What version of Dawn 78 should I show a new zombie fan.

[JDP]

I think perhaps you are misinformed on this point, unless I am misunderstanding which cut you are referring to. The "director's cut" as it is often labeled is the cut that GAR sent to the Cannes film festival. It was actually a rushed editing job, as he wanted it at Cannes for that year and had to get it done for the Cannes deadline. Then the "US Theatrical Cut" was later released in American theaters. This version is "the way Romero himself wanted it to be" as you put it. It is very confusing that in most cases, a movie that is referred to as a directors cut means that the studio made the director make cuts that he didnt want to make for various studio reasons, and that version is the theatrical cut. Then the director makes a version that is more what his vision was, without the cuts that the studio wanted, and this is the directors cut. In the case of Dawn of the Dead, this was not the case. The Cannes cut was erroneously labeled as a directors cut (probably because it wasnt the theatrical version) and the label kind of stuck. Some people prefer one cut and some the other, but the theatrical version is in fact the way Romero wanted it to be. For the record, my own favorite it the US theatrical cut. The editing is tighter and the score, both Goblin and DeWolfe library cues, are better used and add to the mood more. But since Dawn of the Dead is my favorite movie of all time, I totally love the extended scenes that exist in the Cannes version. And oddly enough, the Argento version, even though much shorter, had scenes of dialogue and gore that is in NEITHER of the other versions! And of course, I love those extra scenes as well. But the Argento cut is clearly the inferior of the three. Dario tried to make it more of an action flick and took out key scenes that are vital to the overall story. And the Goblin was OVERWHELMING in this version. Don't get me wrong, I love the Goblin songs, but they are used too much and too loud in the Argento version. Thanks for that clarification. I always heard that longer version being called the "director's cut". The name surely stuck over the years. In that case, then, the first cut was the better one. The theatrical one cut out quite a bit of great stuff that should not have been touched. My guess is that Romero left a lot of that footage out because of time constrictions.

[Philly_SWAT]

Did you ever see the 5 minute cut that I myself made? I can not remember what site I used to host it at the time (as youtube ridiculously wouldnt host it), nor can I find my post here no matter what terms I put into the search bar. I think that version is pretty awesome! EDIT: Found the video in case someone wanted to see for the first time or re-watch. Couldnt find a cool way to embed it like I did before...I think HPOTD doesnt support that embedding anymore. Click the pic to see! For optimum enjoyment, expand to full screen while watching.

[bassman]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions.....

[MinionZombie]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions..... Eh?! I'd never show anyone that cut as a first timer, it could really ruin the whole experience, I think. Best to enter it best-foot-forward with either the Theatrical or Extended Cannes Cut. Argento's cut might be 'pacier' in some regards (or just wedges in a few more kill shots and hacks out tons of character detail and story subtleties), but it's an absolute mess of a thing that squanders so many of the best traits about the Romero film that make it special. I think some people couild see the Argento version and coming away thinking "what's so special about that?".

[Moon Knight]

If the person is of a younger age range, I'd say Argento's Cut. It's more of what people are accustomed to these days. Quick and to the point. If they enjoy that, then try the meatier versions..... I really dislike that one. The music alone- nope. I worked at a Gamestop back around 2004 and someone traded in the original Dawn. We took in used video games and movies for credit. Anyway, I recommended it to one of our loyal customers. He returned it and said it was one of the worse movies he’s ever seen. I was so sad.

[bassman]

I was just looking at it with the idea that modern audiences generally want fast action and to the point. While we as fans love the traits of a Romero film, it feels to me that we're sort of in the minority and generally speaking, younger audiences could see that as slow, boring, or cheesy. All of which I've heard numerous times from newcomers. I once attended a screening of Dawn at a locally owned theater and while there were the definite fans of Romero's work in attendance, a majority of the audience were laughing throughout the flick like it was an episode of Mystery Science Theater. As a big fan, it was kinda disheartening.

[JDP]

I was just looking at it with the idea that modern audiences generally want fast action and to the point. While we as fans love the traits of a Romero film, it feels to me that we're sort of in the minority and generally speaking, younger audiences could see that as slow, boring, or cheesy. All of which I've heard numerous times from newcomers. I once attended a screening of Dawn at a locally owned theater and while there were the definite fans of Romero's work in attendance, a majority of the audience were laughing throughout the flick like it was an episode of Mystery Science Theater. As a big fan, it was kinda disheartening. Youngsters today generally have short attention spans, they want rapid moving images and "plots" that barely make sense, and that therefore do not require much thought-process from the viewer's part. An old-fashioned, slower-paced movie like Dawn seems "boring" or "goofy" to them. It often requires to actually think while you watch. If you look at what they did with the Dawn remake you will see how they tried to "remedy" this. Faster zombies, faster pace, faster action, "thinner" plot (however, I must admit that it was quite better than I expected it would be, but still very inferior to the original.) And let's not even go into the atrocious pseudo-remake of Day! Thank goodness that no one has tried to remake Fulci's Zombie. How much you want to bet that it would be called something like Zombie: I Know What You Did Last Summer in that Island Called Matul, starring a bunch of badass and "totally rad" teenagers and twenty-somethings that kick zombie ass! Also, following the trendy "role reversals" of modern remakes, Dr. Menard is a fearless woman scientist, played by Miley Cyrus, who, besides sticking her tongue out and wiggling it in a manner suggesting female oral sex and making various obscene gestures at the zombies, vehemently refuses to leave the island until she has found a solution to the problem, while her husband, played by Justin Bieber, is the hapless, scared shitless alcohol/drug-addicted victim who will get his eye gouged and then become a picnic for the zombies. Also, the zombie who battles the shark ends up in court sued by PETA.

[shootemindehead]

In fairness to the "youngsters today", there's actually a lot of stuff in 'Dawn of the Dead' that's just fucking terrible and pretty laughable (even in an unintentional way). But we let it slide. Shitty acting at the dock, helicopter zombie, awful library music (even though I think I think it's cool in a camp way) , dreadful makeup, orange blood, some rubbish dialogue, pie fight, test your pulse, da, da, da, da daaaah music at the end...christ, I can see why people would laugh. Zombie fans - and Romero fans in particular - give 'Dawn of the Dead' a HUGE leeway, because of the effect it had on the genre and the excellent pedigree that's attached . But, it simply just doesn't fly today in a lot of ways. It didn't even fly in the 90's, to be honest. Even in "my day", it was the lesser cousin to 'Day of the Dead', who among my friends was THE zombie film. 'Dawn of the Dead' was always the premier zombie film in America, but I've never really understood that. Particularly when its sequel had everything 'Dawn of the Dead' had in spades, with the added bonus that when the shocks happened, they really were bloody shocking. Its special effects are still amongst some of the best and most explicit I have ever seen. Honestly, to hell with 'The Walking Dead', it's shown nothing as lingering and as red as the stuff that Savini got away with in that film. I'm still amazed at the likes of Rickles' death. Seeing his eye pop and hearing his terrifyingly painful screams...Just chilling. There's a grim weight going on there that's rare, even amongst horror films. I have clear memories of sitting people down to 'Day of the Dead' and listening to them shit talking "crap zombie films"...then shutting the fuck up when the shit hits the fan in the final third. It's kind of a little pleasure for me. Weird, I know. Yes, it's kind of annoying when people don't "get" 'Dawn of the Dead', but I can certainly understand why. Sure, there are folk that don't "get' 'Day of the Dead' either, but I've never seen anyone laugh at it.

[MinionZombie]

Thank goodness that no one has tried to remake Fulci's Zombie. How much you want to bet that it would be called something like Zombie: I Know What You Did Last Summer in that Island Called Matul, starring a bunch of badass and "totally rad" teenagers and twenty-somethings that kick zombie ass! Also, following the trendy "role reversals" of modern remakes, Dr. Menard is a fearless woman scientist, played by Miley Cyrus, who, besides sticking her tongue out and wiggling it in a manner suggesting female oral sex and making various obscene gestures at the zombies, vehemently refuses to leave the island until she has found a solution to the problem, while her husband, played by Justin Bieber, is the hapless, scared shitless alcohol/drug-addicted victim who will get his eye gouged and then become a picnic for the zombies. Also, the zombie who battles the shark ends up in court sued by PETA.

[Adam the Dog]

My girlfriend had never seen the film before. So I sat her down and put on the 155 minute "Extended Mall Hours" cut. Hahaha

[Moon Knight]

My girlfriend had never seen the film before. So I sat her down and put on the 155 minute "Extended Mall Hours" cut. Hahaha Good man!

[bassman]

Never thought I'd say this, but shootem and I are on the same page...

[Moon Knight]

Dawn of the Dead was written pretty much as a comic book adventure. It's supposed to be kinda wacky, colorful, and fun. Day of the Dead was always intended to be a depressing story about all that's left in the world among the living. Love both for what they are but I connect so much more with the characters in Dawn.

[ElectricFire169]

I still say Extended Mall Hours cut. Even though it's not official it's still the most definitive version of the film out there and it includes scenes from all three official cuts of the film.

[MinionZombie]

I still say Extended Mall Hours cut. Even though it's not official it's still the most definitive version of the film out there and it includes scenes from all three official cuts of the film. Longest, yes, but I wouldn't say definitive, especially as it's not an official cut of the movie. I'd think it'd also be far too long for most newbies being introduced to Dawn. When it comes to the film there's only two good edits of the film - the U.S. Theatrical and the Extended Cannes Cut - the fan edits are cobbled together from different sources and therefore lack coherance and are really only for the hardcore fans (and I'd similarly not recommend the 8mm 'Digest' cut of the movie either as it's just 45 minutes long!), and Argento's European Cut is just dreadful.