Defending Dawn O4

[riddleone]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original.

But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did.

Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.

[Adrenochrome]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out.
Then, they should have named it something else.

Let's see,......maybe I'll make a "Re-invisoining" of Casablanca, only THIS time Rick will be an albino, elephant herding midget that runs a tattoo shop in East L.A. and falls in love with a Philipino transexual. Ah yes,....and Sam can be a 7' tall failed basketball star (Japanese) that plays the accordion and waxes poetic at Rick for being so foolish........

it don't work, mate!

why do a "remake"? Why not just be (or at least try to be) original? Remakes are for writer/Directors that have no vision of their own.

[bassman]

sigh. You know what YOU fail to realize?

That some people dislike the film because to them it is, in fact, a BAD MOVIE. I'm one of these people. I would dislike it even if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's films or zombies in general.


It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.

For some people....this is wrong. The real horror and suspense of Romero's films were that the zombies weren't the bad guys...the humans were. We screw it up. That's the suspense and horror. Gunn and Snyder didn't know this.....

"Dawn04" is okay for an occasional, turn off your brain, munch some popcorn and be completely oblivious to the world kind of way. I'll give you that. But that doesn't make it a good film, by any means. Not to me, anyway.

By the way....this has been said. And said again. Then again. And then once more. Once after that. Another time. Back around again. Stated once more. And then repeated. Once more for good measure. Just in case someone missed out, it was said again. It was written in braille. It was written in hieroglyphic. It was forseen by Ms. Cleo. It was shot through the universe when a freak worm hole opened up and shot it all the way to the restaraunt at the other end of the universe. And then it was said once more. And now it's said again....just to make sure the bacteria in the bottom of the ocean didn't miss it. Even Anne Frank heard it.;)

[Cody]

it was "ok". MY OPINION!

[AssassinFromHell]

Let's cover the formula behind this "wonderful" classic.

The writer of this remake...wait, lets use the classic excuse word "reinvisioning"...is James Gunn. Gunn's resume includes a string of films lacking any significance to the progression of any genre. His largest hit was a lame rip that could be called a remake, a reinvisioning of the classic cartoon Scooby-Doo. In this flick, he recycled the typical monsters and such in, only to include a desperate plot twist at the end. This is his experience he carried into remaking what is arguably one of the most monumental zombie flicks of all time. So, with this, he created a slew of characters, all left lacking development. You have a bitten pregnant woman, who dies. Becoming a zombie, her unstable husband, ties her up and awaits the baby. The baby too, was a zombie. Now this scene had potential, but James Gunn's "experience" ruined it.

Zack Snyder, while he wasn't bad, wasn't anything out of the ordinary. I'll give him credit on stepping up to the plate and doing a decent job. Unlike his writer counterpart, his efforts weren't juvinielle. Let's note, that without the edits made to the James Gunn original script, we'd have zombies climbing walls of malls too.

This movie was nothing more than a kiddie flick. Instead of attempting to create a complex storyline, it creates a simplistic and cliche plot inwhich the zombies are the enemy. Romero had an interesting way of making the zombies seeming like another specie on the world, just trying to survive, where the humans were the enemy with their egotism and greed.

And the moral of the story? DON'T LET KIDS PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS!

[Deadman_Deluxe]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original.

But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did.

Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.


That's all kinda boring though ... right?

[radiokill]

Even Anne Frank heard it.;)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
smith rocks!

by the way, the humans did cause their own folly almost everytime in dawn 04, this wasn't done powerfully, though. As a result, the movie is great. Fun and Scary. Not an excellent film, though. I do agree that it should have been named differently.

[DjfunkmasterG]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original.

But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did.

Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.


Riddle,


don't waste your breathe here. I like you very much enjoy DAWN 04. When i first saw it the night before the world premiere I actually stood up and loudly proclaimed my disgust over the fact they changed the mythology, and at the morning press conference I talked with Zack Snyder and told him I hated it because of the mythology.

That very night at the WORLD PREMIERE I watched it again and ended up enjoying it. I still hated the fact the zombie mythology was changed, but I loved how well it was done. I like the running zombies, I find them to make the terror level in the film go up a few nothces, but I hate the change of mythology in that only someone bitten comes back.

DAWN 04 is a great action zombie film and stands on its own. Everyone that bashes the film pretty much hates it for the title and running zombies, but everyone agrees the 1st ten minutes were the most kick ass 10 minutes of any zombie film ever made.

[AcesandEights]

but everyone agrees the 1st ten minutes were the most kick ass 10 minutes of any zombie film ever made.

That was the best opening to a movie that I've seen in a long time.

[Danny]

i agree with what romero said:

"the first 10 mins were spectacular, but then it lost its way and became a videogame"

lets hope dead rising doesnt end with a "escape on bus".


HEY, YEAH!!!!



how in gods name can you defend a movie with that god aweful "bus upgrade scene?!?!?!

all it was missing was B.A ,hannibal and faceman.:lol:

[AcesandEights]

all it was missing was B.A ,hannibal and faceman.:lol:

Don't even go bashing the A-Team, FOOL!

The movie was fun and had some major plot holes in it, but--that aside--was fine by my reckoning.

[Danny]

Don't even go bashing the A-Team, FOOL!




i never would man ,i never would ...



...:shifty: .......



I PITY THA FOOL THAT DISSS DA A TEAM GRRR!


c'mon....you know i couldnt help it, no one can its like talking like a pirate, its unstoppable:lol:

[Svengoolie]

The writer of this remake...wait, lets use the classic excuse word "reinvisioning"...is James Gunn. Gunn's resume includes a string of films lacking any significance to the progression of any genre. His largest hit was a lame rip that could be called a remake, a reinvisioning of the classic cartoon Scooby-Doo. In this flick, he recycled the typical monsters and such in, only to include a desperate plot twist at the end. This is his experience he carried into remaking what is arguably one of the most monumental zombie flicks of all time. So, with this, he created a slew of characters, all left lacking development. You have a bitten pregnant woman, who dies. Becoming a zombie, her unstable husband, ties her up and awaits the baby. The baby too, was a zombie. Now this scene had potential, but James Gunn's "experience" ruined it.

Before NOTLD, GAR had absolutely no produced scripts to his credit. And, his biggest deal to date was a soap commercial that aired only once on local television.


Instead of attempting to create a complex storyline, it creates a simplistic and cliche plot inwhich the zombies are the enemy.

And GAR's plot and storylines were in some way "complex"? LOLOLOLOL!:D

[radiokill]

I was elated that Dawn 04 wasn't some cheeseball slasher crapfest like Return of the Living Dead & company and Zombi 2, etc.

[Griff]

Sorry, but I have nothing but pity and contempt for those that truly believe that running zombies somehow 'ups the stakes' or 'makes them more terrifying'...

Giving zombies the ability to run is like giving Jaws the ability to go over land - its f*cking stupid.

You're also destroying the things that make your monster unique.

To me, this matter is more than is just a difference of opinion. Its about a right and a wrong way to do things.

Here's something I noted sometime ago from a forum and author I don't recall:

Something running at you can be scary, but it's a primal reaction that passes with the adrenalin. Shuffling zombies are psychological horrors, because you can't just bust your best Chris Redfield impersonation to escape them. See, zombies aren't about the individual, but one's fear of the masses. It's about conformity, and inescapable doom. It's about being a living person with thoughts and ideas having the crushing realization that you're surrounded by the dead. They're the people who will re-elect George Bush. They're the people that will destroy the environment for transitory wealth. They're the people who are more excited about the next Michael Bay feature than Richard Kelly's. You're smarter than them, stronger than them, and it doesn't matter, because they'll still get you in the end. They'll devour you, take all your visionary ideas, and turn them into Philip K. Dick screen adaptations. Running zombies are for stupid people with monkey brains to get their hearts racing for a few minutes while eating their popcorn. Shuffling zombies are about recognizing your own mortality, the limitations of society, and the probability that there is no God who loves us and will protect us from the hell of our lives. Worst of all, shuffling zombies are us, and we are no better than them, just more cognizant of the abysmal emptiness of our brief, petty little lives.

At the end of the day, I don't see why zombies need upgrading or enhancing, anyway. If you're not a good enough filmmaker to make them threatening as is, maybe you should pack your f*cking bags and look for something else to do.


Before NOTLD, GAR had absolutely no produced scripts to his credit. And, his biggest deal to date was a soap commercial that aired only once on local television.

Yeah, but Assassin's point was that he didn't go out and remake James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN as his first movie, did he?


And GAR's plot and storylines were in some way "complex"? LOLOLOLOL!:D

I'd say so. There's no telling where George's DAWN is going to take you, not even 5 minutes before the end. For a zombie film, DAWN OF THE DEAD is very sophisticated. By contrast, the remake reverts back to the more basic structure of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, making it a simple seige movie.

[radiokill]

the remake reverts back to the more basic structure of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, making it a simple seige movie.

If you can see Dawn as masterpiece, why can't you see Night as the simple perfection that it is?

[riddleone]

OK, forgive me for going on a Dennis Miller style rant here -- I realize that there is a certain prejudice about the concept of the remakes, mainly due to running zombies and the title. The only thing I didn't like in Dawn 04 was the fact that the infection was spread only by bites. As for running zombies -- well, here's some information that's going to make a lot of slow ghoul fan's heads explode! The very first rendition of zombies came out in Africa way back in the 1830's. Later the Voodoo religion brought it to the southern United States, where the fables and lore grew.

The zombies being written about in newspaper collums and occult books stem from Alabama & New Orleans with direct connections from Haiti. They contend that "Zombies"..and yes that is the word they use --rise from the dead and kill their human prey out of vengeance and witchdoctor control. What makes this odd, is the fact that they attributed speed and cunning to them and never had them pegged as "sluggish walkers". You can check this out yourself by accessing Zombie Fables of the Old World by Illeane Buboise. or checking out A&E's version of Exploring the Undead.

In reality the "popular" idea of sluggish zombies came from an old film starring Vincent Price, which featured some very Romero-esque mutant-vampires. Romero himself readily admited that he got a huge influence for Night of the Living dead from that film. (He did so in "Masters of Horror). The film is called "I am Legend". It features a young Vincent price, trapped in his home during the nightime hours, as sluggish ghouls bang away at his home trying to get in to kill him -- sound familiar? In fact, it resembles Night of Living dead so much, it almost appeard like a spin off, but the flick came out well before Night of the Living dead. In the 70's a sort of remake was made "Based" on it, called Omegaman, starring Charlton Heston.

Personally, I like the idea of both walking and running ghouls. Oddly running ghouls are actually closer to the real zombies of old. If they wer flying zombies or somehtogn, than I'd say hold up, dude -your getting inot "Evil Dead" territory, not zombies. As for Dawn 04 and the new remake, yeah -- it might have been a better idea to have named dawn 04 somehting else, that way they wouldnt be this kind of prejudice expectation behind it. As for dawn 04 being a kiddie flick --thats just obviuso hater's talk and just plain stupid to say. The only reason that was said, is becuase, the director was an MTV video filmstar and the wrieter had wrote for the Scooby doo movies. Dawn 04 has blood squiritng, brain exploding action and definately mature themes. If you can call that a kiddie flick, you'd better register yourself on the child predators list. In short, yes -George Romero's zombie films are the best -I didn't like the idea of "thinking" zombies in Land of the dead, but I'm not out protesting against it either. To me, thinking zombies humanizes them to much and makes them much less scary. What's next, will they be driving cars and talking foul language like Brian Keen's ghouls in "the Rising?" As for now, the original dawn of the dead is my favorite of all zombie flicks, but dawn 04 is still right behind it in my oppinion.

[Svengoolie]

Yeah, but Assassin's point was that he didn't go out and remake James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN as his first movie, did he?


Actually, that wasn't Assassin's point. His "point" was an attack on James Gunn's resume as a writer....implying that he wasn't qualified enough to handle the subject matter. And, I reminded him that GAR was even less "qualified" than Gunn was when he stepped into the ring, zombie screenplay-wise.

Oh, and as for originality--by his own admission, all GAR did with NOTLD was "rip-off" (and those are HIS words) The Last Man On Earth.;)


I'd say so. There's no telling where George's DAWN is going to take you, not even 5 minutes before the end. For a zombie film, DAWN OF THE DEAD is very sophisticated. By contrast, the remake reverts back to the more basic structure of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, making it a simple seige movie.

That's laughable.

All of GAR's zombie flicks follow the same formula:
1. Humans encounter ghouls.
2. Humans reach safety.
3. Humans begin to fight amoungst themselves.
4. Ghouls break in somehow and eat white, usually racist, bad-guys.
5. The End.

[Adrenochrome]

That's laughable.

All of GAR's zombie flicks follow the same formula:
1. Humans encounter ghouls.
2. Humans reach safety.
3. Humans begin to fight amoungst themselves.
4. Ghouls break in somehow and eat white, usually racist, bad-guys.
5. The End.
What's wrong burny? Feeling unloved lately?


oh....you've got red on you.

[radiokill]

riddleone - glad someone sees it like I do. I've long been undecided on how I feel about the bit Romero's lore that the all recently dead rise and I still am. Also, Bub, Big Daddy, zombie training, and thinking zombies are enjoyable, but all that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I see the satirical purposes of the thinking dead, but I think it harms the scare/fantasy/sci-fi side of things.:|

[Adrenochrome]

riddleone - glad someone sees it like I do. I've long been undecided on how I feel about the bit Romero's lore that the all recently dead rise and I still am. Also, Bub, Big Daddy, zombie training, and thinking zombies are enjoyable, but all that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I see the satirical purposes of the thinking dead, but I think it harms the scare/fantasy/sci-fi side of things.:|
oh my! I would be more afraid of a thinking zombie than a dumb feeder.

[radiokill]

oh my! I would be more afraid of a thinking zombie than a dumb feeder.

I'll be less ambiguous....It just seems less cool.:D

[bassman]

All of GAR's zombie flicks follow the same formula:
1. Humans encounter ghouls.
2. Humans reach safety.
3. Humans begin to fight amoungst themselves.
4. Ghouls break in somehow and eat white, usually racist, bad-guys.
5. The End.

You're missing alot there, Burny. Maybe you should re-watch the films and try to think....

[Adrenochrome]

You're missing alot there, Burny. Maybe you should re-watch the films and try to think....
Burny can't "think".....Burny only argues, pouts, disappears, sobers up, watches Bad News Bears again...and starts all over.
oh well, at least he's entertaining.:D



and, .....he's got red on him. :D

[Brubaker]

OK, forgive me for going on a Dennis Miller style rant here -- I realize that there is a certain prejudice about the concept of the remakes, mainly due to running zombies and the title. The only thing I didn't like in Dawn 04 was the fact that the infection was spread only by bites. As for running zombies -- well, here's some information that's going to make a lot of slow ghoul fan's heads explode! The very first rendition of zombies came out in Africa way back in the 1830's. Later the Voodoo religion brought it to the southern United States, where the fables and lore grew.

The zombies being written about in newspaper collums and occult books stem from Alabama & New Orleans with direct connections from Haiti. They contend that "Zombies"..and yes that is the word they use --rise from the dead and kill their human prey out of vengeance and witchdoctor control. What makes this odd, is the fact that they attributed speed and cunning to them and never had them pegged as "sluggish walkers". You can check this out yourself by accessing Zombie Fables of the Old World by Illeane Buboise. or checking out A&E's version of Exploring the Undead.

In reality the "popular" idea of sluggish zombies came from an old film starring Vincent Price, which featured some very Romero-esque mutant-vampires. Romero himself readily admited that he got a huge influence for Night of the Living dead from that film. (He did so in "Masters of Horror). The film is called "I am Legend". It features a young Vincent price, trapped in his home during the nightime hours, as sluggish ghouls bang away at his home trying to get in to kill him -- sound familiar? In fact, it resembles Night of Living dead so much, it almost appeard like a spin off, but the flick came out well before Night of the Living dead. In the 70's a sort of remake was made "Based" on it, called Omegaman, starring Charlton Heston.

Personally, I like the idea of both walking and running ghouls. Oddly running ghouls are actually closer to the real zombies of old. If they wer flying zombies or somehtogn, than I'd say hold up, dude -your getting inot "Evil Dead" territory, not zombies. As for Dawn 04 and the new remake, yeah -- it might have been a better idea to have named dawn 04 somehting else, that way they wouldnt be this kind of prejudice expectation behind it. As for dawn 04 being a kiddie flick --thats just obviuso hater's talk and just plain stupid to say. The only reason that was said, is becuase, the director was an MTV video filmstar and the wrieter had wrote for the Scooby doo movies. Dawn 04 has blood squiritng, brain exploding action and definately mature themes. If you can call that a kiddie flick, you'd better register yourself on the child predators list. In short, yes -George Romero's zombie films are the best -I didn't like the idea of "thinking" zombies in Land of the dead, but I'm not out protesting against it either. To me, thinking zombies humanizes them to much and makes them much less scary. What's next, will they be driving cars and talking foul language like Brian Keen's ghouls in "the Rising?" As for now, the original dawn of the dead is my favorite of all zombie flicks, but dawn 04 is still right behind it in my oppinion.

Since someone has to acknowledge this long post, I'll offer my own comments. I'm not necessarily replying to any of your points but just offering my own insight.

I've seen quite a few movies with mummies in them, some of which move fast (the Brendan Frasier movies, among other earlier ones) and some of which move very, very slow. You see the exact same thing with movies featuring werewolves, some of them are fast and others are slow. Wasn't Jack Nicholson's werewolf from Wolf a runner?

One example that often comes to mind is The Blob. The version with Steve McQueen has a fairly slow moving blob and the 1980's remake features a blob that just tore through town like a tidal wave.

I even remember one of the later day Halloween movies which had Michael Myers running after people (or close to it), which is something he never did in any of the other films from the series.

For that reason, I am able to accept running zombies easier than some of the readers here. It doesn't mean I have to like them, though :D

I saw all the movies in the order they were actually released, including the Night and Dawn remakes. I never saw any of them in the theater, always on video or dvd after the fact. The original version of Dawn is far better than the remake. However, the 04' version has its merits.

The argument that running zombies shows a complete lack of realism needs to be thrown out the window all together. Just a zombie outbreak alone should be a clear sign you are already watching a work of fiction that could never possibly happen. It doesn't matter whether they are shuffling, running, standing still or sitting around a table playing chess.

[AssassinFromHell]

Actually, that wasn't Assassin's point. His "point" was an attack on James Gunn's resume as a writer....implying that he wasn't qualified enough to handle the subject matter. And, I reminded him that GAR was even less "qualified" than Gunn was when he stepped into the ring, zombie screenplay-wise.

Oh, and as for originality--by his own admission, all GAR did with NOTLD was "rip-off" (and those are HIS words) The Last Man On Earth.;)


Romero had the most influential piece in modern zombie genre. James Gunn has a series of kiddie flicks.

And Night wasn't a rip off of The Last Man On Earth. It was a ripoff of the book that LMOE was based on, I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson.

Smart ass I know, I couldn't help myself :D

[Kaos]

oh my! I would be more afraid of a thinking zombie than a dumb feeder.

A thinking zombie is a vampire with a bad complection who likes his meals chunky. :D

[Griff]

If you can see Dawn as masterpiece, why can't you see Night as the simple perfection that it is?

Hey, I'm not ragging on NIGHT here. Its a great film but many flicks, zombie and otherwise, before and after, have used pretty much the exact same template. I'm just saying that DAWN took a step forward whereas the remake took a step back.


Actually, that wasn't Assassin's point. His "point" was an attack on James Gunn's resume as a writer....implying that he wasn't qualified enough to handle the subject matter.

...the subject matter being a remake of a classic. Here's exactly what Assassin said after giving a brief rundown of Gunn's resume:

"This is his experience he carried into remaking what is arguably one of the most monumental zombie flicks of all time."

He wasn't referring to any old zombie movie, original or otherwise. He was referring to what is widely considered the grandaddy of zombie movies.


And, I reminded him that GAR was even less "qualified" than Gunn was when he stepped into the ring, zombie screenplay-wise.

George was less qualified to do what, though? Make his first movie? A low budget feature that had no public pre-conception or anticipation? He wasn't remaking a classic, he was doing his own thing that, had it been an utter failure, would have vanished into obscurity and be mourned by few.

That wasn't the case with Gunn. He was hand picked to rewrite a popular horror film and I think its fair to say his credentials (TROMEO AND JULIET, MYSTERY MEN & SCOOBY DOO) were lacking at best.

In other words: apples and oranges, Svengoolie, apples and oranges...


All of GAR's zombie flicks follow the same formula:
1. Humans encounter ghouls.
2. Humans reach safety.
3. Humans begin to fight amoungst themselves.
4. Ghouls break in somehow and eat white, usually racist, bad-guys.
5. The End.

Yeah? And every story has a beginning, a middle and an end. That's so generalized its not even worth acknowledging. Infact...

[MinionZombie]

Here's Yawn04 to me:

*runs with furious expression on face*

*runs, then LEAPS with angry expression on face*

*runs, leaps, then FLIES at poorly written character with blood dripping from mouth while hissing in slow motion as Ving-a-ling Rhamey-baby makes another "f*ck all y'all" style comment before winking at the teenage audience who are too busy inserting their winkies into their popcorn buckets cos they saw it in a movie once*

*shrugs shoulders and walks away*

Come to think of it, my grandmother did refer to Yawn04 as a poorly written, phoned-in-directed piece of MTV, brainless circle jerk once...

:lol:

[Adrenochrome]

A thinking zombie is a vampire with a bad complection who likes his meals chunky. :D
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Svengoolie]

Romero had the most influential piece in modern zombie genre. James Gunn has a series of kiddie flicks.


Romero had the most influential piece in modern zombie genre when he made NOTLD? News to me.


And Night wasn't a rip off of The Last Man On Earth. It was a ripoff of the book that LMOE was based on, I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson.


Actually, you're wrong again: GAR said that NOTLD was a rip-off of "The Last Man on Earth"...and, if you'd ever actually seen that film, you'd be able to acknowledge that.


Smart ass I know, I couldn't help myself

Change "smart" to "dumb" and you might just be getting somewhere, kid...:D

[radiokill]

Change "smart" to "dumb" and you might just be getting somewhere, kid...

oooooooh, burn!:D

[Adrenochrome]

Actually, you're wrong again: GAR said that NOTLD was a rip-off of "The Last Man on Earth"...and, if you'd ever actually seen that film, you'd be able to acknowledge that.




actually, dumbass, I just watched an interview with GAR on the Hungry Wives DVD and HE specifically says it's I Am Legend. So, YOU are wrong, ..... again.

Shoo, go play kid.




oh, you've got red on you.

[AssassinFromHell]

Romero had the most influential piece in modern zombie genre when he made NOTLD? News to me.

I was talking about when he made DAWN.



Actually, you're wrong again: GAR said that NOTLD was a rip-off of "The Last Man on Earth"...and, if you'd ever actually seen that film, you'd be able to acknowledge that.

I've heard Romero indicate he ripped off Matheson. Matheson did the book.




Change "smart" to "dumb" and you might just be getting somewhere, kid...:D

Either way, I'm an ass and I'm on a roll :p

[Adrenochrome]

Either way, I'm an ass and I'm on a roll :p
yes, and from one ass to another......a rep for you!:D

[coma]

Actually, you're wrong again: GAR said that NOTLD was a rip-off of "The Last Man on Earth"...and, if you'd ever actually seen that film, you'd be able to acknowledge that.


I saw GAR on the same on the same DVD interview and a BBC one, any many others (video and print) and he cites Mathesons I am Legend.
You are quite corrected

C'mon . calm down.

[Arcades057]

Sven, why allow 'drenofraud to follow you around recycling some old line about "red on you" that he put there?

Inquiring minds would like to know! :rockbrow:

[Svengoolie]

Is that what he's typing? I can't see the posts...he's on my "Ignore List".

And yet he keeps following me around...responding to every post I make--like an overweight teenage girl with a crush on the Captain of the Football team!:D

[Arcades057]

To a T, my friend. Splains him/her/it to a T. Every time I turn around you're getting negative rep from it; now I see why. The stalker has been defeated. :D

[Danny]

like an overweight teenage girl with a crush on the Captain of the Football team!:D

lol,:lol:

[Arcades057]

He's got a way with words, that Svenny do! :D

[Adrenochrome]

He's got a way with words, that Svenny do! :D
No, not really.:rolleyes:

and, furthermore, Janny-Poo....I'm not giving him neg reps "everytime you turn around" - how can I? The "red on you" is silly and funny and "dead related".

Now, shoo, your mommy's calling you.

[AssassinFromHell]

No, not really.:rolleyes:

and, furthermore, Janny-Poo....I'm not giving him neg reps "everytime you turn around" - how can I? The "red on you" is silly and funny and "dead related".

Now, shoo, your mommy's calling you.

Isn't there some stupid rule too where you must spread rep to about a thousand people before you can give it to the same person again anyway?

[radiokill]

He's got a way with words, that Svenny do! :D
arcade sure loves sven Tell him, Steve-Dave!


...and dreno, arcade, and sven should just f**k and get it over with:D

[Adrenochrome]

...and dreno, arcade, and sven should just f**k and get it over with:D
only if you'll clean me.:D

[AcesandEights]

Isn't there some stupid rule too where you must spread rep to about a thousand people before you can give it to the same person again anyway?

Yes, which is cool to keep down abuse, but a bit out of whack, since I can never give rep to the people who constantly add good remarks, links, info or content; Philly Swat is the person on the top of my list who always gets rooked, because I can never give him enough rep to keep up with all the details and other informative info he pops up (crackpot timeline-theorizing, aside ;) ). It is, however, good motivation to remember to look around at what other people are contributing, which is,after all, one of the 2 reasons I'm sure it was introduced

[Craig]

For some people....this is wrong. The real horror and suspense of Romero's films were that the zombies weren't the bad guys...the humans were. We screw it up. That's the suspense and horror. Gunn and Snyder didn't know this.....
It's kind of the opposite to the Godzilla remake of 1997, the originals had Godzilla portrayed as an unholy monster crashing through Tokyo, where as the remake or whatever you want to call it tried to give Godzilla a heart. This day and age, no one wants to see a monster/zombie/ film where the monster has feelings or aren't the bad guys.

They're dead and eat human flesh, what's more of a reason after all the years that zombies have been around for people to see them as bad or evil?

Anyway. Call me childish, because I am only 14 and that apparently makes me stupid. But I don't see the point in trying to find too much hidden meaning or even blatant meaning in films which are supposed to be entertainment*. I loved Dawn '04, maybe because I respect the zombie genre as a whole and I can see past the fact that the story isn't very well developed to enjoy the fact that at least zombies are getting some attention. Plus the running zombies don't bother me, in fact, I liked them and I did like them in 28 Days Later, it just adds an urgency and a unique twist to the genre which most zombie films fail at nowadays.

Yes it may be a big budget Hollywood film but it does have some heart and they were willing to go and take the zombie genre in a new direction with the runners and I respect that. But it's each to their own in the end.

*I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning.

[Blackdragon6]

i liked it, it was alot better than what i thought it would be.especialy the first 10 minutes.

[bassman]

*I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning.

Actually, that was THE thing that attracted me to Romero's films. And yes, ALL of them have underlying commentaries. Romero's films have meaning. I am not a "zombie fan" by any means. In fact......you would be hard pressed to find a zombie film that I enjoy outside of Romero's because to me,they're just total cheese(I do like "28 Days Later" but it's technically not a zombie film).

Film making, to me, is an art. Art is supposed to mean something to the creator, as well as, the audience. So once again I restate my comment that Gunn and Snyder did not know this. Either that or they knew that most audiences these days will gobble up any garbage that's thrown at them.

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, Yawn04 is to Dawn what Traci Emin's sh*tty bed is to Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus. 'nuff said really. :cool:

[coma]

]I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning.

Any decent artist hides his intent within a larger context. To beat you over the head makes it a hamhanded political tract rather than a piece of art. The fact thar Dotd04 has no underlying context means the filmakers HAVE NO UNDERLYING CONTEXT. They are shallow and the Subtext in GARs DAWN (I hate saying that) about shallow, meaningless consumerism is about them. Shiny surface and nothing underneath. The Project scenes in the beginning is about contrast. The Poor people want to hold onto their building because its their home and the Protaginists want to hold the mall, not just because it's a refuge but because of all the stuff inside.

If GARs films had no undercurrent there wouldnt be 10 million threads about picking apart all of the subtexts. I have thought plenty about his films.

Some of the issues may possibly go over your head because you are a young dude and they don't reflect your experience. Myself, after repeated viewings (and life experience), became more aware of them.
A good artist can't help but put dense subtext in his work, even if he doesn't want to.

Mangia!


Exactly, Yawn04 is to Dawn what Traci Emin's sh*tty bed is to Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus. 'nuff said really. :cool:

DAwn04 is to coors light what GARs dawn is to Samuel Smiths Nut Brown Ale (my favorite beer):D

[AssassinFromHell]

It's kind of the opposite to the Godzilla remake of 1997, the originals had Godzilla portrayed as an unholy monster crashing through Tokyo, where as the remake or whatever you want to call it tried to give Godzilla a heart. This day and age, no one wants to see a monster/zombie/ film where the monster has feelings or aren't the bad guys.

They're dead and eat human flesh, what's more of a reason after all the years that zombies have been around for people to see them as bad or evil?

Anyway. Call me childish, because I am only 14 and that apparently makes me stupid. But I don't see the point in trying to find too much hidden meaning or even blatant meaning in films which are supposed to be entertainment*. I loved Dawn '04, maybe because I respect the zombie genre as a whole and I can see past the fact that the story isn't very well developed to enjoy the fact that at least zombies are getting some attention. Plus the running zombies don't bother me, in fact, I liked them and I did like them in 28 Days Later, it just adds an urgency and a unique twist to the genre which most zombie films fail at nowadays.

Yes it may be a big budget Hollywood film but it does have some heart and they were willing to go and take the zombie genre in a new direction with the runners and I respect that. But it's each to their own in the end.

*I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning.

Meanings hidden in dead films-
NIGHT=Racism, Vietnam, the whole sixties mess
DAWN=Consumerism
DAY=Military dependence, humans falling to themselves. FLORIDA IS A GONER :eek:
LAND=9/11, terrorism
OVERALL=Human ability to collapse to its own inner evil.

Being fourteen doesn't necessarily make you stupid, unless your already a liberal :p You're just naive.

And you can't respect the genre as a whole anymore when Uwe Boll is on the scene, it just doesn't work that way. Or when you've already had countless indie disasters after indie disasters. The zombie genre is a crappy genre with a shortage of actual flicks that are all around decent. I like zombies, don't get me wrong. But alot of zombie films are made very poorly.

James Gunn can say he respects the genre all he wants, but I do believe Boll said it himself. Look what happened. Snyder didn't do a half bad job with DAWN 04. But it was horribly written. Gunn is talentless trash whose career is full of indie, cliche pieces of work that are either naive in meaning (if not lacking any whatsoever) and/or rips off the work of another.

So when you turn fifteen, let me know, I'll buy you House of the Dead :p

(and please note, I'm not trying to be an ass hole. I'm trying to get a point across while adding humor. :D )

[Arcades057]

If the movie had been called anything but Dawn, people may have taken to it better than they did. It was, on its own, an OK movie that added a few new dimensions to the genre (running zombies, only bites turn you), and provided a few cool scenes (the opening montage is the one that springs to mind).

It was an OK movie, not on par with GAR's, but what did we expect, really?

[bassman]

If the movie had been called anything but Dawn, people may have taken to it better than they did. It was, on its own, an OK movie that added a few new dimensions to the genre (running zombies, only bites turn you), and provided a few cool scenes (the opening montage is the one that springs to mind).

It was an OK movie, not on par with GAR's, but what did we expect, really?

Sigh....

I'm sick of people making this "if the title of the movie was different" argument. I would still say that it's not a good film if it was called anything else("Cliched Characters In A Mall" maybe?:p )

The film is okay for a mind-numbing, "I want to become braindead for two hours, summer popcorn flick. It will have no shelf life for that reason. There's no depth to it....

[MinionZombie]

Zactly - no matter what the flick is called, it still has an absolutely atrocious script, RUNNING zombies and shady direction ... plus it relies on that "Saving Private Ryan" effect towards the end to "amp" the action ... *sigh* ... the movie requires less brains than Tokyo Drift! :eek:

[AcesandEights]

the movie requires less brains than Tokyo Drift! :eek:

Hehe, that's, like, the meanest swipe at Dawn04, yet ;)

[MinionZombie]

Damn straight, I bust out the "bitch, my man ain't yo baby's daddy" style slap-fests when the down gets dirty ... or something like that ... yeah, take that Yawn04 *whi-tish* ... have that for a slap. :lol:

[Brubaker]

In fairness, Snyder's merit as a director should not be set in stone until he has several movies on his resume. Wasn't Dawn his debut as a director? It's not like he will have anything to do with the Dead movies ever again but he could still end up doing work with some real merit. If everyone was judged in history solely for their first film, there would be a lot of perfectly good actors and directors who are out of work. It could be said there already are but that is a different argument.

[Trancelikestate]

well, i see lots of good supporting facts for both sides here. i personally thought the movie was entertaining in it's fast pace, let down was i? no i dont think so. as said before what did we expect? and also i dont know if any of you listened to the deadpit.com's interveiws but the one with gary klar he said he thought it was a decent movie but failed in the sense of a re-make because of it's totally differant pace, aside from the obvious. so a failure? no, but should we be scared for the day re-make? yeah i definatly think so.

[AssassinFromHell]

I think Snyder did a decent job. I kept in mind it was his debut so he hasn't had alot of experience to work with. He did well, it just got overshadowed by the script he was given. See, the session went like this between Snyder and the producer...

RUBENSTEIN: How'd you like to do a movie for me?
SNYDER: Sure, what movie?
*Rubenstein holds up a screenplay that reads "House of the Dead"*
SNYDER: House of the Dead? I hated that game.
*Rubenstein crosses off the title, and writes "Dawn of the Dead" on the front page*
SNYDER: Wasn't that film already done?
RUBENSTEIN: Remake.
SNYDER: I hate remakes.
RUBENSTEIN: Reinvisioning.
SNYDER: Deal.

(And yes, I know, it originally wasn't House of the Dead. But I had to rip Gunn some how...)

[coma]

RUBENSTEIN: Reinvisioning.
SNYDER: Deal.


No
REIMAGINING


:)

[MinionZombie]

I've read he's up to do Watchmen next (by the same bloke as V For Vendetta? ... a good idea that will most likely suck in movie form) and he's also up for a ... get this ... Rainbow Six movie. So what can we expect? SWAT: 2? Oh dear ... oh dear. :rockbrow:

[radiokill]

NIGHT=Racism, Vietnam, the whole sixties mess

(I think it may have been here on homepage of the dead) I watched a streaming interview with Romero from some BBC network and he said he never even thought about the actor who played ben being black and he wasn't trying to make a statement about racism. Isn't that right? Anyone else seen it?

[coma]

(I think it may have been here on homepage of the dead) I watched a streaming interview with Romero from some BBC network and he said he never even thought about the actor who played ben being black and he wasn't trying to make a statement about racism. Isn't that right? Anyone else seen it?
He said it wasn't wriiten for a black man, but a white truckdriver. They were all aware of the implications, but decided to stick to the script. Duane Jones had a real problem smacking Barbara. He had good reasons to worry because it was a first. Duane happened to be the best actor out of all his friends.
GAR did say the movie was about a revolutionary culture. The new overwhelming and submerging the old.


I've read he's up to do Watchmen next (by the same bloke as V For Vendetta? ... a good idea that will most likely suck in movie form)

If theres a good script...maybe. Watchmen is about human interaction and subtlety, so it maynot be the best project for Snyder (to put it mildly). His track record for that is Nil

[AssassinFromHell]

(I think it may have been here on homepage of the dead) I watched a streaming interview with Romero from some BBC network and he said he never even thought about the actor who played ben being black and he wasn't trying to make a statement about racism. Isn't that right? Anyone else seen it?

Same with DAWN and consumerism. He never intended to have these messages in them, but they're still there. Accidental genius maybe? :D

[radiokill]

Same with DAWN and consumerism. He never intended to have these messages in them, but they're still there. Accidental genius maybe? :D

possibly!

I've been trying to write a zombie script and trying to give it the depth and meaning i want seems effing impossible....or maybe i just blow:D

[Griff]

Same with DAWN and consumerism. He never intended to have these messages in them, but they're still there. Accidental genius maybe? :D

Oh, from what I've seen and read, he seems fully aware of those implications and always has been. It was very intentional, even though it may not have been his only intention.

[coma]

possibly!

I've been trying to write a zombie script and trying to give it the depth and meaning i want seems effing impossible....or maybe i just blow:D
Hove have to use yourself and your concerns as a subtext. Fears, hopes, tragedies, anxiety. How people actually react. Natural dialouge (not just how YOU speak, the characters should each have there own voice) What is really imporatnt to you? for GAR it's lack of communication and the selfish, superficiality of man and the arrogance of power.
For me, it's the threat of malevelant power of the petty to the authoritarian. Confusion in crisis and the futility of it all.
What's your point of view on life? What story do you Need to tell? What do you love, hate? What aspect of human nature do you revere, revile the most?
Wes Craven on last house on the left
"Uh...I guess I was pretty f***ed up at the time."

Keep those in your head. Plot is important, but feeling is what really counts. plus some creative zombie action.
I wrote a script I'm trying to make. It has..
No heroes
No guns (NONE)
Claustrophobic.
I'm dealing with a lot of bad sh*t in my life and I just vomited it on the pages. The unkown is out to get me and it can't be stopped and no one knows why
and worse
No one gives a crap.
But that's my story.
Whats YOU'RS?

[AssassinFromHell]

Oh, from what I've seen and read, he seems fully aware of those implications and always has been. It was very intentional, even though it may not have been his only intention.

He said on that horror movie moments countdown they had a year or so ago that it wasn't intended. And he said on one of the extras on Day of the Dead Divimax DVD, that he didn't realize all this commentary stuff about his movies until he started working on DAY, when he had a realization that he was making them every ten years or so and he should keep doing it, to sort of speak about the decade. But I have heard him say several times that the consumerism implications were unintentional. He's aware of it now, but it wasn't on his mind when he wrote it. He just got a cool idea when he was on a tour of Monroeville Mall. It came when he was showed the shelter, and the owner said could survive anything. Romero asked, what about a zombie epidemic? Then Dawn of the Dead is born. It was simple.

[radiokill]

Hove have to use yourself and your concerns as a subtext. Fears, hopes, tragedies, anxiety. How people actually react. Natural dialouge (not just how YOU speak, the characters should each have there own voice) What is really imporatnt to you? for GAR it's lack of communication and the selfish, superficiality of man and the arrogance of power.
For me, it's the threat of malevelant power of the petty to the authoritarian. Confusion in crisis and the futility of it all.
What's your point of view on life? What story do you Need to tell? What do you love, hate? What aspect of human nature do you revere, revile the most?
Wes Craven on last house on the left
"Uh...I guess I was pretty f***ed up at the time."

Keep those in your head. Plot is important, but feeling is what really counts. plus some creative zombie action.
I wrote a script I'm trying to make. It has..
No heroes
No guns (NONE)
Claustrophobic.
I'm dealing with a lot of bad sh*t in my life and I just vomited it on the pages. The unkown is out to get me and it can't be stopped and no one knows why
and worse
No one gives a crap.
But that's my story.
Whats YOU'RS?

very cool idea...I love the no guns/no heros concept

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a rhetorical question.....

but I'm concerned with how much people focus on themselves and being self-reliant and even in tyring to help others their true motivation (to some degree) is to feel better about themselves........and the satisfaction of accompishment.
i also want to narrow the focus somewhat to Christians and how many of us are doing the same thing. Christians are supposed to rely on God and deny the self. However, I've seen many texts teaching tools lately that focus on believing in yourself and having faith in yourself....which is contradictory to the Bible.
It's becoming increasingly difficult.
So I will have what I'll call a pseudo-hero. Also, it will be set in the sticks, so there will be lots of guns.

[coma]

very cool idea...I love the no guns/no heros concept

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be a rhetorical question.....

but I'm concerned with how much people focus on themselves and being self-reliant and even in tyring to help others their true motivation (to some degree) is to feel better about themselves........and the satisfaction of accompishment.
i also want to narrow the focus somewhat to Christians and how many of us are doing the same thing. Christians are supposed to rely on God and deny the self. However, I've seen many texts teaching tools lately that focus on believing in yourself and having faith in yourself....which is contradictory to the Bible.
It's becoming increasingly difficult.
So I will have what I'll call a pseudo-hero. Also, it will be set in the sticks, so there will be lots of guns.


Semi Rhetorical. Like what is important to you. I'm keeping the details of my story close until theres some real foward motion. The differences from most Zombie movies are pretty simple, but original and I'm afraid to get ripped.(It's happened plenty to me)
Far as heroes, I have known few and never liked the superheroic types. I'm also bascially a city guy and have known way too many scumbags but yet have seen few guns. My story is all about city blocks. No cops, no soldiers, no Rambo supermen. I write about people I know. People who say they got your back and don't. Denail and short sightedness. Alienation. Definately not any kind of religion or supernatural stuff. I'm a skeptic so I cant have any kind of Godly type explanation or context. For you, the christian thing is your subtext. There are all kinds of Christian and I think anythibg too overt will turn it into a preachfest if you not careful. Notlem (german Zombie Movie) used it in a good way.
Just sit at the typer and bang away at developing the story. Don't hide from your beliefs and write what YOU want to see. Y'know, I wish they did this in that movie, etc. Then do that.
If somethings stupid, you always have the delete key.
Many writers write scene ideas on index cards, then arrange them in an order they like. Easily editable outline from the pre comp days.

In all of my stories/scripts/Comics (I'm a busy guy. Busy going broke:)) I always use acutal events as a spring board. It happened to me, my friend, I heard about it. Use real bits of conversation I remember. It makes it natural and interesting. To me, telling a kind of truth is the only reason to do anything. I leave the total fantasy up to other people. Rather than the Sixth Grade "If I had a gun, It would be a gatling, and I would kill everybody and bang all the chicks", I think of what would actually happen. If a zombie came banging on my door, would I grab the AK (Obviously, NO) or would I run in circles, peek out the peephole grab a bat, more likely run away. Besides it's easier and cheaper and maybe even gorier to bash a head in with a bat than get gun filmshoot permits :)

[radiokill]

Semi Rhetorical. Like what is important to you. I'm keeping the details of my story close until theres some real foward motion. The differences from most Zombie movies are pretty simple, but original and I'm afraid to get ripped.(It's happened plenty to me)
Far as heroes, I have known few and never liked the superheroic types. I'm also bascially a city guy and have known way too many scumbags but yet have seen few guns. My story is all about city blocks. No cops, no soldiers, no Rambo supermen. I write about people I know. People who say they got your back and don't. Denail and short sightedness. Alienation. Definately not any kind of religion or supernatural stuff. I'm a skeptic so I cant have any kind of Godly type explanation or context. For you, the christian thing is your subtext. There are all kinds of Christian and I think anythibg too overt will turn it into a preachfest if you not careful. Notlem (german Zombie Movie) used it in a good way.
Just sit at the typer and bang away at developing the story. Don't hide from your beliefs and write what YOU want to see. Y'know, I wish they did this in that movie, etc. Then do that.
If somethings stupid, you always have the delete key.
Many writers write scene ideas on index cards, then arrange them in an order they like. Easily editable outline from the pre comp days.

oh...it will be very subtle. no "preachfest"...just static characters and emphasis on dialogue.

[coma]

oh...it will be very subtle. no "preachfest"...just static characters and emphasis on dialogue.

You can use the zombies and your pro and antagonists as stand ins to sneak in the ideology/ponit of view.

[Griff]

He said on that horror movie moments countdown they had a year or so ago that it wasn't intended. And he said on one of the extras on Day of the Dead Divimax DVD, that he didn't realize all this commentary stuff about his movies until he started working on DAY, when he had a realization that he was making them every ten years or so and he should keep doing it, to sort of speak about the decade. But I have heard him say several times that the consumerism implications were unintentional. He's aware of it now, but it wasn't on his mind when he wrote it. He just got a cool idea when he was on a tour of Monroeville Mall. It came when he was showed the shelter, and the owner said could survive anything. Romero asked, what about a zombie epidemic? Then Dawn of the Dead is born. It was simple.

I'll have to re-watch the AB DAY doco but he discusses his intentions for DAWN with Roy Frumkes in DOCUMENT OF THE DEAD and he comes across as being very aware of what he's depicting. The mall thing might have started off as a cool idea but I'd say it evolved beyond just that by the writing stage and very deliberately so.

I mean, its there in the scenes and it fully steers the narrative for the most part. In comparison to the remake which only fleetingly toys with the idea of such meaningless indulgeance in one scene (and plays it for pure fun much like 28 DAYS LATER with its brief shopping sequence) DAWN makes the consumerism bit its mantra. Afterall, the mall isn't the stereo-typical zombie film safehaven, in DAWN - its teeming with zombies and something that must be conquered. The characters don't want out, they want in and, perhaps most importantly, they want to stay.

That's the crux of the flick and not something I believe someone as intelligent and mindful as GAR could conjur without being fully aware of the connotations.

And doesn't he say in the AB DAWN doco something to the effect that he feels that not only are those themes present in the film but that he pretty much beats you over the head with them?

I think people attribute alot of their own nonsense to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Its structure is very functional and seems to be under little idealogical influence. I have no doubt, however, that DAWN OF THE DEAD is being steered with a very deliberate and purposeful hand.

[Danny]

(and plays it for pure fun much like 28 DAYS LATER with its brief shopping sequence)

damn, its a rare day when a romero fan compares dawn to 28 days later, though it does rock and it is a zombie film, but lets not start that again:D

[Griff]

damn, its a rare day when a romero fan compares dawn to 28 days later, though it does rock and it is a zombie film, but lets not start that again:D

I was referring to the remake, my point being that 28 DAYS LATER and DAWN04 do the brief shopping spree stuff as fantasy fulfillment whereas DAWN78 went way, way beyond that.

[zombievsshark]

I dunno, I liked Dawn04 as much as the original, just in a different way.

It's not a masterpiece, but it is fun, funny (sometimes without meaning to be), and I just like the way it was shot.

The script wasn't amazing I agree but it wasn't the mess some make it out to be.

I think what comes into play for me is that while I loved the social commentary in GAR's movies, I don't need it as a requirement for a good zombie flick. Zombies are what I enjoy, what I like and they don't have to be symbols for mindless America for me to enjoy watching them tear people apart.

Of course, naming the remake what they did was controversial but I personally was able to reconcile that the two movies had little if anything to really do with each other and more importantly I can judge both independent of the other...ain't I great (that's sarcasm).

Anyway, we know WHY they named it after the best film in the genre and for some that's blasphemy but my world didn't crumble because the producers used GAR's title.

[riddleone]

Dawn of 04 was Synder's first popular direction gig and compared to a lot of the stone cheesy and straight up whack zombie films coming out today, you got to give the guy some credit! I was in Hollywood/blockbuster video the other day and noticed 11 fairly new zombie releases out. I saw many of them, including, Dead & Breakfast, Zombie Hoodz, Zombienight and a lot of other trash. The only one I thought was actually pretty cool just because it took the zombie genera with a lot of camp and humor was Necropolis (Newly released on DVD), but that whole "Return of the living dead" series was always entertaining to me --not serious in anytone, but funny and entertaining nontheless. I'm a big "Evil Dead" fan and I rememebr when Sam Raimi first came out with th EvilDEad back in 79 & 80, critics hated the film and a lot of people thought his ideas on possessed ghouls were stupid and ridiculous. They also ragged on his trippy style of filming in wild camera angles, too. But by the time Evil Dead 2 came out, the first in the series was considered a masterpeice of occult horror, expertly pumped out on a slim budget. Comparing Sydner to Raimi does sound kind of blasphamous, I agree -but let's not fry Snyder just yet. It's obvious he has a knack for strange horror films too. Who knows, maybe he'll pump out something that will rock the horror world -- Heaven knows we need more skilled directors trying.

[AssassinFromHell]

I can't speak for everybody, but I think alot of people had more against Gunn than they did Snyder. In my opinion, Snyder wasn't too bad. Gunn was the cancer.

[Khardis]

Then, they should have named it something else.

Let's see,......maybe I'll make a "Re-invisoining" of Casablanca, only THIS time Rick will be an albino, elephant herding midget that runs a tattoo shop in East L.A. and falls in love with a Philipino transexual. Ah yes,....and Sam can be a 7' tall failed basketball star (Japanese) that plays the accordion and waxes poetic at Rick for being so foolish........

it don't work, mate!

why do a "remake"? Why not just be (or at least try to be) original? Remakes are for writer/Directors that have no vision of their own.

Its not a remake, its just good business sense. If I had aquired the rights to a very famous film and wanted to make a new film that tackled some of the same issues, like zombies and hiding out during the end of the world, I would definatly use the name of the old classic too, not because I want people to think my film is the same or better, but because of name recognition. If they named the movie the mall of the damned or something it wouldnt have been as popular or as hyped.

Dont think of it from an artistic point of view, morally I agree with you, but I am also a business owner. And from a business sense they made a sound decision.

[Brubaker]

Its not a remake, its just good business sense. If I had aquired the rights to a very famous film and wanted to make a new film that tackled some of the same issues, like zombies and hiding out during the end of the world, I would definatly use the name of the old classic too, not because I want people to think my film is the same or better, but because of name recognition. If they named the movie the mall of the damned or something it wouldnt have been as popular or as hyped.

Dont think of it from an artistic point of view, morally I agree with you, but I am also a business owner. And from a business sense they made a sound decision.

Snyder and Gunn would have been killed in the press if they had made something more like the original Dawn. The two of them would have been called old fashioned if they had slow and stupid zombies or used the same type of music. You'd have most reviewers talking about the "old", "tired" or "dated" cliches that they chose to use in the film.

Everybody knows GAR's Dawn is timeless. However, that doesn't mean you could get away with releasing that very same movie (frame by frame) today or even something similar to it. Not if you expect to make a cent. It'd probably go over like a lead balloon to everybody but 4,000-5,000 devoted fans. There are old tricks and ideas that guys like GAR used to employ which you can't get away with in a movie anymore and be taken seriously. Think Robert Englund. If he was able to "get away with" Freddy Kreuger and his cliches on a regular basis, like he did in the 80's, don't you think he'd be making those movies far more often than one every 8-10 years?

I would expect Snyder (and Gunn, perhaps) had to play it safe because if he made something to appeal to internet message boards, the film wouldn't have made any money and he would probably have never gotten any directing gigs again. Why should he risk having a colossal box-office failure and kill his directing career to appease those 4,000-5,000 people? Especially since any real future in the business for him, directing, was based on getting this film off the ground.

I mean if the guy was going to make a statement or do something artistic, don't you think it'd make more sense to him careerwise to wait until he is established as a director with a few films under his belt?

I'm sure he understands a select number of people feel he is pissing on Romero's work but nobody seems to understand the guy has (had) a job to do, as did Gunn, and they have to give at least some thought to making a movie that will help their mainstream career instead of bringing it to a halt.

[Khardis]

Snyder and Gunn would have been killed in the press if they had made something more like the original Dawn. The two of them would have been called old fashioned if he had slow and stupid zombies or used the same type of music. You'd have most reviewers talking about the "old", "tired" or "dated" cliches that they chose to use in the film.

Everybody knows GAR's Dawn is timeless. However, that doesn't mean you could get away with releasing that very same movie (frame by frame) today or even something similar to it. Not if you expect to make a cent. It'd probably go over like a lead balloon to everybody but 4,000-5,000 devoted fans. There are old tricks and ideas that guys like GAR used to employ which you can't get away with in a movie anymore and be taken seriously. Think Robert Englund. If he was able to "get away with" Freddy Kreuger and his cliches on a regular basis, like he did in the 80's, don't you think he'd be making those movies far more often than one every 8-10 years?

I would expect Snyder (and Gunn, perhaps) had to play it safe because if he made something to appeal to internet message boards, the film wouldn't have made any money and he would probably have never gotten any directing gigs again. Why should he risk having a colossal box-office failure and kill his directing career to appease those 4,000-5,000 people?

I mean if the guy was going to make a statement or do something artistic, don't you think it'd make more sense to him careerwise to wait until he is established as a director with a few films under his belt?

I'm sure he understands a select number of people feel he is pissing on Romero's work but nobody seems to understand the guy has (had) a job to do, as did Gunn, and they have to give at least some thought to making a movie that will help their mainstream career instead of bringing it to a halt.

I think making something like this is a part of him trying to get famous enough to be able to tackle real movies that dont have a pre-attached fan base already. This movie wasnt meant to win an oscar, it was meant to drag in a lot of cash in the summer months, releasing it was a business decision pure and simple because they had the rights to the name.

If this was the next Braveheart or somethign you'd never see Snyder on it because its too much of a risk considering that that kind of film has no real market other than "drama" which is the hardest market to make money in, since its generally a blanket genre, which is why I believe you will see Snyders next few movies until he get shis big break to be all genre movies or sub-genre genre movies. Zombies = Horror, genre and subgenre.

The reason they didnt remake the actual Dawn of the Dead film is because, and this is my personal opinion. I dont think its slow pace would work in todays market. Some people like me and you and as you said 5000 others may like that kind of film, but the zounds of 13-18 year males who spend the most money in the summer months wont. I feel that that was the reason alone not to remake it. If they felt that remaking Romeros film line for line would have earned more money, I am 100% sure Snyder and all the Execs behind the project would have greenlit it in a heartbeat.

I lament the fact that Hollywood is nothing more than a business now, and films arent made to be films anymore, but to make cash. I really lament that. Maybe its why I have been getting into independantly done small and short films. They seem to have a bit more heart.

[bassman]

I think making something like this is a part of him trying to get famous enough to be able to tackle real movies that dont have a pre-attached fan base already.

Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300".

I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film.

True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse.

Just my two cents...

[Adrenochrome]

Nothing original from him yet.

exactley

[Khardis]

Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300".

I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film.

True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse.

Just my two cents...

Of course there is nothing original from him yet, he hasnt made it yet. He is stuck doing these corporate rehash jobs making other people money until he has his breakthrough and he gets picked to do something really good. Its the same Reason people like M Night Shamalan(sp) get to keep producing flops after flop after terrible awful flop. He is an established name and had his big hit, and people go to see the flick because its his film. When Snyder breaks through and has more freedom to stray from the formulated rigors of corporate money, youll see him start coming out with big picks.

Personally I liked the Dawn 04 film *dont kill me*
I didnt like it for the same reasons I liked the Original Dawn and GAR flicks, I liked it because it was a fast paced thriller with the added advantage of gore and walking dead. I fully expected it to be as such and would have been pissed if they tried to remake the original the way it was. Was it a great film? No... horror films usually arent, even the greatest ones. Cripes the original dawn was terrible film-wise, continuity errors, low budget, mostly crappy acting, etc etc. But I LOVE the hell out of it anyway. Same goes for the new Dawn, it wasnt as poorly filmed as other GAR zombie films, but it was still amusing and fun to watch, even if it missed the special little magic that makes Romero's films work better. (the writing).

But I appreciate your opinion, as you can tell I am rather new here. Well not new, I have lurked a lot, but never made an account to post. So if I am stepping on any toes you can let me know.:evil:

[bassman]

First off, let me say that there are no toes being stepped on. This debate has been going since the film opened and it will go to until the world stops spinning.:p Actually, I believe you are in the majority. I THINK most people around here like Dawn04. But hey....it's all opinion, anyway.


I see what you're saying about him making money and then moving on...but that's no always the case. There are others that start out with their own script and their own direction and hit it off big time. One that pops to mind is Richard Kelly with "Donnie Darko".

Like I said....I don't like Dawn04, but I'm waiting until I see "300" before I pass judgment on Snyder.

[panic]

I dug Dawn '04. Its and action-horror flick that takes the basic premise of Dawn and updates it with modern production values, competent actors, a workable script, and very tight editing and sound work. Is it the holy grail of zombie films? No. Does it work on its own as a movie? Definitely.

You may not like the movie because its not Dawn '78. Fine. Just ask yourself, would you really want to see someone else try to ape everything about Dawn '78? Imagine if Snyder had actually tried to go the whole satirical anti-consummerism route. That was GAR's vision, this is Snyder's. They're different enough that the one doesn't subtract from the other.

That said; I'm not saying anyone else has to like it, just that I do.

[Chakobsa]

Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300".

I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film.

True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse.

Just my two cents...
I Read in SFX that there was talk of Snyder directing the long talked about Watchmen movie, make of that what you will.
Generally speaking I really enjoyed Dawn 04 but there's no denying there was a lot of room for improvement, for instance, that whole baby thing sucked to a spectacular degree. I really don't know if that whole idea was the zenith or the nadir of suckness.

[MinionZombie]

*ug* the zombie baby thing ... *sigh* ... as soon as I heard about that I just knew it was going to suck beanbag, and I don't understand some reviewers on TV that gave it good marks for having a zombie baby in it, like it was something never seen before ... err ... Braindead (aka Dead Alive) anybody?

Do your damn research you Alex Zane type dimwit movie "reviewers", ya plonkers!

[ssbib]

I love all of Romero's Dead films, without a doubt I am a fan and when I first heard they were going to do a remake of Dawn of the Dead I was shocked. However, by the time I read about it it was coming out in the Cinema about a month later so I went to see it. I cant believe some people dont like it. The 2 Dawn films are so radically different you cannot really compare them, the only similarities they have are Zombies in a shopping Mall.

I liked the concept of the fast Zombies, something I feel has been taken from "28 Days Later" infected. Someone on the first page of this thread said that the concept of fast zombies in Dawn04 had been conceived before "28 Days Later" however, 28 Days Later was released in November 2002, probably just as Dawn04 as being conceived, so I think we have to thank "28 Days Later" for the fast moving Zombies, something which I personally loved.

Rumour has it on the net that they ARE making a direct sequel to Dawn04 (not Day remake) and I would love to see that too.

[Brubaker]

*ug* the zombie baby thing ... *sigh* ... as soon as I heard about that I just knew it was going to suck beanbag, and I don't understand some reviewers on TV that gave it good marks for having a zombie baby in it, like it was something never seen before ... err ... Braindead (aka Dead Alive) anybody? Do your damn research you Alex Zane type dimwit movie "reviewers", ya plonkers!

As much as you may dislike that zombie baby, MZ, you have to admit it could have been a great deal worse. For example:

1. They could have had that damn thing up and running at people, like the kids going after Peter in the original. Consider yourself lucky it wasn't on it's feet and snarling. Would have been "interesting" (not in a good way) to have some character get infected by a newborn.

2. It could have burst out of Luda's stomach or chest, like in Alien. Alternatively, it could have "chewed" its way out.

[jim102016]

I wonder if the genius who came up with the brilliant idea for the "Vegetarian Zombie" got his inspiration from that zombie baby in Dawn 04'?

Dawn 04' had potential.....until I saw it. They could have done so much more with it:


1) Running zombies suck! They should have stuck to the 'normal' ones. It caused the movie to be too fast-paced, and just ruined it for me.

2) Zombie baby? Waste of f*cking time. Those wasted scenes took away valuable film time that could have been used on something else that was actually interesting. Personally, I would have rather seen that cute blonde gang raped or that old gay guy try on more women’s shoes.

3) They didn't have a helicopter in this one! I'm not sure what was worse, not having one in the Dawn' remake or GAR just not choosing to have one in LOTD. Maybe they could have made Ving a helicopter pilot?

4) Mall security guards acting tough....????? Give me a break, I'm surprised they were awake long enough to lock the doors to keep the runners out!

5) That being said, how the hell did the runners not break though the glass doors? Since, this version didn't have them place trucks in front of the entrances (i.e. no leverage....but zombies were stronger?)


But, what I think really limited the options of the movie, was the fact that the zombies were runners. Since they had 400lb men jumping hurdles & pole vaulting in front of the mall, there was only so much they could do with the story. Think about the original Dawn' and then substitute those fast bastards in place of the special olympic-Romero dead types. Roger would be killed while hot wiring that truck, Fran would be killed by the hands of that bald religious nut with the tambourine and Stephen would be killed in the utility room by the maintenance man. I think Peter would have been killed in Philly in the projects by those dead in a pile in the basement. If the movie even got that far.

If they would have just slowed those bastards down...think of the possibilities!!!??? Bottom line.....they f*ucked themselves!!!!

[MinionZombie]

It was near to bursting out of Luda's stomach, her gut was bobbing in and out with the limbs moving around. Also, just because I'm such the pedantic, the baby wouldn't have gone running around anyway because the baby itself obviously was nowhere near a walking, let alone crawling, age yet. A zombie's movement depends on deep-seated memories of how to basically operate their bodies, the baby wouldn't have that yet. :smug git smiley: :lol:

I don't think it could have gotten much worse to be honest. :eek:

[jim102016]

As far as I'm concerned, Dawn 04' had the makings of a great movie but it's writers chose to go the other direction. Kind of like comparing a kid born into a rich family choosing to go the way of the street crackhead. Instead of taking full advantage of what paths have already been paved, this kid chooses to sh*t in the streets, stick needles in his arms, choke on any weiner necessary to keep up a steady fix and ruin his family name for centuries to come. Absolute rock bottom.

They should have consulted suicidal patients at a mental hosptial before filming this damned movie.

[DjfunkmasterG]

What everyone here is forgetting is you cannot copyright a title. You or anyone can make a film called DAWN of the DEAD. As long as your concept doesn't have a mall filled with survivors hiding from zombies. You're fine.

I think I will rename DEADLANDS DAWN of the DEAD :lol: :moon: j/k

[Adrenochrome]

Well, after all the discussions I've read on here lately about "How incredibly wonderful Yawn'04 is!", I found a copy for $3.99 at Halfprice Bookstore while I was in Midtown, Kansas City earlier this afternoon.
It's been about a year since I've seen it, so I watched it again. Sometimes I have to collect myself and start fresh. (NOTE: I still cannot stomach Peter Jackoff's Board of the Things)
After vomiting, gouging my eyes out and trying to find a doctor to administer Electroshock Therapy Treatment, I simply vomited again, then, threw it in the trash.
It saddens me that I cannot get my money back. I mean, it's only $3.99+tx.....but......I feel as if the bastard flick has picked my wallet.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to sanitize my DVD player and TV.:dead:
Yawn '04 it reamains.

[panic]

This may all be true, but nothing will ever get the stink of LOTD off my DVD player.


Well, after all the discussions I've read on here lately about "How incredibly wonderful Yawn'04 is!", I found a copy for $3.99 at Halfprice Bookstore while I was in Midtown, Kansas City earlier this afternoon.
It's been about a year since I've seen it, so I watched it again. Sometimes I have to collect myself and start fresh. (NOTE: I still cannot stomach Peter Jackoff's Board of the Things)
After vomiting, gouging my eyes out and trying to find a doctor to administer Electroshock Therapy Treatment, I simply vomited again, then, threw it in the trash.
It saddens me that I cannot get my money back. I mean, it's only $3.99+tx.....but......I feel as if the bastard flick has picked my wallet.
Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to sanitize my DVD player and TV.:dead:
Yawn '04 it reamains.

[DjfunkmasterG]

This may all be true, but nothing will ever get the stink of LOTD off my DVD player.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I had my LAND DVD signed by everyone I could find at horrorfind and I just shelved it after that.

[LouCipherr]

I'm personally surprised you didn't just ebay the f*cker, Dj. That's where it belongs... :lol: :lol:

[ssbib]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I had my LAND DVD signed by everyone I could find at horrorfind and I just shelved it after that.


Do you guys not like land of the dead? I thought it was fookin mint. As for the zombie baby from dawn04, I thought that was quite good too but i was expecting the baby to eat its way out of the mother, thought that would've been quite cool. But in thinking, a zombie baby is no threat, as it has no teeth. heh heh

[MinionZombie]

Just do a forum search for Land of the Dead related topics, you'll see an epic history ... a battle if you will ... between the factions:

The "I Love Land" camp and the "I Hate Land" camp. There was even a poll to decide if it was worthy (and *ahem* it was proven in spades that Land rocked :cool:)

[Brubaker]

I'm personally surprised you didn't just ebay the f*cker, Dj. That's where it belongs... :lol: :lol:

Have you seen the current Ebay prices? Some copies end at $0.01 before shipping. Might as well just take it into a local pawn shop or video store that accepts used movies for trade-in.

[Slain]

I just watched Dawn 04 yesterday for the first time & thought that it was a pretty depressing movie all around.

Some of the things I thought made this flick such a downer:

1. the reportage from the first zombie occurrences to everybody & his bother becoming zombies isn't fair play to the story characters. News of people practically immune gunfire killing & eating other people would have had everybody on edge watch the news, grabbing guns, bugging out of town, etc. If the intent of not showing much lead up to the zombie plague was convey a government cover up or something, I wish they would have come out & said so in the movie.

2. the running & super strong zombies were ridiculous. I think it would be physiologically impossible for a person to have more speed & strength as a zombie than they had had before becoming zombies. I wish they would have split the difference & had zombies fitness commensurate with their pre zombie state--strong, fast athlete = strong fast zombie & fat, slow moving old lady = fat, slow moving zombie. As it stood, the survivors were in hopeless On The Beach type situation & they might have well just drank themselves to death rather than try & fight off the inevitable.

3. the survivors in the mall behaved like a bunch of stupid, contrite children hiding information form each other for know apparent reason. You would think people in life & death situation would display more cooperation with each other--if for other reason than for their own personal survival. Case in point; if CJ had mentioned that a sewer line ran from the mall to over by the gun shop the group could've tunneled up into the place, saved Andy & gotten a butt load of guns & ammunition.

4. the destruction of the entire group as suggest to in the last few minutes of the movie was also real disappointment. Only a stupid kid would think such an ending as being witty & clever.

[AssassinFromHell]

I just watched Dawn 04 yesterday for the first time & thought that it was a pretty depressing movie all around.

Some of the things I thought made this flick such a downer:

1. the reportage from the first zombie occurrences to everybody & his bother becoming zombies isn't fair play to the story characters. News of people practically immune gunfire killing & eating other people would have had everybody on edge watch the news, grabbing guns, bugging out of town, etc. If the intent of not showing much lead up to the zombie plague was convey a government cover up or something, I wish they would have come out & said so in the movie.

2. the running & super strong zombies were ridiculous. I think it would be physiologically impossible for a person to have more speed & strength as a zombie than they had had before becoming zombies. I wish they would have split the difference & had zombies fitness commensurate with their pre zombie state--strong, fast athlete = strong fast zombie & fat, slow moving old lady = fat, slow moving zombie. As it stood, the survivors were in hopeless On The Beach type situation & they might have well just drank themselves to death rather than try & fight off the inevitable.

3. the survivors in the mall behaved like a bunch of stupid, contrite children hiding information form each other for know apparent reason. You would think people in life & death situation would display more cooperation with each other--if for other reason than for their own personal survival. Case in point; if CJ had mentioned that a sewer line ran from the mall to over by the gun shop the group could've tunneled up into the place, saved Andy & gotten a butt load of guns & ammunition.

4. the destruction of the entire group as suggest to in the last few minutes of the movie was also real disappointment. Only a stupid kid would think such an ending as being witty & clever.

GOD DAMMIT! I WISH I COULD GIVE REP FOR THAT ONE! :mad: :mad: :mad:

(I agree with you 150 percent. These holes are overlooked by the same people who nitpick at LAND. I mean, DAWN 04 is good for a Friday Night action flick. Perfect, I guess. But as a zombie flick or even more so, a George A. Romero remake? Disaster. Complete, unholy disaster. It even made Satan crap himself. :eek: )

[Chakobsa]

I just watched Dawn 04 yesterday for the first time & thought that it was a pretty depressing movie all around.

Some of the things I thought made this flick such a downer:

1. the reportage from the first zombie occurrences to everybody & his bother becoming zombies isn't fair play to the story characters. News of people practically immune gunfire killing & eating other people would have had everybody on edge watch the news, grabbing guns, bugging out of town, etc. If the intent of not showing much lead up to the zombie plague was convey a government cover up or something, I wish they would have come out & said so in the movie.

2. the running & super strong zombies were ridiculous. I think it would be physiologically impossible for a person to have more speed & strength as a zombie than they had had before becoming zombies. I wish they would have split the difference & had zombies fitness commensurate with their pre zombie state--strong, fast athlete = strong fast zombie & fat, slow moving old lady = fat, slow moving zombie. As it stood, the survivors were in hopeless On The Beach type situation & they might have well just drank themselves to death rather than try & fight off the inevitable.

3. the survivors in the mall behaved like a bunch of stupid, contrite children hiding information form each other for know apparent reason. You would think people in life & death situation would display more cooperation with each other--if for other reason than for their own personal survival. Case in point; if CJ had mentioned that a sewer line ran from the mall to over by the gun shop the group could've tunneled up into the place, saved Andy & gotten a butt load of guns & ammunition.

4. the destruction of the entire group as suggest to in the last few minutes of the movie was also real disappointment. Only a stupid kid would think such an ending as being witty & clever.
I liked '04 alot here's my take on the runners again.

I think that Svengoolie has probably said all that you can say on this topic.
There are sound physiological reasons why the runners are scary, human beings and probably most other animals experience something called pain, yeah, I know it's not very nice but it stops us from damaging ourselves too badly.
Lack of pain due to nerve damage is what leads to the disfiguring injuries you see in those unfortunate enough to suffer from Hansons disease (leprosy).
The musculature (sp?) of the human body is very powerful, remember, our design is best suited to chasing down game in Africa.Our genes know that the creatures that carry them have to be strong and smart but not reckless.
Pain tells us to stop before we damage the body. The dead don't care, they'll keep going 'till your barricade fails or you machete their heads off or they eat you.
Shamblers are scary 'cause in the event of an outbreak human folly and our crowded planet would equal a dismal future for any survivors. Slow and steady wins the race.
I think that the aggregate damage to the race would be the same, though with runners the eventual prevailing condition of zombie domination of most of the earth would occur a wee bit faster.
Btw, I prefer shamblers.:D

[ShadowBoxing]

What was good:

Zombie Baby: I might be the only person who liked the zombie baby. But I thought it was an excellent concept. I liked it mostly because Sarah Polley, a nurse in the film, shot it. Which is something that totally betrays her profession. Also it showed just how awful the situation was.

The "You wait" scene: The fact that they found a guy who looked just like Roger, and then put him in a scene exactly like the "Peter Kills Roger" scene was really a plus for me.

News: The news, and reporters in the field talking about the outbreak was really a plus for me. Especially Savini making a cameo...awesome. It was great to see the world outside the mall breakdown. Unfortunately it was not a slow progression.

The Gunshop Owner: Just really cool, especially on the special features.

The Bad
The Runners: The whole concept of running steps all over rigormotis and decay. They were less zombified and more just a mob on PCP.

Unexplained deaths/dead: How exactly did her daughter die? Why did it take so long for the Russian chick to turn, but the guy turned the next day? How the heck does a mob of zombies get on an uninhabited island?

Too Short: Not enough time was given to characterization.

Zombies Were Evil: Unlike Romero's zombie films where humans caused their own problems through their inability to solve petty differences, in this one humans die because zombies now have super powers:rockbrow:

The dialogue: Was chulky to say the least.

Zach Snyder saved this film, upgrading it to passable.

[Adrenochrome]

The Gunshop Owner: Just really cool, especially on the special features.



The Gunshop guy in the sf's, to me, was better than ALL of Yawn'04:D

[AssassinFromHell]

The Gunshop guy in the sf's, to me, was better than ALL of Yawn'04:D

It reflected the over all acting level of the film. Superb. :rolleyes:

[Mike70]

Before NOTLD, GAR had absolutely no produced scripts to his credit. And, his biggest deal to date was a soap commercial that aired only once on local television.

yeah but after that his career really blew up. i mean he was doing mr. roger's eps (the one where mr. roger's has his tonsils removed - what gripping television) and all of those sports retrospectives for "the winners", then his crowning achievement: "juice on the loose."


The Gunshop guy in the sf's, to me, was better than ALL of Yawn'04:D

i'll agree with you here. the special feature that was about andy was one of the coolest things about the DVD. that and the faux news with dr. franklin from B5, i thought that was pretty cool as well.

[SymphonicX]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original.

But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did.

Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.

What you fail to acknowledge is the throw away characters, nameless people, stupid subplot of zombie baby (ridiculous) and the very fact that this "reimagining" took the zombies from the shopping mall, and put nothing in it's place. There was no interaction with the mall, it was barely a set piece. Romero's work used the mall as it's own character, it had feel to it...what "feel" was there in the remake aside from sheer intensity, which was entirely due to the running zombies and nothing to do with the predicament or plight of the characters on a personal level? There was no FLESH to this movie, it had great actions sequences, THAT is all.....and not ONE of those action sequences matched up to the sheer audacity and intensity of the biker invasion in the original movie.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Here's the thing... You guys say Zack is to blame for DAWN 04, or James Gunn is to blame. The sad thing is, if they had filmed Gunn's screenplay it would have been a really bad movie. They of course do not credit the two writers who performed re-writes, saving what was really a troma filled zombie script into a passable and enjoyable action zombie film script.

Scott A. Frank and Michael Tolkein don't get the credit they deserve. I have read James script and it was bad, the re-writes made it more enjoyable. Sucks that WGA rules state no one else can be credited unless they change more than 50% of the story. Basically these guys fixed some characters, and got rid of the cheesy dialog and a dumbass zombie baby being born then standing up and running to chomp on its mother and father.

Zack's direction and those re-writes turned in a zombie film zombie horror fans should be proud of, yet they embrace GARBAGE like LAND as being a better film. Thats the only thing that makes me shake my head around here. You guys say the genre needs integrity, they need to stop making crappy films... DAY 08 was more enjoyable than LAND of the DEAD and took itself more seriously, hell even James Gunn's Slither was a better movie, but because of this need to praise anything zombie related Romero does you guys almost, and I stress almost, come off like Hypocrites sometimes.

Before you gus bash a lot of zombie films go back and take another look at LAND, a very hard look. DAWN 04 was criticized for having a chick run after a dog... LAND had zombies carrying military fire power and the ability to use in such a way that would make most soliders look like paint ballers.

Their excuse for communication and the understand of that communication through a few gutteral grwols was laughable, the friggin ransom, and finally... RIley's thoughts and feelings about the zombies just looking for a place to go. When I watch that movie I see so much potential thrown away on what amounts to nothing more than a sci-fi original written in the form of a childish comic book story.

Thank god ROmero redeemed himself with DIARY. That was everything LAND should have been.

[Excessium]

Before you gus bash a lot of zombie films go back and take another look at LAND, a very hard look. DAWN 04 was criticized for having a chick run after a dog... LAND had zombies carrying military fire power and the ability to use in such a way that would make most soliders look like paint ballers.

Their excuse for communication and the understand of that communication through a few gutteral grwols was laughable, the friggin ransom, and finally... RIley's thoughts and feelings about the zombies just looking for a place to go. When I watch that movie I see so much potential thrown away on what amounts to nothing more than a sci-fi original written in the form of a childish comic book story.


QFT.
But both movies blow imo. Land was embarassing. I'd rather watch RE and never see land or dawn 04 again for "one solid reason" watching Milla get up from that shower and wake up from her coma(both times) is priceless. Not to mention Manson put together a pretty solid score. Sad it has to come down to that for me.:rockbrow:

[Bub666]

The Gunshop guy in the sf's, to me, was better than ALL of Yawn'04:D

Yeah,I have to agree.

[clanglee]

I liked Dawn '04 a lot. I didn't have any real problems with the movie.

This thread is coming dangerously close to the old Dawn'04 vs. Land debate.

That makes me tired.:bored:

[SymphonicX]

Thank god ROmero redeemed himself with DIARY. That was everything LAND should have been.



I almost listened to you there, but you lost all credibility with that statement.

Land was entertaining, had some good moments. Dawn 04 had less good moments, but was way better than Diary, which was a travesty of bad acting, terrible scripting and contrived situations. It had all the authenticity of a rolex watch on a street market in China.

Sorry, I think you labelling people who preferred Land, which even by your admission had potential, over a brainless, dire and pathetic action zombie flick with no balls or meat to it at all, is kinda inane.

Still, having said that, this is akin to a bunch of Star Wars fans bitching over which was worse, Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. Who the **** cares? Get over it, get over the movies, they are what they are and people take from them different elements. I for one won't be labelled as a Romero Fanboy because I dislike some of his movies and can fairly criticise them - however I won't sit there and praise the bull**** that was Yawn04 because it was...just...a...terrible...****ing....movie.

"I LIKED THE PHANTOM MENACE"

:rolleyes:

[AcesandEights]

Thank god ROmero redeemed himself with DIARY. That was everything LAND should have been.

DJ, you need to put these sort of red-flag statements at the beginning of your posts, so the reader will know you're posting off your meds :p

[Griff]

Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

Can anyone confirm this bullsh*t? Like maybe if running zombies are mentioned in the James Gunn screenplay? Even then, there's no guarantee it wasn't a revision... I know for sure that 28 DAYS LATER came out before DAWN 04 had even filmed.

Look, a mate of mine was on location and specifically heard Zack Snyder instruct the zombie extras to jump around "like 28 DAYS LATER".

And that tells me everything I need to know.

[Mutineer]

1983's Return of the Living Dead is the first film I recall showing running Zombies.

28 Days Later did it before Dawn 04

=

(Still wondering the hate on Dawn 04) :mad:

[Mike70]

1983's Return of the Living Dead is the first film I recall showing running Zombies.


don't you mean 1985's return of the living dead?

[Mutineer]

I did, I did. :)

[bassman]

Look, a mate of mine was on location and specifically heard Zack Snyder instruct the zombie extras to jump around "like 28 DAYS LATER".


:lol:

Never heard that one before. That's great. Can't say i'm surprised, really...

[Mutineer]

My vision always will be the FRESH Factor

They run at you like all hell when recently turned, but as time goes on, they slow down to stumblers.

[Doc]

My vision always will be the FRESH Factor

They run at you like all hell when recently turned, but as time goes on, they slow down to stumblers.

I agree.....

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I agree.....

Then you are both wrong.

What you call the fresh factor is seriously flawed on almost every count.

Sure, a recently reanimated zombie flesh eater*, pending cause of death, might be slightly more agile than it would be after several months, or years, of hosting the virus, mainly due to seasonal effects and general "wear and tear" as opposed to lack of nourishment or similar, but there could be no such "believable" case within the limitations of the storytelling universe for them "running at you like all hell".

Ever.

All you need to remember is that in every single case of reanimation, without exception, ONLY basic motor function is restored. Simple. Basic motor function is what we are ALL born with, so god knows (inherent memory?) how so soon after reanimation they could even walk, never mind do the hundred meter dash!!!!


This ridiculous "running corpse" scenario of late (since the DOTD remake) is all easily explained by Zack Snyders total misunderstanding regarding the "creatures" featured in 28 days later and the actual definition of a zombie flesh eater, which are the "creatures" featured in Dawn of the Dead.

Danny Boyle pulled off his "running lunatics" (to great effect!) in 28 days later by NOT using zombies, or even zombie flesh eater's, and instead using real living people who were simply infected, rather than having them become infected, die, and then reanimate.

Zack Snyder unfortunately missed the part where these running "creatures" DID NOT DIE, and mistakenly interpreted them for actual zombie flesh eaters which could run at great speed.

For all it was worth ... and not long after, Zack Snyder went on to remake Dracula, but cast Spider Man in the lead role as the count!!!!


ROUGH TIMELINE:

2002: 28 DAYS LATER is released, is a worldwide smash (=$$$$!) and features living humans, who are infected, who are NOT dead, who did NOT reanimate, who are NOT zombie flesh eaters, who can run fast.

2003: Zack Snyder watches 28 DAYS LATER while working on a rewrite of cult classic DAWN OF THE DEAD, the "definitive" zombie flesh eater movie.

2004: Zack Snyder remakes DAWN OF THE DEAD but doesn't think anyone will mind if he uses the "zombies" from 28 DAYS LATER because they will probably scare the desensitized MTV generation kids more, plus its an old film and probably needs updating, plus zombies can probably run anyways because if you want to get technical, corpses don't actually reanimate anyways and zombies ain't even real mo fo!.

2004 to CURRENT: Lot's of people arrive here @ HPOTD and appear to be either plain dumb or just confused as fcuk!



*We are talking about zombie flesh eaters, right?

[bassman]

Couldn't agree more, Deadman. Nice rant. Everything in it is true as far as I'm concerned...

[AcesandEights]

Couldn't agree more, Deadman. Nice rant. Everything in it is true as far as I'm concerned...

Then you'd both be wrong!













Sorry, couldn't help myself. :)

[darth los]

My vision always will be the FRESH Factor

They run at you like all hell when recently turned, but as time goes on, they slow down to stumblers.

I'd like to see that in a movie and see how they pull it off. Everything else has been tried so why not this? Is it any more far fetched than the original zombie concept in the first place? Or more far fetched than those same zombies getting smart?

If anything it'll be something different that we can debate.

[MinionZombie]

Couldn't agree more, Deadman. Nice rant. Everything in it is true as far as I'm concerned...
Three-way high-five!

[Mutineer]

Three-way high-five!

"Let's not all go start sucking each other off just yet."

Wrong ? :lol:

It's my vision. I'm sticking to it. My zombie epic doesn't revolve around what GAR created (After LAND, thank god)

The Fresh Factor is a nice hybrid on styles. The wear and tear, the muscular degeneration, the basic rotting of the undead corpse would contribute to the decline of the ghouls strength and speed.

I'm sticking with it. :cool:

[clanglee]

Sure, a recently reanimated zombie flesh eater*, pending cause of death, might be slightly more agile than it would be after several months, or years, of hosting the virus, mainly due to seasonal effects and general "wear and tear" as opposed to lack of nourishment or similar, but there could be no such "believable" case within the limitations of the storytelling universe for them "running at you like all hell".

Ever.

All you need to remember is that in every single case of reanimation, without exception, ONLY basic motor function is restored. Simple. Basic motor function is what we are ALL born with, so god knows (inherent memory?) how so soon after reanimation they could even walk, never mind do the hundred meter dash!!!!


?

I don't see a problem with the quickness, at least initially, of Zack's zombies. In Dawn'04 it is some virus that causes the victim to pop right back up from the dead. The corpse isn't even close to being cold at that point. I should think that running isn't a far reach from basic motor functions at all. Baby's can't walk or run because the body structure wont support it yet. A full grown human's can however.

[AcesandEights]

I don't see a problem with the quickness, at least initially, of Zack's zombies.

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:

[MinionZombie]

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Mutineer]

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:


:D
:D
:D
:p

[Bub666]

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:

:lol:

[clanglee]

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Deadman_Deluxe]

So just to make sure that we have you recorded properly for posterity, Clang, is it safe to say that you're...down with the quickness? :skull:


You motherfcuker!!! Get up and get down with the quickness! :):D;):moon::hyper::elol::cool:;):D:):skull::lol:: lol::lol::dead::skull::annoyed:

[capncnut]

You motherfcuker!!! Get up and get down with the quickness! :):D;):moon::hyper::elol::cool:;):D:):skull::lol:: lol::lol::dead::skull::annoyed:
"Ooh-wah-ah-ah-ah!" :D

[Deadman_Deluxe]

"Ooh-wah-ah-ah-ah!" :D


I toured with the disturbed on the ozzfest a couple of years back, every time i seen Dave (singer from the disturbed) i couldn't help but to shout that monkey noise at him :)

Which was usually most mornings/evenings/nights ...

I think by the end of the third month ... he was getting a bit annoyed at me ... hahahaha!!!!!!!

[capncnut]

I toured with the disturbed on the ozzfest a couple of years back, every time i seen Dave (singer from the disturbed) i couldn't help but to shout that monkey noise at him :)
I was in attendance at the Milton Keynes date as it happens.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I was in attendance at the Milton Keynes date as it happens.

Cool,

I only ever worked the English ozzfest once, 2003 or 2004, which is where i first met jack. The English ozzfest however is only on for two days or a weekend? While the Amerikan version goes through most states (three or four shows per week) and lasts two to three months!!!

Plus i had club shows in between the ozzfest shows with bands who were on the ozzfest bill. Sworn Enemy, Chimera, Killswitch Engaged, Shadows Fall, etc etc etc

[capncnut]

Looks like my perception of a couple of years is somewhat fuzzy, turns out the one I attended was in 2001! :stunned:

Still t'was a good show (Tool, Slipknot, etc). Strange thing was that Disturbed came out last, right before Black Sabbath, which seemed unusual to me because they were still touring their debut album.

[ZombiePizza]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original.

But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast.

What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did.

Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.

saw it in the thearter with Mike Pizzoff the day before it came out, and i must saw it was revisioned well, also with a good dash of ode's to the orig. dawn, but as a remake, horrid!

[blind2d]

Noodle laughed for hours when she watched the part where the gun store guy on the roof held up the sign as a zombie. "What's he writing?" Bwahahaha! Sorry, but... come on!

[darth los]

Noodle laughed for hours when she watched the part where the gun store guy on the roof held up the sign as a zombie. "What's he writing?" Bwahahaha! Sorry, but... come on!


Because that's sooooooo much worse than big daddy leading a horde of suddenly smart zombies. :rolleyes:




:cool:

[bassman]

Because that's sooooooo much worse than big daddy leading a horde of suddenly smart zombies. :rolleyes:




:cool:



They're both the same concept. Memories from their past lives.:confused:

[darth los]

They're both the same concept. Memories from their past lives.:confused:

Agreed. I'm just saying that even gar's films have moments in them where you're like " dude are you serious?"




:cool:

[3pidemiC]

Are you just referring to the Zombie intelligence concept in his movies? Or Land use of it? You can assume that the zombies in Land can have a slightly higher intelligence than Bub and are able to operate firearms in a primative way. Using the tools that they did is nothing new, going all the way back to Night.

[clanglee]

Oh Sh!t. It's starting again. :rolleyes:

[SymphonicX]

Oh Sh!t. It's starting again. :rolleyes:

tell me about it.

[MinionZombie]

*fires wildly into the shambling corpse of a discussion - runs out of ammo - lobs gun at the still approaching zombie discussion - cheeses it!*

:eek::dead:eek:

[darth los]

Are you just referring to the Zombie intelligence concept in his movies? Or Land use of it? You can assume that the zombies in Land can have a slightly higher intelligence than Bub and are able to operate firearms in a primative way. Using the tools that they did is nothing new, going all the way back to Night.


No. Gar has zombies playing with manequins and filling up gas tanks. So what andy held up a bloody sign? Is it any worse than those other things in terms of the "c'mon" factor?




:cool:

[SRP76]

No. Gar has zombies playing with manequins and filling up gas tanks. So what andy held up a bloody sign? Is it any worse than those other things in terms of the "c'mon" factor?




:cool:

I don't think there's any "c'mon factor" at all to Andy in Dawn. It's almost the same exact thing as in the original: Stephen instinctively doing what he had done so many times just before he died. In Stephen's case, it was shambling back to the upstairs hideaway, and, in Andy's case, pointing a signboard toward the mall. Nothing really intelligent on either of their parts, just fumbling through an oft-repeated routine.

Neither of those two cases goes anywhere near the Big Daddy antics that people have been talking about. It's two enitrely different things: in both Dawns, it's just instinct powering the zombie. In Land, it's zombies regaining more in-depth skills.

[Mike70]

Oh Sh!t. It's starting again. :rolleyes:

it will never end until folks realize that yawn 04, while mildly entertaining, is a low fat, diet coke version of a zombie film. it is shot like a music video, has the pacing of a track meet, has characters that range from cliche to uninteresting, is in no way intellectually stimulating, that runners are ridiculous in most cases, and that yawn 04 in no way, shape or form measures up to nor pays homage to the original. yawn 04 seems worse every time i give it a spin. i've watched it a few times hoping to find some bit of redemption in it but alas, i never do. i want to like the movie, i really honestly do, but for all the reasons stated above, i just can't.

there, MZ did i cover it all?

now i am just waiting for the inevitable yawn fanboy asshole to respond "but, but you don't understand. snyder said this , he said that, blah, blah, blah." people say a lot of things and much of what snyder said about this film sound very much like excuses to me.

[MinionZombie]

I never read it as him being a zombie, I always watched it as he was on the brink of death - then whilst holding the sign up, he turns in a split second - the look on his face when he holds it up first, and then a few seconds later are totally different - that's how I took the sequence to be anyway.

But then again, I thought the whole movie was gash, but that wasn't one of my 110 reasons in 110 minutes why I thought Yawn04 blew the goat farm ... twice. :p

[Mike70]

But then again, I thought the whole movie was gash, but that wasn't one of my 110 reasons in 110 minutes why I thought Yawn04 blew the goat farm ... twice. :p

i think snyder and company went through the goats at least 3 times.

[Yojimbo]

it will never end until folks realize that yawn 04, while mildly entertaining, is a low fat, diet coke version of a zombie film. it is shot like a music video, has the pacing of a track meet, has characters that range from cliche to uninteresting, is in no way intellectually stimulating, that runners are ridiculous in most cases, and that yawn 04 in no way, shape or form measures up to nor pays homage to the original. yawn 04 seems worse every time i give it a spin. i've watched it a few times hoping to find some bit of redemption in it but alas, i never do. i want to like the movie, i really honestly do, but for all the reasons stated above, i just can't.

there, MZ did i cover it all?

now i am just waiting for the inevitable yawn fanboy asshole to respond "but, but you don't understand. snyder said this , he said that, blah, blah, blah." people say a lot of things and much of what snyder said about this film sound very much like excuses to me.

Right on, Mike: especially with your diet coke statement. Also agree that Snyder started off making excuses for his film, which btw: EVERYONE REALIZES IT WAS NOT MEANT TO BE A DIRECT REMAKE!!!!!) And you know what they say about excuses...


No. Gar has zombies playing with manequins and filling up gas tanks. So what andy held up a bloody sign? Is it any worse than those other things in terms of the "c'mon" factor?




:cool:
Yeah, for me that was the high point of the film, with possibly the exception of seeing Ken and Scott in their cameos.

[darth los]

I don't think there's any "c'mon factor" at all to Andy in Dawn. It's almost the same exact thing as in the original: Stephen instinctively doing what he had done so many times just before he died. In Stephen's case, it was shambling back to the upstairs hideaway, and, in Andy's case, pointing a signboard toward the mall. Nothing really intelligent on either of their parts, just fumbling through an oft-repeated routine.

Neither of those two cases goes anywhere near the Big Daddy antics that people have been talking about. It's two enitrely different things: in both Dawns, it's just instinct powering the zombie. In Land, it's zombies regaining more in-depth skills.


I didn't think so either. I was just saying that, is it really any worse than some of the antics that the ghouls in GAR'S films have pulled?



has characters that range from cliche to uninteresting

AHA !! SO YOU ADMIT THAT THEY DO HAVE RANGE !!!!:sneaky:

The defense rests your honor. :lol:

[Mike70]

AHA !! SO YOU ADMIT THAT THEY DO HAVE RANGE !!!!:sneaky:

The defense rests your honor. :lol:

oh, they have range alright. the kind of range you usually only find in dinner theater.:p

[clanglee]

Alright. .this is all I am going to say about this. . . I liked Dawn'04 and I won't appologize for it. It was a fun ride, I was well entertained by the movie, And even a bit scared in places. My theory on how people feel about Dawn'04 is that, how you feel about the movie depends on what you want in a zombie movie. There are two main camps in zombie fans. Those who want a thoughtful social comentary, and those who just want a fun eat'emup zombie flik. Of course most fans don't fall into only one of these camps, the lines do tend to blur. But most folk tend towards one or the other. I tend towards the latter. Social comentary is great and all, but I just like zombies and the survival situation. Therefore, I was well pleased with what Dawn'04 offered. Was it better than Dawn? No, of course not. But it was better than 85-90% of the other zombie movies out there!! And that's all I have to say about that.

[MinionZombie]

i think snyder and company went through the goats at least 3 times.
You are correct, Sir. :)


i think snyder and company went through the goats at least 3 times.
You are correct, Sir. :)

[capncnut]

i think snyder and company went through the goats at least 3 times.
No four times.

Oh and 'Have A Nice day' by The Stereophonics? Entry no.1 in the list of 'songs you should never use in a zombie film because it sucks assholes' as listed by the good folks at shamblerskillrunners.com. :D

[bd2999]

I think its a very workable zombie movie. ITs more in the cloth of 28 Days Later than the original Dawn. It has many flaws, many of which have been mentioned time and again. I think some of the flaws people see are unwaranted because every movie has some flaws in it. I think the opening to this movie was very good, the climax of the movie worked well and some scenes worked well.

Not without problems though. Its an action flick through and through. It has characters you cannot relate to that well, and a heroine that I dispise overall. There are really only a few likeable characters in it, and there are just to many of them for anyone to give a damn about. Most of them are just their to die. So its a good movie but not great. I am in the crowd that thinks it would get a fonder reception without the label of Dawn of the Dead, although I still see why people would not be giant fans even with that in mind.

[Yojimbo]

I am in the crowd that thinks it would get a fonder reception without the label of Dawn of the Dead, although I still see why people would not be giant fans even with that in mind.

Agreed. Also would have gotten a better reception from the GAR fans if that hack Syder wasn't such an egotistical bastard who demonstrates little if no respect for GAR. I listened to the commentary tracks, and that bozo barely mentions GAR at all. So I get the impression that while he has inserted little homages in the film that he is not a fan of GAR, and put those little nods to DOTD 78 in order to fool GAR fans into thinking that he approached this property with some amount of respect to the original.

[SRP76]

Just because he doesn't say much on a commentary track doesn't mean anything. I don't think anyone would want to listen to an hour of Romero knob-slurping, in the first place. He said plenty about how terrific Romero and the original movie are. In the end, the commentary is for Dawn'04, not the original.

The thing I hate most about the remakes is that they are already done. We're stuck with them. They can't go out and re-remake these movies the "right" way (whatever that is).

If I had my choice, and was able to go back in time and set it up, I'd have just one writer (preferably me!:D), and one crew get the rights to remake all three original movies. Then, go ahead and string them together in a way so they all follow along (inconsistencies hammered out), and play like parts of the same whole. Not like it is now, with no remake feeling anything like the other two.

[MinionZombie]

Although do notice how GAR's credit in the opening credits is shorter than everyone elses ... seriously, watch and see.

I'd still hate Yawn04 no matter what it was called, the movie is just sh*t and I have exhaustively explained why from time-to-time over the past four years, so I'm not just throwing an empty statement out there.

The script was diabolical in my view.

[Yojimbo]

He said plenty about how terrific Romero and the original movie are.

Dude, I must have missed this in the commentary and will have to go back and check it out. I recall sitting through the commentary totally pissed at Zack the Hack with no nutsack because he failed to give a nod to GAR and instead spent the whole time patting himself on the back. But then, I already hated that fool to begin with, so I admit that I was probably looking for any excuse to justify my dislike, and likely listened to the track with a totally biased head.

[bassman]

Zack the Hack with no nutsack.

:lol::lol:

He does seem to love himself. I was watching a small documentary on Watchmen today and he was already calling it the greatest superhero film of all time and saying that it's the first one to have themes grounded in the real world. Ummm....no, buddy. It's not the first.

I'm still hoping it's a good film, though. If it ever sees the light of day, that is...

[MinionZombie]

:lol::lol:

He does seem to love himself. I was watching a small documentary on Watchmen today and he was already calling it the greatest superhero film of all time and saying that it's the first one to have themes grounded in the real world. Ummm....no, buddy. It's not the first.

I'm still hoping it's a good film, though. If it ever sees the light of day, that is...
Jesus ... he's full of himself! :eek:

Blimey...not to mention ill-informed, I mean even though 'real world themes' have been in comic book movies for some time now, even Zack Snyder must have heard of the very recent The Dark Knight - or indeed Batman Begins - even his ego can't obscure his view of those two absolutely huge releases in the last few years?

Or maybe that ego can. :lol:

And damn, did he really say himself that his own flick is gonna be the greatest superhero flick of all time? Christ ... did this guy suckle at the same teat as McG?

*ahem*

Douchebag.

:elol:

[bassman]

Blimey...not to mention ill-informed, I mean even though 'real world themes' have been in comic book movies for some time now, even Zack Snyder must have heard of the very recent The Dark Knight - or indeed Batman Begins - even his ego can't obscure his view of those two absolutely huge releases in the last few years?



Speaking of....I also read an interview in which he says he wants to film Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and it's his favorite comic book. But Warner Bros said not while Nolan is around. I thought "YEEESSSSS!!!!".:lol:

[MinionZombie]

Speaking of....I also read an interview in which he says he wants to film Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns and it's his favorite comic book. But Warner Bros said not while Nolan is around. I thought "YEEESSSSS!!!!".:lol:
Wooooooooooooooooo!!

Damn straight, you tell that nob'ed, Warner Brothers, you tell him!

Christ ... this guy is a right nob, isn't he? I never read any interviews with him, so I'm not privvy to these displays of pure arrogance and numptyism, that you speak of.

[SymphonicX]

probably just as well MZ, the dude's a major douche.

hehehe..."douche"

[MinionZombie]

probably just as well MZ, the dude's a major douche.

hehehe..."douche"
Aye, I figured it'd be better for my health if I just avoid all mention of the guy at all costs. :lol:

[Yojimbo]

...displays of pure arrogance and numptyism...


Such traits painfully show through and are amplified in the douche's filmaking, say I.

[JonOfTheShred]

Dawn '04 has a nostalgic tinge that I can't deny, as it was the first zombie movie I really, really paid full attention to. (Although I still watch zombie movies 'for the first time' to this day and recognize seeing specific scenes.)

The movie was, for me, life-changing. Without its popularity I may never have developed the obsession with the zombie mythos I today possess. (And probably always will.) I was so captivated by the movie; especially the first few scenes depicting the breakdown of society, and any scenes with a giant horde.

I could compare the experience of seeing DOTD '04 for the first time to the first time I listened to Slipknot as a youngster: it was fuckin' awesome at the time, and I was completely taken away. But it was merely the ice-breaker in an adventure into heavy metal / zombies, where much better material presented itself.

After watching the original, I didn't develop a sudden hate for the remake. I immediately acknowledged the superiority of the original, but by that point I was well versed in zombies.

DOTD '04 is, obviously, not without its flaws. But I can't say I didn't enjoy the hell out of it upon initial viewing, nor can I say I will never watch it again...because I will.

(Oh, and I much prefer Snyder to Nolan. I'd take Watchmen over 'Law and Order: The Dark Knight' any day. Unless, of course, I wanted to take a nap. Then I'd put the Dark Knight in to bore me to sleep.)

[Mike70]

Dawn '04 has a nostalgic tinge that I can't deny, as it was the first zombie movie I really, really paid full attention to. (

21 year old folks talking about nostalgia for something that came out 6 years ago. i find that funny as all fuck. i'm gonna have myself a good laugh... there i'm done.

dude, i will never take you seriously after this asinine post.

[JonOfTheShred]

21 year old folks talking about nostalgia for something that came out 6 years ago. i find that funny as all fuck. i'm gonna have myself a good laugh... there i'm done.

dude, i will never take you seriously after this asinine post.

Wow, someones got sand in their vagina. Glad you decided to point out, right from the get go, how big a douchebag you are.

I feel nostalgia for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as well. It was released in the same year as DOTD '04. Is this as far-fetched to comprehend? What about Bat Out Of Hell 3? It came out in '07, and it still brings me back 3 years.

In the past 6 years I've had enough going on in my life to make that feel like a much longer time. Maybe your life is too boring and contrived to feel nostalgia for something that's released less than a decade ago. But then again, you're pretty OLD now, so I'd be bitter too.

[bassman]

"Life-changing"? "Nostalgic"? "Captivating"? All this about Dawn04?

If this is the new generation of zombie fan, we're doomed.:p

And forgive Mike. He is in fact our resident douchebag. He smells a bit, but he's got a heart of gold.

[Mike70]

If this is the new generation of zombie fan, we're doomed.:p

And forgive Mike. He is in fact our resident douchebag. He smells a bit, but he's got a heart of gold.

we are already doomed on that account.

it is so funny to watch these little fools flutter about after a couple of pebbles are thrown their way.

[JonOfTheShred]

"Life-changing"? "Nostalgic"? "Captivating"? All this about Dawn04?

If this is the new generation of zombie fan, we're doomed.:p


So far everyone missed my point. This is the FIRST zombie movie I've ever seen. How wouldn't that be life-changing? I love zombie flicks, they're my favorite. Isn't everyone's first viewing of a zombie flick 'captivating?' And yes, it makes me nostalgic to think back to when I started my journey as a zombie fanatic.

I recognize the trash DOTD 04 is now that I've seen 80 or more other zombie movies, at least 50 - 55 of which I liked better. I thought the Slipknot analogy made that obvious enough, because that is garbage music if you wanna compare it to what I listen to now. (Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Iron Maiden, Manowar, Savatage, etc.) But there is MUCH worse out there. And at least the movie is meant to be cheesy fun, instead of self-important like the 28 Days / Weeks movies. (And I KNOW, they're infected, not undead. I know this.)

Talk about wrong impressions. I own a good 30 - 40 zombie movies, and this ain't one of 'em.

[mista_mo]

whoa whoa whoa whoa, Dawn 04 isn't trash.

At any rate, welcome to the boards.

[acealive1]

i just hated how they called in a remake and it bore no resemblance except the fact it was in a mall.

[JDFP]

I feel nostalgia for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as well. It was released in the same year as DOTD '04. Is this as far-fetched to comprehend? What about Bat Out Of Hell 3? It came out in '07, and it still brings me back 3 years.



Anyone who mentions Meat Loaf for the awesomeness that he is gets my thumbs up approval of welcoming. I understand what you mean by "nostalgia" but a film being less than a decade old seems a bit premature for it for many of us here. Yes, we all change from year to year -- but when I use the word nostalgia I'm referring to something when I was little (25 or so years ago) or at least 20 years ago at a minimum. I think what others are saying here is that something 5-6 years old doesn't really qualify in usage of the word "nostalgia" as the correct word. Respect, admiration, etc., perhaps... but nostalgia is like an antique car, you have to wait at least 20 years to really use the word. :cool:


So far everyone missed my point. This is the FIRST zombie movie I've ever seen. How wouldn't that be life-changing? I love zombie flicks, they're my favorite. Isn't everyone's first viewing of a zombie flick 'captivating?' And yes, it makes me nostalgic to think back to when I started my journey as a zombie fanatic.

I recognize the trash DOTD 04 is now that I've seen 80 or more other zombie movies, at least 50 - 55 of which I liked better. I thought the Slipknot analogy made that obvious enough, because that is garbage music if you wanna compare it to what I listen to now. (Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Iron Maiden, Manowar, Savatage, etc.) But there is MUCH worse out there. And at least the movie is meant to be cheesy fun, instead of self-important like the 28 Days / Weeks movies. (And I KNOW, they're infected, not undead. I know this.)

Talk about wrong impressions. I own a good 30 - 40 zombie movies, and this ain't one of 'em.

Good post, Jon. DOTD '04 is ** NOT ** trash. It's a fairly damn enjoyable action flick if you ask me. It's worth watching and I own it on DVD and regularly check it out. If you want to see absolute shit, check out something by Mattei or Fragasso (I'd throw Fulci in that mix too but others here would attempt to stone me for saying it -- Fulci at least has awesome gore even if his plots are a bit silly).

You always hold a special respect (eh, it's just that word nostalgia, dude....ehh... too premature...) and admiration for the first girl you were ever with, the first really great horror film that scared the shit out of you, and the first time you saw a film in a genre that really got you into it as well.

Eh, whatever else... you have a great choice in music. Savatage, wow, now that brings back memories... I say we should crank up some Steinman to that and lift our beer into a "Salut!"...

j.p.

[JonOfTheShred]

whoa whoa whoa whoa, Dawn 04 isn't trash.

At any rate, welcome to the boards.

Thanks for the welcome. And I'd call Dawn '04 trash when comparing it to the original. But that isn't to say I didn't enjoy it. I think calling it "Dawn of the Dead" was the biggest mistake they made with the movie. But if they didn't call it that, people would see it as a rip-off, unless the setting was changed.

[triste realtà]

Dawn 04: first zombie movie...what would that be like? I am actually glad to be old for once.:lol:

I think Night68 was first for me, then Return, then I had to buy Dawn and Day on VHS cause they wouldn't show them on TV. Return II makes me nostalgic for the late 80s. I hope that dude comes through with his 5.1 laserdisc audio mix.

[JonOfTheShred]

Dawn 04: first zombie movie...what would that be like? I am actually glad to be old for once.:lol:

I think Night68 was first for me, then Return, then I had to buy Dawn and Day on VHS cause they wouldn't show them on TV. Return II makes me nostalgic for the late 80s. I hope that dude comes through with his 5.1 laserdisc audio mix.

It wasn't the very first. I'm pretty sure I saw a good portion of Return of the Living Dead on TV when I was really young, just not old enough to be more than a distant, faded memory. I also felt like I had seen Day of the Dead before when I watched it for the first time.

[AcesandEights]

This recent spate of posts is dumbfounding.

I often saw things as being nostalgic when I was in my teens and early 20s and look back now uncomprehending of how the few years between those disconnected times in my life could had been enough to foster a sense of nostalgia, when--for me--it still feels like it should be the year 2,000 or when I see a tshirt come out of the washing machine that I have literally owned for 20 years (it still look pretty good too :D).

Is it easy to lose sight of what earlier childhood looks like to an adolescent or recent post-adolescent? I guess it can be for Mike :p

Welcome Jon.



PS--Dawn '04 was good fun.

[DjfunkmasterG]

So far everyone missed my point. This is the FIRST zombie movie I've ever seen. How wouldn't that be life-changing? I love zombie flicks, they're my favorite. Isn't everyone's first viewing of a zombie flick 'captivating?' And yes, it makes me nostalgic to think back to when I started my journey as a zombie fanatic.

I recognize the trash DOTD 04 is now that I've seen 80 or more other zombie movies, at least 50 - 55 of which I liked better. I thought the Slipknot analogy made that obvious enough, because that is garbage music if you wanna compare it to what I listen to now. (Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Iron Maiden, Manowar, Savatage, etc.) But there is MUCH worse out there. And at least the movie is meant to be cheesy fun, instead of self-important like the 28 Days / Weeks movies. (And I KNOW, they're infected, not undead. I know this.)

Talk about wrong impressions. I own a good 30 - 40 zombie movies, and this ain't one of 'em.


Don't listen to these knuckleheads. :D

DAWN 04 is a decent zombie flick, and it deserves the praise it gets and it did open a lot of doors to new zombie film fans.

These old time members, much like myself, have a soft spot for Romero's original work, as do I, but don't really care for the reamkes or newer stuff. I tend to be a little more open minded about them, but I also note the 04 version doesn't come close to the original.

However, welcome to the boards, and just don't take anything anyone here says to heart. They always get a kick out of busting the balls on the new people who show up. Once you jump into some zombie discussions, they will pop their dentures back out, sit back down in the rocking chair and have a friendly chat.

Welcome and Enjoy the site.

[EvilNed]

If one is in the mood for some decent braindead action, Dawn 04 is your film.

[JonOfTheShred]

Thanks for the welcomes, everyone.

I'm not saying this movie is complete trash; more around the 40% - 60% region. The good is really good, but a lot of it feels like a high-budgeted TV drama, and other times like a MTV music video. But there are some really great parts. (I love the celebrity sniper scene, in particular.)

Perhaps 'nostalgic' would be a term better suited to a time when I was shitting my pants and playing Super Nintendo regularly. :D All the same, I feel like a lot has changed since then. I guess since I graduated a few years after it came out, and graduation was a few years ago itself, it seems like such a bigger span of time has passed. It really brings me back.

But, then again, I saw Shaun of the Dead ever after that, and whenever I watch that one I feel like its 2005 all over. I have so many great memories associated with these films.

(Also, as a future disclaimer, I will vehemently defend my opinions. But don't take anything negative seriously, as my style of ranting is very much influenced by Maddox, king of exaggerating.)

---------- Post added at 02:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 AM ----------


Anyone who mentions Meat Loaf for the awesomeness that he is gets my thumbs up approval of welcoming

Eh, whatever else... you have a great choice in music. Savatage, wow, now that brings back memories... I say we should crank up some Steinman to that and lift our beer into a "Salut!"...

j.p.

Savatage are amazing, wish I could've seen them lived before Jon went off and started the Trans-Siberian Orchestra.

And Meat Loaf I got the chance to see live twice. Funny story, actually, I sung him off stage. There was a point when the band got really quiet in a breakdown, and Meat Loaf was singing one of his repetitive sections, trying to get the audience to sing. Being pretty close to the stage and a musician myself, I show off my pipes, singing along, loud enough for A LOT of people to hear me because he was offering the mic to the crowd. Needless to say, Meat Loaf and the entire band left the stage right after I finished belting out the line, and the stage lights went down for a good 15 seconds. I stood up and raised my arms defiantly, until the lights and music came back on in a split-second, with the band appearing back on stage.

It was a hilarious moment, needless to say.

[darth los]

This recent spate of posts is dumbfounding.

I often saw things as being nostalgic when I was in my teens and early 20s and look back now uncomprehending of how the few years between those disconnected times in my life could had been enough to foster a sense of nostalgia, when--for me--it still feels like it should be the year 2,000 or when I see a tshirt come out of the washing machine that I have literally owned for 20 years (it still look pretty good too :D).

Is it easy to lose sight of what earlier childhood looks like to an adolescent or recent post-adolescent? I guess it can be for Mike :p

Welcome Jon.



PS--Dawn '04 was good fun.


IMO, you're nostalgic for great times in your life whther that be two years ago or 20.


Shit, I wish I could go back to 08' right now. :sneaky:

[Trin]

Like I'm nostalgic for pre-2004 when I was looking forward to both a remake of Dawn of the Dead and a new Romero movie Land of the Dead. Such fond memories of thinking I had great things to look forward to. It was like having a reason to live.

[bassman]

Like I'm nostalgic for pre-2004 when I was looking forward to both a remake of Dawn of the Dead and a new Romero movie Land of the Dead. Such fond memories of thinking I had great things to look forward to. It was like having a reason to live.

I was thinking about this the other day while listening to DJ and Lou's EPIC commentary.:p

This place was booming with fanboy anticipation once Dead Reckoning was announced. If I remember correctly it was first called DR, anyway.

That was an exciting time. Now the last two films have passed by like a fart in the wind. The excitement died...

[darth los]

I was thinking about this the other day while listening to DJ and Lou's EPIC commentary.:p

This place was booming with fanboy anticipation once Dead Reckoning was announced. If I remember correctly it was first called DR, anyway.

That was an exciting time. Now the last two films have passed by like a fart in the wind. The excitement died...

Farts everywhere are offended as we speak.

:cool:

[Legion2213]

I'm a shameless "Dawn 04" fan boi! :cool:

It was a highly enjoyable zombie romp and I won't hear a word said against Sarah Polley. :)

[darth los]

I'm a shameless "Dawn 04" fan boi! :cool:

It was a highly enjoyable zombie romp and I won't hear a word said against Sarah Polley. :)


You can't fault anyone for their preferences. I for one can't fathom how one can sit through land but I don't knock anyone for it.

That being said, I'm right there with you. Love that damn flick. It's one of those films that whenever it comes on cable I'll watch it despite owning the blu ray. :blood:

:cool:

[bassman]

That being said, I'm right there with you. Love that damn flick. It's one of those films that whenever it comes on cable I'll watch it despite owning the blu ray. :blood:


I'm not knocking the remake itself, but if I get tricked into thinking the original is coming on and it turns out to be the remake one more time....i'm killing somebody. It's always listed as the original with "Two natonal gaurdsmen hold up in a shopping mall against the living dead". And everytime I get excited like a little school girl because i've never seen the original on tv. Then the universal logo shows up and I start the obscenities....

[darth los]

I'm not knocking the remake itself, but if I get tricked into thinking the original is coming on and it turns out to be the remake one more time....i'm killing somebody. It's always listed as the original with "Two natonal gaurdsmen hold up in a shopping mall against the living dead". And everytime I get excited like a little school girl because i've never seen the original on tv. Then the universal logo shows up and I start the obscenities....


Well, that itself is a different issue. I would be pissed too.

Isn't it funny how that matters to us yet we probably have more copies of the film than we care to count? :lol:

:cool:

[C:/Fodder]

I enjoyed Dawn '04; but I don't think that it will ever rise above the original in my opinion.

I share the common criticisms; it's too action oriented, there's not that level of satire, and there are too many damn characters and not enough screentime to actively empathise with them; save for Ana, Michael, Kenneth and possibly CJ.
I also don't like how the Crossroads Mall is not its own "character" like Monroeville was in the original (there were many shots in '78 featuring just the mall and its cavernous feel).

Also, I don't like how they merely got into the Mall through an empty car park and met little undead resistance within (save for the two still lingering about); I don't feel that the survivors "worked for it"; in the sense of how the '78 survivors had to haul a lot of ass to get the place secure.

However, when I think of it as a film of its own, I can enjoy it. The action's pretty good, the soundtrack's catchy (though Tree Adams' rendition of Don't Worry Be Happy will never surpass The Gonk!), and it's good for escapism. But there are just too many survivors that don't get enough development to actually care when they're mauled to death.

So yes; I don't feel it'll ever surpass the original, but I don't completely pan it either; it has some merits!

[Legion2213]

You can't fault anyone for their preferences. I for one can't fathom how one can sit through land but I don't knock anyone for it.

That being said, I'm right there with you. Love that damn flick. It's one of those films that whenever it comes on cable I'll watch it despite owning the blu ray. :blood:

:cool:

Thats kinda ironic...as I watched the standard cut of "Land of the Dead" on standard def TV last night...even though I have it on BD (currently unwatched). :)

[Mr.G]

This is quite the zombie-like thread....it won't stay dead!

[darth los]

Thats kinda ironic...as I watched the standard cut of "Land of the Dead" on standard def TV last night...even though I have it on BD (currently unwatched). :)

I'm telling you man. It's the darndest thing.

I could have a movie, like say John Carpenter's the thing, forever and never watch it. As soon as it comes on cable though it's like a major event I can't miss, like the Superbowl or something.

:cool:

[Mr.G]

I'm telling you man. It's the darndest thing.

I could have a movie, like say John Carpenter's the thing, forever and never watch it. As soon as it comes on cable though it's like a major event I can't miss, like the Superbowl or something.

:cool:

Great insight....just like me with Jaws or The Shawshank Redemption. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

I'm telling you man. It's the darndest thing.

I could have a movie, like say John Carpenter's the thing, forever and never watch it. As soon as it comes on cable though it's like a major event I can't miss, like the Superbowl or something.

:cool:

I am the same way. I am not sure when the last time I cracked open my DAWN 04 HD DVD, but it was on Starz the other night and I watched it from beginning to end.

Another movie I do that with quite often would be Die Hard

Some movies just have that feel good vibe that although they may or may not be great films something about them cliks with you and boom if you find it on TV you stop and watch it.

[Trin]

It's a common thing. Watching the movie on cable but not on DVD.

It's a simple committment problem. You don't mind hanging out with the movie if it's around and you're around. But you don't want to commit to watching it like you're going steady or anything.

On cable you can just turn it off or flip around during the slow parts. From DVD you are blatantly rejecting it. That can hurt a movie's feelings.

I will watch any Dead movie that comes on cable (including almost Dead movies like Dawn '04 and Night 30th). In fact, if one comes on and the kids are running around (we don't let them watch this stuff yet) I get really really irritated that I have to turn it off. But would I put in the DVD of the same movie after they go to bed? Nope.

Btw - I think Die Hard was a genre creating movie. It was (and is) simply spectacular. I saw it in the theater when it came out and I knew right away that it was going to raise the bar for action movies.

[darth los]

Btw - I think Die Hard was a genre creating movie. It was (and is) simply spectacular. I saw it in the theater when it came out and I knew right away that it was going to raise the bar for action movies.

Die hard is the absolute shizzle my nizzle!! :hyper:

It made Willis an action star on par with Arnold And stallone. He used to look really funny next to them at Planet Hollywood events being as he was the only one without muscles. :lol:

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Die hard is the absolute shizzle my nizzle!! :hyper:

It made Willis an action star on par with Arnold And stallone. He used to look really funny next to them at Planet Hollywood events being as he was the only one without muscles. :lol:

:cool:

Bruce Willis is my second favorite badass after Clint Eastwood, Clint just has a way better persona, and much better films, but Willis has DIE HARD... even the crappy ones are better than most of the shit released today.

[darth los]

Bruce Willis is my second favorite badass after Clint Eastwood, Clint just has a way better persona, and much better films, but Willis has DIE HARD... even the crappy ones are better than most of the shit released today.

Plus he's a top echelon director. He's a master of the personal story/drama.

He tells them in such a way that I don't believe any other director can.

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

Plus he's a top echelon director. He's a master of the personal story/drama.

He tells them in such a way that I don't believe any other director can.

:cool:

agreed... even his so-so efforts are still quite enjoyable.

[Wrong Number]

...I share the common criticisms; it's too action oriented, there's not that level of satire, and there are too many damn characters and not enough screentime to actively empathise with them; save for Ana, Michael, Kenneth and possibly CJ.
I also don't like how the Crossroads Mall is not its own "character" like Monroeville was in the original (there were many shots in '78 featuring just the mall and its cavernous feel).

Also, I don't like how they merely got into the Mall through an empty car park and met little undead resistance within (save for the two still lingering about); I don't feel that the survivors "worked for it"; in the sense of how the '78 survivors had to haul a lot of ass to get the place secure.


I agree with all of this especially the part about the Mall not being it's own "character". Frankly, you can change the location of this movie with almost no impact on the "story" since them being in a mall did not seem to have any importance like it did in the original.

The other thing that totally ruined it was the lack of two brain cells to rub together amongst any of the characters.

You have a crack shot in a gun store loaded with ammo. Maybe instead of chess he should have just cleared the lot. It might take a bit of time, but long before he would have starved.

Another thing, you are in a huge mall with food, water and creature comforts, why on earth would you leave it to go in search of some mythical island. Speaking of which, any of these dum-dums ever hear of a map?

It was just one stupid thing after the next and as two dimensional as the characters were I didn't care if they lived or died.

They had no right to call this movie Dawn of the Dead or a remake.

WN

[Legion2213]

To quote Dr. Logan...

"Do you really think you're going to 'blow the piss out of them'? ALL of them?"

There were absolute hordes of them surrounding the mall and gun shop. And there was only one guy with the ammo to do the shooting (a starving thirsty guy at that).

[MinionZombie]

To quote Dr. Logan...

"Do you really think you're going to 'blow the piss out of them'? ALL of them?"

There were absolute hordes of them surrounding the mall and gun shop. And there was only one guy with the ammo to do the shooting (a starving thirsty guy at that).
They should have taken a toy helicopter (there must have been one in the mall somewhere, it's a mall, there's gotta be a toy shop) and helicoptered him a sandwich. :D

Andy had sod all else to do, he could have been thinning the herd ... if he had bomb making experience and materials, he could have bombed some of the fuckers too.

[Wrong Number]

To quote Dr. Logan...

"Do you really think you're going to 'blow the piss out of them'? ALL of them?"

There were absolute hordes of them surrounding the mall and gun shop. And there was only one guy with the ammo to do the shooting (a starving thirsty guy at that).

OK, let me walk you through this...the population of the area is 106,394. Let's say 50% are dead or have fled. That leaves 53,197 in an area of many square miles. All of them are not going to be at the mall, at least not at once. Even if you say a crazy number are in the area or close enough to get there in a reasonable time what would that number be 10,000, 20, 30? Let's say 20,000, far more in my opinion then there would be, but for argument's sake.

So we have 20,000 zombies and a guy with far more bullets, in a safe spot, where he can get close to a 1-1 hit ratio,far better than any other option.
If you just kill 1,000 a day that's 20 days.You won't starve in 20 days. Also, this is assuming no food at all. Most gun shops I have seen have hunting supplies including beef or deer jerky, not to forget any snack machines or lunches people may have brought to work or left there.

Now add to this that there is an entire group at the mall. While the bullets there are limited, they have plenty of other options to take some zombies out and thin the herd.

This is using numbers that are way high, realistically you are talking maybe a few thousand at most, easily manageable. Additionally, the thinning out would take much less time allowing people from the mall to make it to the guy shop with food and increase the kill rate dramatically.

Population numbers are not unlimited and you don't go from healthy to dieing from starvation quickly (it's 4-6 weeks). Do the math, the "heroes" were dopes that deserved to die.

WN

[Trin]

That was one highly implausible point of Dawn '04. Andy could've shot them all day long. In the special edition copy with Andy's Final Days, or whatever it was called, they tried to play this off. He says something along the lines of "I shoot one and two more replace it." Really? And exactly how long did you push that strategy? A day? Because I'm guessing that the number of zombies in hearing range of the gun is limited. If anything, you'd get ALL the zombie in range in the first day and be wrapping it up inside of a few days.

And let's not forget that they had a truck. The things were very keen on following vehicles. So let Andy "call" them all to the area with his gun and then let someone else drive off in the truck. Go a few miles and then loop around and come back. See how many follow.

For that matter they could've let them into the parking garage and trapped them. They had tons of options.

[Legion2213]

Are you folks as harsh on NotLD?

If folks had been rational in that, we'd have spent 90 minutes watching a bunch of folks locked in the basesment or sitting on the landing of a house with the stairs ripped out. :sneaky:

Apart from that, nobody ever questions GAR zombies turning up by the bucket load (Dawn & Day). :rockbrow:

Films generally need a fair amount of stupidity to go more than a few minutes...anyways, I think ya'll just hatin' on my boy Zack. :(

[Wrong Number]

Are you folks as harsh on NotLD?

If folks had been rational in that, we'd have spent 90 minutes watching a bunch of folks locked in the basesment or sitting on the landing of a house with the stairs ripped out. :sneaky:


The difference is the people in NotLD were still trying to figure out what exactly was happening and the entire movie took place during maybe a 12 hour period. DotD 04 took place over at least a month long period.

WN

[Wyldwraith]

Something I've noticed recently,
It's only a rough, albeit working theory, so forgive the lack of conceptual polish. What I've noticed/concluded is that how people feel about running zombies and, consequently Dawn '04, is almost directly proportional to the body of zombie-movie work to which they either have or have not been exposed.

In other words: Newer devotees to the zombie genre seem to go through a phase where many types and quality-levels of zombie movies are accepted relatively equally, and that more modern films tend to meet with their approval because such movies are more similar in style to other contemporary films they've enjoyed.

Conversely, zombie movie fans that have been watching everything to do with zombies for years become MUCH more discriminating in what they deem to be "good".

I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie.

Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself.

Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not?

[Wrong Number]

I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie.

Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself.

Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not?

I think it's a reasonable theory and it's another reason I so hate the DotD "remake". Younger/newer viewers can easily be "corrupted" into thinking this movie is an actual remake of DotD when it's far, far from it. The reason, more than any other why I think the movie sucks is the smearing of the original's good name. I actually really enjoyed the first ten minutes of the film and even was not that down on running zombies. Had that been the movie's only sin, I could have forgiven it and looked past it.

The movie that got me hooked was Dawn of the Dead which I saw when it was originally released in the theaters.

WN

[Legion2213]

I've been watching Zombie movies since the early 80's...Dawn is the greatest zombie movie of all time, Day is also fantastic.

Night gets kudos for lighting the fuse for the whole shebang although I watch Savini's excellent remake more often as it is a far better movie IMO.

I am no less decerning than folks who think that the original Night is better or that GAR's recent films are even remotely acceptable.

People have different tastes and I'll take Patricia Tallman & Tony Todd over the original cast any day (apart from Carl Hardman RIP)...I've said it before and I'll say it again, Tony Todd is absolutely epic in the remake, completely untouchable and the definitive "Ben" for me.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Something I've noticed recently,
It's only a rough, albeit working theory, so forgive the lack of conceptual polish. What I've noticed/concluded is that how people feel about running zombies and, consequently Dawn '04, is almost directly proportional to the body of zombie-movie work to which they either have or have not been exposed.

In other words: Newer devotees to the zombie genre seem to go through a phase where many types and quality-levels of zombie movies are accepted relatively equally, and that more modern films tend to meet with their approval because such movies are more similar in style to other contemporary films they've enjoyed.

Conversely, zombie movie fans that have been watching everything to do with zombies for years become MUCH more discriminating in what they deem to be "good".

I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie.

Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself.

Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not?

I disagree because I have been watching zombie films for 30+ years and the only zombie films I hate are shitty ones. Running zombies don't bother me... stupid dialog and dumb ass storylines bother me.

Day of the Dead 08, Night 3D, Day 2, ROTLD 4 & 5, House of the Dead,

People just piss and moan because whatever they are expecting in a zombie film is just never going to fucking happen because the studios won't spend the money and the indie guys can't pull it off without the money... so it is a no win situation.

People want the doom and gloom of the zombie genre, which is why every zombie fan agrees the first 10 minutes of Dawn 04 is some great stuff, but, feel it falls apart when they get in the mall.

Now if The Crazies remake would have been, for all purposes, a Zombie film, in the definition of Romero zombies... I think zombie fans would embrace it much more.

The Crazies remake is a great flick, just not enough Crazies in it, but has that end of the world vibe.

The DAWN remake is good because it updates a classic with more modern ZING to it. No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards.

It is going to end up being an indie guy who scrapes together a few million and calls in a shit load of favors.

[BillyRay]

No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards.

It is going to end up being an indie guy who scrapes together a few million and calls in a shit load of favors.

But we don't know ANYONE who fits THAT description....

:lol::lol::lol:

:thumbsup:

[DjfunkmasterG]

But we don't know ANYONE who fits THAT description....

:lol::lol::lol:

:thumbsup:


I am not even saying myself because not enough Zombie Fan believe even I could do it. Only a few people here on HPOTD actually have watched my flicks and believe in me but the majority of the zombie fans wouldn't even give me a passing though let alone trust me with $5,000,000 to pull it off.


Nope its going to have to be Zack Snyder... I know it. :lol::rant:

[Trin]

@Wyld - I think your assessment has some truth to it. I think you could extend the argument further and contend that the entire body of movies that a person is exposed to influences their love/hate of recent zombie movies. With all the action/adventure big budget effects thrown at people today you see a movie like Survival and think, "Geez, O'Flynn can't even dodge one bullet?" Reality left the station a decade ago. If that's what you've been seeing all your life the "classics" are gonna leave you confused.

@DJ - I agree with you that stupid plot and dumbass storylines are what's killing the modern zombie movie. And I think a lot of that comes from people wanting to distinguish themselves from the pack. The zombie genre (being mostly about post apocalyptic survival) is a tight little area to work in. Filmmakers don't want to be seen as cookie cutter, recreating the same movie over and over again. That leads to things like zombie baby and intelligent zombies as they try to reinvent the genre. A genre that almost by definition should not be jacked with.

As to the "next big zombie movie" and whether Hollywood can pull it off... I Am Legend and 28 Days/Weeks all prove that the movie industry *could* make the next great zombie movie. These movies all tickle our zombie itch, but they just fail on some crucial points. Mostly the bias for action over character interaction and setting. But you can't look at 28 Weeks or Legend and think they missed the mark on scope of problem or capturing the claustrophobic nature. They had plenty of infected in each movie. They very convincingly depicted a widespread problem.

[Wrong Number]

The DAWN remake is good because it updates a classic with more modern ZING to it. No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards.


How exactly does it "update a classic"? It doesn't even have the same plot, characters or general vibe. The only reason it's considered a remake is that it uses the same name. Dysfunctional of the Dead is more like it.

WN

[Mike70]

where in the hell is that beating a dead horse gif at? this thread is like a terrasque. it sleeps for a bit and then comes back to pillage and destroy.

[BillyRay]

where in the hell is that beating a dead horse gif at? this thread is like a terrasque. it sleeps for a bit and then comes back to pillage and destroy.

Is it sad that I know exactly what that is?

Is it even sadder that I have a good story about my group fighting one?

[DjfunkmasterG]

How exactly does it "update a classic"? It doesn't even have the same plot, characters or general vibe. The only reason it's considered a remake is that it uses the same name. Dysfunctional of the Dead is more like it.

WN


When you learn more about the entertainment biz... then re-ask yourself the question you just asked me because frankly I am not going to explain it.

But I probably should because you were moronic enough to ask it.

It Updates it because during the entire PR campaign the film was marketed as a remake. Every site every news outlet referred to it as the Update to the 1978 George A. Romero classic... which is what it is... UPDATE is to change, make different while keep some things the same.

Since the original DAWN is a classic and this fim shares the name location and zombies, and was made 25 years after the original... it is an update to a classic.

Get it? or is all that Jersey pollution rottin your skull away? :lol::moon::rant:

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------



As to the "next big zombie movie" and whether Hollywood can pull it off... I Am Legend and 28 Days/Weeks all prove that the movie industry *could* make the next great zombie movie. These movies all tickle our zombie itch, but they just fail on some crucial points. Mostly the bias for action over character interaction and setting. But you can't look at 28 Weeks or Legend and think they missed the mark on scope of problem or capturing the claustrophobic nature. They had plenty of infected in each movie. They very convincingly depicted a widespread problem.

Agreed, they are EPIC in nature... just short on Zombies and some other stuff. I am Legend was really nice. Take the CG Hemocrytes out and replace with zombies and you would have had a winner.

[LouCipherr]

They should have taken a toy helicopter (there must have been one in the mall somewhere, it's a mall, there's gotta be a toy shop) and helicoptered him a sandwich. :D

That has to be the funniest (and most true) thing I've read in relation to Dawn04. Good one, MZ! :thumbsup:


where in the hell is that beating a dead horse gif at?

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/Forum%20Pics1/deadhorse.gif

[Wrong Number]

When you learn more about the entertainment biz... then re-ask yourself the question you just asked me because frankly I am not going to explain it.

But I probably should because you were moronic enough to ask it.

It Updates it because during the entire PR campaign the film was marketed as a remake. Every site every news outlet referred to it as the Update to the 1978 George A. Romero classic... which is what it is... UPDATE is to change, make different while keep some things the same.

Since the original DAWN is a classic and this fim shares the name location and zombies, and was made 25 years after the original... it is an update to a classic.

Get it? or is all that Jersey pollution rottin your skull away? :lol::moon::rant:

Excuse me, I had no idea we had an entertainment "biz" expert on the forums. Gigglesnort "entertainment biz"....you're adorable.

Let me put it simpler: Because something says it's an updated version of something does not make it one. The real answer as to why they called it Dawn of the Dead was to capitalize on the name of the original and to sucker all the fans of it into thinking they actually were doing an update. Basically, an advertising ploy.

They showed the first ten minutes of the film on TV before the release for the same reason. Unfortunately, that was the best part of the movie and really imo, the only part worth watching.

WN

[darth los]

People want the doom and gloom of the zombie genre, which is why every zombie fan agrees the first 10 minutes of Dawn 04 is some great stuff, but, feel it falls apart when they get in the mall.

I'd like to add to that.

Another thing was the epic scope. We briefly saw what was happening in other places.

If someone did something epic like that, say in a War of the World's sort of way, it would be the greatest thing we've ever seen.

:cool:

[Trin]

Let me put it simpler: Because something says it's an updated version of something does not make it one. The real answer as to why they called it Dawn of the Dead was to capitalize on the name of the original and to sucker all the fans of it into thinking they actually were doing an update. Basically, an advertising ploy.
I see both sides of this debate. Wrong_Number is right in everything said here.

But to DJ's point, it is still an update. Maybe a sucky update in some people's opinions, but it is an update. It does share a lot of similarities to the original. Consider this - if it weren't named Dawn of the Dead people would be claiming it was a rip-off.

I disagree with DJ that the name and marketing campaign is enough to qualify as an update. I think the Day remake is legitimate proof of this. Or maybe it's simply evidence that an update can fall so remarkably short of the original that it's an abomination to the entertainment biz and those wonderfully modest people who understand it.

[AcesandEights]

I grow tired of this argument about how many Zack Snyders can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone knows the answer is how big the SFX budget is.

[darth los]

I grow tired of this argument about how many Zack Snyders can dance on the head of a pin. Everyone knows the answer is how big the SFX budget is.

Waterwolrd anyone? :shifty:

:cool:

[paranoid101]

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2675/motivatorca1a148d9db16b.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/motivatorca1a148d9db16b.jpg/)

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[bassman]

I fail to see the misunderstanding in this "update" issue. Whether you like the film or not, it is an update of an older concept. Everything juiced up for the ADD kiddies, teenage characters, run run run, etc.

Everything about Dawn04 is an update for today's audiences. So even if you hate the film, you can't deny that it is in fact an update. Not meaning to hate on the flick because my opinion on it has changed over the years, but it's true.

[Legion2213]

Waterwolrd anyone? :shifty:

:cool:

That was on tele a few weeks ago...I quite enjoyed it...Dennis Hopper was epic. :D

[AcesandEights]

I wonder if the dude, who started this thread on his first day on the forums, way back on the 1st of August, 2006, has any idea it's still plodding on.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I wonder if the dude, who started this thread on his first day on the forums, way back on the 1st of August, 2006, has any idea it's still plodding on.

Probably not, he was probably one of the lucky ones to meet the 2006 Welcoming Committee that ran off anyone who didn't port over from the other boards. :rant:

My my my, how territorial us alpha males can get. :elol:

[darth los]

Probably not, he was probably one of the lucky ones to meet the 2006 Welcoming Committee that ran off anyone who didn't port over from the other boards. :rant:

My my my, how territorial us alpha males can get. :elol:

I must have gotten on you guy's good side because i joined a month before he did and I'm still here. :lol:

:cool:

[Wrong Number]

I fail to see the misunderstanding in this "update" issue. Whether you like the film or not, it is an update of an older concept. Everything juiced up for the ADD kiddies, teenage characters, run run run, etc.

Everything about Dawn04 is an update for today's audiences. So even if you hate the film, you can't deny that it is in fact an update. Not meaning to hate on the flick because my opinion on it has changed over the years, but it's true.

On the contrary, I can disagree :D

Dawn '04 did not have:

- the same characters

- the same plot

- the same vibe

- the same "message" (or any for that matter)

- the same type of "monsters"

It's not a remake or update. If you want to say "loosely based on ideas from Dawn of the Dead" OK, maybe I can buy that.

I was actually very open to an update to Dawn since, let's face it, it has parts that are very dated like the arcade scene or the high end equipment Steve is so in love with, but Dawn '04 was not that.

WN

[darth los]

On the contrary, I can disagree :D

Dawn '04 did not have:

- the same characters

- the same plot

- the same vibe

- the same "message" (or any for that matter)

- the same type of "monsters"

It's not a remake or update. If you want to say "loosely based on ideas from Dawn of the Dead" OK, maybe I can buy that.

I was actually very open to an update to Dawn since, let's face it, it has parts that are very dated like the arcade scene or the high end equipment Steve is so in love with, but Dawn '04 was not that.

WN

It's like a movie that starts and says based on the novel ___________. (fill in the blank).

You know it has something to do with the book but don't expect a shot for shot retelling.

:cool:

[Wrong Number]

It's like a movie that starts and says based on the novel ___________. (fill in the blank).

You know it has something to do with the book but don't expect a shot for shot retelling.

:cool:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I had no expectations of a shot by shot remake, not even close. What I did expect was SOMETHING that tied it to the original like characters, plot, etc. like the NotLD remake Savini did.

WN

[bassman]

On the contrary, I can disagree :D

Dawn '04 did not have:

- the same characters

- the same plot

- the same vibe

- the same "message" (or any for that matter)

- the same type of "monsters"



I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies.

For example....would you not call The Fly or The Thing updates of previous works? The characters and other essential story points are changed, but it still holds to that core plot, right?

I'm not saying I agree with it, as they could have put them in a grocery store and made it the zombie version of "Die Hard in a ______", but with the mall, the zombies, and the name....it's definitely an update. Just not as good as I had hoped...

[Wrong Number]

I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies.

In Dawn of the Dead the mall was a critical element to the story and really a 5th main character. In '04 it could have been set pretty much anywhere with no impact to the "plot".

The "zombies" from '04 were not zombies, they were more like crazies or rage victims.

I do understand you Fly and Thing comparison, but just don't thing '04 had anything in it that made it a remake.

WN

[bassman]

In Dawn of the Dead the mall was a critical element to the story and really a 5th main character. In '04 it could have been set pretty much anywhere with no impact to the "plot".

The "zombies" from '04 were not zombies, they were more like crazies or rage victims.


I agree, but that still goes back to what I was saying about us being big fans. To us those small differences do make it feel very disconnected from the original, but average joe schmoe going to catch a horror film won't know the difference. To him.... it's a mall, zombies, and named Dawn. Remake.

[Wrong Number]

I agree that there are many things different between the two, but as fans we recognize and hold those out more than any casual audience would. The basic thread that holds it as a remake is still there. Mall and zombies.

For example....would you not call The Fly or The Thing updates of previous works? The characters and other essential story points are changed, but it still holds to that core plot, right?

I'm not saying I agree with it, as they could have put them in a grocery store and made it the zombie version of "Die Hard in a ______", but with the mall, the zombies, and the name....it's definitely an update. Just not as good as I had hoped...


I agree, but that still goes back to what I was saying about us being big fans. To us those small differences do make it feel very disconnected from the original, but average joe schmoe going to catch a horror film won't know the difference. To him.... it's a mall, zombies, and named Dawn. Remake.

Maybe so, but it doesn't make them right about it ;)

[Legion2213]

One thing I will say about Dawn 90 is that there were too many characters in there for my liking, could done with less folks tooling around and more focus on just a few survivors.

It's also not Zack's fault that modern Malls/Shopping centers don't have much character anymore.

And just for the record, I've never said this was the greatest movie since sliced pie, but I think it gets a hard time on this forum, especially when it's better than GAR's last few offerings (IMO of course).

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------


I must have gotten on you guy's good side because i joined a month before he did and I'm still here. :lol:

:cool:

That's because your avatar is fucking bizare...people probably decided not to mess with the strange wierdo. :p

[Trin]

Fewer characters would've been better I think too. Although I felt like I knew each one enough to get by. And the ones who were spotlighted were pretty well conceived and played.

My major failing with Dawn '04 is just the plot. It doesn't hang in any way. Zombie baby, girl chasing dog, people deciding to leave the mall for a boat, inability to get food to Andy and/or kill the zombies in the area... there's just too much. You're hard pressed to find areas where the plot actually does make sense.

[Mr.G]

[QUOTE=Legion2213;239120]
And just for the record, I've never said this was the greatest movie since sliced pie, but I think it gets a hard time on this forum, especially when it's better than GAR's last few offerings (IMO of course).

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:17 PM ----------



Sigh...you don't need to be mean. :(

[darth los]

That was on tele a few weeks ago...I quite enjoyed it...Dennis Hopper was epic. :D

It's amazing how many films that man was in. Sadly even he couldn't save that sinking ship, nor could he save land for that matter.



That's because your avatar is fucking bizare...people probably decided not to mess with the strange wierdo. :p

Sometimes it's better to be feared than liked/respected. :sneaky:

But i like it. I can't bring myself to change it. The giraffe would be very angry with me. :shifty:

:cool:

[DjfunkmasterG]

We all know I enjoy the Dawn remake... However, I do agree with many people here it did have too many plots and story lines as well as characters.

Here is what I would have changed if I could of called the shots or re-wrote the screenplay.

Lose Mekhi and His Russian Wife - Didn't need them they only serve the purpose to give birth to zombie baby. I didn't care for zombie baby, but at least they did shoot it in the face... although off camera :(

I would also probably drop the two security guards, keep CJ, but the other two OUT!

If we get rid of the two guards we can then drop the Girl and Her father story line, although the moment she says goodbye to him before Ving blows his head off was cool, so I might have been prone to keeping it just cast someone else to play the daughter. I would have went in a completely different direction with the daughter... maybe having her stay alone and contemplate killing herself, but Anna (sarah Polly) see she is hurting and maybe comforts her and counsels her through the event. Since they're in the mall for about 34 days you could easily do this, which allows another strong character to come out for the end battle and it helps some character development between Anna and the girl because Anna lost her husband so they could relate to each other... sort of.

ANDY, he gets to stay, however, I would have introduced him a little later and have them find more ways of trying to get him and his stuff over to the mall. They had the working truck from the dock before the zombies population really grew they could have made an attempt but it failed and they had to head back to the mall and try again... this would have created more zombie vs human combat scenes and would have been kick ass.

Also during the rooftop conversations Andy lets on a little earlier that he is almost out of food. Since Andy and Ving connect very well int he film through the dry erase boards... this could have been a great plot device for Ving wanting to help someone and trying to figure out how he can without getting them both killed.

Re-modify the escape by getting rid of the fucking mutt and instead they re-attempt Andy;s rescue which goes completely south on them and they maybe have to hold on his roof and try to figure out how they get back to the vehicles while zombie swarm the storm...

Remove all the humor, except for Steve Marcus (Ty Burrell) He kind of stole the movie and since we sort of need his boat... he gets to stay. However, the boat could easily belong to one of the other group members... doesn't matter, but Steve was cool so he stays for now.

Michael (Jake Webber) This is without a doubt the best character in the Dawn remake with Andy and Ving coming in second and third respectively. Keep Michaels back story and how he manipulates CJ the same...

Now you have a great version of DAWN 2004.

At least in my eyes.