What does Z Snyder think?

[radiokill]

I respect Snyder and is work on Dawn 04. The social commentary that made Dawn of the Dead so great is pretty much absent, but he did what he wanted to do: make a fun, scary, zombie thriller. He did a great job. I was disappointed when I found out that he wasn't involved with Day 07 (I'm afraid it's going to be a total suckfest, but I'm still hoping it will be fun). Has anyone heard anything Snyder's said about the Day remake?

[bassman]

Day will probably suck just as bad as Dawn did....

Oh yeah....Snyder sucks as well.:D

[AcesandEights]

I'd definitely scan the below threads on this board. There's a good deal of information. The big sticking point right now is no script that anyone has seen (not that I'd read a script before I see a movie).

There are not many people very positive about the remake, unfortunately, but each to their own.

And welcome, by the way :D

[radiokill]

thanks...
good to be here!

[Guru ofthe Dead]

radiokill also welcome. Yes I too have concerns on this remake. I personally do not like remakes. Before I make judgement I guess I will have to see the film. I just hope that it won't be a stinker.

[Dommm]

I have to say that i liked the dawn 04 re-make but I lost respect for it. It IMHO should have been a movie under a different title and a few changes in the script so that it wasnt a remake but another zombie movie that took inspiration from GAR. I think that this movie forgets the social commentry and the sheer genius of the original and makes an MTV generation movie which is a bit of mindless gore and violence and some fun T&A. But hay thts just my op.

[radiokill]

radiokill also welcome.thanks!

[Brubaker]

I respect Snyder and is work on Dawn 04. The social commentary that made Dawn of the Dead so great is pretty much absent, but he did what he wanted to do: make a fun, scary, zombie thriller. He did a great job. I was disappointed when I found out that he wasn't involved with Day 07 (I'm afraid it's going to be a total suckfest, but I'm still hoping it will be fun). Has anyone heard anything Snyder's said about the Day remake?

We're both new members, Radiokill!

They have no reason to get his opinion. If someone were to ask him the question, which isn't likely, Snyder will probably say that he looks forward to seeing the Day remake. A very simple and polite answer. The more important opinion would be that of GAR. Safe to assume that George will have his reservations before the movie is finished and after it hits the big screen.

As for Dawn 04':

I'm sure Snyder was, and remains, happy with his own movie.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I respect Snyder and is work on Dawn 04. The social commentary that made Dawn of the Dead so great is pretty much absent, but he did what he wanted to do: make a fun, scary, zombie thriller. He did a great job. I was disappointed when I found out that he wasn't involved with Day 07 (I'm afraid it's going to be a total suckfest, but I'm still hoping it will be fun). Has anyone heard anything Snyder's said about the Day remake?


Who cares what zack snyder thinks about a remake of DAY of the dead?

When i hear what GAR think's of his movie being remade, then MAYBE i might care what some other guy who remade another of GAR's movies thinks about another of GAR's movies being remade.

[radiokill]

Who cares what zack snyder thinks about a remake of DAY of the dead?

When i hear what GAR think's of his movie being remade, then MAYBE i might care what some other guy who remade another of GAR's movies thinks about another of GAR's movies being remade.

I'm sure GAR thinks what everyone else is thinking...."awwwwwww f*ck"
I was asking what snyder thought because because he just remade dawn and his lead actor is this new remake.........I was just wondering if snyder was ****ed.


We're both new members, Radiokill!


Conrgats....I like this place!

[Danny]

i might get a pirate dvd from donno' but i aint watching it in the cinema, if i cant see it for a quid i aint seeing it:lol:

[Griff]

Snyder has had his stepping stone, I'm sure he's happy to move on.

[zombievsshark]

boy there's a lot of animosity for him here...poor guy :(

[DjfunkmasterG]

I know... I like the DAWN remake, but people here hate the guy... to me he did a fantastic job and desvers credit... even if it ain't the film "They" Wanted or wanted to see... all that matters is he made a kick ass zombie movie. :D

[Deadman_Deluxe]

boy there's a lot of animosity for him here...poor guy :(


Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D

[Adrenochrome]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D
here here!!! *raises glass*

[Svengoolie]

I'm sure GAR thinks what everyone else is thinking...."awwwwwww f*ck"


Yeah...except you forgot to add "I wish I'd held on to the rights" to that.:D

[coma]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D
double dog ditto

[Brubaker]

I'm sure GAR thinks what everyone else is thinking...."awwwwwww f*ck"
I was asking what snyder thought because because he just remade dawn and his lead actor is this new remake.........I was just wondering if snyder was ****ed!

He couldn't be any more bothered than Romero was when actors from his original version of Dawn made cameos all through Snyder's remake.

That'd be like Snyder asking GAR to be some random extra who is on the screen for 2 seconds before having an off-screen (implied) death brought about by a zombie played by Snyder himself.

[AssassinFromHell]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D

Romero fans? Where? All I see are Gunn/Snyder fanboys...:eek:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D


See this is exactly why I hate getting into discussions about DAWN 04 vs DAWN 78. Everyone thinks Zack wanted to run right in and steal everything... nothing was stolen. The man didn't even write the script he just directed a movie off a script that was based on a 25 year old film.

Why should he get saddled with all the names of theif etc etc?... He just directed. No one stole from Romero. let's get that straight. He doesn't own the rights to any of his films... not a single one. The man gave up the rights to his films so he really has no say whether or not a film gets re-made, nor can he or any fan be mad because they are remaking his work. If he didn't want his work being sold out to everyone under the sun then he should have made better business decisions and kept some rights to his films.

I'm sorry, but I will not stand up on everyone's side of hated remakes when someone says they stole from George... You can't steal something he never had to begin with. George doesn't even own the rights to Land of the Dead, he has a small percentage, very small. He sold DAWN and DAY, and never copyrighted Night.

So let's stop the Zack bashing when it comes to the theft comments because he never stole anything his version was legit and very different... Wanna blame someone blame Rubinstein

[radiokill]

He couldn't be any more bothered than Romero was when actors from his original version of Dawn made cameos all through Snyder's remake.

That'd be like Snyder asking GAR to be some random extra who is on the screen for 2 seconds before having an off-screen (implied) death brought about by a zombie played by Snyder himself.

:) never thought about what you said in that first paragraph and it's a good point....but to what are you equating that second paragraph?:confused:

[AssassinFromHell]

See this is exactly why I hate getting into discussions about DAWN 04 vs DAWN 78. Everyone thinks Zack wanted to run right in and steal everything... nothing was stolen. The man didn't even write the script he just directed a movie off a script that was based on a 25 year old film.

Why should he get saddled with all the names of theif etc etc?... He just directed. No one stole from Romero. let's get that straight. He doesn't own the rights to any of his films... not a single one. The man gave up the rights to his films so he really has no say whether or not a film gets re-made, nor can he or any fan be mad because they are remaking his work. If he didn't want his work being sold out to everyone under the sun then he should have made better business decisions and kept some rights to his films.

I'm sorry, but I will not stand up on everyone's side of hated remakes when someone says they stole from George... You can't steal something he never had to begin with. George doesn't even own the rights to Land of the Dead, he has a small percentage, very small. He sold DAWN and DAY, and never copyrighted Night.

So let's stop the Zack bashing when it comes to the theft comments because he never stole anything his version was legit and very different... Wanna blame someone blame Rubinstein

Exactly! James Gunn stole DAWN's title :D

[Griff]

Zack Snyder received stolen goods, a crime in and of itself. He was heard to muse at the time "Well, if I don't take them, someone else will". While true, this did not absolve him of his moral obligations.

Actually, I don't care about all that wank. What upsets me is not that his film fails to be transcendant but that he doesn't even try. Further more, people use this as some sort of defense "Hey listen, I know its not this and that... it doesn't even try to be".

Its like praising someone for doing nothing because the odds of success were too great, anyway. It worked in ANIMAL HOUSE when they got expelled and trashed the Homecoming Parade but it doesn't wash when it comes to doing justice to a legacy. Anyone can strive to under-achieve.

I enjoy the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. I detest the mindset that made it.

[Adrenochrome]

here's the deal....
James Gunn is an idiot.
Zack Snyder is after a quick buck. He's NOT an artist. A director needs to be an artist first.

[bassman]

here's the deal....
James Gunn is an idiot.
Zack Snyder is after a quick buck. He's NOT an artist. A director needs to be an artist first.

In a way, I can agree with you because I think "Dawn04" seems as though it was directed by an eleven-year-old(REGARDLESS OF IT'S TITLE AND SOURCE MATERIAL - original "Dawn") but I'm still going to cut him some slack and hope that his next effort, Frank Miller's "300", is better.

If that turns out to be as crappy as "Dawn04".....then I will agree with you 100%. He can then go back to commercials and I'll be happy.....

[Tullaryx]

Well, I think Snyder did a good enough job making a mindless action-horror with the Dawn '04. As for him sucking, if the footage shown about his next film, 300, is any indication then suck he doesn't. The fact that Frank Miller, who has been on-set throughout a majority of the production, has heaped praise on how the film is turning out tells me Snyder does know what he's doing when behind the camera.

[Adrenochrome]

Well, I think Snyder did a good enough job making a mindless action-horror with the Dawn '04. As for him sucking, if the footage shown about his next film, 300, is any indication then suck he doesn't. The fact that Frank Miller, who has been on-set throughout a majority of the production, has heaped praise on how the film is turning out tells me Snyder does know what he's doing when behind the camera.
all this without seeing the final? hmmmmmmm
after watching the extras on the Yawn'04 DVD one can tell that this guy has no clue.
My guess is that this idiot won some Simon Cowell contest for Directors.

[Tullaryx]

all this without seeing the final? hmmmmmmm
after watching the extras on the Yawn'04 DVD one can tell that this guy has no clue.
My guess is that this idiot won some Simon Cowell contest for Directors.

Well, Miller has seen everything about the film throughout its production. As for the final edit that still needs to be done and the same for the CG work to be done, but I'll take Miller's word over people who seems to have a hate for Snyder for being the person chosen to direct the Dawn remake.

I think if Snyder wasn't attached to the Dawn remake then people's opinion of the guy --- especially hardcore, diehard fans of the original Dawn --- would be more positive about the man. The remake might not have made everyone happy, and it seems it made more than a few get all "Hulk Smash", but to say it was an awful piece of filmmaking is abit unfair. He was given a script and he did a good job in putting it on screen.

The thing I have to say to those who seem to hate Snyder....what have you done that makes you a film expert? Even my hate about Uwe boll is tempered by the fact that if I ever decided to make a film it probably would end up being.

[Svengoolie]

Wanna blame someone blame Rubinstein


Personally, DJ...I think the Rubenstein bashing is just as off-base as the Snyder/Gunn bashing.

First off--he's a businessman. Plain and simple. He didn't get into the movie business for the artistic angle--he got into it to make money. And, in that respect, he did very well for himself--with or without GAR. In fact, when I look at some of the projects that Rubenstein and Laurel were attatched to after GAR left Laurel in 1985, it honestly looks like their relationship was holding Laurel and Rubenstein back...and, looking at GAR's post-Laurel track record, it shows that he needed them more than they needed him.

Second--when Rubenstein met GAR in the mid-70s, GAR was a loser with nothing but a minor drive-in hit, three theatrical bombs in a row, and a half a mil in debt under his belt. Tricky Dick got him out of that hole, and got him a gig doing sports documentaries just so he could pay the rent.

If it wasn't for Rubenstein, we wouldn't have any of the flicks that the fanboys at this site hold so dear--from Martin to Day of the Dead, it was all about Rubenstein finangling the cash. And, considering the fact that only two of those flicks actually broke even at the box office, I think he's a saint for carrying GAR that long. I'd like to hear of a Producer besides Rubenstein that would stick with a director through a long string of financial doldrums as that....

But, the fanboys will always look for something to knock and someone to blame for GAR's failures...so guys like Rubenstein and Snyder will always be on the chopping block. Not that they care...:D

[Adrenochrome]

Personally, DJ...I think the Rubenstein bashing is just as off-base as the Snyder/Gunn bashing.

First off--he's a businessman. Plain and simple. He didn't get into the movie business for the artistic angle--he got into it to make money. And, in that respect, he did very well for himself--with or without GAR. In fact, when I look at some of the projects that Rubenstein and Laurel were attatched to after GAR left Laurel in 1985, it honestly looks like their relationship was holding Laurel and Rubenstein back...and, looking at GAR's post-Laurel track record, it shows that he needed them more than they needed him.

Second--when Rubenstein met GAR in the mid-70s, GAR was a loser with nothing but a minor drive-in hit, three theatrical bombs in a row, and a half a mil in debt under his belt. Tricky Dick got him out of that hole, and got him a gig doing sports documentaries just so he could pay the rent.

If it wasn't for Rubenstein, we wouldn't have any of the flicks that the fanboys at this site hold so dear--from Martin to Day of the Dead, it was all about Rubenstein finangling the cash. And, considering the fact that only two of those flicks actually broke even at the box office, I think he's a saint for carrying GAR that long. I'd like to hear of a Producer besides Rubenstein that would stick with a director through a long string of financial doldrums as that....

But, the fanboys will always look for something to knock and someone to blame for GAR's failures...so guys like Rubenstein and Snyder will always be on the chopping block. Not that they care...:D


burny, go play somewhere else...you never make sense.

[zombievsshark]

Well seeing as how this is a pretty much entirely a GAR tribute site, dedicated specifically to the work of GAR's undead movies, and home of GAR's most rabid of fans ... i don't really get why you might seem surprised that there might be even a hint of animosity towards a guy who basically stole the title name of GAR's most respected work and then proceeded to tell his own independant story, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he completely ignored and/or most likely misunderstood GAR's most basic of guidelines in pursuit of your hard earned dollar bills.

But then you are new :D
you can be a rabid GAR fan and still not hate Zack Snyder.

You might even be able to like him a little.

I do. :shifty:

[Griff]

Blah, blah, blah, fanboys, blah, blah, blah, fanboys, blah, blah, blah...

Oh, knock it off. Who do you think you are fooling? Just because you've got an attitude problem doesn't make you any better than any one of us in here. Wake up.

[Adrenochrome]

Oh, knock it off. Who do you think you are fooling? Just because you've got an attitude problem doesn't make you any better than any one of us in here. Wake up.
it's just dcburny, what else do you expect? This kid is loathed all over the net.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Zack Snyder received stolen goods, a crime in and of itself. He was heard to muse at the time "Well, if I don't take them, someone else will". While true, this did not absolve him of his moral obligations.

Actually, I don't care about all that wank. What upsets me is not that his film fails to be transcendant but that he doesn't even try. Further more, people use this as some sort of defense "Hey listen, I know its not this and that... it doesn't even try to be".

Its like praising someone for doing nothing because the odds of success were too great, anyway. It worked in ANIMAL HOUSE when they got expelled and trashed the Homecoming Parade but it doesn't wash when it comes to doing justice to a legacy. Anyone can strive to under-achieve.

I enjoy the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake. I detest the mindset that made it.

See Griff, that in and of itself is a poor excuse to hate Snyder, or detest even the mindset that made it. Where did he not try. If you enjoyed the Dawn remake then he did his job. He entertained you to the point you enjoyed it... That is part of the filmmaker job. Mission Accomplished.


Personally, DJ...I think the Rubenstein bashing is just as off-base as the Snyder/Gunn bashing.

First off--he's a businessman. Plain and simple. He didn't get into the movie business for the artistic angle--he got into it to make money. And, in that respect, he did very well for himself--with or without GAR. In fact, when I look at some of the projects that Rubenstein and Laurel were attatched to after GAR left Laurel in 1985, it honestly looks like their relationship was holding Laurel and Rubenstein back...and, looking at GAR's post-Laurel track record, it shows that he needed them more than they needed him.

Second--when Rubenstein met GAR in the mid-70s, GAR was a loser with nothing but a minor drive-in hit, three theatrical bombs in a row, and a half a mil in debt under his belt. Tricky Dick got him out of that hole, and got him a gig doing sports documentaries just so he could pay the rent.

If it wasn't for Rubenstein, we wouldn't have any of the flicks that the fanboys at this site hold so dear--from Martin to Day of the Dead, it was all about Rubenstein finangling the cash. And, considering the fact that only two of those flicks actually broke even at the box office, I think he's a saint for carrying GAR that long. I'd like to hear of a Producer besides Rubenstein that would stick with a director through a long string of financial doldrums as that....

But, the fanboys will always look for something to knock and someone to blame for GAR's failures...so guys like Rubenstein and Snyder will always be on the chopping block. Not that they care...:D

This is where you and I differ on some avenues. I don't think Romero made that many bombs. DAWN was an international success, Day did better overseas, and Creepshow one was a success. Even Monkey Shines, did Ok. There seems to be the notion that GAR was or is a huge failure with Rubinstein.... That is not true. Just because most of the films aren't as remembered as his DEAD flicks doesn't automatically make them a flop.


Exactly! James Gunn stole DAWN's title :D

James didn't steal anything either. Look up the definition of theft and trust me... None of your arguments will apply. case closed.

[Tullaryx]

One thing that always bothered me about the hate for Snyder and his work with the remake is that if I substitute Snyder's name with someone else like Argento. People suddenly turn around and say that's fine. Argento helped produce the original so would understand the nuances Romero was trying to get at. People forget that Argento pretty much cut the original to the point it was a different film altogether; though Romero agreed to the cut as part of the deal for having Argento help finance the film.

If Rob Zombie was tapped to do the Dawn remake after the critical-acclaim he received for the Devil's Rejects I think there'd be less outrage in the choice. The same if Aja was asked to do so. I think part of the hate for Snyder comes from the fact that he was an unknown in the horror community and never directed a full-lenght film, much less a horror one.

Remakes of classic films have always been done far longer than anyone here has been alive. I'm a religious fan of Kurosawa's films and I wouldn't want them remaking any of his films, but I also know that most have been remade already and most of those remakes were done pretty well and could stand on their own. I'm not here to say that remaking a classic title should be done all the time, but if someone out there has a plan to do it and pull it off so that the finished product is an entertaining one then who am I to argue with that.

For every person who hated the remake there's an equal number, if not even a majority amount, of people who enjoyed the film to differing levels of degree. It seems like the hate for the remake and for its director and writer stem now from finding a reason to continue hating it instead of actually pointing out concrete evidence that the film didn't entertain those who went to see it. This last part is hard to prove since what one person likes is different from the person sitting next to them.

People seem to forget that for all the hate they give towards the Dawn remake. For the audacity of Snyder and Gunn in trying to redo something the Master GAR had already done, these same people turn around and hate the film that GAR did as a result of the remake's success. Really, if not for the success of the remake GAR would still be sitting in his home waiting for someone to give him a budget to make another zombie movie.

[Svengoolie]

This is where you and I differ on some avenues. I don't think Romero made that many bombs. DAWN was an international success, Day did better overseas, and Creepshow one was a success. Even Monkey Shines, did Ok. There seems to be the notion that GAR was or is a huge failure with Rubinstein.... That is not true. Just because most of the films aren't as remembered as his DEAD flicks doesn't automatically make them a flop.


Let's take them film by film during GAR's relationship with Rubenstein:

1. Martin--failed at the box office and didn't even break even until 1983.

2. Dawn '78--a success that no one's disputing.

3. Knightriders--a box office disaster.

4. Creepshow--a success, but really a lukewarm one. Did well, but not well enough for an effort from "The Masters of Horror".

5. Day of the Dead--another box office disaster. According to Box Office Mojo, it's entire lifetime domestic gross was only 5 mil on a 3.5 mil production budget. So, taking into account the money spent on publicity, and both the theater's and the distributor's cuts...it was still in the hole when it went overseas, and I sincerely doubt that the overseas sales saved the film, or we would've heard it by now the way we did with Land.

And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place...so I'm sure someone, by 1985, wasn't looking at GAR's track record with Rubenstein as a success.

Actually, according to Box Office Mojo, Monkey Shines did only 344 large better than Day on a projected production budget of 7 mil...and you're calling that "ok"? BTW--was Rubenstein even involved in that project? News to me.

Looks to me like GAR's batting average on the Rubenstein Rubbers is one home run, one double, and three strike outs...and he hit a little girl with one of his foul balls!

As for his other flicks...you can't be denying that Jack's Wife, The Crazies, and There's Always Vanilla were bombs as well--are you?:D

[bassman]

Let's take them film by film during GAR's relationship with Rubenstein:

1. Martin--failed at the box office and didn't even break even until 1983.

2. Dawn '78--a success that no one's disputing.

3. Knightriders--a box office disaster.

4. Creepshow--a success, but really a lukewarm one. Did well, but not well enough for an effort from "The Masters of Horror".

5. Day of the Dead--another box office disaster. According to Box Office Mojo, it's entire lifetime domestic gross was only 5 mil on a 3.5 mil production budget. So, taking into account the money spent on publicity, and both the theater's and the distributor's cuts...it was still in the hole when it went overseas, and I sincerely doubt that the overseas sales saved the film, or we would've heard it by now the way we did with Land.

And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place...so I'm sure someone, by 1985, wasn't looking at GAR's track record with Rubenstein as a success.

Actually, according to Box Office Mojo, Monkey Shines did only 344 large better than Day on a projected production budget of 7 mil...and you're calling that "ok"? BTW--was Rubenstein even involved in that project? News to me.

Looks to me like GAR's batting average on the Rubenstein Rubbers is one home run, one double, and three strike outs...and he hit a little girl with one of his foul balls!

As for his other flicks...you can't be denying that Jack's Wife, The Crazies, and There's Always Vanilla were bombs as well--are you?:D

Since when does box office success determine how good a film really is?:rockbrow:

[Adrenochrome]

Since when does box office success determine how good a film really is?:rockbrow:
Never.
But it does seem to sway the thinking of the simple minded.

[Tullaryx]

I've never subscribed to the notion that a film's was dubbed either good ro bad due to how much money it made. If that was the case then all of the films by Kurosawa, Bergman and Welles would be considered horrible. At the same time films by Michael Bay which made tons of cash would be considered good films. I for one think some of the best films this year will barely make double their budget at the boxoffice: The Fountain[/i[]/b], [b][i]Children of Men, Babel, and Pan's Labyrinth to name just a few.

[Svengoolie]

Yeah, but that's not what we're talking about here, Tull.

Read the posts more closely--we're talking about GAR's lack of box office success during his business relationship with Richard Rubenstein...not whether or not those films were of good quality.

[Griff]

See Griff, that in and of itself is a poor excuse to hate Snyder, or detest even the mindset that made it. Where did he not try. If you enjoyed the Dawn remake then he did his job. He entertained you to the point you enjoyed it... That is part of the filmmaker job. Mission Accomplished.

I should have said, "I can enjoy the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake."

I can but I have to make concessions. I have to accept a certain level of goofiness, stupidity and sheer disregard for it to begin working for me. In otherwords, I feel as though I have to lower myself. And I don't appreciate that.

I think that in this case, the filmmaker was obliged to do more than entertain its audience. I think should have challenged its audience. I mean, like it or not, a remake is a challenge to its predecessor. Its like a test of one's abilities against another's. It doesn't have to be 'better' or the same but it should at least be able to stand toe-to-toe with its assumed namesake as its own identity. At the very least it should aspire to.

The best remakes are those that evolve the original story and infuse its re-telling with a certain level of sophistication. In the horror and the sci-fi realm, films such as THE FLY, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE THING always get heralded as successful remakes and I've got a fairly good idea why: they're transcendant. They, as the kids say, take it to the next level.

You'd think it would be easy. You've got a great movie already as your template so how hard can it be to come along and just tweak things here and there, add a little bit of this and that, maybe twist this around and fold over that and elaborate on that thing over there? Very hard, evidently. Look at all the remakes that suck.

I think the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake knows that. I think it knows how hard it is and rather than set itself such a challenge, it chose submission. Its a coward of film. It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead. I mean, you just know she's gonna put out anyway. Miss Purity Bush on the other hand... now there's some risk involved. But also the opportunity to accomplish something. Wouldn't that be great?

Alas, the challenge fell unheeded. I can't imagine anyone considering the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake a true accomplishment. Sure, you can get your rocks off while watching it but you roll over feeling slightly guilty afterwards. Its fast food movie making and we all know what that means.

And while I enjoy fast food, I rarely applaud it - espcially when it isn't what I ordered.

[darth los]

[QUOTE=Griff]
It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead.

what's wrong with fat chicks? As a matter of fact i think i'll go get me one right now.:elol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

And, let's not forget that it was GAR's lack of blockbuster success that didn't get him the desired budget for Day in the first place.

Uhhh No, his refusal to bring the film in at an R was what got his budget reduced. They would have given him the full $7 million if he toned it down. Kudo's to him for sticking to his guns. This is common knowledge and mentioned in various DVD interviews.



It deliberately set its sights low to reduce the possibility of failure. Instead of summoning up the courage to ask out the prom queen, it took home the fat chick instead.


what's wrong with fat chicks? As a matter of fact i think i'll go get me one right now.:elol:


Fat Chicks need love too right? :D :lol: :moon:

Nailing the prom queen might be the fun thing to do... but sometimes the fat chick can give you as good a ride if not better than the prom queen... and the 1st ten minutes of DAWN 2004 was one hell of a ride... Sometimes 10 minutes is all you need. :lol:

[axlish]

Yeah...except you forgot to add "I wish I'd held on to the rights" to that.:D

Remake rage often clouds the view of the hardcore fans to the point of ignoring the fact that Romero is still a silent partner in all(?) the Laurel films. Mr. Romero got a fat payday when the licensing for the remake was sold. I bet this new NECA license is paying nicely as well.


I think part of the hate for Snyder comes from the fact that he was an unknown in the horror community and never directed a full-lenght film, much less a horror one.

I think it all started with James Gunn. After that you could have named anyone. The hatred had already reached the boiling point by the time Snyder was hired.

[Svengoolie]

Uhhh No, his refusal to bring the film in at an R was what got his budget reduced. They would have given him the full $7 million if he toned it down. Kudo's to him for sticking to his guns. This is common knowledge and mentioned in various DVD interviews.


Yes and no.

Due to Knightriders' failure at the box office and Creepshow's moderate performance, UFD was reluctant to put up any substantial sum of money for a Laurel project that would be gauranteed to be released without a rating. GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp Squad were given a choice--release the film with an R rating and he'd get the bigger amount, or release it without a rating and get the smaller.

If you think his immediate post-Dawn track record at the box office wasn't the motivation behind UFD's decision to play them like that, you're crazy.

[bassman]

Yes and no.

Due to Knightriders' failure at the box office and Creepshow's moderate performance, UFD was reluctant to put up any substantial sum of money for a Laurel project that would be gauranteed to be released without a rating. GAR and the Pittsburgh Pimp Squad were given a choice--release the film with an R rating and he'd get the bigger amount, or release it without a rating and get the smaller.

If you think his immediate post-Dawn track record at the box office wasn't the motivation behind UFD's decision to play them like that, you're crazy.

Actually....he was right and he's not crazy.

Romero says in multiple interviews that they would only put up the full amount of money if he delivered an R rating so that it could premiere on more screens(which equals more money). It had nothing to do with his prior films...

And Romero, being the badass that he is, decided he wouldn't go down like that. And delivered a hell of a good zombie flick in the process:cool: ....

[axlish]

Romero says in multiple interviews that they would only put up the full amount of money if he delivered an R rating so that it could premiere on more screens(which equals more money). It had nothing to do with his prior films...

And Romero, being the badass that he is, decided he wouldn't go down like that. And delivered a hell of a good zombie flick in the process:cool: ....

Right but if you consider what a major success Dawn was, the fact that they were only putting a maximum of 7 million on the table shows that they had little faith in the product. The failure of Knightriders and the lukewarm financial success of Creepshow played a part for sure.

[bassman]

Right but if you consider what a major success Dawn was, the fact that they were only putting a maximum of 7 million on the table shows that they had little faith in the product. The failure of Knightriders and the lukewarm financial success of Creepshow played a part for sure.

Why is that little faith? Maybe that's the amount of money that was requested to make the film. I mean....what was the budget for "Dawn"? I don't know, but I'm thinking it probably wasn't seven million.

Maybe seven was the amount thought to be needed to make the script that Romero had written.....

[Svengoolie]

Thank you, axlish.

As usual, you're an island of reality in an ocean of diarrhea.
:D

[axlish]

Why is that little faith? Maybe that's the amount of money that was requested to make the film. I mean....what was the budget for "Dawn"? I don't know, but I'm thinking it probably wasn't seven million.

Maybe seven was the amount thought to be needed to make the script that Romero had written.....

The budget for Dawn was $625,000, half of which was raised by Dario Argento. The inflated budget that was reported (until recently) was 1.5 Million. Dawn was released unrated, and pulled in 55 million roughly. Why would they be afraid of the rating? Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script. I'm not sure. In retrospect, I think Romero should have bagged the project, directed Pet Cemetery (which was a success) and the gone after the financing for his original concept.

[Svengoolie]

The budget for Dawn was $625,000, half of which was raised by Dario Argento. The inflated budget that was reported (until recently) was 1.5 Million. Dawn was released unrated, and pulled in 55 million roughly. Why would they be afraid of the rating? Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script. I'm not sure. In retrospect, I think Romero should have bagged the project, directed Pet Cemetery (which was a success) and the gone after the financing for his original concept.

A couple of things to consider:

1. The 55 million made by Dawn is a figure that represents world-wide box office gross spread out over a period of years, and the various distributors' acutal earnings were substantially less.

2. GAR couldn't have just bagged the project, even if he wanted to--he was under a three-picture contract with UFD and was obliged to deliver Day by 1985.

In essence, it breaks down like this:

GAR has a hit with Dawn, and signs a three-picture deal with UFD in which he's supposed to deliver Day by 1985. He follows up Dawn with a box office disaster, and another flick that does okay at the box office. Not great, not good...but okay--lukewarm, some might say.

Then, when it comes time to put up or shut up with Day, he delivers a script that will obviously have to be distributed as an unrated feature with a projected budget of around 7 million clams. With Day as an unrated feature, that means that a major studio won't get on board to help distribute it, the way Warner Brothers did with Creepshow...and that means a very limited number of venues in a limited number of markets.

Thus, UFD gave them the ultimatum--tone down the gore so the film could get an R-rating and he'd get the 7 mil, or play it with the gore and get the lower budget.

Now, if both Knightriders and Creepshow had been as successful as Dawn, would UFD have been on board with the gore?

We may never know.

[axlish]

1. The 55 million made by Dawn is a figure that represents world-wide box office gross spread out over a period of years, and the various distributors' acutal earnings were substantially less.

Correct, but this figure was probably accurate as of 1983-84 when the negotiating took place. Surely Dawn has grossed much more since then.


2. GAR couldn't have just bagged the project, even if he wanted to--he was under a three-picture contract with UFD and was obliged to deliver Day by 1985.

True. This deal is as much to blame as anything regarding the flop that is Day of the Dead. In a way, it hurt Land as well. I can't blame Laurel for taking the deal though, it makes sense financially.

[Svengoolie]

I can't blame Laurel for taking the deal though, it makes sense financially.


Especially when you see how it all came out in the end.:eek:

Oh, and just one more thing....


Perhaps they weren't that thrilled with the script.

According to GAR, UFD loved the original script.