A Question of Remakes

[Svengoolie]

We're living in an age of mediocrity where almost everything in the horror genre is unoriginal, and the staples of our diets are remakes, sequals, and out-and-out rip-offs of foreign films.

Out of the three, remakes seem to be the most prolific, and most profitable to the studios...and on the whole, most seem to be done better than the other two alternatives.

In 2004, the firm of Snyder and Gunn brought us a remake of GAR's 1978 classic, Dawn of the Dead, and started a civil war amoung us deadheads. The traditionalists were blasting it before they even saw it, while some of the more progressive of the bunch embraced it for what it was.

My question to this august assembly is: if you think it was done wrong, what do you think could've been done to make it right?

To help you guys along with your answers, let's look at the different ways to do a remake:

1. The Retro Redux--like TCM or King Kong.
2. The Re-imagining--the way the Dawn Remake was done.
3. The Update--ala the NOTLD remake in 1990

Your views, boys and ghouls.....:D

[bassman]

In a nutshell, the ways I would change Dawn04:

- Drop some of the characters. There seemed to be too many to deal with.
- No running/growling zombies(personal preference)
- Make it less of an action film and more of a impending doom type deal.

All in all, Dawn04 is an okay action film for occasional viewings but I would probably enjoy it alittle more if they had taken a few more notes from Romero's Dawn.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

In regards to the Dawn of the Dead remake ... i thought it was strong enough to stand on it's own, and lets face it ... it wasn't REALLY Dawn of the Dead was it?

I wouldn't change ANYTHING about it ... except for the title.

[Craig]

Dawn 04, as far as the re-imagining goes, I love it, and its' vicious, running zombies.

They could have changed the title, but the whole Mall thing would make it kinda seem like a Dawn rippoff.

[Svengoolie]

Well, here's my response...and it might suprise you guys since I enjoyed the Dawn remake as-is and have defended it pretty effectively on this and other forums.

I didn't start surfing the web for fun until March 9th, 2004....exactly ten days before the remake made its debut. Up until then, I'd used computers at work occasionally, but never went surfing. I had absolutely no idea that the remake was coming out, or even that these forums existed.

One of the first things I typed into my search engine was "Dawn of the Dead", and low and behold, I got the trailer for the remake. I was excited as phuck, and couldn't wait for it to come out...especially after the retro-redux of TCM the October before. And, that's what I was expecting.

I was expecting a remake that followed GAR's original screenplay more like the NOTLD remake stuck to the original. I was expecting zombies in bell-bottom jeans and KISS t-shirts stumbing around as Three Dog Night or something played in the background....and I was looking forward to it.

What I saw disappointed me in that respect, but I still admired the remake for what it was (although I was MOST upset that there was no motorcycle raid at the end). I think it's a great flick that trumped the original in alot of ways, although it will never replace the original for me in my heart of hearts.

And....call me "crazy", call me a "pervert"...but I'd STILL love to see a faithful, retro-redux of both Dawn AND Day of the Dead!:D

[Mortis]

I thought the remake of Dawn was junk. All they did was throw in a mall and cash in on the Dawn name. I'd like to know how many people who saw the remake have seen the original.. or even knew there was an original.

[erisi236]

remakes are A-Ok by me. Even if the movie turns out to suck it usually generates interest in the original, which can never be a bad thing :)

[Svengoolie]

Okay....as an extention of this topic:

Say GAR HAD been attatched to this one...say at least to write the script...the way he was on the NOTLD remake.

Would you have been satisfied with what he gave us....based on his remake performance the first time around? Would a phoned-in rehash of a 25 year old script been preferable to what we got, just because GAR's name was on the cover?

[erisi236]

sadly if GAR had been more involved with Dawn04 it probably would have made 20 million less at the box office :|

[Mortis]

Atleast there wouldn't be any running zombies.


Okay....as an extention of this topic:

Say GAR HAD been attatched to this one...say at least to write the script...the way he was on the NOTLD remake.

Would you have been satisfied with what he gave us....based on his remake performance the first time around? Would a phoned-in rehash of a 25 year old script been preferable to what we got, just because GAR's name was on the cover?

[Svengoolie]

LOL! True, true.....:rolleyes:


Atleast there wouldn't be any running zombies.


Well, in response to that...alls I gotta say is that times have changed.

When we were kids 25 years ago, Boris Karloff as "Frankenstein" and Bela Lugosi as "Dracula" just weren't scary anymore. The old stuff that was scary forty years before just wasn't scary any more. We'd moved on as a society, and we'd moved on as fans....and that's what the first revolution in horror, spearheaded by GAR and Carpenter and the rest of the pimp squad, was all about back then.

The kids of today feel the same way about GAR's shamblers, for the most part....and are looking for something new.

About ten years ago, when my little niece and nephews were getting cocky about not being scared of monsters and such, I decided to give them a GAR zombie triple feature. They were bored to tears, and didn't find the shamblers scary at all. In fact, they were so bored they thought I was actually punishing them for something by making them watch those flicks...especially Day. Then, I brought out the big guns and put on The Exorcist...and they felt the same way.

When I told them that those flicks were the scariest flicks around when I was their age, they looked at me like I was high on PCP or some ****e.

Times have changed. You can stick your head in the sand, and they're gonna come up behind you and bite off your a$$...:D

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Just because "times have changed" ... does not mean that times have changed for the better.

I would in fact say that times have changed for the worse in almost every case ... in the case of movies we are only seeing so many remakes, re-envisioning (whatever the fcuk that is supposed to mean), rehashes, blatant cash ins etc etc because too many people lack imagination these days and for the most part the people who control the money are fast running out of ideas and are too scared to take risks on fresh and original ideas/scripts/formulas.

The Dawn of the Dead remake, the original, and those pesky kids being a prime example.

[Rottedfreak]

Dawn remake was entertaining enough alot more then the original. But then the original was never intended to entertain, it could have turned out alot different as GAR had the initial idea of an apocalypse and people rushing to a mall and then he conjured up the image of the apocalypse being perpetrated by zombies.

[bassman]

But then the original was never intended to entertain.....

Never intended to entertain? Are you serious? What was the point of it, then? A long commercial for the mall?

I believe that the purpose of the film was to entertain. In fact, I believe you could say that is the basic purpose behind every film....

[rikimaru]

i would say its the basic thing in most films. these days the basic premis of some films is making money... sad but true.

i think also if your nephews saw the movie when they where 18 or so they may understand why its scary. Zombies fast and slow scare me to this day... being eaten just freaks me out i think.

[Sir James Forbes]

You know, it's funny. When I first read about the Dawn remake, I cried "Nooooo...don't touch another classic!", but when I viewed it for the first time, it succeeded on so many levels and so much more than I expected. The first 15 mins are the best I've ever seen in any zombie movie...they actually made you felt the chaos...that the world was falling apart. But the general atmosphere of the film was something that I think lacks in a lot of zombie films these days, namely survival.

I liked Notld 90 because it was about barricading and seeking a safe haven. Dawn continued that theme on a broader scale...day, well, that theme was there to some extent but the general atmosphere was more of acceptance and coping, rather than any immediate threat; only the latter part of the film made up for that...and Land, whilst I can't say it was a bad film, I can easily say it was a dissapointment. There was nothing memorable about it and it could have been so much more. I didn't once feel threatened...only sympathy for the zombies. Not even when they broke in to fiddlers green nor the scene where the people realise they're trapped by the security facilities were exapnded anywhere near they could have been, in my opinion. Land even broke the consistency of titles - 'Dusk' isn't any more stranger than 'Dawn'.

Dawn Remake has characters I care about, puts me on the edge of my seat and leaves me wanting more. My only gripes are that it was far too short and the idea to leave a relatively safe place was unbelieveable. However, ultimately, I think the remake of Dawn triumphs all over Land and certainly gets watched more times by me!

[Mortis]

I think the characters are one of the biggest flaws of the remake. And then there's that running zombie thing. People think they should be stupid in the GAR world because they're dead, but they're fine with them turning into track stars.


Dawn Remake has characters I care about, puts me on the edge of my seat and leaves me wanting more.

[Svengoolie]

None of the supporters of the remake are saying that its characters are perfect, or even close. No one's saying the plot is unblemished, either.

But, both aspects of that film are indeed technically superior to the original's.

The bottom line is, in terms of screenwriting, the Dawn remake is a better script than the original.

[bassman]

But, both aspects of that film are indeed technically superior to the original's.

The bottom line is, in terms of screenwriting, the Dawn remake is a better script than the original.

Not necessarily. While I do respect your opinion and I can see where you are coming from, this is kind of like asking someone "whats your favorite....apples or oranges?" and then if they don't chose your favorite, you break into a huge rant about why you think one is better than the other. Although, you know you can never change the other's mind.

It's the same with this. There are certain things in the remake that you praise that make others vomit and vice versa. Both films have their positive and negative attributes and neither group is going to convince the other that their film is better.

Besides, EVERY zombie film has some negative things going against it. I have never seen an absolutely perfect zombie film. Hell, There are only a handfull of perfect films in the world. And even then it's all about one's personal opinion.

Apples, oranges. Remake, original. It's all okay in my book.

[Deadman_Deluxe]

The bottom line is, in terms of screenwriting, the Dawn remake is a better script than the original.


Bottom line my ass.

You have a habit of stating these things like they are 100% fact ... when in reality they are just your own personal opinions.

[Svengoolie]

Not quite, Deadman.

In terms of plot, and especially character development, the remake is far superior to the original.

As a "writer", you should be able to recognize that.

[Mortis]

Character development? The original wins hands down. Especially if you watch the DC.


In terms of plot, and especially character development, the remake is far superior to the original.

[bassman]

Character development? The original wins hands down. Especially if you watch the DC.


I would have to agree...

[Adrenochrome]

The bottom line is, in terms of screenwriting, the Dawn remake is a better script than the original.
That is the most rediculous thing I've ever read.

[Danny]

aye ditto to that.

my opinion is this.

whilst watching chanel 4 ,one of the non cble/sattleite channels in the u.k , i hadnt seen the origional danw yet and saw a show were, and they do this a lot in england now, called the ten minute preview this is where they show the first ten minutes of a film and talk abut it, i had often seen the trilogy of the dead bozed set but never bought it, (i got it now though:D ), anyway i was intriqued and it was showing the first 10 mins of dawn's remake and i watched it and was blown away, as george himself said the first 15 mins were what the whole film should have been, also there were too many characters in the mall, the origional only had 4 main characters and it rocked why this needed 2 dozen ill never know, i liked the idea of the guy in the gun store though, that was good, then i saw the whole thing (my brother got a copy of the dvd form donnington:elol: ) and i was dissapointed, that said the land of the dead film was much, much worse i hated it , i was actually looking at my watch during the last ahlf hour waiting for it to end so i could go home (i never walk out of films, even the crocodile hunter, but i snuck into that one and paid for antoher later,lol).

anyway it could have adn should have been great but since land came ut people have warmed slightly to the dawn remake as it was at least a better zombie film than that.

que someone going

"err, no hahahaha lololllol lmao, PWNED!".


jerry jackson style...

[Svengoolie]

Okay, let's take this one step at a time. We'll start with character development.

I'd like Adrenochrome, bassman311, and Mortis to define the term "character development" and explain to me how it applies to the two main male protagonists of both films. Personally, I doubt any of you will even try and just either ignore this request, or just say "no it's not", or flame me from here on out...but let's see.

It's pretty much non-existant in the original, and minimal in the remake...but the remake still has more.

The remake can still surpass the original technically (in terms of screenwriting) without it being a more enjoyable film, overall, to some.

[axlish]

Sure there was more character development, but was it quality? Did it matter?

We knew the employment of all of the characters in the original, and it helped define their characters except for Fran. So whats-his-name worked at a Best Buy and other various jobs, establishing that he was aimless in life until the zombie crisis gave him focus. In both films, the employment of the characters were used.

Kenneth was looking for his brother. Peter had brothers.

In the remake, they were thrown together via different circumstances so a little back story was needed, I suppose. In the original, they all arrived together, and their backstory, however tiny, was established by the time they got to the mall.

As far as dialogue goes, the original trumps the remake. Seriously, I am reaching to come up with memorable lines that left a resonance in Dawn 04, whereas the original I could quote all day.

Lets not forget that the remake suffers from the Mall not being a new phenomenon in 2004, so the film loses a lot of its reason for being.

[bassman]

"No it's not.":|

[Svengoolie]

Whether the character development in the remake is of great quality or not is subjective. They're still stronger characters because they're more developed. That doesn't make them perfect, or Shakesperian, or anything....it just makes that one set of characters better written than GAR's.

The fact of the matter is, in terms of screenwriting, we still had more character development in the remake than in the original...as I've been saying all along.

Why is that so hard to understand?

As for dialogue...it doesn't surprise me in the least that you could come up with lines from the original all day, axlish--you're pretty devoted to that film, as I am, and even have an entire website dedicated to it. You're more familiar with the original. It's your preference. I bet I could find someone else who would say the same thing about the remake....

[axlish]

I like Dawn 04 a great deal. In Dawn, we have classic lines that resonate such as...

"When there's no more room in hell..."
"The people they kill, get up and kill!"
"These creatures are nothing more than... pure.. motorized.. instinct."
"Wanna see my whirlybird?" (Just kidding, I'm sure that was ad-libbed)

When I think of Dawn 04, I'm coming up with zilch, really.
*scratches head*
Ok, the best lines in that movie were delivered by one Kenneth Foree, his religious rant was hilarious!

Not to derail the topic too much but I think the strength of NOTLD68 is in the ambiguity of the characters backgrounds. We literally know nothing about these guys, and it helps the mystery and tension of it all. Harry could be a civil rights activist or a grand wizard in the KKK.

[Svengoolie]

Regardless, bro...I've seen people (probably kids, given) go back and forth with lines from the remake at other zombie sites, just as I'm sure that you and I could go back and forth and do the entire phucking script for the original, word for word and not miss a beat, if we were in the same room together.:D

As for the original NOTLD, I have to disagree...a bit. One of the things I liked about the NOTLD remake is that there was a little more to those characters--especially the way Ben was tricked out in a salesman's suit, and the way the Coopers were dressed (like they were going to a wedding or something).

While I wouldn't want to know much more about the characters in the original, I still wish they weren't so anonymous.;)

[Mortis]

I'm not worthy enough to respond to your callout a few posts back, but let's see who's quoting which movie 25 years from now.


Regardless, bro...I've seen people (probably kids, given) go back and forth with lines from the remake at other zombie sites, just as I'm sure that you and I could go back and forth and do the entire phucking script for the original, word for word and not miss a beat, if we were in the same room together.:D

[erisi236]

well I for one will be useing the quotes...

"ok, after you two stop blowing eachother, maybe Davie Crocket here can tell us the deal."

and

"Can you be more of a prick?" "Yes I can but thats beside the point."

for many years to come :D

[Svengoolie]

Not to mention when someone says "That's not my problem" your response can be "If I put mah foot up yo ass, would that be a problem?":D

[bassman]

Not to mention when someone says "That's not my problem" your response can be "If I put mah foot up yo ass, would that be a problem?":D


That's a real meaningful, heartfelt quote:lol:

[Svengoolie]

It's still more useful than "They people they KILL get up and KILL!":rolleyes:

[bassman]

Haha, you never let sh*t go...

I wasn't even trying to say that the original had better quotes(although I definitely think it does). I just thought the one you gave was funny. Take a breather, man...

[Svengoolie]

....but let's see who's quoting which movie 25 years from now.


Don't speak too soon, Mortis.

By then, the original Dawn of the Dead will be 53 years old...and as of right now, it's hard for me to think of very many quotes from ANY movie that old or older--except for a few iconic lines...and (outside of the horror freak community, and the deadhead community in particular) not too many "normal" folks would put the original Dawn in that category.

Hell, most of the general public tend to lump all zombie flicks together, and most also associate canisters and brain-eating with zombies as much as they do the "shoot 'em in the head" angle.

The Dawn remake was pretty successful, and ushered in a whole new fan base with its new take on the ghouls....whether the GAR die-hards want to admit it or not. In fact, if it (and a couple of other remakes) hadn't been as successful as it was, we probably wouldn't have had Land of the Dead.

And, if it gets its own sequel...GAR's shamblers might be shoved out of the spotlight for good in the eyes of the general public as to what a zombie should be--except for the conservatives posting here, that is.

In 25 years...maybe the Gunn/Snyder series will be up in line for remakes, and maybe there'll be an outpouring of hate from THEIR fans because their runners will be replaced by the shamblers of old?:D

[Mortis]

I'm not talking about the general public, but it'll be a cold day in hell before they tell me what's good or not. For example, have you heard what they consider punk music these days? It's an utter joke. The general public are blind to the world, but we'll save that can of worms for another discussion. Whether it be one quote or ten, what's the difference? I'm willing to bet the original Dawn's quotes will be around for a long, long time. As for "Yawn 04", a bunch of Eli Roth sounding quotes are anything but memorable to me. I wouldn't have as big of a problem with that flick if it wasn't called Dawn of the Dead. But yes, like Romero said, atleast it helped get Land funded.


Don't speak too soon, Mortis.

By then, the original Dawn of the Dead will be 53 years old...and as of right now, it's hard for me to think of very many quotes from ANY movie that old or older--except for a few iconic lines...and (outside of the horror freak community, and the deadhead community in particular) not too many "normal" folks would put the original Dawn in that category.

Hell, most of the general public tend to lump all zombie flicks together, and most also associate canisters and brain-eating with zombies as much as they do the "shoot 'em in the head" angle.

The Dawn remake was pretty successful, and ushered in a whole new fan base with its new take on the ghouls....whether the GAR die-hards want to admit it or not. In fact, if it (and a couple of other remakes) hadn't been as successful as it was, we probably wouldn't have had Land of the Dead.

And, if it gets its own sequel...GAR's shamblers might be shoved out of the spotlight for good in the eyes of the general public as to what a zombie should be--except for the conservatives posting here, that is.

In 25 years...maybe the Gunn/Snyder series will be up in line for remakes, and maybe there'll be an outpouring of hate from THEIR fans because their runners will be replaced by the shamblers of old?:D

[Svengoolie]

We'll just have to wait and see.

But, personally...I see alot of parallels between the stuff going on in the horror genre as a whole now with the stuff that happened back in the day, when GAR and Carpenter and the boys replaced the stuffy "classics" of olde with their new material--right down to the more "conservative" fans' reactions to that new stuff.;)

[Craig]

I'm probably of the youngest members of this site, my first zombie influence was Resident Evil, and the whole idea of zombies in general grew on me from there, I asked my mum to record Zombie Flesh Eaters when I was 10 years old, it scared the Hell out of me right from the start...

Anyway, what I'm saying is is that I never grew up with GARs' movies so my love of zombies stemmed from just a love of a zombies, so I can enjoy the original, the remake, and pretty much any other take on the zombie genre.

I personally don't see how you can hate the remake as much as some of you do anyway.

For one thing it's not a bad film in general.

Yeah it took Dawns' name, but it was a similar setting, basic storyline and it was a remake of course. Get over it.

Yeah, it wasn't directed by George Romero, not every zombie film is, get over it.

Yeah it had running zombies, but a true fan of the genre should respect that any fictional being can be tweaked to the preference of the purveyor.

George Romero really kicked off the zombie genre. But to have it re-invented in such a great way really kicked it off again.

Yeah, you may not like the film that much but to express so much hate towards it really suggest some form of fanboyism.

All in all...

I love the original, I love the remake. I can't see why some of you just can't accept both as two seperate films, of course it's your right to be able to prefer one to the other but there is no need to bash it just because it's not what you wanted.

[Svengoolie]

That was an excellent reply, Craig...and it echoes alot of what I've been saying.

It's not a personal insult to GAR if someone likes the remake. It doesn't mean they think the original is crap, just because they enjoyed the new flick. And, it's not putting the original down if someone says that the remake trumped the original in alot of ways.

Why can't someone be a fan of both?

[Mortis]

I can't reply to Craig's post because it's obvious that some people like movies that others hate, so I'll leave it at that.

As for someone liking both movies, yes, it's possible. On the other hand, people should be allowed to despise one and like the other, too. I like plenty of other zombie flicks, and horror films in general, so it's not like I'm on GAR's nuts so hard that I can't like anything he didn't direct.


Why can't someone be a fan of both?

[Svengoolie]

Yeah, but one of the points I've been trying to make is that alot of people around here despise the remake simply because it EXISTS. Simply because it's not a GAR. Simply because it too that concept and screenplay and changed it...added to it...even surpassed the original in some ways.

Those reasons, to me at least, aren't good enough.

Most of us got into the zombie genre the same way Craig did--because of the flicks. Not because of who made them or who didn't make them.

Why can't the merit of the flicks be enough?

[axlish]

alot of people around here despise the remake simply because it EXISTS. Simply because it's not a GAR. Simply because it too that concept and screenplay and changed it

Yes, these people need a reality check. If you give me a valid reason, fine. But don't just hate it because it is a remake, non-Romero, or basically non-what-you-want-it-to-be. I was very suprised to see the angry tones in reaction to the remake, as if maturity was disregarded. I'm talking about grown ass men too, not 14 year old genuises like Craig!

[Svengoolie]

Words of wisdom, axlish. Words of wisdom.

Guys like you and Craig are islands of reality in an ocean of bs.;)

[Mortis]

It is because of the flicks. I don't care who directed what. If I think it sucks, I think it sucks. I'm not a director or a writer, so forgive me if my reasons for not liking something aren't as explicit as some of the "pros." My mother turned me onto Night of the Living Dead 20 or so years ago, but I never knew (or probably cared at that age) who directed it until later. It just so happens that I really enjoy most of Romero's other work, too. I would have been extremely (and I do mean extremely) upset with GAR if he put the remake out as is, so no, the director has nothing to do with how I judge a film. The bottom line is that I think the remake of Dawn sucks as a whole, regardless of who directed it.


Yeah, but one of the points I've been trying to make is that alot of people around here despise the remake simply because it EXISTS. Simply because it's not a GAR. Simply because it too that concept and screenplay and changed it...added to it...even surpassed the original in some ways.

Those reasons, to me at least, aren't good enough.

Most of us got into the zombie genre the same way Craig did--because of the flicks. Not because of who made them or who didn't make them.

Why can't the merit of the flicks be enough?

[Svengoolie]

I'm not a director or a writer, so forgive me if my reasons for not liking something aren't as explicit as some of the "pros."

We're not talking quantum physics, here.

I said that the remake had better character development. You said it didn't. So, I simply asked you to define that term and how it applied to the two main male protagonists of both flicks. And, you couldn't do so. You wouldn't even make an attempt....which shows you're just talking out of your a$$.

That's what we've got Deadman for.:D

If you're going to cite specific reasons WHY you're taking a position, you should be able to explain them.

It's like when most die-hard GAR fans are asked "why do you like these movies?"

And their aped response is "I admire the socio/political commentary inherant in each film".

When asked to explain that commentary, 999 times out of a thousand that fan is unable to do so and either ignores the question or attacks the person asking it. How many times have we seen that here? Too many.

They might as well say "I don't know WHY GAR's flicks are smart, I just know that they are".

It's because of stuff like that that Trekkies get more respect than deadheads.:confused:

[Mortis]

No, we're not, but it seems like if you don't elaborate on every fine detail, you're not worthy enough to have a respectable opinion.

I didn't respond to that callout of yours because the way you presented it was rather assholish. And again, here you're saying I'm talking out of my ass like I'm some kind of idiot.

I'm stepping out of this debate because I'm just not on that elite level that some people around here like to think they're on.


We're not talking quantum physics, here.

I said that the remake had better character development. You said it didn't. So, I simply asked you to define that term and how it applied to the two main male protagonists of both flicks. And, you couldn't do so. You wouldn't even make an attempt....which shows you're just talking out of your a$$.

That's what we've got Deadman for.:D

If you're going to cite reasons WHY you're taking a position, you should be able to explain them.

It's like when a die-hard GAR fan is asked "why do you like these movies?"

His response is "I admire the socio/political commentary inherant in each film".

When asked to explain that commentary, 999 times out of a thousand that fan is unable to do so and either ignores the question or attacks the person asking it. He might as well say "I don't know WHY GAR's flicks are smart, I just know that they are".

It's because of stuff like that that Trekkies get more respect than deadheads.:confused:

[Svengoolie]

You prove me right every time, Mortis. Thanks.;)

[Arcades057]

I think Sven makes a valid point. If you're going to say you like a movie because of something then you'd better be able to define what you mean by it. Just aping the whole "social commentary" thing is kind of old.

I like GAR's movies because I like zombies and I haven't seen another director do it better; not Snyder, not anyone. If and when the day comes that a director gives us a movie that puts GAR's zombie flicks to shame I'll be one of the first to hop on that bandwagon. Will I like the current dead flicks less? Not at all; I'll just have new favorites.

[axlish]

Words of wisdom, axlish. Words of wisdom.

Why thank you Mr. Torrence, what'll it be?

The best example of the angry man's review can be found on the Zombie Farm site. I love the site but this review is... well read for yourself!

http://www2.gol.com/users/noman/dotd2004.htm

[lullubelle]

Re-make to me means do the same thing over without changing anything, most of what we see today are not remakes, what made Dawn '04 good was that Snyder did not butcher the beloved characters of Dawn '78, he took story and re-did it diffrently, that made for a good viewing, Night '90, took the characters we loved and twisted them around, which to me was a mistake on Savini's part, i am not to fond of Night "90 because of that, not that remaking the movie exactly like the original is good either, example:Phycho, remake was made exactly like original and it did not work, because people gow to love this movies and grow to love the people that play the characters,i am up for re-imiginig, i think it works better, twist the story, not the characters.

[EvilNed]

I totally disagree with Sven about the remake having "better" character development. First we have to conclude what "better" character development is. Does it mean more character development, as Sven suggested earlier? In that case, no, definetly not. In a zombie adventure film running on 100 minutes where alot of scenes involve solving a problem, running from the problem, avoiding the problem (the problem most often being the zombies) then there's little time for character development. However, it might have worked had there been less characters. But what do we have? We have Michael. He's been married thrice, has had over twenty jobs and then suddenly he and Ana are in love.

How do we know all this about Michael? Because he tells us. He right out tells us. In one very short scene we get to learn everything there is to know about Michael's former life. Most of the other time he spends in the mall, he either fixes the generator, fixes the buses or says that "Something needs to be done.". Ok, so for a guy who can't hold on to ANYTHING in his life, he seems awfully inclined to get "something done". More so than any other character, really.

Kenneth? Yes, Kenneth has his brothers. His brothers die. Andy replaces his brothers. Andy dies. Kenneth shows absolutly no remorse over any of this. Remind me again, why is Kenneth in this movie...? At all? His scenes are like trickey character development. Just like those subplots in The 13th Warrior, we get cheated by this one. In the end, Kenneth just is. He's there. He knows how to use a gun. His brothers and friends are dead, but that's not important because Kenneth knows how to use a gun, he can provide the film with action.

Ana? For being a prominent character, she loses her husband, cries (once), and after that shows real little grief. She seems to accept this world just fine, and like a college girl she goes after Michael. Again, Ana's and Michael's relationship is never established, it just quickly happens in one short scene and then it's over. Pointless, useless and once again, we are cheated. Bear in mind that all these scenes of character development are scarce, whereas in Dawn the characters had little else to do but develop.

I'd also like to note that any screenwriter who writes such a one-dimensional character such as STEVE should be banned from writing anything ever again. Steve is a coward one scene, even though he has no reason to be, and the next scene he takes a gun and runs into zombie infested country thinking he can blast his way through. Why does he do all this? Because in every scene in which the writer could have Steve do something bad, it happened. It didn't have to make sense, but the writer figured that if Steve did enough bad things, we would see him as a bad character. Steve served the movie rather than his own character. Wow, that's some good screenwriting.

This zombie adventure film, because that's what it is, is a film that's to fast for it's own good. It's like an Indiana Jones film, whenever they settle down to have a cup of coffee, the power goes out, Andy needs to be rescued, a bus is crashing through the parking lot etc. etc.

As a zombie adventure film, it's nice. It definetly doesn't hold up and will be quickly forgotten, but I mean sure. I had a blast the first time through it. But the lack of sensible character development AND screenwriting makes it impossible for me to enjoy it on multiple views.

[axlish]

Great post Ned! Well thought out and written.

I have to disagree with this though.


It definetly doesn't hold up and will be quickly forgotten

Why won't it be forgotten? Because it is one of the best zombie films of all time, hence it being so hotly debated. If people will remember Fulci's Zombie, then surely this will be remembered too.

[bassman]

It's like an Indiana Jones film....


Don't you EVER compare the "Dawn" Remake to the "Indiana Jones" films!:mad:



:lol:

Seriously though, I agree with everything you said. Well done.

[EvilNed]

Why won't it be forgotten? Because it is one of the best zombie films of all time, hence it being so hotly debated. If people will remember Fulci's Zombie, then surely this will be remembered too.

Touché, good point.

EDIT: I would also like to add, that I wouldn't mind if they made a remake of Day of the Dead in the same vein as Dawn of the Dead. But they should rename it (not call it "Day of the Dead" that is), and just re-imagine it totally. Zombie flicks are always welcome. But I welcome them more when accomplished horror writers are behind the script, of course.

[Philly_SWAT]

Here is my take.....

First of all, any remake is done primarily for one reason and one reason only...to cash in. To make money. To take something that is already a proven winner, and glom onto fans love of that to almost force them into paying money to see the new one. It is a lack of guts to try something totally new, and take a chance that it might not make a buck.

This holds true for Dawn04. I think that it is in fact a good movie. But I hate the fact that it steals some of the soul of the original. Many new viewers, like teenage kids who have never seen the original, will consider Dawn04 as DAWN OF THE DEAD, which it definately isnt. Many younger viewers will not accept Dawn78 for the great movie it is because it lacks the "look" of a modern movie, which they consider as the way a movie should be. I also hated the fact that there was a remake of Rollerball. The original was far superior, but many will never see it, and the remake will be ROLLERBALL in their eyes.

Now don't get me wrong. Back in '78, GAR definately wanted to make money. But more than that, I think he wanted to make a movie. One that he could put his heart and soul into, and create a new work of art for the world to enjoy. This is one of the problems with modern movies in general. Rule number one is: how can we mazimize profits? Video game and toy rights are negotiated as the movie is being made. Deals to have cups at Burger King are discussed before the final edit is done. Is that about making a movie for art, or simply for profit? Now I dont have a problem with making a movie intending to make a profit, but how about making a movie to be a great movie first and formost. Won't profits flow because of that?

Specifically dealing with Dawn, Dawn78 comes in at over 2 hours, even after GAR cut it down to try to satisfy those who said it was too long. There was a lot more back story. EvilNed makes many good points, such as we learn stuff about the characters simply because they tell us in Dawn04. Part of the reason for this is that there was too many characters, and part because the movie had to come in at a specific time in length. In Dawn78, we have a whole backstory with Peter and Roger, who have been fighting the zombie problem for three weeks, and even though not together for that whole three weeks, they share that common history to build their relationship. After Roger is bitten, and Peter is taking him in the wheelbarrow in the elevator he says "Look here man, I ah...." Roger replies "I know. Shut up, will ya?" Two simple sentences. Two simple sentences that show how they have come to love each other, not in a gay way, but in a way that the situation would force anyone who survived together to have. And even then, they were restrained by American values that men can not express their feelings to each other. This one scene helps show how Dawn78 is far superior to Dawn04.

The original question is this thread was

My question to this august assembly is: if you think it was done wrong, what do you think could've been done to make it right?
I am not sure if a Hollywood film could make a movie like Dawn78, whether it is 1978 or 2006. There is no desire to spend the time to develop the movie to where the viewer has an emotional investment in the characters and the story. They have to do whatever they think will make them the most money. That is why GAR's movies are so good, they were made outside of the Hollywood sphere. And I think that is why Land is not as good, his art was compromised by Hollywood. I do not begrudge GAR making a buck now, because lord knows he did not make what he deserved off the original trilogy. I am not sure if it is a question of whether the movie was made "right" or "wrong". Like I said, I think that Dawn04 was a good movie. I like modern movies. But in general, a Hollywood movie is not going to have the TLC that a movie like Dawn78 has. So I think that Dawn04 was a well-made recent movie, but it is a shame that it had to be associated with a masterpiece of cinema, the 1978 version, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead.

Does that answer the question?

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I totally disagree with Sven about the remake having "better" character development.

Good post Ned.

You are not alone in your thoughts and opinions, but that still won't stop his own personal thoughts and opinions being classed as "certified and proven facts" ... even if they are only classed as such in his tiny little world :rolleyes:


I say tomato, you say tomato ... doesn't really work on the internet does it? :lol:

[EvilNed]

I agree with what Philly said. Dawn 04 suffers from the obvious Hollywood syndrome. You can tell that the studio executives sat down, watched the movie and sat silent afterwards, before someone raised his voice saying:

"Uhm, can we fit a love relationship in there somewhere?", which spawned the very awkard relationship between Ana and Michael. Same thing probably happened with Land, I imagine, since the original Day script didn't have any romance in it whatsoever.

Anyway, I think I know what I would change: I would change the screenwriter, but keep the director. Zack Snyder is obviously a director from the MTV generation, but he pulled off some nice action scenes. He was just what the zombie flicks needed. Most of the films faults comes from the script, which sucks. With a better screenwriter, the film could have been a golden boy.

However, I'm a very anal when it comes to history, so I'll probably throw pop corn at the theather when Zack shows us "300", while yelling "That's not how it happened, you fools!"

[Svengoolie]

To Evil Ned:

Did I say that the remake had perfect characters? Nope. I simply stated that the characters in the remake were better developed than in the original. And, I stand by that statement--in your own post, you summarized what we were able to learn about those characters. Even what little we knew about them was still more than we knew about the characters in the original.

And, there's something you left out--character development isn't just the little things that help us get to know those characters, it also applies to how those characters change and grow over the course of the story. And, once again, the remake shows alot more of this than GAR did with his script.


I'd also like to note that any screenwriter who writes such a one-dimensional character such as STEVE should be banned from writing anything ever again.

If that's the case, then GAR should've had his screenwriter's union card revoked in 1968.


You are not alone in your thoughts and opinions, but that still won't stop his own personal thoughts and opinions being classed as "certified and proven facts" ... even if they are only classed as such in his tiny little world

Instead of trying to insult me, Deadman...why didn't you ever try to become involved in this thread in a constructive manner, like so many of the other posters did? Answer: You're unable to.

And, why is "certified and proven facts" in quotes when I never made any such statement to that effect?

[EvilNed]

I'd be inclined to reply to your post, but seeing as you didn't back up your arguments with anything, I have little to defend. Saying "I stand by my statement, Dawn '04 has better character development, and Romero should have had his union card revoked in 1968!" doesn't just win you the argument, you know.

[Svengoolie]

Actually, I was just thinking the same thing....but do to time restraints (my family is here for the Easter Holiday) my computer time is a little limited.

Look for a more comprehensive reply on Monday.

But, it IS refreshing to finally meet someone on this forum who's able to respond with intelligence and something that goes beyond "no it's not" for a change.:D

[EvilNed]

Alright, I'll stay tuned. I had a similar argument over at the IMDb message boards a few weeks ago, so I'm all geared up. :p

[Svengoolie]

Actually, I don't see it as an argument.

Your ability to actually discuss the films you love is a refreshing change of pace.

I love the original Dawn for what it is--good stuff and flaws alike.

Or else I wouldn't be here in the first place.;)

[HLS]

In a nutshell, the ways I would change Dawn04:

- Drop some of the characters. There seemed to be too many to deal with.
- No running/growling zombies(personal preference)
- Make it less of an action film and more of a impending doom type deal.

All in all, Dawn04 is an okay action film for occasional viewings but I would probably enjoy it alittle more if they had taken a few more notes from Romero's Dawn.

Sounds good to me, the movie seemed overly relaxed. I would like to see more fear of doom in it, like Day gave me. It needs a real feeding frenzy, slower moving zombies. I liked Dawn04 but It did not scare me.

[Svengoolie]

To EvilNed:

Rather than get into a disorganized, 9000 word **** fest about each and every character, in my initial request to the "fans" posting here I asked them to define "character development" and explain how it applies to the two main male protagonists of each Dawn. So, here goes....

Character Development is the little things that aren't necessarily essential to the plot that helps a character come alive to the reader or audience--personality quirks, backstory, motivations, etc. It's also how a character grows or changes throughout the course of that story.

In the original Dawn, the main character is Stephen--he's the one that holds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. But, when it comes down to it, he's as shallow, selfish, and two-dimensional as Steve in the remake is....and what we DON'T know about him is way more than we DO know about him. We know nothing at all about his backstory, other than the fact that he's a helicopter pilot, and that he's been Fran's on-again/off-again boyfriend for at least the last 3-4 months. He's a coward who's only worried about his own wants and needs...and other than that, he's pretty bland, overall. Over the course of the story, he doesn't really change at all--with the exception of becoming both a better shot and a zombie by the end of the flick, he's still the same selfish jerk he was at the end of the flick that he was at the beginning of the flick. Case closed.

In the remake, we have Michael--a natural born loser who, in a type of strange, ironic, doomed coincidence...finally gets the chance to realize his full potential and become a leader in the face of the zombie apocalypse; something the wannabe survivalists that are attracted to this genre should be able to appreciate. We learn a little about his history from him (and, it doesn't matter that that history came from him in--what was the point you were trying to make with that, anyway?)...and that little bit is still ten times more than we know about Stephen from the original. Over the course of the story, he becomes something he never could in normal life--a leader...and is even able to form a successful relationship with Ana, which he was unable to do with his three ex-wives.

In short, we know something about Michael, and he grows and changes as a character over the course of the film. Unlike Stephen from the original.

Hence, he's a better written character.

I think alot of fans think that the characters in the original are more developed simply because they're more familiar with them. They've grown to love the Fab Four because they've watched the original countless times over the past 25 years or so. Even though they're two dimensional, they've grown on the fans that way...and in an attempt to defend the original, they throw out terms like "character development" and "social commentary" because they want to say something....anything...good about the original (and, in some cases, while dissing the remake), but they just aren't sure what to say, so they just ape what they see others saying--even when it's inaccurate.

The characters in the remake are better written than the ones in the original, but that doesn't mean they're more likeable to some. It's all a matter of taste.

:D

[Adrenochrome]

........ It's all a matter of taste.

:D
That should end the debate................or, does it?



http://eric.b.olsen.tripod.com/images/price2.jpg*I stare at you with my best Vincent Price "sneer" *

[Svengoolie]

Not quite, Adreno...

The question here isn't whether or not the Fab Four are/were more likeable than the characters in the remake.

The question here is whether or not the characters in the remake were better written, technically, than those in the original.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

A good analogy for all this would be cars:

One guy has a 71 Cougar XR-7 that burns as much oil as it does gas, has no A/C, gets 1 mile to the gallon, and has a broken 8-track player in the dash. But, it's got that classic style and balls-to-the wall power.

The other guy has a brand new Mustang, and everything works on that bad boy. It's got a brand new, efficient engine, doesn't leak oil, and gets 30 miles to the gallon. But, it doesn't have the look or style of the classics...and it's got one of those breathalyzers that won't let you start her up if you've had more than two beers.

Is one more likeable than the other? That's a matter of opinion. But, technically, the Mustang is a better car...and I'm not going to say that "the Cougar gets better gas mileage" when it clearly doesn't. Or that a broken 8-track player is better than the CD player in the Mustang.

See where I'm going with all this?

[EvilNed]

Stephen is definetly leagues ahead of Michael in the "character" department. Problem is I think that you like to see things in black and white, like in Hollywood films (and in the Dawn remake) instead of seeing the greyscales of reallife. Now, now, I'm not saying Stephen is a perfect character. But he's a damn good character.

Problem with the original Dawn is that most of the characters there are shown as they would probably be in reallife: Quite depressed. Remember the scene where Fran and Stephen are switching the TV off and on? If that's not a great, pointless scene that shows just how depressed they both are then I don't know what is. But Stephen seems to be locked in some kind of strange "hope" place. Everyone in the film except Stephen realizes that the world is gone. But the scene where Stephen tries to switch on the television... "They might come back on..."

Was he that depressed in the start of the film? No, in the start of the film he was quite stagnant about what he wanted. He believed that the world would end, he even told Fran so: "Somebody has got to survive." yet as the film progresses he goes off into looney land. Probably because he can't cope with being one of the survivors. I mean, who do you rely on when the world is gone? That's also why he sees the raiders as bad guys. The other survivors don't see them as bad guys in the same way, because the world is gone. They've accepted it. Stephen hasn't. Fighting raiders makes sense in his world, because he's doing the right thing.

Also, Michael doesn't evolve/develop in the remake at all. From the moment we see him he's the same guy he'll end up being for the entire film. There's a short scene where he explains he's a loser, but we never see any of that in the film. Remember the scene at the beginning where Michael realizes they have to shoot that guy who's been bitten? In the end, he makes the exact same decision. I mean, that alone proves my point that Michael doesn't evolve at all.

[Adrenochrome]

That's the point I've been trying to make.


here's the point I ALWAYS try to make,.....and, it's one of yours...."........ It's all a matter of taste."

[Svengoolie]

I thought you said you were "geared up for this", Ned....:D

Re-read the definition for "character development" and tell me how it applies to Stephen in the original. There's nothing there--we know little or nothing about him, and he doesn't change at all by the end of the film. He's entirely two-dimensional, without any depth.

Now, is Michael perfect in that respect? Nope. And, I never said he was. But even the little we know about him, and the ways he changes and grows over the course of the film, put him light years ahead of Stephen in terms of character development.

And again, the fact that Michael isn't SHOWN to be a loser isn't a valid point--he was a loser before the zombie apocalypse, not after. After the rise of the dead, he was finally allowed to reach his fullest potential. That's the point. We don't see his history of loserness simply because we don't see him before the dead rise.

[EvilNed]

I clearly pointed out how Stephen developed and how Michael didn't. I mean, do you want me to quote myself or...?

Michael didn't develop one inch throughout the entire film, whereas Stephen. Well... Compare the Stephen in the opening scene to the scene with the television. It's quite obvious.

[Svengoolie]

I clearly pointed out how Stephen developed and how Michael didn't.

Actually, you didn't do any of that, Ned. That's not development....

His aggressiveness at the beginning of the film, his sense of withdrawl in the middle, and his re-assertiveness at the end (when the bikers break in) are all symptoms of the same thing--his selfishness.

As I said--he's the same selfish jerk at the beginning of the film that he is at the end. How his emotions vary from scene to scene are motivated by that selfishness and nothing else.

That's not development, or change. That's a two-dimensional, stagnant character.

As for Michael, he DID change, and found success in the zombie apocalypse. Whether or not we actually SAW that loserness is not the point. His backstory set the stage for that change.


I mean, do you want me to quote myself or...?


Nope. I just want you do explain to me how Stephen was better developed...or even developed at all...based on the definition of character development. So far, you've been unable to do so.

[p2501]

jumping in late here, but to answer the initial question about Dawn.


1) an effective escape and evasion plan for once they got on the boat. they brough no navigational equipment, maps, or guidance supplies. and don't toss me that "well it got blown up in the bus excuse". **** that. if i were in that situation. i'd of had a map book taped to my body, a back up sextant, and a GPS handheld jammed up my :moon: .

2) Andy.

A) he should have been thinning the heard outside of the mall. .22 bricks run 500 rounds and i've never seen a gun store that doesn't carry atleast 4 cases of bricks at all times. running through that kind of ammo even on a 2 shots 1 kill basis. that parking lot would have been cleared.

b) the have an oxy torch, yet they could'nt have thought to lure the zombies to one side of the mall, lower the torch onto the top of that packaging truck, and slice a drop hole in the top of the cargo area? come on i hashed that out while still watching the fraking movie opening night. then you just drive up. Andy tossed the entire store into the hole, and ya'll drive away gun nut in hand for a nice dinner.

3) armor. they were in a fraking mall, and no one though. gee some sort of bite protection might come in handy?


4) radios. no one brought a goddamn radio on the boat?


5) a deployment plan for the marina. was there one? no really?



god i ****ing hate that movie. the only good thing about it was the Robot Chicken sketch featuring Ving Rhames.

[Svengoolie]

It's a horror film, p....not a wannabe survivalist's textbook for surviving and escaping a zombie apocalypse in a mall.:D

BTW, in the deleted scenes, it shows them gathering food and (presumably) other supplies from the mall in preparation for their escape. It also shows them fortifying the mall somewhat with furniture and stuff.

[EvilNed]

As I have already pointed out, Stephen develops and wether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For me, it's not crystal clear, but heck yeah the change is there. Just compare Stephen at the start of the film to the end of the film and tell me you don't see the difference? Saying that his mood is simply different can be applied to any number of movies, but that undermines the whole concept of character development. So Steve in the remake was in the mood to jump out of the truck with a gun to take on the zombie horde himself, but earlier in the film he just wasn't in the mood to stand and guard a damn door? :p Get real.

But one thing you cannot deny is that Michael doesn't develop at all. From the very first scene we see Michael to the very last, he remains the same. Yes, there is a scene somewhere in the middle where Michael tells us of his past. But does he develop? Develop means you go from something to something else. Michael doesn't do this. He doesn't go from loser to leader. He's a leader when we meet him, the development has already taken place when the movie starts. The only real development in the film is C.J., but I don't think I have to explain that one since it's a pretty obvious one.

[p2501]

i'm not looking for a wannabee anything, just some degree of intelligence. frankly if my thoughts constitute a text book reference, i'm somewhat impressed. it was **** i thought up with 30 seconds of each scenerio being presented.

the average (functional) person manages to overcome problems everyday, in a far more effective manner than what we were given within the context of this film. It suffers from some truly horrible screen writing.

[Svengoolie]

As I have already pointed out, Stephen develops and wether you want to accept that or not is up to you. For me, it's not crystal clear, but heck yeah the change is there. Just compare Stephen at the start of the film to the end of the film and tell me you don't see the difference? Saying that his mood is simply different can be applied to any number of movies, but that undermines the whole concept of character development. So Steve in the remake was in the mood to jump out of the truck with a gun to take on the zombie horde himself, but earlier in the film he just wasn't in the mood to stand and guard a damn door? Get real.

But one thing you cannot deny is that Michael doesn't develop at all. From the very first scene we see Michael to the very last, he remains the same. Yes, there is a scene somewhere in the middle where Michael tells us of his past. But does he develop? Develop means you go from something to something else. Michael doesn't do this. He doesn't go from loser to leader. He's a leader when we meet him, the development has already taken place when the movie starts. The only real development in the film is C.J., but I don't think I have to explain that one since it's a pretty obvious one.

Take about 99% of that post and substitute "Stephen" for "Michael" and you'd be correct.


i'm not looking for a wannabee anything, just some degree of intelligence. frankly if my thoughts constitute a text book reference, i'm somewhat impressed. it was **** i thought up with 30 seconds of each scenerio being presented.

the average (functional) person manages to overcome problems everyday, in a far more effective manner than what we were given within the context of this film. It suffers from some truly horrible screen writing.

Every point you brought up (and then some) also applies to the origninal, and yet you praised it for its "intelligence" and pointed out that GAR's script featured better planning than the remakes.

How so?

[EvilNed]

Take about 99% of that post and substitute "Stephen" for "Michael" and you'd be correct.

Once again, I can't comment that because you won't back it up with anything. As far as I'm concerned, it seems I've won this argument. Unless you can explain to me how someone who remains exactly the same throughout the entire film can "develop", I have nothing further to say. Please name a few scenes where Michael develops, or where you can tell that he has.

[Svengoolie]

What do you want me to do? Quote myself?

And, you've lost the argument. You've been unable to prove anything other than you have a complete ignorance of the mechanics of screenwriting and the definition of character development.


Unless you can explain to me how someone who remains exactly the same throughout the entire film can "develop", I have nothing further to say.

That's what I've been asking you to explain to me about Stephen all along.

As for Michael's development, I've explained it throughout our exchange.

It's too bad, really. I was hoping for an actual debate from you.:rolleyes:

[p2501]

if anything i expect the remake to be better than the original, otherwise what was the ****ing point?

in the original they made it a forefront issue to address fortify and securing the mall. In the remake they were fine with just having a 1/4 inch sheet of fracture resistant polymer between them and the zombies.

the original had alot more group coheision, while the remake was basicly 7 or 8 individual stories going on without resolution, plot or point.

The original featured an element of planning (at least for peter, and initially rodger) in that they formulated ways to out manuver the zombies, and picked when the fight. the remake has CJ's epic speech about how dumb the boat plan was.

The original atleast had some element of subtext, that effected the characters. the remake...had...um...... that blond guy from "Medium" who was pretty good.

[EvilNed]

Look, Sven, the only thing you've proven is that there is a scene where Michael tells us of his past.

Answer me this question: Does Michael develop from the first time we see him to the last time we see him? The answer is No. Just because we get some backstory on him doesn't mean he develops at all. His development has already been completed when we see him the first time. Never throughout the entire film is this issue ever brought up. Quite simply, he simply doesn't develop. I don't know why you insist on using Michael as an example either, seeing as he doesn't develop when C.J. so obviously does.

Does Stephen? He develops on a small scale, but since he's not the protagonist anyway, I don't see why you're so hooked up on him. First time we see him he's quite alright. Sane. He goes deeper into depression until he snaps. I mean, is that not development? Is there not a change there? Answer me: The situation I just explained, does it involve a change? The answer is yes.

Sorry, but I don't know how to make it anymore clear than that. But since you refuse to lay forth any more evidence, or point out anymore examples, I'm just going to assume you have nothing further to say.

[Svengoolie]

in the original they made it a forefront issue to address fortify and securing the mall. In the remake they were fine with just having a 1/4 inch sheet of fracture resistant polymer between them and the zombies.


In the original, they lock the doors and block off the outsides with trucks. Hardly comprehensive...especially since Peter was expecting trouble. The zombies couldn't get in, sure...but the looters had no problems whatsoever. If Peter was so serious about fortifying the place, he would've then blocked the doors off from the inside with whatever he could find, instead of just leaving those doors unprotected.

In the remake's deleted scenes, they lock the doors and then block them off with furniture and boxes and such.


The original featured an element of planning (at least for peter, and initially rodger) in that they formulated ways to out manuver the zombies, and picked when the fight. the remake has CJ's epic speech about how dumb the boat plan was.


Almost everything they did maneuver-wise was unplanned and spur of the moment, from the "ol' oke-doke" to getting the car up and running. As for the planning, sealing off the mall and blocking the entrances was half-assed, to say the least. Peter had it so "planned" that he thought to hide the entrance to the hideout from looters, but did nothing else to keep them from taking the mall with relative ease. How smart was that?

Everything the Fab Four did right from the start was improvised and spur of the moment with little planning whatsoever. Hell, they took off in the stolen chopper with no food, no water, no radio, no destination, and no plan besides getting away....:confused:


Look, Sven, the only thing you've proven is that there is a scene where Michael tells us of his past.

Answer me this question: Does Michael develop from the first time we see him to the last time we see him? The answer is No. Just because we get some backstory on him doesn't mean he develops at all. His development has already been completed when we see him the first time. Never throughout the entire film is this issue ever brought up. Quite simply, he simply doesn't develop. I don't know why you insist on using Michael as an example either, seeing as he doesn't develop when C.J. so obviously does.


Not even.

Unlike you, Ned...I showed how both characters did or didn't show development. You don't even seem to understand what the term "character development" actually means, let alone how it applies to those characters.

It doesn't matter when we learn about Michael's loser past. What matters is that we did.

And, what matters is that Michael is still a stronger character than Stephen, as I've already proven.


Does Stephen? He develops on a small scale, but since he's not the protagonist anyway, I don't see why you're so hooked up on him. First time we see him he's quite alright. Sane. He goes deeper into depression until he snaps. I mean, is that not development? Is there not a change there? Answer me: The situation I just explained, does it involve a change? The answer is yes.


Stephen is the main character of Dawn. Everything revolves around him. His character pulls all the others together. And, the entire social commentary of the film is based around him.

Peter, Roger, and Fran might be more popular, or likeable...but the fact of the matter is Stephen is the main character.

He doesn't change at all. The emotional stages you cited were merely symptoms of his selfishness, as I've pointed out to you before. His selfishness is his primary motivation--everything he does is based on that.

Are you even reading the posts, or are you just trying to argue?

[Craig]

Svengoolie, I've defended the remake along side you, and yes you and Ned do have good points but I can't see where you yourself have explained how Michael develops, especially how he develops more than Stephen. You just seem to have stated that he does develop... Not how, or what it means for a character to develop.

I may be missing the point, but what does character development actually mean to you? Ned might have more basis for debate if you can tell him.

Does character development suggest change in personality? (Stephen definitely starts changing towards the end of the film)

Does it suggest a more developed background story to the character? (if so then in that respect Michael may win the argument)

Does it suggest relationships with other characters? (Stephens relationship with Fran does deteriorate as time in the mall goes on, as Michael and Annas relationship, just begins to surface).

It could mean many things Sven, what does it mean to you?

[Svengoolie]

It's not a question of what character development means to me, Craig...it's what it actually means in terms of screenwriting and writing in general.

Character development is the little tidbits which are not connected to the plot in general that help a character come alive to the audience. Stuff like personality quirks, backstory, general information about that character, etc. It's also how a character changes or grows over the course of the story.

In the Dawn remake, we actually get a chance to learn a little bit about Michael. The jobs he had before the zombie apocalypse. The fact that he had three wives, and a child before the $hit hit the fan. In his own dialogue, we learn that he was basically a loser before the dead rose, and in the wake of the zombie apocalypse, he's able to finally realize his full potential and not only excell at surviving himself, but he becomes a leader as well. It doesn't matter that this information came directly from him, or that it came in the last half of the flick--it's still there.

As for the original, we know nothing at all about Steven...except that he's a helicopter pilot and Fran's on again/off again boyfriend for at least the past 3-4 months. That's basically it for backstory. Although the Fab Four's initial escape is largely based upon his friendship with Roger, we know nothing at all about that friendship. For all we know, they could've met and swapped spit in a jacuzzi in the back of a gay strip club. Over the course of the film, his entire motivating factor is his own selfishness--his entire character is dominated by that....from the time he steals the helicopter and bullies Fran into leaving, to when he abandons her without a rifle to join his play pals in looting, to when he opens up on the bikers for looting his mall, and finally to when he comes back as a zombie and goes to eat his former friends. He's the same selfish prick that he is at the start of the film all the way to the end, even when he comes back as a zombie. No change.

It's that selfishness that's actually the social commentary of that film. When asked to explain the social commentary behind the original Dawn, most fans either ignore the question, flame the guy asking it, or just throw out the canned response of "it's an attack on consumerism--it's set in a mall, and the zombies are supposed to be the ultimate comsumers". But, that's not really it...

The film is an indictment of the selfishness of that era...the "Me" Decade...of the 1970s. And, that consumerism is really just a symptom of that selfishness. Stephen is the ultimate representation of that selfishness from the start of the film right up till the end. It's that constant selfishness that GAR is attacking, and that sentiment is present especially when you piece every bit from every different version together.

See what I'm talking about now?

[Craig]

See what I'm talking about now?
Yes I do.

[Sir James Forbes]

From wanker extraordinare..."You can take your ass o'er to Holiday Inn shack, if it's still there!"...to selfless hero..."Yeah, it ****in figures"...

Now there's a character and a couple of lines I will remember over the years!

[EvilNed]

Unlike you, Ned...I showed how both characters did or didn't show development. You don't even seem to understand what the term "character development" actually means, let alone how it applies to those characters.

-More Text-

I'm sorry, but that's just what you never did. You never showed us anything about Michael, except that he has a backstory. He never develops. He never goes from point A to point B. If you're talking about learning more about him as a character, then yes we learn something about him. So you're right there. But in one scene we learn all there is to know about him. That's it for character development on the Michael department, and I'm sorry but that's grossly outshined by Stephen. We learn what Stephen's former job is, we learn that he is Fran's boyfriend and we learn that, as you say, he's selfish. We also learn he's depressed, he's unstable and not what he cracks himself up to be. I'd say that is alot more than we get to know about Michael.

Michael is not a stronger character than Stephen. Let's put it this way: In the end of the remake do we care about Michael? Not in the least. Why? Because he was improperly handled. We weren't shown what Michael was all about. His backstory suggests he's a loser, his actions suggests he's a leader. Now which is it? Since it's a dumb Hollywood film, I can't say I'm yelling at the television and telling them to make up their mind, but Michael simply isn't a strong character.

However, at the end of the original we have followed these guys for two hours, we have learned to like them. Their relationship with each other. We've watched them develop. Here, we care. I know I'm not alone when I say that I was sitting in my chair, really hoping that maybe on this viewing Stephen would get up in that elevator shaft. And I disagree with you on Stephen being the main character. Without Stephen there wouldn't be a movie, true. But without Peter, there wouldn't be a movie either. He's the change. He's the necessary engine. Stephen is just there to bind everyone together.

I'm reading your post, and I thank you for backing up your arguments this time. It actually helps to keep this argument alive. But as I've already pointed out, Stephen does develop, his character is set in stone. It's there, alright, it's there. But Michaels? Not so much. I mean, we get one scene where he tells us how he lived. The rest is just him trying to be a leader. Over and over. What kind of a development is that? Not a good one, but then again maybe it wasn't supposed to be.

[Svengoolie]

I'm sorry, but that's just what you never did. You never showed us anything about Michael, except that he has a backstory. He never develops. He never goes from point A to point B. If you're talking about learning more about him as a character, then yes we learn something about him. So you're right there. But in one scene we learn all there is to know about him. That's it for character development on the Michael department, and I'm sorry but that's grossly outshined by Stephen. We learn what Stephen's former job is, we learn that he is Fran's boyfriend and we learn that, as you say, he's selfish. We also learn he's depressed, he's unstable and not what he cracks himself up to be. I'd say that is alot more than we get to know about Michael.


Yeah, but you haven't shown how Stephen has developed. All you've shown is how his emotional state changes from scene to scene. That's not development. That's just him manifesting his own selfishness in different ways. He's reacting to the same thing...only in different ways at different stages of the film. That's not growth, or change, or development. I've explained that over and over, but you still seem to keep missing that. It's all tied into the social commentary of the piece as a whole.

And, I've shown how Michael changes and that he has backstory. Both come from that scene at the dinner table. As I've said a couple of times, it doesn't matter that it didn't come at the beginning of the film--it's still there.

But, we've been over this before...and the only thing you've proven is that you have a complete ignorance of the term "character development" and how it applies to this case.


Michael is not a stronger character than Stephen. Let's put it this way: In the end of the remake do we care about Michael? Not in the least. Why? Because he was improperly handled. We weren't shown what Michael was all about. His backstory suggests he's a loser, his actions suggests he's a leader. Now which is it? Since it's a dumb Hollywood film, I can't say I'm yelling at the television and telling them to make up their mind, but Michael simply isn't a strong character.

However, at the end of the original we have followed these guys for two hours, we have learned to like them. Their relationship with each other. We've watched them develop. Here, we care. I know I'm not alone when I say that I was sitting in my chair, really hoping that maybe on this viewing Stephen would get up in that elevator shaft. And I disagree with you on Stephen being the main character. Without Stephen there wouldn't be a movie, true. But without Peter, there wouldn't be a movie either. He's the change. He's the necessary engine. Stephen is just there to bind everyone together.


Not quite. That's a matter of your own personal experience. And, as I've pointed out before, I think alot of fans confuse familiarity with the characters with character development. They've seen the same film countless times over the years, and have become very familiar with those characters and have found them likeable. That doesn't make them developed.

I didn't say that Michael was a strong character, or a perfect one. I simply said he was better developed than Stephen, which I've proven.

Stephen is the main character who binds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. 90% of it revolves around him. Peter is a more popular character, sure...but he's not the main character. In effect, he's even more 2 dimensional than Stephen, and reflects GAR's poor screenwriting skills. He's basically "Shaft" in SWAT coveralls, and is a manifestation of GAR's tendency to put whatever is trendy in his flicks.


I'm reading your post, and I thank you for backing up your arguments this time. It actually helps to keep this argument alive. But as I've already pointed out, Stephen does develop, his character is set in stone. It's there, alright, it's there. But Michaels? Not so much. I mean, we get one scene where he tells us how he lived. The rest is just him trying to be a leader. Over and over. What kind of a development is that? Not a good one, but then again maybe it wasn't supposed to be.

I haven't taken the time to quote myself over and over again to try and break through your ignorance of the technical aspects of what I'm talking about with every single post (although I have been forced to repeat myself several times)...so you already know what you can do with your "I thank you for backing up your arguments this time" crack.

Again, you haven't done anything of the sort--you haven't proven anything except your own ignorance of character development. My guess is you don't really know much about the mechanics of writing, do you? You're just winging it in an argument. While that's better than the standard fan's response to all of this, it doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

Since you're unable to grasp the technical concept of character development, why don't we move on? Why don't you try to explain to me the social commentary behind the original, instead?:D

[EvilNed]

"Yeah, but you haven't shown how Stephen has developed"

I did earlier, maybe you missed it. Anyway, go read my old posts.


"And, I've shown how Michael changes and that he has backstory. Both come from that scene at the dinner table. As I've said a couple of times, it doesn't matter that it didn't come at the beginning of the film--it's still there."

No damnit. Seriously, this is getting so old. You haven't proven one thing about Michael. You claim to say that you've proven that he changes... Where does he change? I'll tell you where, before the film even starts. During the entire film, Michael does not ever change. That's where you're wrong, but I doubt you'll realize it.

If you mean "develop" as in, tell us a bit more about him. Then yes, there is a scene where we get to know Michael's backstory. But if you mean "develop" as in evolve and change, then that's just wrong. I'm sorry, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Michael doesn't ever change. I asked you to provide me with how he changed, name a few scenes where he does so and then relate them to each other. But until you've done that, you haven't proven anything (despite your claims to the contrary).


"Not quite. That's a matter of your own personal experience. And, as I've pointed out before, I think alot of fans confuse familiarity with the characters with character development. They've seen the same film countless times over the years, and have become very familiar with those characters and have found them likeable. That doesn't make them developed."

True, it is a matter of my personal taste. A taste shared with 90% of the people who have seen both films, but yes still my taste. But what's not my taste, is the fact that we spend more time with Stephen, we watch him develop as a character and we get to know him. With Michael, we get to know him because he tells us. But that's it. That's very poor screenwriting.


"Stephen is the main character who binds the entire story together in terms of plot and social commentary. 90% of it revolves around him. Peter is a more popular character, sure...but he's not the main character. In effect, he's even more 2 dimensional than Stephen, and reflects GAR's poor screenwriting skills. He's basically "Shaft" in SWAT coveralls, and is a manifestation of GAR's tendency to put whatever is trendy in his flicks."

As I said, Peter is as much needed as Stephen is. Stephen binds the characters together, but once they arrive at the mall the film could definetly have gone on without him. The film won't go anywhere without Peter.

And as for your pointless rant at the end, where you seem to think yourself superior because you opened a book once and misinterpreted the phrase "character development", I'm not even going to answer it because it has nothing to do with this debate.

[Svengoolie]

I did earlier, maybe you missed it. Anyway, go read my old posts.


Uh, no you didn't. The same character manifesting the same character trait in different ways doesn't count as "development". See the definition of "character development" for details.


No damnit. Seriously, this is getting so old. You haven't proven one thing about Michael. You claim to say that you've proven that he changes... Where does he change? I'll tell you where, before the film even starts. During the entire film, Michael does not ever change. That's where you're wrong, but I doubt you'll realize it.

If you mean "develop" as in, tell us a bit more about him. Then yes, there is a scene where we get to know Michael's backstory. But if you mean "develop" as in evolve and change, then that's just wrong. I'm sorry, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Michael doesn't ever change. I asked you to provide me with how he changed, name a few scenes where he does so and then relate them to each other. But until you've done that, you haven't proven anything (despite your claims to the contrary).

See my old posts where I talk about how we don't have to see Michael's loserness to acknowledge it for details.


True, it is a matter of my personal taste. A taste shared with 90% of the people who have seen both films, but yes still my taste. But what's not my taste, is the fact that we spend more time with Stephen, we watch him develop as a character and we get to know him. With Michael, we get to know him because he tells us. But that's it. That's very poor screenwriting.

Maybe 90% of the GAR fans posting here feel that way...but rest assured the rest of the world doesn't see it that way.

Stephen doesn't develop at all. He simply manifests his own selfishness in different ways.

As for getting to know Michael because he tells us about himself...that's not poor. It's a common device that's been used both in writing and in real life since the dawn of time. It's not poor screenwriting...but, what we got wasn't Shakesperian, either. I'd say it's mediocre....but it's still better than we ever got out of GAR.


As I said, Peter is as much needed as Stephen is. Stephen binds the characters together, but once they arrive at the mall the film could definetly have gone on without him. The film won't go anywhere without Peter.


Regardless, Stephen is still the main character in terms of plot and social commentary. Peter might be useful to the group, but it doesn't make him the main character. You're about as ignorant of the technical concept of the "main character" as you are the term "character development".


And as for your pointless rant at the end, where you seem to think yourself superior because you opened a book once and misinterpreted the phrase "character development", I'm not even going to answer it because it has nothing to do with this debate.

I never misrepresented the term "character development". In fact, my repeated explainations of that term are spot on. You're just too ignorant to understand it and apply it correctly to what we're discussing here.

What you're doing is looking for good things to say and ways to defend a film you really enjoy by trying to use terms that really don't apply to what you're talking about--in effect, you're talking outta your a$$. You're confusing popularity and likeablity with "character development" and the concept of the film's main character. Character Development and Main Character are technical terms not connected to popularity or likeability.

But, at least now you're acting like a "true fan" by getting confrontational when I asked you to explain the social commentary behind the original.:D

[EvilNed]

But, at least now you're acting like a "true fan" by getting confrontational when I asked you to explain the social commentary behind the original.

For your information, I ignored that part because it has nothing to do with this debate. If anything, it tells me your feeling your losing this argument and is trying to steer clear of it. Why would I want to explain the social commentary behind the original? I watch it because I like the characters. They're well developed.

But you sure proved yourself as a great debater when you got confrontational when I asked you to elaborate on Michael's so called "developed" character. :) Nice going. Besides, you've been pretty confrontational throughout this entire debate, so excuse me if I'm not to shook up by your attack.

Anyway, I think we've safely established that Michael isn't developed at all, or at least not in the sense you think he is. Because development occurs onscreen, during the running time of the film. Michael is the exact same character the first time we see him as the last. Can you deny this?

But yes, there is one scene where Michael tells us about his past. There is one single scene, admist the zombie hordes, blackouts and crunchy buses that Michael, in about thirty seconds, lays forth everything that is to know about his character... Even though he is a MAIN character. Yes, that is poor development.

As for Stephen being the main character: As I said, without Peter there is no movie. It's Peter who runs the whole thing. Stephen is needed in the beginning for the sole reason to bind the gang together. But it's Peter who drives the movie forward.

[Svengoolie]

For your information, I ignored that part because it has nothing to do with this debate. If anything, it tells me your feeling your losing this argument and is trying to steer clear of it. Why would I want to explain the social commentary behind the original? I watch it because I like the characters. They're well developed.


Nope. I already won the argument a long time ago. Now, you're just embarrassing yourself while demonstrating your ignorance. Once again.:confused:


But you sure proved yourself as a great debater when you got confrontational when I asked you to elaborate on Michael's so called "developed" character. Nice going. Besides, you've been pretty confrontational throughout this entire debate, so excuse me if I'm not to shook up by your attack.


More bs. You took it to a personal level a long time ago when you started with your "Get real" crap.

I explained how Michael was well developed in the context of the definition of "character development" several times. Just as I showed you how Stephen didn't develop at all. You simply haven't read what I posted.


Anyway, I think we've safely established that Michael isn't developed at all, or at least not in the sense you think he is. Because development occurs onscreen, during the running time of the film. Michael is the exact same character the first time we see him as the last. Can you deny this?


Actually, I can deny it.

You haven't established anything beyond your own ignorance to the technical terms of screenwriting I've tried to educate you in.

I've already told you repeatedly that it doesn't matter that we didn't actually see his loserness durring the running time of the film. He told us in his own dialogue, and that was enough.

He goes from being a loser (off-screen) to being a survivor to being a leader of the survivors over the course of the film. That's development.

Stephen stays exactly the same selfish jerk from the beginning of the original to the end. No change.


But yes, there is one scene where Michael tells us about his past. There is one single scene, admist the zombie hordes, blackouts and crunchy buses that Michael, in about thirty seconds, lays forth everything that is to know about his character... Even though he is a MAIN character. Yes, that is poor development.


I think I've said at least five times over the course of this exchange that Michael's development isn't great. In fact, I think it's mediocre, at best. But, it's still more than we got from GAR's "Stephen".

Yet another concept you've been unable to grasp...even though I've been forced to type it over and over again.


As for Stephen being the main character: As I said, without Peter there is no movie. It's Peter who runs the whole thing. Stephen is needed in the beginning for the sole reason to bind the gang together. But it's Peter who drives the movie forward.

Peter is not the main character of the original. Stephen is. He ties it all together in terms of plot and social commentary. Peter is clearly the more POPULAR character, and is more resourceful in the story, but Stephen is the main character. Peter's popularity and resourcefullness have nothing to do with the technicalities of the screenwriting.

You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of those technical aspects, even when they're explained to you over and over and over again.

I'd lay five to one that you're in your teens...early twenties, tops. Am I right, Ned?

[Craig]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&hs=F1v&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official_s&defl=en&q=define:Character+Development&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_development

I know these aren't the most reliable sources but both definitions suggest that Sven has the point...

[Svengoolie]

Thanks for the links, Craig. Those explain what I'm getting at rather well with all this. :D

Like I said, a character's likeablity or popularity has no bearing on whether or not he's developed, or whether he's the main character of the piece.

For example, let's take a quick look at "Goodfellas" to illustrate what I'm talking about in terms of the "Main Character".

In that film, Henry Hill (played by Ray Liota) is the main character...but, Tommy DeVito (played by Joe Pesci) and Jimmy Conway (played by Robert DeNiro) are more memorable; and over the course of the story it can be argued that they're more resourceful than Henry (especially Jimmy).

I bet more people quote lines and remember Joe Pesci's antics in that one than they do Ray Liotta's....but that doesn't change the fact that Henry Hill is still the main character of that film.

Same thing with Dawn. Although Peter is more popular, likeable, and resourceful in the story...Stephen is the main character and brings the entire piece together in terms of plot and social commentary. It doesn't matter that he's a selfish coward, or that he wouldn't have been able to secure the mall without Peter...he's still the Main Character.

[EvilNed]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&hs=F1v&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official_s&defl=en&q=define:Character+Development&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_development

I know these aren't the most reliable sources but both definitions suggest that Sven has the point...

Thanks for proving my point.

As you see Sven, Michael doesn't develop throughout the entire film. His development is complete when the film begins. Doesn't look like you want to back your side up, so I'll just assume that this argument is over.

[Svengoolie]

Actually, he does.

He goes from being just a TV salesman at Best Buy (which we learn fairly early in the film) to being one of the survivors (in the immediate aftermath of the zombie apocalypse) to being the de-facto leader of the survivors.

When we learn about what a loser he was in the last third of the film, that development becomes all the more clear. He's able to excel and realize his full potential after the dead rise, even in his personal life when he strikes up a relationship with Ana.

The backstory and development doesn't have to be shown in a linear or chronological way for it to still be in effect. It doesn't even have to be shown onscreen, and can be revealed through dialogue. In fact, probably half to three quarters of all character development is revealed that way.

The development, however minimal, is still there...and it still puts his character light years ahead of Stephen from the original.

The only point proven here is that you don't know what you're talking about...as I've been saying all along.

But you ARE right--the argument is over. And you lost. If this was the same "geared up" argument you presented at the IMDB boards then even those boneheads must've laughed you off the board....

[Danny]

woah there thats like a threee page argument,lol.

[EvilNed]

Thank you Svengoolie for providing me with these facts. To bad they don't nullify what I've said all along: When we meet Michael for the first time he is the exact same character he is in the last scene. His development is zero. Nada. You see something that isn't there. Just because Michael has a backstory and shares it with us, doesn't mean he evolves. He is the leader throughout the entire film. Whatever development he had, occured before the film even started.

Even though your attempts to win this one over by claiming I've lost, it doesn't really matter. Until you actually provide us with something concrete and where Michael actually evolves, you've got nothing. If you think that your argument is saved from the sole fact that Michael mentions he has a past which doesn't fit with his current position or character (which he retains throughout the film), then I'm not so sure you're really so hot on what "character development" means yourself.

Oh well.

[Svengoolie]

That was as weak as the rest of your argument, Ned.

I've demonstrated that you have no concept of what character development is, and even the links that Craig provided show this as well...so now your entire stance has become just a variation of "I know you are but what am I!"

You lost, kiddie. You don't know what you're talking about.

Now, what about that social commentary?

[AcesandEights]

woah there thats like a threee page argument,lol.

What's funnier is that it goes nowhere...

[Deadman_Deluxe]

I hearby declare EvilNed the winner !!!!!!!!!!!!


:D

[Svengoolie]

Nobody pays any attention to anything Deadman says, anyway.;)

[Danny]

What's funnier is that it goes nowhere...

exactly i thought this was a thread about remakes, not fanboys at dawn.

[Svengoolie]

It's my fault, hellsing.

I should've remembered that most fanboys are so insecure over the quality of the original Dawn that they'll jump on anybody who says the remake was good in any way.:D

[Danny]

true but i was about to step in you were dangerously close to yelling "tell em steve-dave!".:lol:

[EvilNed]

Now, what about that social commentary?

What about it? I find it kind of funny that you're trying to get me to explain the social commentary, as if I had actually defended it (or even mentioned it)! Are you trying to steer away from the issue perhaps? ;)

[Danny]

dude ,seriously drop it, in ten years people arent gonna read this, run out into the streets and hug strangers whilst weeping in a dawning realisation, its a forum about zombies.




NUFF' SAID:mad:

[Svengoolie]

I'm not trying to deflect anything, Ned. Hell, you don't even have a valid argument to deflect in the first place.

The social commentary aspect to the original Dawn is crucial when discussing the characters. That's why I brought it up.

But, as usual, you're acting like a true fan by not even attempting to talk about it.;)

[p2501]

true but i was about to step in you were dangerously close to yelling "tell em steve-dave!".:lol:


BINGO!

i stoped the discussion with him because he's sure zealously commited tp the point.

I suggest, moving forward, we now refer to Svengoolie as steve-dave

[EvilNed]

And you're acting like you don't have any idea what you're talking about, as to be expected. :lol: This argument is dead, and yet you still want to push forward. I just don't get if you're trying to save your skin or what...

By the way, Dawn is the least favourite of the Dead films. So I guess you're wrong again.

[Svengoolie]

And you're acting like you don't have any idea what you're talking about, as to be expected. This argument is dead, and yet you still want to push forward. I just don't get if you're trying to save your skin or what....

Still proving me right, Ned. Looks like the only thing "Evil" about you is your ignorance.



By the way, Dawn is the least favourite of the Dead films. So I guess you're wrong again.

LOL! You're about as informed about that as you are everything else.:rolleyes:

[EvilNed]

Still trying to provoke, eh? :lol:

Anyway, I've had it with this. This is pretty sad.

[Svengoolie]

If simply asking you to discuss the social commentary of Dawn of the Dead is "provoking" you, then in that sense you are a true fan.:D

[MonkeyFarm]

Personally I disliked the remake, for reasons already stated (Too many characters, running zombies) though...the introduction was F*cking awsome.

To me it just seemed like a poor action film, the original had beautiful character development, and really made you want to know how each character would end up. It was deep, it had roger losing grip on reality and gain a dangerious blood lust, flyboy and fly girl were not getting on at all for reasons well explained and peter was trying to hold them together by taking charge. What did the remake have, loads of random people just turning up, a zombie baby?? and a movie with lots of people who you felt like beating the **** out off.

All in all the remake in my humble opinion was not just a bad zombie movie it was a bad movie in general...just hollywood junk with nobodys (Except the cameo's)

And it had Running Zombies...Ahhhh! I hate them, the whole concept of walking shuffling zombies is that people automatically judge them as having major weaknesses and let their guard down and then get into a situation where a small group pounces making life very ****ty.

If it ain't broke don't fix it


The bottom line is, in terms of screenwriting, the Dawn remake is a better script than the original.

OMG! I can not believe what i have just read...seriously I have not read so much tripe in a long long time (and i sometimes read the forums on IMDB.com so that saying something) You actually think the script was better in the dawn remake? my man i think you need help...i mean no disrespect but the therapy i provide for this situation would be a savage beating with an iron bar and steel top capped boots:mad:

P.s No Disrespect

[Svengoolie]

Again...another fan claiming that the original had good character development.

In looking for something nice to say about the original, you're just talking out of your a$$...since it's obvious you don't know what "character development" means, or how it would (or in this case, wouldn't) apply to the films.

[Adrenochrome]

Again...another fan claiming that the original had good character development.

In looking for something nice to say about the original, you're just talking out of your a$$...since it's obvious you don't know what "character development" means, or how it would (or in this case, wouldn't) apply to the films.
What are your views on the remake of The Bad News Bears compared to the original?

[AcesandEights]

What are your views on the remake of The Bad News Bears compared to the original?

Yes, and would it change for the worse if you were posting on a Bad News Bears Appreciation website? ;)

[Deadman_Deluxe]

Again...another fan claiming that the original had good character development.




Some people MIGHT have realised by now that maybe, just maybe, there MIGHT actually be something to that :D

Some people MIGHT actually come to realise and accept one day that their own personal thoughts and opinions are NOT actually considered to be genuine "facts" out here in the real world.

Some people MIGHT also have realised by now that they can NOT convince other people to change their own personal thoughts and opinions to suit another persons own personal thoughts and opinions, purely by repeating the same thing ... over and over and over.

Likewise, repeating the same thing over and over is NOT how genuine facts are created ... just opinions.

[Adrenochrome]

Some people MIGHT have realised by now that maybe, just maybe, there MIGHT actually be something to that :D

Some people MIGHT actually come to realise and accept one day that their own personal thoughts and opinions are NOT actually considered to be genuine "facts" out here in the real world.

Some people MIGHT also have realised by now that they can NOT convince other people to change their own personal thoughts and opinions to suit another persons own personal thoughts and opinions, purely by repeating the same thing ... over and over and over.

Likewise, repeating the same thing over and over is NOT how genuine facts are created ... just opinions.

Very nicely put!

[Svengoolie]

What are your views on the remake of The Bad News Bears compared to the original?

Haven't seen it yet.;)

[Danny]

this just goes on.and on..:eek:

[Arcades057]

*sigh* This thread has been pretty one sided thus far. Sven comes on and makes his opinions on the matter known. He's attacked. He then asks people to define a few notions that they spout as reasons for liking the films he mentions. He's attacked again by numerous individuals. He then backs up his claims. He's attacked. Then he's banned after someone snipes him enough that he retorts at them. Then he's attacked some more. Then these same people sit around gloating about how stupid he is and how smart they are... while spouting the same ridiculous, meaningless, trite, BS that fanboys always spout: U dont like my movie i hate u u r ghey. Yeah, nice posts. You've attacked someone over their views time and again... all the while accusing him of attacking you for yours.

Personally, Dawn '78's "social commentary" thrown in AFTER the fact, admitted by GAR himself. The film was shot in a mall because someone contacted HIM with the idea. It was NOT his idea. HE was approached about making the film. Just like the "social commentary" about Night was concocted by fans after he made it. In Day it was real, I assume.

I think some of you have acted rather childish in all of this, sitting at your computers and mouthing off to someone you'll never meet (par for the course for some of you). Instead of acting like petulant little kids or a group of cowardly elementary school bullies, try proving your points to the rest of us instead of just yourselves.

[Danny]

dude i couldnt agrre more.

[Svengoolie]

Well...on Sunday, just for $hits and giggles, I went on down to Blockbuster and rented three remakes:

1. The Bad News Bears
2. The Fog
3. King Kong

The Fog and King Kong...while visually stunning, were chunks of crap; and The Bad News Bears was great--not as good as the original, but still good nonetheless.

None of these three films will ever replace their original outings for me...and aren't supposed to. I didn't take their existance as a personal insult to me or the originals, and neither did they.

I'll probably watch the Bad News Bears remake again, but the other two went back to Blockbuster this morning. I didn't like them...so I simply won't watch them again.

Why can't the Dawn 04 haters simply do the same? Why do they feel as though it's a personal insult to the original and GAR himself that it got made?

[bassman]

The Fog and King Kong...while visually stunning, were chunks of crap

I have to disagree with ya, there. I haven't seen "The Fog" remake but I can tell you that there is more to the "Kong" remake than just visuals. It's VERY character driven. You should give it another shot and think about it...

Besides, If you've ever seen the original "Kong"(not the 70's remake), you will see that the new remake is basically identical....just better effects(after about 70 years, what would you expect?) and a few new tidbits for the fans.

Jackson's "Kong" is how most remakes should be done.

[AcesandEights]

Well...on Sunday, just for $hits and giggles, I went on down to Blockbuster and rented three remakes:

1. The Bad News Bears
2. The Fog
3. King Kong



It's funny, Sci Fi had the original version of The Fog on yesterday and I had it on while I was multi-task-relaxing and really enjoyed the film. I forgot how nice a little tale it was, and I also forgot Jamie Lee Curtis was in it :)

[EvilNed]

I'm a big John Carpeter fans. I love all of his 80's films, and most of his 90's flick (In the Mouth of Madness is one of the best films ever). Vampires and Ghosts of Mars weren't that great, but they're alright. They are very different from most other films.

John Carpenter is definetly the king of cult. I bet you can't find a single director who has put out as many cult films as this guy.

Assault on Precint 13, Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, In the Mouth of Madness.

Also, to a lesser extent: Christine and The Prince of Darkness.

[Svengoolie]

A "cult film" is a film that attracts a small but devoted group of fans, usually failing to achieve considerable success outside that group.

John Carpenter has attained a level of mainstream success way too large for him to be classified simply as a cult director, although he's made a couple of films that might very well be in that category.

Personally, I think he hit his peak in the early 80s, and I haven't enjoyed anything from him in a long, long time.

[EvilNed]

True, which means you could probably take away Halloween. But other than that, they all stand true to the cult wording.

[Svengoolie]

Not quite.

Although it failed miserably at the box office, The Thing found a huge following via cable and VHS, and quickly became a classic in its own right that most people (horror freaks and otherwise) have seen and appreciated...so it's hardly a cult film.

Ditto for Escape From New York--its level of popularity can hardly be questioned; so much so that Carpenter rolled the dice and produced a sequel fifteen years after the original came out.

If I remember correctly, Starman has a hit at the box office when it came out....and to this day, alot of people don't even know that's a Carpenter flick.

So, as you can see, they all don't stand true to the cult wording. Not by far.

Carpenter is hardly just a cult director, although he's produced a couple of cult films here and there.

[axlish]

A "cult film" is a film that attracts a small but devoted group of fans, usually failing to achieve considerable success outside that group.

John Carpenter has attained a level of mainstream success way too large for him to be classified simply as a cult director, although he's made a couple of films that might very well be in that category.

Personally, I think he hit his peak in the early 80s, and I haven't enjoyed anything from him in a long, long time.

He did hit his peak in the early 80's. Have you seen his Masters of Horror episode titled Cigarette Burns? I was very impressed by it and consider it easily his best work since The Thing. Check it out if you get the chance, it is on DVD now.

As far as cult films, I think Assault on Precinct 13 and Dark Star fit that bill.

[Svengoolie]

The thing I admire most about Carpenter now is his attitude--he kept his artistic integrity while being an admitted sell-out in his later years.;) :D

[EvilNed]

Not quite.

Although it failed miserably at the box office, The Thing found a huge following via cable and VHS, and quickly became a classic in its own right that most people (horror freaks and otherwise) have seen and appreciated...so it's hardly a cult film.



I never said Escape from New York was a cult film, but the Thing certainly is! It fits the bill perfectly. It was a bomb back then, but is now adored by horror fans.

King of Cult, that's good ol' Carpenter. :)

[Danny]

A "cult film" is a film that attracts a small but devoted group of fans, usually failing to achieve considerable success outside that group.

John Carpenter has attained a level of mainstream success way too large for him to be classified simply as a cult director, although he's made a couple of films that might very well be in that category.

Personally, I think he hit his peak in the early 80s, and I haven't enjoyed anything from him in a long, long time.

yeah but theres also films like napolean dynamite that get called cult following by the studios to try and lure people in.

[MontagMOI]

Nightmare City had runing zombies (Circa1980) It still makes me laugh every time i see it. But it obviously inspired Danny Boyle to rob it almost as much as Snyder plagiarised 28 days. (yes i know, neither film contains living dead, they contain infected or irradiated folk). Don't get me wrong, i think Dawn '04 is fun. Just very simple fun. I must say i also enjoy watching Nightmare City. The script, acting, dialogue, dubing and special effects suck but it still manages to be more watchable than many zombie films. I know some on here disliked Land but what other half-decent zombie films have we had since Day Of The Dead?