed Land of the Dead for Big Daddy. It wasn't Big Daddy that was bad, it was Eugene Clark's acting...

But I'll shut up, before we get another debate. Thanks for posting this, interesting news.
it might just be the difference of intention. I like dDawn 04 better than LOTD because Dawn04 was made to be a scary zombie movie. LOTD was written to be some social message wrapped very poorly in a film. It was kind of like disecting something with a spoon, and turned a lot of people off.