What version of Dawn 78 should I show a new zombie fan.

[Trencher]

One of my buddies have never watched the original Dawn of the dead although he is a fan of the walking dead show.

Dawn is a great movie but there is several versions. Which one do you think I should show him? And show them all is not a available answer.

[shootemindehead]

Show them the extended version. It runs 139 minutes.

[JDP]

The best one is the extended director's cut one, the way Romero himself wanted it to be. But the so-called fan cut is very cool as well, since it crammed into one single edition almost all the footage from the several versions of the movie (however, some of the scenes have been a bit misplaced.)

[MinionZombie]

To me, Dawn has always been the extended Cannes cut (the one that Shoot mentioned, running 139 minutes), as that's what I saw first. There's a lot more depth to the characters in that one and it feels a bit more epic.

It depends on you're chum's attention span, of course. If he didn't want to to 139 minutes of Dawn, then you should opt for the US Theatrical Cut (although I personally think there's too much missing from that version) which clocks in at about 120 minutes.

Avoid showing him the European/Argento Cut - that's a friggin' travesty and butchers Romero's vision beyond belief. Also, these 'fan edits' might be of interest to hardcore fans, but I wouldn't recommend them for new viewers at all (plus, again, there are various editing issues with them because all the materials have come from different sources and versions of the movie, so it ends up looking more like a patchwork than anything too coherant).

In summary - the extended Cannes cut or, if he might not have quite enough patience, the US Theatrical version ... but preferably the former. :)

[Trencher]

I showed him the extended cut and it was a huge suksess. He got scared and creeped out and said it was scarier than the walking dead and more modern zombie films. He called it "Unique" and "experimental" lol!
I tried to explain how influential this movie is on video games, movies and everything cool. Hopefully it sunk in. Atleast he liked it.

[JDP]

The best one is the extended director's cut one, the way Romero himself wanted it to be. But the so-called fan cut is very cool as well, since it crammed into one single edition almost all the footage from the several versions of the movie (however, some of the scenes have been a bit misplaced.)

I took a look again at what that "fan cut" I had in mind was, and it is the so-called Extended Mall Hours Cut. This one crams into one edition almost all the footage of the movie that has been released one way or another. But as pointed out, some of the scenes were not inserted in the most appropriate place and result in some continuity issues.

[Harleydude666]

Extended cut all the way. Wouldn’t ever watch it any other way

[shootemindehead]

I showed him the extended cut and it was a huge suksess. He got scared and creeped out and said it was scarier than the walking dead and more modern zombie films. He called it "Unique" and "experimental" lol!
I tried to explain how influential this movie is on video games, movies and everything cool. Hopefully it sunk in. Atleast he liked it.

Cool.

Now show him 'Day of the Dead'...

...on a loop...

...for the rest of his life.

[MinionZombie]

Cool.

Now show him 'Day of the Dead'...

...on a loop...

...for the rest of his life.

And just before you do, scream at him that "I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!" :D

Glad it went down well, Trencher. It's always heartening when a classic does well with a modern audience - it proves the film still retains its power. :cool:

[kidgloves]

I'm a fan of the theatrical cut, mainly cause it's the first one I saw over and over. I do think it's better paced

[MinionZombie]

I'm a fan of the theatrical cut, mainly cause it's the first one I saw over and over. I do think it's better paced

I wonder if there's any of us who prefer a version of the film that we didn't see first? The extended cut was what I saw first (and, indeed, repeatedly) until the 2004 Ultimate Edition DVD boxset (which has three cuts of the film). I'm quite fond of the added flesh on the bones in the longer cut.

I remember when I first saw it I was of an age when I didn't exactly have the best attention span (I'd regularly have several films 'on the go' at once - by which I mean, I'd watch 5 to 20 minutes of a movie, then run off to do something else, come back to watch another 5 to 20 minutes of a different movie, and rinse repeat), but Dawn absolutely transfixed me for two hours and twenty minutes. I don't think I even moved on the sofa during the whole thing, I was hunched forward gazing at it in awe and then all of a sudden it was the final gong and cut to black, time to rewind the VHS. :)

[beat_truck]

I saw the theatrical version on the original VHS release first in the mid 90s. Around 2000, I bought the theatrical version, the extended director's cut, and a bootleg of the European version all on VHS. The extended version became my go to. Now I have the Ultimate Edition DVD set and the Extended Mall Hours fan edit. The fan edit is probably my favorite, now. The only thing that bugs me about it is the hiccups in the music where some of the scenes were spliced together.

[JDP]

I wonder if there's any of us who prefer a version of the film that we didn't see first? The extended cut was what I saw first (and, indeed, repeatedly) until the 2004 Ultimate Edition DVD boxset (which has three cuts of the film). I'm quite fond of the added flesh on the bones in the longer cut.

The first version I ever saw was the theatrical cut, but once I saw the extended director's cut and even the fan "mall hours" cut (despite some of its misplaced scenes) I certainly preferred them over the theatrical cut. I happen to also be a sucker for all the extra footage that the theatrical cut left out.

[Philly_SWAT]

The best one is the extended director's cut one, the way Romero himself wanted it to be. But the so-called fan cut is very cool as well, since it crammed into one single edition almost all the footage from the several versions of the movie (however, some of the scenes have been a bit misplaced.)
I think perhaps you are misinformed on this point, unless I am misunderstanding which cut you are referring to. The "director's cut" as it is often labeled is the cut that GAR sent to the Cannes film festival. It was actually a rushed editing job, as he wanted it at Cannes for that year and had to get it done for the Cannes deadline. Then the "US Theatrical Cut" was later released in American theaters. This version is "the way Romero himself wanted it to be" as you put it. It is very confusing that in most cases, a movie that is referred to as a directors cut means that the studio made the director make cuts that he didnt want to make for various studio reasons, and that version is the theatrical cut. Then the director makes a version that is more what his vision was, without the cuts that the studio wanted, and this is the directors cut. In the case of Dawn of the Dead, this was not the case. The Cannes cut was erroneously labeled as a directors cut (probably because it wasnt the theatrical version) and the label kind of stuck. Some people prefer one cut and some the other, but the theatrical version is in fact the way Romero wanted it to be.

For the record, my own favorite it the US theatrical cut. The editing is tighter and the score, both Goblin and DeWolfe library cues, are better used and add to the mood more. But since Dawn of the Dead is my favorite movie of all time, I totally love the extended scenes that exist in the Cannes version. And oddly enough, the Argento version, even though much shorter, had scenes of dialogue and gore that is in NEITHER of the other versions! And of course, I love those extra scenes as well. But the Argento cut is clearly the inferior of the three. Dario tried to make it more of an action flick and took out key scenes that are vital to the overall story. And the Goblin was OVERWHELMING in this version. Don't get me wrong, I love the Goblin songs, but they are used too much and too loud in the Argento version.

[MinionZombie]

Philly - you're correct on the theatrical version being Romero's preferred version.

When the 'Cannes cut' was released in the UK many moons ago it was labelled as the "Director's Cut" simply because that's usually what longer edits are called, and is better as a sales tool rather than 'Extended Cannes Cut' as it actually is. Anyway, that's the version I prefer personally.

The Argento cut is interesting only as a curio for me. As you say, the use of Goblin is obnoxiously over-the-top and many times utterly misplaced in terms of tone and/or tempo, so many important subtleties in the story are torn out, and it's generally just a mess of an edit that squanders the greatness that Romero created. I've seen the Argento cut once, maybe twice including a commentary, but it was just so daft.

There's another version out there that I saw a while back - the 'condensed' 8mm version of the film. It's basically a drastically cut-down version of the movie running about 45 minutes. It was online somewhere a ways back, but can't recall where. It was quite interesting to see what did and didn't make it into that version, and of course it's all scrappy looking because of the 8mm transfer - but if you can find it somewhere it's a nifty watch for Dawn fans, if only out of pure fascination and interest, rather than any artistic merit.

[JDP]

I think perhaps you are misinformed on this point, unless I am misunderstanding which cut you are referring to. The "director's cut" as it is often labeled is the cut that GAR sent to the Cannes film festival. It was actually a rushed editing job, as he wanted it at Cannes for that year and had to get it done for the Cannes deadline. Then the "US Theatrical Cut" was later released in American theaters. This version is "the way Romero himself wanted it to be" as you put it. It is very confusing that in most cases, a movie that is referred to as a directors cut means that the studio made the director make cuts that he didnt want to make for various studio reasons, and that version is the theatrical cut. Then the director makes a version that is more what his vision was, without the cuts that the studio wanted, and this is the directors cut. In the case of Dawn of the Dead, this was not the case. The Cannes cut was erroneously labeled as a directors cut (probably because it wasnt the theatrical version) and the label kind of stuck. Some people prefer one cut and some the other, but the theatrical version is in fact the way Romero wanted it to be.

For the record, my own favorite it the US theatrical cut. The editing is tighter and the score, both Goblin and DeWolfe library cues, are better used and add to the mood more. But since Dawn of the Dead is my favorite movie of all time, I totally love the extended scenes that exist in the Cannes version. And oddly enough, the Argento version, even though much shorter, had scenes of dialogue and gore that is in NEITHER of the other versions! And of course, I love those extra scenes as well. But the Argento cut is clearly the inferior of the three. Dario tried to make it more of an action flick and took out key scenes that are vital to the overall story. And the Goblin was OVERWHELMING in this version. Don't get me wrong, I love the Goblin songs, but they are used too much and too loud in the Argento version.

Thanks for that clarification. I always heard that longer version being called the "director's cut". The name surely stuck over the years. In that case, then, the first cut was the better one. The theatrical one cut out quite a bit of great stuff that should not have been touched. My guess is that Romero left a lot of that footage out because of time constrictions.

[Philly_SWAT]

Did you ever see the 5 minute cut that I myself made? I can not remember what site I used to host it at the time (as youtube ridiculously wouldnt host it), nor can I find my post here no matter what terms I put into the search bar. I think that version is pretty awesome!:skull:

EDIT: Found the video in case someone wanted to see for the first time or re-watch. Couldnt find a cool way to embed it like I did before...I think HPOTD doesnt support that embedding anymore. Click the pic to see! For optimum enjoyment, expand to full screen while watching.

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/th_DawnoftheDeadDisturbed.mp4 (http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l150/Philly_SWAT/DawnoftheDeadDisturbed.mp4)

[bassman]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions.....

[MinionZombie]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions.....

Eh?! :stunned: I'd never show anyone that cut as a first timer, it could really ruin the whole experience, I think. Best to enter it best-foot-forward with either the Theatrical or Extended Cannes Cut. Argento's cut might be 'pacier' in some regards (or just wedges in a few more kill shots and hacks out tons of character detail and story subtleties), but it's an absolute mess of a thing that squanders so many of the best traits about the Romero film that make it special. I think some people couild see the Argento version and coming away thinking "what's so special about that?".

[Moon Knight]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions.....

I really dislike that one. The music alone- nope. :D

I worked at a Gamestop back around 2004 and someone traded in the original Dawn. We took in used video games and movies for credit. Anyway, I recommended it to one of our loyal customers. He returned it and said it was one of the worse movies he’s ever seen. I was so sad.

[bassman]

I was just looking at it with the idea that modern audiences generally want fast action and to the point. While we as fans love the traits of a Romero film, it feels to me that we're sort of in the minority and generally speaking, younger audiences could see that as slow, boring, or cheesy. All of which I've heard numerous times from newcomers. I once attended a screening of Dawn at a locally owned theater and while there were the definite fans of Romero's work in attendance, a majority of the audience were laughing throughout the flick like it was an episode of Mystery Science Theater. As a big fan, it was kinda disheartening.

[JDP]

I was just looking at it with the idea that modern audiences generally want fast action and to the point. While we as fans love the traits of a Romero film, it feels to me that we're sort of in the minority and generally speaking, younger audiences could see that as slow, boring, or cheesy. All of which I've heard numerous times from newcomers. I once attended a screening of Dawn at a locally owned theater and while there were the definite fans of Romero's work in attendance, a majority of the audience were laughing throughout the flick like it was an episode of Mystery Science Theater. As a big fan, it was kinda disheartening.

Youngsters today generally have short attention spans, they want rapid moving images and "plots" that barely make sense, and that therefore do not require much thought-process from the viewer's part. An old-fashioned, slower-paced movie like Dawn seems "boring" or "goofy" to them. It often requires to actually think while you watch. If you look at what they did with the Dawn remake you will see how they tried to "remedy" this. Faster zombies, faster pace, faster action, "thinner" plot (however, I must admit that it was quite better than I expected it would be, but still very inferior to the original.) And let's not even go into the atrocious pseudo-remake of Day!

Thank goodness that no one has tried to remake Fulci's Zombie. How much you want to bet that it would be called something like Zombie: I Know What You Did Last Summer in that Island Called Matul, starring a bunch of badass and "totally rad" teenagers and twenty-somethings that kick zombie ass! Also, following the trendy "role reversals" of modern remakes, Dr. Menard is a fearless woman scientist, played by Miley Cyrus, who, besides sticking her tongue out and wiggling it in a manner suggesting female oral sex and making various obscene gestures at the zombies, vehemently refuses to leave the island until she has found a solution to the problem, while her husband, played by Justin Bieber, is the hapless, scared shitless alcohol/drug-addicted victim who will get his eye gouged and then become a picnic for the zombies. Also, the zombie who battles the shark ends up in court sued by PETA.

[shootemindehead]

In fairness to the "youngsters today", there's actually a lot of stuff in 'Dawn of the Dead' that's just fucking terrible and pretty laughable (even in an unintentional way). But we let it slide.

Shitty acting at the dock, helicopter zombie, awful library music (even though I think I think it's cool in a camp way) , dreadful makeup, orange blood, some rubbish dialogue, pie fight, test your pulse, da, da, da, da daaaah music at the end...christ, I can see why people would laugh.

Zombie fans - and Romero fans in particular - give 'Dawn of the Dead' a HUGE leeway, because of the effect it had on the genre and the excellent pedigree that's attached . But, it simply just doesn't fly today in a lot of ways. It didn't even fly in the 90's, to be honest. Even in "my day", it was the lesser cousin to 'Day of the Dead', who among my friends was THE zombie film.

'Dawn of the Dead' was always the premier zombie film in America, but I've never really understood that. Particularly when its sequel had everything 'Dawn of the Dead' had in spades, with the added bonus that when the shocks happened, they really were bloody shocking. Its special effects are still amongst some of the best and most explicit I have ever seen. Honestly, to hell with 'The Walking Dead', it's shown nothing as lingering and as red as the stuff that Savini got away with in that film. I'm still amazed at the likes of Rickles' death. Seeing his eye pop and hearing his terrifyingly painful screams...Just chilling. There's a grim weight going on there that's rare, even amongst horror films.

I have clear memories of sitting people down to 'Day of the Dead' and listening to them shit talking "crap zombie films"...then shutting the fuck up when the shit hits the fan in the final third. It's kind of a little pleasure for me.

Weird, I know.

Yes, it's kind of annoying when people don't "get" 'Dawn of the Dead', but I can certainly understand why. Sure, there are folk that don't "get' 'Day of the Dead' either, but I've never seen anyone laugh at it.

[MinionZombie]

Thank goodness that no one has tried to remake Fulci's Zombie. How much you want to bet that it would be called something like Zombie: I Know What You Did Last Summer in that Island Called Matul, starring a bunch of badass and "totally rad" teenagers and twenty-somethings that kick zombie ass! Also, following the trendy "role reversals" of modern remakes, Dr. Menard is a fearless woman scientist, played by Miley Cyrus, who, besides sticking her tongue out and wiggling it in a manner suggesting female oral sex and making various obscene gestures at the zombies, vehemently refuses to leave the island until she has found a solution to the problem, while her husband, played by Justin Bieber, is the hapless, scared shitless alcohol/drug-addicted victim who will get his eye gouged and then become a picnic for the zombies. Also, the zombie who battles the shark ends up in court sued by PETA.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Adam the Dog]

My girlfriend had never seen the film before. So I sat her down and put on the 155 minute "Extended Mall Hours" cut. Hahaha

[Moon Knight]

My girlfriend had never seen the film before. So I sat her down and put on the 155 minute "Extended Mall Hours" cut. Hahaha

Good man!

[bassman]

Never thought I'd say this, but shootem and I are on the same page...

[Moon Knight]

Dawn of the Dead was written pretty much as a comic book adventure. It's supposed to be kinda wacky, colorful, and fun. Day of the Dead was always intended to be a depressing story about all that's left in the world among the living. Love both for what they are but I connect so much more with the characters in Dawn.

[ElectricFire169]

I still say Extended Mall Hours cut. Even though it's not official it's still the most definitive version of the film out there and it includes scenes from all three official cuts of the film.

[MinionZombie]

I still say Extended Mall Hours cut. Even though it's not official it's still the most definitive version of the film out there and it includes scenes from all three official cuts of the film.

Longest, yes, but I wouldn't say definitive, especially as it's not an official cut of the movie.

I'd think it'd also be far too long for most newbies being introduced to Dawn. When it comes to the film there's only two good edits of the film - the U.S. Theatrical and the Extended Cannes Cut - the fan edits are cobbled together from different sources and therefore lack coherance and are really only for the hardcore fans (and I'd similarly not recommend the 8mm 'Digest' cut of the movie either as it's just 45 minutes long!), and Argento's European Cut is just dreadful.

[beat_truck]

I agree that the European cut sucks:barf:, but I have to disagree about the fan edit. First, it makes little difference to me whether it was "official" or not. The version I have was done very well and doesn't look cobbled at all. Folks that aren't intimately familiar with the movie would probably never even know it wasn't official. I don't really get the lack of coherence part either. Most of the added scenes already partially existed in other versions, just shorter and/or with less dialog, so it's not like they were just stuck in, in some random wrong place. Like I mentioned before, the only small complaint I have is the couple hiccups in the soundtrack. I suppose nothing could have really been done about it, though. Overall, I definitely can't complain as whoever did it spent a LOT of time and did an awesome job. Also, it's not like one can't go back and revisit the official versions whenever they want to.:)

By the way, I also like the fan edit version of Re Animator, where everything from the Unrated and R rated versions were edited together. I originally had a VHS R rated copy, and then bought the Unrated DVD. The first time I watched the DVD, I was like WTF?:barf: Lots of scenes were removed that made others no make sense.:duh:

[JDP]

I agree that the European cut sucks:barf:, but I have to disagree about the fan edit. First, it makes little difference to me whether it was "official" or not. The version I have was done very well and doesn't look cobbled at all. Folks that aren't intimately familiar with the movie would probably never even know it wasn't official. I don't really get the lack of coherence part either. Most of the added scenes already partially existed in other versions, just shorter and/or with less dialog, so it's not like they were just stuck in, in some random wrong place. Like I mentioned before, the only small complaint I have is the couple hiccups in the soundtrack. I suppose nothing could have really been done about it, though. Overall, I definitely can't complain as whoever did it spent a LOT of time and did an awesome job. Also, it's not like one can't go back and revisit the official versions whenever they want to.:)

I like that "Mall Hours" cut a lot, I love how it has gathered almost all the Dawn footage that has been released (there's only a couple of scenes missing from an obscure German cut of Dawn, as far as I know), but it does have a few continuity problems because some scenes were not inserted in the most appropriate places. For example, when the biker gang has already started the assault on the mall, we see a scene where some of the bikers evidently have just come back from taking a closer look at the mall's parking lot and are reporting back on the situation to the rest of the gang. This scene should obviously have been inserted BEFORE the assault on the mall starts, but it's weirdly placed AFTER the assault has already started! As was inserted, the scene makes little sense. Why would the rest of the gang need feedback on approximately how many zombies are wandering around the parking lot when the gang has already started assaulting the mall??? This scene should obviously have been inserted previous to the sequence when we see the whole gang descend on the shopping mall to break in.