Defending Dawn O4

[Trin]

Great revision Deej. I like it.

I agree that zombie baby must go. Your changes to the girl are fantastic. I also liked the goodbye scene with her dad, and a post trauma suicidal subplot works for her. Lose the dog, definitely.

I'm not sure on the Andy rescue gone south angle. I like the idea that there is an Andy rescue attempt. That's a good way to develop the character's reasoning ability, and the whole dog thing was NOT it.

I think one major revision that would've greatly served the movie was to focus on the mall's diminishing supplies as a motivation to leave. The whole scene where they devote 2 minutes to haphazard discussion of leaving was forced and implausible. They come close to clowning themselves by having CJ reiterate the plan, making it sound stupid, yet he then agrees.

The events of the movie should've occurred on the character's terms more. Too much happened spur of the moment out of the character's control. For example, the girl/dog rescue attempt through the sewers was highly implausible. No one would've done that. A better use of the same basic situation would've been a very highly thought out Andy rescue attempt, handled on their own terms.

The Steve character was a missed opportunity. He was cast just to be the selfish asshole. But there is a positive aspect to being pushy and selfish - that kind of person tends to be self-preserving. Given how stupid some of their decisions were he could've been used to pound some sense into the others.

That's a real fun read Deej!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Great revision Deej. I like it.

I agree that zombie baby must go. Your changes to the girl are fantastic. I also liked the goodbye scene with her dad, and a post trauma suicidal subplot works for her. Lose the dog, definitely.

I'm not sure on the Andy rescue gone south angle. I like the idea that there is an Andy rescue attempt. That's a good way to develop the character's reasoning ability, and the whole dog thing was NOT it.

I think one major revision that would've greatly served the movie was to focus on the mall's diminishing supplies as a motivation to leave. The whole scene where they devote 2 minutes to haphazard discussion of leaving was forced and implausible. They come close to clowning themselves by having CJ reiterate the plan, making it sound stupid, yet he then agrees.

The events of the movie should've occurred on the character's terms more. Too much happened spur of the moment out of the character's control. For example, the girl/dog rescue attempt through the sewers was highly implausible. No one would've done that. A better use of the same basic situation would've been a very highly thought out Andy rescue attempt, handled on their own terms.

The Steve character was a missed opportunity. He was cast just to be the selfish asshole. But there is a positive aspect to being pushy and selfish - that kind of person tends to be self-preserving. Given how stupid some of their decisions were he could've been used to pound some sense into the others.

That's a real fun read Deej!!


Thanks...

I mean here is the thing. the remake we have is what we have... it isn't bad but it isn't great. It was a little more light hearted than i would have done it, but I am not the producer or the director.

My version would have been as dark as the original... the entire collapse of everything. i like your idea about the food supply, showing shots of them noticing they have less and less each day.

I just feel that it could have had so much more potential... The one screenplay by Michael Tolkein was friggin awesome... it had a sequence of a fighter jet carpet bombing a major city that was totally over run, but when the studio slashed the budget by 50% they had to drop it... Thank House of the Dead for that.. Fuckers.

Mike TOlkeins screenplay didnt have near the amount of humor the Scott Frank screenplay did, but they both did keep a lot of the same story elements. Why James Gunn gets full credit still bothers me, because his screenplay is nothing like what the finished movie is like at all.

Find the Scott Frank Screenplay and the James Gunn Screenplay compare them and watch the movie you will see what I mean. The fucking WGA rules is what prevented Scott and Michael form getting any credit.

Not trying to take away anything from James, he had some cool ideas they kept and others that were tossed out because again the budget was slashed, but his screenplay had a lot of dumb fucking characters doing even dumber things that lindy booth did going after that fucking dog.

Again, I think Zack did a good job with what he had, and us sitting here re-writing the movie isn't going to change it, but from a fans perspective and as a filmmaker the stuff I suggested would have been my version of Dawn of the Dead 2004.

[Trin]

Dumb characters doing dumb things. I mean isn't that the hallmark of the curent trend in zombies? Or post-apocalyptic in general? With a dash of over-actiony?

I look at some other genres and I just have to wonder where the writing went from horror. Seriously, take Lisbeth from "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and do a character and plot study. It shames everything post-apocalpyptic of the past 5 years.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Dumb characters doing dumb things. I mean isn't that the hallmark of the curent trend in zombies? Or post-apocalyptic in general? With a dash of over-actiony?

I look at some other genres and I just have to wonder where the writing went from horror. Seriously, take Lisbeth from "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and do a character and plot study. It shames everything post-apocalpyptic of the past 5 years.

if anything one of the things that fascinates me about Romero and his Dead films (orig trilogy) is that he can write some cool ass characters. His character development is nowhere near as deep as some other writers, but he has a knack for just coming up with and making iconic characters

Ben - Night
Peter - Dawn
Roger - Dawn
John - Day
McDermott - Day
Rhodes - Day
Steele - Day
Charlie - Land
The film professor - Diary
Patrick O'flynn - Survival
Nicotine Crockett - Survival

He comes up with great characters... just the stories in the newer films are weak as hell. This is why i still have faith he can do another DAWN if he would just get back to the real basics and not half ass it.

[Trin]

if anything one of the things that fascinates me about Romero and his Dead films (orig trilogy) is that he can write some cool ass characters. His character development is nowhere near as deep as some other writers, but he has a knack for just coming up with and making iconic characters

Ben - Night
Peter - Dawn
Roger - Dawn
John - Day
McDermott - Day
Rhodes - Day
Steele - Day
Charlie - Land
The film professor - Diary
Patrick O'flynn - Survival
Nicotine Crockett - Survival

He comes up with great characters... just the stories in the newer films are weak as hell. This is why i still have faith he can do another DAWN if he would just get back to the real basics and not half ass it.
Awm, man, no Riley? I know the guy has some flaws, and you are anti-Land, but the professor and nicotine are in the list and no Riley? That just makes me sad...

I'm really not going to say they are great characters. Don't get me wrong, they are good characters and none of them would keep his movies from greatness. But they don't rise above the general quality of characters coming out in movies in general.

And for every good character he has a wealth of really bad characters. For every Charlie there is a Pillsbury, Motown ("call me motown"), Foxy, Manolete, two dweebs shooting in the dark while on guard, etc.

Otherwise I agree. He's got to get back to basics and write a good story.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Awm, man, no Riley? I know the guy has some flaws, and you are anti-Land, but the professor and nicotine are in the list and no Riley? That just makes me sad...

I'm really not going to say they are great characters. Don't get me wrong, they are good characters and none of them would keep his movies from greatness. But they don't rise above the general quality of characters coming out in movies in general.

And for every good character he has a wealth of really bad characters. For every Charlie there is a Pillsbury, Motown ("call me motown"), Foxy, Manolete, two dweebs shooting in the dark while on guard, etc.

Otherwise I agree. He's got to get back to basics and write a good story.

Just not a fan of Riley... don't know why... yes I do, that dumb ass statement at the end of LAND... "There just looking for a place to go... Just like us"

These things just ate up a huge bunch of people from fiddlers green and you're going to let the last group walk into the sunset (sunrise in this case) Bullshit... Kill'em all.

That scene alone kept Riley off the list.

[bassman]

Just not a fan of Riley... don't know why... yes I do, that dumb ass statement at the end of LAND... "There just looking for a place to go... Just like us"

These things just ate up a huge bunch of people from fiddlers green and you're going to let the last group walk into the sunset (sunrise in this case) Bullshit... Kill'em all.

That scene alone kept Riley off the list.

Just curious how you felt about Barbara's line in Night90 of "We're them and they're us"?

I personally love the "place to go" line and the moment of "understanding" between BD and Riley. I liked Riley, too. Cool character.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Just curious how you felt about Barbara's line in Night90 of "We're them and they're us"?

I personally love the "place to go" line and the moment of "understanding" between BD and Riley. I liked Riley, too. Cool character.

Not a very good line, in fact it was a weakly written version of the Dr. Millard Rouche (sp?) speech in Dawn and a comment Fran and Steve made about why the zombies are at the mall.

That is just my opinion of it.

Riley is an OK character... my thing is Land was so bad that the only real acting came from Robert Joy who played Charlie. Hence why he made the list.

Other people who made the list got it from my connection with the character in the context of the movie, or how well they performed the dialog written for them in the film.

I don't know how I feel about Night 90 in general. I like it, Tony Todd was a great Ben, but the movie had some other issues.

I still firmly believe Romero and Savini shot themselves in the foot by letting Barbara say the line "They're so slow... we could walk right by them." I think that line was just wrong, although very accurate to describe them, but for me it ceased making the shambling zombies scary anymore.

Its funny, Night 68 is such an effective film because the radio Dj giving the news reports makes the situation seem and sound very dire, this was also done to great effect in Dawn with the opening TV station program and other news reports given by the different media personalities.

Day gets the effectiveness of the dire situation by showing how fucked up Florida was. Being on the streets overrun with the walking dead helped set the tone for that film, then all the in-fighting between the two groups just makes it better.

I think LAND's biggest problem is not having anything like that. The opening to Land shows a small town with hardly any zombies in it, then suddenly after they raid the town.. BD assembles a small army to go invade Fiddler's Green... but suddenly his Army is in the thousands when they emerge from the River... If George was trying to show a heavy zombie population he should have used a better opening that what he used... it felt weak and didn't make me feel the dead had taken over the world... maybe Pittsburgh... maybe, but not he world.

[bassman]

I think there weren't that many because it was just a small town outside of the city. As they traveled the miles(?) it took to get to Fiddler's Green, they picked up other followers on the way.

[darth los]

Awm, man, no Riley? I know the guy has some flaws, and you are anti-Land, but the professor and nicotine are in the list and no Riley? That just makes me sad...

I'm really not going to say they are great characters. Don't get me wrong, they are good characters and none of them would keep his movies from greatness. But they don't rise above the general quality of characters coming out in movies in general.

And for every good character he has a wealth of really bad characters. For every Charlie there is a Pillsbury, Motown ("call me motown"), Foxy, Manolete, two dweebs shooting in the dark while on guard, etc.

Otherwise I agree. He's got to get back to basics and write a good story.

Dude, pillsbury has the best line in the film, if not the funniest.

:cool:

[Trin]

Just not a fan of Riley... don't know why... yes I do, that dumb ass statement at the end of LAND... "There just looking for a place to go... Just like us"
I said he had flaws!! :p

Yeah, I hate that whole zombie/human connection angle, sorry bass.


Riley is an OK character... my thing is Land was so bad that the only real acting came from Robert Joy who played Charlie. Hence why he made the list.
I actually think Cholo is one of the standout characters in Land. Yeah, okay, the whole ransom for money angle I don't buy. But I blame that on plot, not character. His basic motivation was good, and he was a complex and believable character. He wasn't just a single dimension bad guy.


I think LAND's biggest problem is not having anything like that. The opening to Land shows a small town with hardly any zombies in it, then suddenly after they raid the town.. BD assembles a small army to go invade Fiddler's Green... but suddenly his Army is in the thousands when they emerge from the River... If George was trying to show a heavy zombie population he should have used a better opening that what he used... it felt weak and didn't make me feel the dead had taken over the world... maybe Pittsburgh... maybe, but not he world.
I think that's a good point about Land. I agree with bass that the Uniontown angle doesn't really support more zombies, and they could've picked them up on the way. Where I see the problem is in creating the setting for the Green they attempted to portray a claustrophobic enclosed environment but then showed miles of empty streets. They really missed the boat by portraying the Green as having no zombies outside.



Dude, pillsbury has the best line in the film, if not the funniest.NOT... THE... POINT!!!! :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I think there weren't that many because it was just a small town outside of the city. As they traveled the miles(?) it took to get to Fiddler's Green, they picked up other followers on the way.

I could just see big daddy grunting his recruitment speech... betchya it was filmed too... You can't look at Land and all of its absurdity and not think that it wasn't, especially with the dumb as hell plot.

[BillyRay]

I could just see big daddy grunting his recruitment speech... betchya it was filmed too... You can't look at Land and all of its absurdity and not think that it wasn't, especially with the dumb as hell plot.

Big Daddy, standing in front of a giant American flag a la Patton:

"RRrrrrraaaAAAAAARRr!!! Rrahgrrr! Raaaaaaghrrr!!! YAAAAAAAArrrrgggh!"

(etc)

For twenty minutes...

[darth los]

What's dad is that Deej is probably right. GAr probably filmed it and thought it was essential to the film.

Don't worry though he'll rehash the idea in 20 years like all the stuff he recycled from the original day script a forcefully jammed into land.

Imo, that's big reason the film was dumb and incoherent. 20 year grudges will do that ya know. :D

:cool:

[Wrong Number]

I just got an 50" HD TV and Blu-ray player so of course the first film I bought was the original Dawn of the Dead. I watched the documentary on it and it reminded me of yet another reason I so disliked Dawn '04....a remake of Dawn of the Dead is not an entirely awful idea. As much as I love the film it is getting very dated. The giant walkie talkies, b&w arcade games, the fashion, etc. stick out like a sore thumb especially to a younger viewer. An updated remake that actually is closely based on the original movie could be great. Instead we got Dopes of the Dead.

WN

[Mike70]

four years on and this thread refuses to die. that must be some kind of record.

[darth los]

All the flaws in dawn 04' and it's still a better film than land or more enjoyable to watch anyways.

Don't buy it? Just get a few buds together and ask them which one they'd rather watch or if they have seen them which one is better.

:cool:

[BillyRay]

four years on and this thread refuses to die. that must be some kind of record.

The problem isn't that this thread refuses to die,

The problem is that it refuses to die, and it's running...

:nana:

[darth los]

The problem isn't that this thread refuses to die,

The problem is that it refuses to die, and it's running...

:nana:

That reminds me of the line from diary:

"The problem is not that people are waking up dead, it's that dead people are waking up."

:cool:

[krisvds]

All the flaws in dawn 04' and it's still a better film than land or more enjoyable to watch anyways.

Don't buy it? Just get a few buds together and ask them which one they'd rather watch or if they have seen them which one is better.

:cool:

My friends hate Dawn remake. I can enjoy it for what it is: a really DUMB action flick.

[darth los]

My friends hate Dawn remake.

If you say so.

It's amazing how only people who hate the the flick know others who hate it as well. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[krisvds]

If you say so.

It's amazing how only people who hate the the flick know others who hate it as well. :rolleyes:

:cool:

Hey? I don't hate it. Now and then I can enjoy a no-brainer action flick. Just the other weekend me and some friends got really drunk and watched Rambo 4. Almost died laughing.

[Gryphon]

I have decided, officially, in my own head, that neither Dawn 08 or Land of the Dead were all bad... or all good!:stunned:
But I have loved reading all the posts in this extremely old and long thread... :stunned:

Heh, and I love bringing it into year 5....:elol::sneaky:

[Doc]

I like the Dawn remake, but I'm not blind to what it is. It's just another fun film in a long line of zombie shoot em up movies.

The original is far more than just a zombie or even horror flick. The comments it made defiantly elevate beyond the typical horror flick.

[blind2d]

Dawn '08? What's that?

'04 has its moment, but yeah... No comparison, to me.

[clanglee]

Nope nope nope. . . .I won't allow this!! This thread cannot be allowed to continue!!

[Gryphon]

Nope nope nope. . . .I won't allow this!! This thread cannot be allowed to continue!!

And so you bump it :D

[blind2d]

I know, right? Clang's funny. :)

[Ragnarr]

I'm amazed at the number of posts I see giving Dawn04 the thumbs down. I'm a fan of Romero's first three z-flicks AND I like what Snyder did with Dawn04. It's like the nay sayers are fans of the classic Star Trek series, but can't stand Star Trek Next Generation. I don't see one movie taking anything away from the other movies, but maybe I'm missing the point somehow. You would have to admit that everything Romero put out after Snyder's film was complete and absolute zombie crap. For me, zombies that run are much more of a threat than zombies who just sort of stumble along playing a tuba. Look how easily the characters in the original Dawn movie b-slapped zombies out of their way as they ran about the mall. Replace those zombies with Snyder's, and it would have been the zombie's lunchtime even before the characters were able to reach their first store.

I understand that Romero liked to make some sort of (yawwn) social commentary with his z-flicks, but that's not what I look for in movies. I look to be entertained.

[blind2d]

But Ragnarok, there's a difference between being "entertained" by an action flick (because that's what '04 of the Dawn was) and being scared by a horror flick (the original Dawn, Land, etc.). Znyders aren't "us" anymore. They're monsters with a vaguely human shape. Like most werewolves. I'd gladly watch Return of the Living Dead over Dawn remake any day. At least THAT had some fucking humor!
And yeah, zombie lunch? More like, movie over in ten minutes. I mean, Snydely had to pull some wonder strings to orchestrate the length he achieved with that film, consequently defying the laws of spacetime.
I like fun, but I also like to think.
Land is better than Dawn '04. Just watched both, so I think I can make that claim.

[Trin]

For me, zombies that run are much more of a threat than zombies who just sort of stumble along playing a tuba. Look how easily the characters in the original Dawn movie b-slapped zombies out of their way as they ran about the mall. Replace those zombies with Snyder's, and it would have been the zombie's lunchtime even before the characters were able to reach their first store.

Would the Exorcist have been been better if the little girl had leapt from the bed with razor sharp claws, given a raptor howl, and ripped the throat out of the priests before going on on a city-wide killing rampage? It would clearly be much more of a threat, more intense, and add considerable action to an otherwise somber and slow movie. But would it be better?

I think running zombies take away as much as they add. Yes, they are more intense and a greater threat. But you lose the emotional connection to them. The subtle horror of them. You also lose a ton of room to write plot centered around character actions. Running zombies don't give the characters time to think or plan. They don't open avenues for survival since they are so unstoppable in the open. Runners are a very diluted action movie monster... they are intractable to the common survivor. They no longer pose questions about whether they should be destroyed or whether they are really no longer your loved ones. Running zombies have their place, and Dawn '04 used them as well as any, but they don't replace the claustrophic horror of shamblers.

[krisvds]

Here we go again.

In comparison to Dawn04 Land is Citizen Kane... WITH Asia Argento in net stockings, in a cage, fighting two zombies. Come on guys, how cool is that?

[Rancid Carcass]

zombies who just sort of stumble along playing a tuba.

Though to be fair, the band-stand zombies in Land were trying to play The Gonk - that is some serious win! Say what you like about the rest of the film, but Dawn04 has no answer to that. :D

[Gryphon]

Though to be fair, the band-stand zombies in Land were trying to play The Gonk - that is some serious win! Say what you like about the rest of the film, but Dawn04 has no answer to that. :D

Love the Gonk ;)

[JDFP]

Running zombies aren't scary, they're just stupid. There's no tension or fear or set up for suspense with running zombies. Imagine the original NOTLD with running zombies:

"They're coming to ge..." as Johnny's abruptly cut off when a zombie rips his throat out. Cue Barbara running towards the car with dramatic music when she's torn apart when the zombie catches her. The End.

Yeah, I don't think the original film would have been a better film this way. Sure, there would be some "action" to it but action does not make good horror. Traditional zombies don't make for great horror necessarily either as "Land" and "Survival" proved. It's all about the story and the characters being believable and interesting. Give me a good story, not blaring post-punk rock and blowing stuff up and CGI galore. Just tell me a good story.

I despise running zombies and think they're only good for a cheap thrill. I'll never accept them as being "real" zombies. With all this said, I'd still consider "Dawn '04" to be a better film than "Land" even though I wouldn't classify "Dawn '04" to be a horror film really. It has a better story.

And for that matter, I'll take zombie baby over Big Daddy any day of the week. What Romero did to Big Daddy in "Land" as becoming "super-intelligent" zombies is no better than creating running zombies in destroying Traditional zombies in my opinion. I hate both.

j.p.

[Trin]

I agree with all your thoughts on running zombies, jp.

I wonder... how do you see the Infected in 28 Days/Weeks Later? Are they a different creature and thus subject to a different set of criteria for love/hate? Or are they just a running zombie in a thin disguise, with all the same deficits? In practical terms they are very similar.


I'll take zombie baby over Big Daddy any day of the week.
What an interestingly horrible choice. I hate zombie baby. I only dislike Big Daddy. But zombie baby is only a small piece of the movie and not crucial to any plot points, so it's reasonably easy to ignore. BD is pretty much in your face the whole movie and is fundamental not only to the plot progression but to the evolution of the zombies. You just can't ignore it in any capacity.

I would choose zombie baby over Big Daddy too. *waits for Andy*

[Andy]

I would choose zombie baby over Big Daddy too. *waits for Andy*

We had our fun in the other topic, im gonna let the dawn haters have their fun here :p

The defense of dawn'04 obviously overwhelmed them and made the find another topic to bitch in :elol:

[blind2d]

I just watched Land! So... yeah, they're both good movies.
I prefer the one with skateboarding, of course.
Hey, does this mean skateboarding isn't hip and edgy anymore, since it was in Romero's movie, but not Snyder's?

[AcesandEights]

they're both good movies.

I agree, more or less. I actually enjoy Dawn '04 more than Land, but a lot of the internal consistency complaints about Land are bogus, if you ask me.


I prefer the one with skateboarding, of course.
Even though they didn't do his character justice? Guess they had to fill their victim quota :shifty:

[glazedoverdead]

Ok guys, seriously… We could go back and forth with this a million times, a million different ways. Some of us like the slow zombies and others enjoy the fast running, crazed, animalistic zombies. I happen to like them both and I don't have any issues with being able to fully enjoy both scenarios to the fullest!

I don't have any hang ups about which zombie would be more realistic other than to say that obviously, if we're talking about the undead and not some rage infected or rabies infected living monsters like in 28 days Later, the true undead would most likely be really slow and lumbering like the GAR types.

I believe that if you look at the physics of the whole thing, the deteriorating flesh and muscle and stiffened joints would cause them to be very slow and probably weak. Plus the reanimated brain is supposedly dumb since it’s only active in the smallest area of the brain to give them basic movement and instincts. (This is all assuming you could believe the dead could actually come back to life in the first place, which most people can't quite talk themselves into believing anyway). Having said that, I love to bounce from one zombie movie to the next, looking at each scenario from a different standpoint and enjoying them for what they are.

GAR films are fun and they are great stories because yes, you feel sad for the loved ones who have come back as the undead and really for all of the zombies because they are so pathetic and you feel awful that you have to kill them to keep them from eating you etc, and all the social and moral issues that GAR brings up are all great stories for us to chew on... However, I also like to watch fast zombie movies like Dawn '04 for a completely different feel of the whole Zed apocalypse scenario.

I mean seriously, it is totally scary on a whole other level to know that when you step out the door and are spotted by the crazed zeds, they are going to rush you and come from every angle, all at once to try and rip you to pieces. I mean, you’d have to think super fast and be light on your feet to survive in a world like that. So, yeah, it's freakin scary to think of the zombie apoc in those terms and really allow yourself to become saturated into that scenario and think of how you'd react and how you'd survive.

And again, it's also really a scary concept in the GAR zombie scenario too, that although slow and dumb, those zombies are "coming to get you Barbara!" and they are creeping around outside of your farmhouse in the shadows.

Also, on the movie making styles themselves? Let's just say this... if you like the low budget, bad acting, terrible special effects, movies for what they are because you enjoy the feel of it, that's great...I do too for many reasons but, if you want to talk about realism? Please... for entertainment purposes the better special effects and realism and wayyyyy better acting goes to Dawn '04. Don't get me wrong people, I'm a huge GAR fan and I too love those films and they put me in a cool, funky zed mood, but they don't hold a candle to the explosive and awesome power that Snyder's film has… Just sayin.

[krisvds]

Ok guys, seriously… We could go back and forth with this a million times, a million different ways. Some of us like the slow zombies and others enjoy the fast running, crazed, animalistic zombies. I happen to like them both and I don't have any issues with being able to fully enjoy both scenarios to the fullest!

I don't have any hang ups about which zombie would be more realistic other than to say that obviously, if we're talking about the undead and not some rage infected or rabies infected living monsters like in 28 days Later, the true undead would most likely be really slow and lumbering like the GAR types.

I believe that if you look at the physics of the whole thing, the deteriorating flesh and muscle and stiffened joints would cause them to be very slow and probably weak. Plus the reanimated brain is supposedly dumb since it’s only active in the smallest area of the brain to give them basic movement and instincts. (This is all assuming you could believe the dead could actually come back to life in the first place, which most people can't quite talk themselves into believing anyway). Having said that, I love to bounce from one zombie movie to the next, looking at each scenario from a different standpoint and enjoying them for what they are.

GAR films are fun and they are great stories because yes, you feel sad for the loved ones who have come back as the undead and really for all of the zombies because they are so pathetic and you feel awful that you have to kill them to keep them from eating you etc, and all the social and moral issues that GAR brings up are all great stories for us to chew on... However, I also like to watch fast zombie movies like Dawn '04 for a completely different feel of the whole Zed apocalypse scenario.

I mean seriously, it is totally scary on a whole other level to know that when you step out the door and are spotted by the crazed zeds, they are going to rush you and come from every angle, all at once to try and rip you to pieces. I mean, you’d have to think super fast and be light on your feet to survive in a world like that. So, yeah, it's freakin scary to think of the zombie apoc in those terms and really allow yourself to become saturated into that scenario and think of how you'd react and how you'd survive.

And again, it's also really a scary concept in the GAR zombie scenario too, that although slow and dumb, those zombies are "coming to get you Barbara!" and they are creeping around outside of your farmhouse in the shadows.

Also, on the movie making styles themselves? Let's just say this... if you like the low budget, bad acting, terrible special effects, movies for what they are because you enjoy the feel of it, that's great...I do too for many reasons but, if you want to talk about realism? Please... for entertainment purposes the better special effects and realism and wayyyyy better acting goes to Dawn '04. Don't get me wrong people, I'm a huge GAR fan and I too love those films and they put me in a cool, funky zed mood, but they don't hold a candle to the explosive and awesome power that Snyder's film has… Just sayin.

Oh. My. God.
That AND awesome power in the same sentence as Snyder's film. That hack hasn't made a single film in his career!

[blind2d]

Kris is right!
Snyder just remakes films or uses someone else's material for his films!
I wonder if he has an original thought in his head.
Anyway, yeah, Mouse could've had more of a character, but he's still cool!
Gets a pet rat before he's eaten, etc.

[Andy]

Oh. My. God.
That AND awesome power in the same sentence as Snyder's film. That hack hasn't made a single film in his career!

It makes me laugh that glazedoverdead makes a really good post, with interesting points and without attacking anyone or either movie, and this is your comeback.

And at the same time you say the defenders of dawn'04 are the stupid ones :confused:

[krisvds]

It makes me laugh that glazedoverdead makes a really good post, with interesting points and without attacking anyone or either movie, and this is your comeback.

And at the same time you say the defenders of dawn'04 are the stupid ones :confused:

Nope. Never said that.
And most of that post was indeed quite well put. Just those final few sentences...
BTW I can enjoy parts of Dawn04, like I said countless tomes before; as a dumb but fun action flick; nothing more.

[Andy]

Oh well sorry, someone said that and i thought it was you lol

Thats exactly what dawn'04 is, thats what i was trying to say in the other topic, im not a snyder fan, i hate most of his movies like i hate alot of modern movies, but dawn'04 is a good old fashioned dumb, have a beer and mong out action movie, it has its stupid parts of course it does, but cut it abit of slack and its entertaining enough.

Land on the other hand which is what we were comparing it to, is not enjoyable to me and to several others on here, its a pretentious contradictary peice of trash, romero has lost sight of what people want to see and got tied up in stupid effects, a lame story and overbearing in your face social commentry that makes no sense in the context of the movie hes making. and thats me cutting it slack :lol:

[JDFP]

BTW I can enjoy parts of Dawn04, like I said countless tomes before; as a dumb but fun action flick; nothing more.

What's interesting is that I enjoy "Dawn '04" as an action flick with some 'zombies' but I don't think anyone would classify it as a "Great" film by a long shot even if enjoyable, but the sad matter of the fact is that it's far better with all its faults than Romero's last three films (except maybe "Diary" in my opinion when I rather enjoyed)!

j.p.

[Trin]

I think everyone is basically making good and valid points. Dawn '04 is a fun zombie action movie if you take it for what it is. Whether you accept the idea of running zombies or not Dawn '04 is a good execution of them. If you don't try to judge it in terms of atmospheric horror, intricate plot, or social commentary it'll do okay. It's an action flick with zombies. Grab some popcorn. Fast forward through the zombie baby scene. Watch the pretty explosions. In those terms it's a nice way to spend 90 minutes.

Thinking through the movie, I'd say if anything was original it was the use of the dog as a transport mechanism. I know I criticize dog-girl-rescue as being the ultimate in stupid... but the premise of using the dog ... I think I'm pretty okay with that. I wish they'd have thought through the dog retrieval on Andy's side a bit better. But I might've gone with that plan in their situation.

[AcesandEights]

Snyder just remakes films or uses someone else's material for his films!
I wonder if he has an original thought in his head.

He is working on one right now, it's currently in pre-production.

[bassman]

He is working on one right now, it's currently in pre-production.

He's filming Superman right now, isn't he? Although Sucker Punch was his script, I believe.

[AcesandEights]

He's filming Superman right now, isn't he? Although Sucker Punch was his script, I believe.

:lol: Sorry, I was not referring to actual projects, rather the concept of original thought from Snyder. Humor failure on my part, I'm afraid.

[bassman]

:lol:

My mistake.:o

[Ragnarr]

I realize that many of you in these forums do not like Dawn04 for many reasons or just for Snyder in particular. But you'd have to agree the opening scenes of Dawn04 were pretty suspenseful, no? When the blonde chick climbs out the bathroom window and sees her neighborhood in chaos, that wild ride from her house to the main highway, and the aerial shot of the speeding dude who (ahem) missed his turn and pulls into the gas station (boom); I was hooked into the movie at that point. I'm wondering if some of you give the movie your thumbs down solely out of loyalty to Romero more than any perceived problem with Snyder. The way my brain's wired, I always tend to look at what's good with something more than what's bad with it, unless of course the movie is SO overpoweringly bad that not even I can find something good to say about it. The movie would have to be quite a stinker for that to happen!

[Trin]

I realize that many of you in these forums do not like Dawn04 for many reasons or just for Snyder in particular. But you'd have to agree the opening scenes of Dawn04 were pretty suspenseful, no? When the blonde chick climbs out the bathroom window and sees her neighborhood in chaos, that wild ride from her house to the main highway, and the aerial shot of the speeding dude who (ahem) missed his turn and pulls into the gas station (boom); I was hooked into the movie at that point. I thought the openeing scene of Dawn '04 were pretty well done. Very engaging. I was hooked too.


I'm wondering if some of you give the movie your thumbs down solely out of loyalty to Romero more than any perceived problem with Snyder.I don't think that's particularly rampant around here. Especially considering how many Romero fans criticize Romero's own work. It'd be hard to imagine those same fans only hating Snyder's work because it's not Romero.

[bd2999]

Most the points have been covered but the beginning of the movie was good. I think the rest of the movie was a pretty good flick as well, but it was never scary. The story itself has some major problems with it, some of the characters we are supposed to like have more to dislike than to like and their motivations at times do not make a ton of sense. There are alot of characters that are there for no reason as well. So I do not think it is a bad movie but it is not close to being worthy of the name honestly. I think it would be a better flick minus that.

I do not hate the running zombie like many do. But to think of it as a modernization is not correct. Making something faster does make it scarier in the way that it will down you quick and it is over but all subtility is lost. As many have said the whole they are moving slow and you cannot stop it is lost. Not to mention it actually makes the dead the villan more directly. They are to a point in Romero's movies but the main theme is that if people could work together they could deal even with this.That is lost and the inevitability of the situation when death is turned against you. It is more of a video game at that point. I still think the movie is good but that is one issue I have in general. I saw someone use Dracula as a modernization. The problem with him as an example is the classic Lugosi Dracula, although I love him, is not that accurate to the books. The more powerful Dracula is. Vampires at times have suffered more than zombies as they get modernized in ways that do not make sense. And also defeats the purpose.

[Ragnarr]

It's like Barbara said at one point during Night90 when looking at the gathering zombies outside the house; "They're so slow! We can just walk right by them!" Hmph! Try that if they were Snyder's brand of zombies! CHOMP! I don't know about the rest of you, but the fast zombies are way way way more of a threat than the shuffling slow kind IMO.

[blind2d]

But less of a threat psychologically. (are runners)
You look at them, you're scared for a second, you're dead.
With shamblers, you have time to think. You have time to be horrified. You have time to blow your brains out from the madness and futility of it all.
Nothing damaging to the brain with these velociraptor corpses but their teeth.
I was playing Left 4 Dead 2 at my friend's house yesterday, and although yeah they're all runners pretty much, it's still really a great game. Because you can see piles of dead bodies in hallways and think 'Damn... these were people...'
I don't think Snyder's film had any kind of real moment like that. And for that to me, it's a very poor example of what the zombie genre has to offer the world.

[Ragnarr]

@blind2d: Point taken. I didn't think about the psych factor of seeing piles of dead (dead) bodies, or the long thought of one's eventual demise at the hands of ghouls. Maybe the faster zombies are a kinder death afterall.

[Trin]

There is a crucial point in here.

With shamblers anyone knows you ought to be able to survive. Mankind should not fall to such a threat. Part of the horror is seeing man's failure to rise to the challenge. And seeing the people around you devolve into an "every man for himself" mentality. It evokes a lot more emotion than just fear - futility, frustration, anger, hatred, etc. This is why the conflict in GAR's movies is predominantly man vs. man, not man vs. zombie.

With running zombies you don't have that. The odds are so stacked against you that survival for any time span is a huge victory. The survivors can look around and feel good that they are alive at all. They are not berating themselves and the human race for failure. It makes the situation and the resulting emotion single-dimensional.

[Ragnarr]

There is a crucial point in here.

With shamblers anyone knows you ought to be able to survive. Mankind should not fall to such a threat. Part of the horror is seeing man's failure to rise to the challenge. And seeing the people around you devolve into an "every man for himself" mentality. It evokes a lot more emotion than just fear - futility, frustration, anger, hatred, etc. This is why the conflict in GAR's movies is predominantly man vs. man, not man vs. zombie.

With running zombies you don't have that. The odds are so stacked against you that survival for any time span is a huge victory. The survivors can look around and feel good that they are alive at all. They are not berating themselves and the human race for failure. It makes the situation and the resulting emotion single-dimensional.

I'm not so sure that if a zombie outbreak were to happen that the survivors would take the time to ponder mankind's social failings. The survival instinct lies just beneath our civilized surface. Look at how "wonderfully" the folks in New Orleans reacted during Katrina. Many of them totally lost their minds raping, looting, and killing. Everything considered "civilized" broke down in just a few days. What do we think would happen in a zombie apocalypse and how much more crazy would that situation get I wonder.

[Trin]

I'm not so sure that if a zombie outbreak were to happen that the survivors would take the time to ponder mankind's social failings. The survival instinct lies just beneath our civilized surface. Look at how "wonderfully" the folks in New Orleans reacted during Katrina. Many of them totally lost their minds raping, looting, and killing. Everything considered "civilized" broke down in just a few days. What do we think would happen in a zombie apocalypse and how much more crazy would that situation get I wonder.
I think that your observation supports my contention.

Running zombies fit the mold of Katrina much better than shamblers. With runners you get a very quick fall of society which goes just as you describe.... no time for pondering, no clinging to civilized views of societal norms. Dawn '04 displayed a minute-by-minute struggle for survival prior to the mall being locked down.

With shamblers the society falls slowly and somewhat inexplicably. It would be like if Katrina hit over a period of several weeks and as the water slowly rose people were paralyzed trying to figure out what to do. In Dawn '78 there is a recurring theme of people feeling like society as a whole failed to solve the problem. It's evident in the newsroom at the beginning, in the apartment, and in the mall crew. The pervasive vibe throughout the movie is, "How did we let this happen to ourselves?" That theme carries over to Day as they grapple with thier losing situation in the face of an enemy that they can easily control on small scales.

[Ragnarr]

I think that your observation supports my contention.

Running zombies fit the mold of Katrina much better than shamblers. With runners you get a very quick fall of society which goes just as you describe.... no time for pondering, no clinging to civilized views of societal norms. Dawn '04 displayed a minute-by-minute struggle for survival prior to the mall being locked down.

With shamblers the society falls slowly and somewhat inexplicably. It would be like if Katrina hit over a period of several weeks and as the water slowly rose people were paralyzed trying to figure out what to do. In Dawn '78 there is a recurring theme of people feeling like society as a whole failed to solve the problem. It's evident in the newsroom at the beginning, in the apartment, and in the mall crew. The pervasive vibe throughout the movie is, "How did we let this happen to ourselves?" That theme carries over to Day as they grapple with thier losing situation in the face of an enemy that they can easily control on small scales.

Ah, I think I get your point. Dawn04 is like being water boarded while Dawn78 is like experiencing the drip drip drip of a Chinese water torture.

[Mike70]

There is a crucial point in here.

With shamblers anyone knows you ought to be able to survive. Mankind should not fall to such a threat. Part of the horror is seeing man's failure to rise to the challenge. And seeing the people around you devolve into an "every man for himself" mentality. It evokes a lot more emotion than just fear - futility, frustration, anger, hatred, etc. This is why the conflict in GAR's movies is predominantly man vs. man, not man vs. zombie.


the nail has been hit squarely on the head. Trin's point here is the crux of shamblers make better horror. shit shouldn't get to the point it does, but yet people cannot or will not cooperate in a manner that would turn the tide in favor of the living and turn it quick.

shamblers remind me of the vast numbers of zulus who threw themselves repeatedly against a small number of HM 24th foot (2d Warwickshire) at rorke's drift. it must have been terrifying to see that coming at you, but the 24th held together, fought for each other and scored a major victory against incredible odds.

runners are more like guerillas that can hit and move with great speed. that's far worse and far harder to deal with.

[Ragnarr]

It's very odd for me as a zombie flick fan. Initially, I found GAR's shamblers creepy. Then after seeing Snyder's runners in Dawn04, my opinion changed in that runners were far more scarey than shamblers. Today, runners seem to be so often used that I find myself moving back to the shambler camp. I suppose that's why TWD tries to use a mix of both types, which probably should be referred to as joggers.

[bassman]

Hobblers was the term Darabont used in interviews before the first season aired. He used Heinzman's walk/run from the beginning of Night as the template. Thus the "Heinzman Hobble" was born...

[Ragnarr]

----> Shambler----> Hobbler----> Runner----> Got it! Thanks. :)

[blind2d]

Hm, interesting... I just had a horrible thought... what if they could teleport?!

[Gryphon]

Hm, interesting... I just had a horrible thought... what if they could teleport?!

Or fly?! :eek: :sneaky::shifty: :elol:

[bassman]

Or fly?! :eek: :sneaky::shifty: :elol:

I take it you haven't seen the Day remake? :lol::p

[blind2d]

No, teleporting is scarier.

[Gryphon]

I take it you haven't seen the Day remake? :lol::p

Oh they were just crawling on the ceiling... :confused: :p

[Ragnarr]

Wow was the remake of Day of the Dead a bad movie! Wow! Zombies jumping up to crawl on ceilings. Wow! Bad movie!

[CJ Markham]

Remakes are a catch 22...to say the least.

On one hand, people tend to worship the past. They have their treasures--some of which are decades old, and they love them.

And, since alot of fans tend to blast anything new...simply because it's new and not the classics they adore, the studios try to give us what they think we want. But, rather than simply release the same shit, over and over, they give us modernized updates of the classics we love. Or, they can go the GAR route...and give us phoned-in rehashes of the same old shit--like what GAR gave us himself with the "Night" remake.

And, we still bitch about them anyways...regarless of what they give us.

Die-hard fans are like junkies chasing that first high. Nothing they see will equal the experience of the movies they love...but they either keep trying anyways, or bitch because the dope they're getting now has been "stepped" on by the studios.

[babomb]

This again?
But I do love these discussions. I, like some others, really enjoyed Dawn04. Because i just like zombie flicks. I don't have a set of "rules" that a zombie film has to abide by in order for me to like it.. One of my all time favorites is ROTLD. I was surprised to find that 80% or more of zombie fans HATE this movie. I even started a few threads here to try and understand why. I still don't fully understand it. I know the reasons people give for hating ROTLD and Dawn04, but it's the passion behind that hate and the insistence on adhering to the specific rules for zombie films that I don't really get.
To be honest, I was kind of bored by the original Dawn the 1st time I saw it and didn't watch it again for years. After playing Resident Evil 2 I decided to give it another chance. And it was still kind of boring but it grew on me. Now I love it. But part of the reason I like it so much now is due to the time period it was filmed in.

[Hail]

Dawn 2004 is one of my favorite movies to date. I do agree that they should have called it something else though.

[kaushalsingh]

I personally didn't like this one!
It was very simple in contrast to the original...It was alright!

[Morto Vivente]

Dawn '04 IMO is an action movie with zombies instead of the Russians or whatever, and in that respect the flick doesn't bother me. Zombies are supposed to be slow but relentless and therefore under estimated, not olympic athletes. What's next.......

[bassman]

Seven years and still kicking. This thread will be here until HPotD dies...

[MinionZombie]

Seven years and still kicking. This thread will be here until HPotD dies...

:lol::lol::lol:

I know! Good God, this thread is still twitching?! :D

And even if they changed the name, it would have still been a rubbish movie ... all mouth, no trousers. All flashy MTV visuals, no brains whatsoever (ironically).

[capncnut]

And even if they changed the name, it would have still been a rubbish movie ... all mouth, no trousers. All flashy MTV visuals, no brains whatsoever (ironically).
If they had changed the name, it would be a shit sarnie that'd be a lot easier to keep down...

[Zombie369]

I'm a Romero fan, but I still like this movie and I even like some of the Itallian rip-offs like Zombie and Hell of the Living Dead. This film was very entertaining in my opinion and I like all kinds of zombies regardless if they're slow rotting corpses (Night of the Living Dead/Zombie), fast diseased cannibals (Dawn of the Dead remake/28 Days Later), or even the kind that can use weapons (Land of the Dead/Nightmare City)

[Ragnarr]

Whether you like Dawn 04 or not, the opening scenes were imo awesome as far as terror! Any movie has only like 5 maybe 10 minutes to "hook" the viewer into the storyline. Dawn 04 had great fishing tackle whether you're the running zombie fan or not.

And yes, this thread is a twitcher. It refuses to die even if you destroy its brain lol.

[Neil]

Agreed! The first 15mins was brilliant, except for the typically poor:-
- Unnecessary sex scene to try and build some character "buy in".
- Contacts the moment someone changes to a zombie.
- Dino lungs the moment someone changes to a zombie.