Defending Dawn O4

[MinionZombie]

To quote Dr. Logan... "Do you really think you're going to 'blow the piss out of them'? ALL of them?" There were absolute hordes of them surrounding the mall and gun shop. And there was only one guy with the ammo to do the shooting (a starving thirsty guy at that). They should have taken a toy helicopter (there must have been one in the mall somewhere, it's a mall, there's gotta be a toy shop) and helicoptered him a sandwich. Andy had sod all else to do, he could have been thinning the herd ... if he had bomb making experience and materials, he could have bombed some of the fuckers too.

[Wrong Number]

To quote Dr. Logan... "Do you really think you're going to 'blow the piss out of them'? ALL of them?" There were absolute hordes of them surrounding the mall and gun shop. And there was only one guy with the ammo to do the shooting (a starving thirsty guy at that). OK, let me walk you through this...the population of the area is 106,394. Let's say 50% are dead or have fled. That leaves 53,197 in an area of many square miles. All of them are not going to be at the mall, at least not at once. Even if you say a crazy number are in the area or close enough to get there in a reasonable time what would that number be 10,000, 20, 30? Let's say 20,000, far more in my opinion then there would be, but for argument's sake. So we have 20,000 zombies and a guy with far more bullets, in a safe spot, where he can get close to a 1-1 hit ratio,far better than any other option. If you just kill 1,000 a day that's 20 days.You won't starve in 20 days. Also, this is assuming no food at all. Most gun shops I have seen have hunting supplies including beef or deer jerky, not to forget any snack machines or lunches people may have brought to work or left there. Now add to this that there is an entire group at the mall. While the bullets there are limited, they have plenty of other options to take some zombies out and thin the herd. This is using numbers that are way high, realistically you are talking maybe a few thousand at most, easily manageable. Additionally, the thinning out would take much less time allowing people from the mall to make it to the guy shop with food and increase the kill rate dramatically. Population numbers are not unlimited and you don't go from healthy to dieing from starvation quickly (it's 4-6 weeks). Do the math, the "heroes" were dopes that deserved to die. WN

[Trin]

That was one highly implausible point of Dawn '04. Andy could've shot them all day long. In the special edition copy with Andy's Final Days, or whatever it was called, they tried to play this off. He says something along the lines of "I shoot one and two more replace it." Really? And exactly how long did you push that strategy? A day? Because I'm guessing that the number of zombies in hearing range of the gun is limited. If anything, you'd get ALL the zombie in range in the first day and be wrapping it up inside of a few days. And let's not forget that they had a truck. The things were very keen on following vehicles. So let Andy "call" them all to the area with his gun and then let someone else drive off in the truck. Go a few miles and then loop around and come back. See how many follow. For that matter they could've let them into the parking garage and trapped them. They had tons of options.

[Legion2213]

Are you folks as harsh on NotLD? If folks had been rational in that, we'd have spent 90 minutes watching a bunch of folks locked in the basesment or sitting on the landing of a house with the stairs ripped out. Apart from that, nobody ever questions GAR zombies turning up by the bucket load (Dawn & Day). Films generally need a fair amount of stupidity to go more than a few minutes...anyways, I think ya'll just hatin' on my boy Zack.

[Wrong Number]

Are you folks as harsh on NotLD? If folks had been rational in that, we'd have spent 90 minutes watching a bunch of folks locked in the basesment or sitting on the landing of a house with the stairs ripped out. The difference is the people in NotLD were still trying to figure out what exactly was happening and the entire movie took place during maybe a 12 hour period. DotD 04 took place over at least a month long period. WN

[Wyldwraith]

Something I've noticed recently, It's only a rough, albeit working theory, so forgive the lack of conceptual polish. What I've noticed/concluded is that how people feel about running zombies and, consequently Dawn '04, is almost directly proportional to the body of zombie-movie work to which they either have or have not been exposed. In other words: Newer devotees to the zombie genre seem to go through a phase where many types and quality-levels of zombie movies are accepted relatively equally, and that more modern films tend to meet with their approval because such movies are more similar in style to other contemporary films they've enjoyed. Conversely, zombie movie fans that have been watching everything to do with zombies for years become MUCH more discriminating in what they deem to be "good". I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie. Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself. Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not?

[Wrong Number]

I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie. Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself. Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not? I think it's a reasonable theory and it's another reason I so hate the DotD "remake". Younger/newer viewers can easily be "corrupted" into thinking this movie is an actual remake of DotD when it's far, far from it. The reason, more than any other why I think the movie sucks is the smearing of the original's good name. I actually really enjoyed the first ten minutes of the film and even was not that down on running zombies. Had that been the movie's only sin, I could have forgiven it and looked past it. The movie that got me hooked was Dawn of the Dead which I saw when it was originally released in the theaters. WN

[Legion2213]

I've been watching Zombie movies since the early 80's...Dawn is the greatest zombie movie of all time, Day is also fantastic. Night gets kudos for lighting the fuse for the whole shebang although I watch Savini's excellent remake more often as it is a far better movie IMO. I am no less decerning than folks who think that the original Night is better or that GAR's recent films are even remotely acceptable. People have different tastes and I'll take Patricia Tallman & Tony Todd over the original cast any day (apart from Carl Hardman RIP)...I've said it before and I'll say it again, Tony Todd is absolutely epic in the remake, completely untouchable and the definitive "Ben" for me.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Something I've noticed recently, It's only a rough, albeit working theory, so forgive the lack of conceptual polish. What I've noticed/concluded is that how people feel about running zombies and, consequently Dawn '04, is almost directly proportional to the body of zombie-movie work to which they either have or have not been exposed. In other words: Newer devotees to the zombie genre seem to go through a phase where many types and quality-levels of zombie movies are accepted relatively equally, and that more modern films tend to meet with their approval because such movies are more similar in style to other contemporary films they've enjoyed. Conversely, zombie movie fans that have been watching everything to do with zombies for years become MUCH more discriminating in what they deem to be "good". I think this can (in part) explain the pro and anti-Dawn '04 camps. Less refined viewers, with less experience with what THEY enjoy, see it as a decent-to-great horror movie. Older fans primarily see a bastardization of the zombie mythos and all the movies many warts first, because of how crude it is when compared with their classic favorites. Only after this thought process finishes (though still continues on as a bias), do veteran zombie fans see the movie for itself. Sound reasonable to the rest of you? If so or if not, why or why not? I disagree because I have been watching zombie films for 30+ years and the only zombie films I hate are shitty ones. Running zombies don't bother me... stupid dialog and dumb ass storylines bother me. Day of the Dead 08, Night 3D, Day 2, ROTLD 4 & 5, House of the Dead, People just piss and moan because whatever they are expecting in a zombie film is just never going to fucking happen because the studios won't spend the money and the indie guys can't pull it off without the money... so it is a no win situation. People want the doom and gloom of the zombie genre, which is why every zombie fan agrees the first 10 minutes of Dawn 04 is some great stuff, but, feel it falls apart when they get in the mall. Now if The Crazies remake would have been, for all purposes, a Zombie film, in the definition of Romero zombies... I think zombie fans would embrace it much more. The Crazies remake is a great flick, just not enough Crazies in it, but has that end of the world vibe. The DAWN remake is good because it updates a classic with more modern ZING to it. No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards. It is going to end up being an indie guy who scrapes together a few million and calls in a shit load of favors.

[BillyRay]

No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards. It is going to end up being an indie guy who scrapes together a few million and calls in a shit load of favors. But we don't know ANYONE who fits THAT description....

[DjfunkmasterG]

But we don't know ANYONE who fits THAT description.... I am not even saying myself because not enough Zombie Fan believe even I could do it. Only a few people here on HPOTD actually have watched my flicks and believe in me but the majority of the zombie fans wouldn't even give me a passing though let alone trust me with $5,000,000 to pull it off. Nope its going to have to be Zack Snyder... I know it.

[Trin]

@Wyld - I think your assessment has some truth to it. I think you could extend the argument further and contend that the entire body of movies that a person is exposed to influences their love/hate of recent zombie movies. With all the action/adventure big budget effects thrown at people today you see a movie like Survival and think, "Geez, O'Flynn can't even dodge one bullet?" Reality left the station a decade ago. If that's what you've been seeing all your life the "classics" are gonna leave you confused. @DJ - I agree with you that stupid plot and dumbass storylines are what's killing the modern zombie movie. And I think a lot of that comes from people wanting to distinguish themselves from the pack. The zombie genre (being mostly about post apocalyptic survival) is a tight little area to work in. Filmmakers don't want to be seen as cookie cutter, recreating the same movie over and over again. That leads to things like zombie baby and intelligent zombies as they try to reinvent the genre. A genre that almost by definition should not be jacked with. As to the "next big zombie movie" and whether Hollywood can pull it off... I Am Legend and 28 Days/Weeks all prove that the movie industry *could* make the next great zombie movie. These movies all tickle our zombie itch, but they just fail on some crucial points. Mostly the bias for action over character interaction and setting. But you can't look at 28 Weeks or Legend and think they missed the mark on scope of problem or capturing the claustrophobic nature. They had plenty of infected in each movie. They very convincingly depicted a widespread problem.

[Wrong Number]

The DAWN remake is good because it updates a classic with more modern ZING to it. No one in Hollywood is ever going to be able to make the zombie film we have all envisioned because it would cost $100,000,000 by todays studio standards. How exactly does it "update a classic"? It doesn't even have the same plot, characters or general vibe. The only reason it's considered a remake is that it uses the same name. Dysfunctional of the Dead is more like it. WN

[Mike70]

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

[BillyRay]

where in the hell is that beating a dead horse gif at? this thread is like a terrasque. it sleeps for a bit and then comes back to pillage and destroy. Is it sad that I know exactly what that is? Is it even sadder that I have a good story about my group fighting one?