Dawn 78' Vs Dawn 04

[Ragnarr]

As I stated elsewhere, the reason why Romero's vision of the zombie apocalypse is so much more creepier than Snyder's vision is that in Romero's, ANY death will result in a zombie whereas a victim needs to be bitten to become a zombie in Snyder's flick. So a group of survivors in Romero's version can be considered safe from the hordes outside a boarded up house, but it would take only 1 natural death of a survivor inside the house to endanger everyone there. Really makes you want to sleep alone in a situation like that, eh? Romero's zombie outbreak would also spread faster than Snyder's I'd think. In Romero's, zombies would just spring up en mass from morgues, hospitals, funerals homes, cemetaries, traffic accident fatalities, all potentially in a single night. In Snyder's version, it'd start off very incidental and wouldn't actually become a serious threat for quite some time.

[Neil]

Was that stated? In Snyder's film you had to be bitten?

[bassman]

The old woman the gets shot to death in the gunfight with the gangsta. They're about to shoot her in the head when Sarah Polley says something like "she wasn't bitten, wait and see". I seem to remember that, anyway...

[Mike70]

in dawn 04 it seems to be spread only by bites (or so it appears). people that simply die, die and stay dead. then again, i don't really care. i need 9 more posts for 5,000 and the fuckers are not going to write themselves.

[Ragnarr]

The old woman the gets shot to death in the gunfight with the gangsta. They're about to shoot her in the head when Sarah Polley says something like "she wasn't bitten, wait and see". I seem to remember that, anyway... At the coffee shop, Ana mentions, "I think it's the bites." Also as bassman stated, Ana said that Norma (the older woman) wasn't going to come back because she was killed by gunshots. I thought all of you knew that Snyder's zombie creation was exclusively through infection. I knew. The ol' Ragmeister doesn't miss a trick you see! Go me!

[Neil]

As I stated elsewhere, the reason why Romero's vision of the zombie apocalypse is so much more creepier than Snyder's vision is that in Romero's, ANY death will result in a zombie whereas a victim needs to be bitten to become a zombie in Snyder's flick. So a group of survivors in Romero's version can be considered safe from the hordes outside a boarded up house, but it would take only 1 natural death of a survivor inside the house to endanger everyone there. Really makes you want to sleep alone in a situation like that, eh? This is a very good point then!

[Christopher Jon]

Might as well be debating Star Trek vs. Star Wars. I enjoyed both Dawns. Both have some cool shit and both have some WTF? shit.

[zombi3skater]

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland

[MinionZombie]

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland I'm glad some of the new blood of the fanbase recognise the distinction between infected flicks and zombie flicks, although as much as I hate Yawn04, I'd say it's still dead people ... but they flipping well run (I've made my thoughts on that issue very clear in this thread, I'm sure ) ... 28 Days Later though, aye, definitely NOT zombies - the simple fact that in 28DL they starve to death after a month says it all. Zombies don't starve to death ... humans do, as do humans infected with a virus that's akin to 'super rabies'. Oh, and the fact that Garland and Boyle - the two key creative creators of 28DL - have both explicitly stated as a matter of indisputable fact that 28DL flat out, in no way, ain't a zed-flick. End-of, on that, really.

[Neil]

both are great films in my opinion although dawn 04 is more infected rather than dead people risen.It takes on the vein of 28 days later,rec and zombieland It still frustrates me to hell that 04 could have been soooo much better just for:- 1) No superhuman screams, movement and daft contact lenses. 2) Rediculously stupid survivor antics. If they'd just left dead people dead, and not felt the need to supercharge them up with ninja moves, godzilla screams and daft contact lenses it would have been an improvement. And if the survivors had just acted like normal people, rather than individuals behaving like they didn't care about survival (because of a poor script), it would have been an improvement. YES, the film was OK, but it could have been great!

[Zombo]

I watch all these movies, but I gotta say I prefer the shambling zombies to the rage-infected kind. But that's just me.

[MinionZombie]

I watch all these movies, but I gotta say I prefer the shambling zombies to the rage-infected kind. But that's just me.

[Zombo]

Heh! Back atcha!

[CJ Markham]

It still frustrates me to hell that 04 could have been soooo much better just for:- 1) No superhuman screams, movement and daft contact lenses. 2) Rediculously stupid survivor antics. If they'd just left dead people dead, and not felt the need to supercharge them up with ninja moves, godzilla screams and daft contact lenses it would have been an improvement. And if the survivors had just acted like normal people, rather than individuals behaving like they didn't care about survival (because of a poor script), it would have been an improvement. YES, the film was OK, but it could have been great! The contact lenses didn't bother me--any more than the day-glo colors of the zombies in the original did. In fact, I've heard it said (on more than one occasion) that if George Romero had the money when making the original "Dawn of the Dead", that he would've liked to have used the same type of contact lenses used in "The Exorcist", "The Incredible Hulk", and "Salem's Lot"--you know, the creepy mirror kind, to give his zombies the impression that they didn't have any pupils left...that the only thing left inside of them was nothing. The kind of dehumanizing thing done in comic books over the years. And, for those ready to cry "bullshit", remember the look of the zombies in the "Night of the Living Dead" remake--they were wearing contacts, too... As for the screams and superhuman speed,--oh, well. They did it in "28 Days Later", so maybe they figured they had to follow suit. By then, times zombie-wise had clearly changed...and stiff, shambling corpses that you could just walk away from (an observation made by Babs in the "Night" remake) just didn't seem all that scary anymore. Besides, on a technical, physiological level, I've seen some pretty good arguments as to why running zombies are more realistic than stiff ones, but that's a whole 'nother show, Maury. The survivors in the remake cared about survival--there was lots of planning in their actions, compliments of the guy who sold TVs at Best Buy. The little redhead girl was technically "stupid" for going after the dog, but she was just 16, after all. And, truth be told, I wouldn't have let MY dog get sent out into a sea of zombies--there would've been alot of "Reservoir Dogs" style drawing of guns before that would go down, I'm here to tell you... But, even if my dog HAD been sent, and was in danger, I would go out after her long before I'd go after alot of the people I saw huddled in the Mall. Anyway, the "suvivor" mentality CAN indeed degenerate into a selfish free-for-all...and anybody who thinks that it would automatically be "all for one and one for all" has never been in a situation where sheer survival was in question. In closing, I don't think that the script was poor. It simply reflects the changes that have taken place in film making since the original came out over thirty years ago. And, if the Dawn remake were REMADE now, it would be different as well...and there would be more for people to bitch about online.

[Andy]

I like this guy