New vs. Old movies

[sandrock74]

The effects in the originals are a part of the charm. The gore shown is also part of the appeal. If you don't get it, then no one will ever be able to explain it to you.

[Yojimbo]

I think that the newer zombie films are more accessible and therefore can be argued more easily enjoyed by a contemporary audience as things that are new generally are. The whole notion of what is enjoyable is subjective, personally I enjoy the original dawn of the dead more so than the remake for many reasons, I saw it before the remake for a start and it also happened to be the first zombie film that I had seen so it holds a place in my heart for nostalgic reasons, not only that but in terms of realism I agree with sandrock that slow moving zombies ARE more realistic because they are rotting flesh. Also I would argue that modern day effects are not necessarily realistic, they are more visually pleasing and are what we imagine to be real but more often than not they are no more real than the effects that Romero used in the original. Welcome aboard, bnjmnnt: Very well said. I agree, however, wonder if the modern day effects are in actuality more visually pleasing than the old school. For instance, I am one of those old schoolers that prefer stop motion animation to digital. Sue me, but it just looks better to me. The modern day effects often come off as being quite soul-less to me, and the over use of CGI irritates me like a boil on my ass!

[AnxietyDilemma]

I copied much of this from an older blog entry of mine, as it sums up my opinion of newer movies pretty well. In my opinion, these newer films rely on CGI to the extent of the realism being lost. These films look too pristine for reality. Also, I feel that the special effects kind of sterilize the imagery, and I feel that the atmosphere is compromised in the process. To me, the cinematic perspective is ruined when a film relies too heavily on special effects because I find myself withdrawn from the computer generated environment. Not too mention, I cannot stand these contemporary filming and editing styles. The scenes flash by like a blinding strobe light and once my head ache and motion sickness begin to subside, I am then left to piece the brief glimpses that I figure to be fragments of a story line together, much like a puzzle, in hopes of trying to salvage the experience by attaching some kind of meaning to the mayhem and trying to gain any kind of understanding for it's inner workings. In order for a movie to instill fear in me, it must be done psychologically, through anticipation and suspense while gradually building a thick tension. These more recent movies trade such values in for contrived, in your face action along with computer generated special effects that ultimately just destroy and eliminate the atmosphere of the movie. Rather than experiencing psychological distress, the only frightening detail featured in these newer movies is the "BOOO" factor in which I am merely startled by a character or object leaping out into the screen unexpectedly. This is simply a cheap scare tactic which is often accompanied by a barrage of flashy special effects to which compensate for the depth which the film is devoid of! I treasure the classics which made me huddle up into the fetal position while my skin crawled as the movie took complete control of my very own imagination and used it as a tool to expose my greatest fears in order to terrify me.

[Danny]

the only frightening detail featured in these newer movies is the "BOOO" factor in which I am merely startled by a character or object leaping out into the screen unexpectedly. This is simply a cheap scare tactic and yet for this reason F.E.A.R is considred a great horror game

[SymphonicX]

Having watched a number of classic and contemporary zombie films i have found that the more modern films are much better than the older ones on multiple levels. From a technical viewpoint, the more recent films (such as the Dawn of the Dead remake and other films such as 28 days/weeks later) are far superior in terms of special effects, acting, storyline and general production value. The films are concurrently more convincing and thus more enjoyable to watch than the originals. I have however seen the inclination towards the original films across this website and the message boards and was wondering why it was that the preference is towards the classic Romero films rather than the contemporary counterparts? Is it the low budget aesthetic quality of the films that you enjoy? Do you find it a more enjoyable experience to watch zombie movies when they are low budget, unrealistic and dated as that is how the films were originally? Constructive criticism please, i am not trying to attack the originals, just trying to find the reasoning behind the attraction to the classic zombie films. It's like asking someone why they find the original Star Wars movies better than the prequels... It goes a lot deeper than just taking the movies on face value, which is a big faux pas in the world of cult cinema. Unfortunately it seems as though you've taken the originals and the remakes purely on face value...and that's where the problem lies. After growing up with movies like this, people get very involved in their love for it - then a remake comes along with half the talent, but ten times the budget, and attempts to make it into some amazing showcase of gore and horror, and we just turn our noses up at it because we wanted all those things but with the characters and story to back them up, and of course, the loving hand of a creator who wants to bring something to the "universe" which we have also grown up with...

[Redman6565]

I think most fans feel that Dawn was the best of the GAR movies. For me Day was right there as well. The open of the movie when they land in that major city, wow did that put things in perspective. When those zombies all started to wake up it made the worldseem like a small place. I feel the actors over all in Day came across more believable. As for the remakes like Dawn '04. I think it's funny how you have so many people feel that some things should be left alone. So they took Dawn and gave it a twist. So what it was a good movie. The acting was far better in the remake. I love both Dawn movies. Weather you want to admit it or not that movie opened the door for GAR to get back in. You also have the hard line fans that despise the fast moving zombies. They throw around all these reasons as to why zombies can't run. Well who knows. I think both are great. You have the slow but very creepy GAR ones. Then you have the very fast scare the hell out of you ones. If this ever really happened I hope that GAR is right. lol also, the 28 Days/Weeks movies were very well done to. Lets face it, zombie movies are fun and I like to see people change things up from time to time. In the end we all seem to get a taste, pardon the pun, of what we enjoy. Classic and new. If you enjoy it good for you.

[Mike70]

agree with yojimbo on this one. the newer zombie movies like dawn 04 are cookie cutter, MTV generation things that while they might be "entertaining" on some level are utterly vacuous and ultimately empty of any sort of meaning beyond "dude, wasn't that a cool special effect." george had a lot of relevant things to say back in the day and dawn 78 is one of the best comments on american consumerism ever. dawn 04 had nothing to say really and was an empty shell, sure it had some nice action sequences and whatnot but at the end of the day, it had nothing whatsoever to say that counted in any sort of meaningful way.