Dawn re-make. A homage to Romero's film ?

[Yojimbo]

Could you call it a homage, or a re-invention of the zombie films for todays generation?? Assrape is what I call it! Ok, actually I didn't hate the 2004 version and found it to be entertaining. But I don't really think that it did the 1978 version justice, and in fact I do feel that it got a big-ass boost from just having the name associated with it. As I have said before, I think that the inclusion of the little homages to the original (Galen Ross store and using both Scott and Ken in the film) were thrown in there to appease the die hard fans of the original. Again, I say they should not have called it Dawn of the Dead, and should not have had it in a mall (fuck it, the entire thing could have been set in a Wallmart and it would have been the same movie) And, again, I point out that on the commentary that fucking Hack Snyder barely gives credit for the concept to GAR where it is due. Pompus little ass!

[Neil]

Well if you want thought out, there's always my 110 reasons in 110 minutes why Yawn04 sucks list, previously re-posted in this thread a few days ago. Classic!

[MinionZombie]

And, again, I point out that on the commentary that fucking Hack Snyder barely gives credit for the concept to GAR where it is due. Pompus little ass! I've never listened to the commentary, mainly because the movie is gash, but also because I can't stand Snyder. His face annoys me, his voice annoys me, his style annoys me, and as for the above - the dude can go fuck himself therefore.

[Yojimbo]

the dude can go fuck himself therefore. Yeah, but do you like him? Snyder is an overrated piece of crap. So it does not surprise me that he continues to get greenlit for the next big budget major let down.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, but do you like him? Like him? I love him ... ... ... *sarcasm overload*

[SRP76]

I noticed something else about Dawn '04 that just doesn't feel right to me. I just now really put my finger on it. It's the entitlement of the characters. This whole thing just falls into their laps (like our generation is supposed to think should happen to us). Here's what I mean: When watching these movies, I (and I know damn well I'm not alone) always put myself in the shoes of the characters, to have fun "living it". Whenever a character is rewarded with something, I enjoy it the way the characters do - that's the "fun". Now, watch Dawn '78. Our heroes ("me", as I watch and enjoy) find a mall. It's overrun, and a hundred things go wrong. Through hard work and insane risk, they get it locked down, and have their safe haven. It wasn't easy. As Ric Flair said many times, "they sweat; they bled; they paid the price". When you get to the scene where the four heroes are on the upper concourse, looking over the sea of dead bodies strewn across the floor, and they're finally safe, you get the "whew" feeling - it's been an uphill climb, but "we" finally did it. But watch Dawn '04. You get NONE of that. A bunch of spoiled, infighting pieces of shit just get this safe haven falling into their laps. The security guys were there from moment one, all safe with zero effort. The first batch of refugees (Kenneth and them) just show up, deadbolt one door behind them, deal with a whopping two ghouls, then find the security guards. Their biggest problem from then on is "the toilet in here doesn't work". Then, you get a truckload of people who simply show up one day, and they've got safety waiting for them. There's no effort from the Dawn '04 crew. And, since they didn't do much of anything to earn their circumstance, I (and others) don't feel that same satisfaction when they're "safe" as I do when the Dawn '78 crew accomplishes their goal. Nowhere near it, actually. Which results in a lot more "meh", and a lot less "fun".

[Trin]

That is an amazingly good observation SRP. Nicely done. As someone else pointed out, they take their safety for granted too. As if no one else is going to think of the mall. And the zombies are never gonna get in. It's just another instance of the movie shoving action down our throats without stopping to think about the character study, connecting with the audience, or thinking through the mindset of the people involved. Reason #111 MZ? Or was this covered in the first 110 minutes?

[MinionZombie]

That is an amazingly good observation SRP. Nicely done. As someone else pointed out, they take their safety for granted too. As if no one else is going to think of the mall. And the zombies are never gonna get in. It's just another instance of the movie shoving action down our throats without stopping to think about the character study, connecting with the audience, or thinking through the mindset of the people involved. Reason #111 MZ? Or was this covered in the first 110 minutes? An excellent observation there SRP - bloody well said, and it points out something that's always bothered me in the back of my mind, but I couldn't figure out what it was - but you got it exactly there. Damn straight. Plus, indeed, the characters in Dawn are likeable everybodys - in Yawn they're a bunch of twatfaced arsehole one-dimensional cheap stereotypes. Trin - I think this argument would be one of my "general" feelings about the movie, as my 110 list doesn't include things like "the issue of the title" or "the issue of remakes" or whatever - it touches on some of these wider issues, but the list is really very specific to whatever's happening on screen for the most part. But yes, exactly, one of Yawn's biggest flaws is the script - and the complete lack of intelligent character study, or interesting characters, or just flat-out characters. It's all about ticking boxes - like when Max Headroom gets introduced and he's dead 10 minutes later after an intercut death realisation scene - there's no actual emotional investment, but the lazy makers of this piece of trash just think you can tick a box and you'll get a dumb-dumb sheep-like following - well nuh-uh, you bloody well won't. You just get a bunch of twatfaced bastards moping around being idiots ... and really, really, really fucking annoying. Hell - some of the characters literally have NO NAME - they're never referred to by a name. The majority of the others only have their name dropped very quickly, long after their introduction - which says it all really, and speaks about another bad aspect of this MTV generation. It's all about "the blonde one who gets her tits out", or "that black dude" or "the nerdy one" - whereas in Dawn it's very specifically "Fran", "Peter", "Roger" and "Stephen/Flyboy" - you hear their names throughout the film, and you get properly introduced right from the very start of the movie and you know exactly what sort of people they are, and this is then developed upon throughout the film. That's how it's supposed to be done!

[Trin]

...like when Max Headroom gets introduced and he's dead 10 minutes later after an intercut death realisation scene - there's no actual emotional investment... I was very emotionally invested in Max Headroom... but it was because he WAS Max Headroom!! That still means something in my book. They even kinda clowned this lack of character development. "Died without a name..." one of the nameless characters says. (Yes, I know, it was Tucker... but he might as well have been nameless) I don't really have a problem with loads of nameless irrelevant characters. Day did that with the extraneous soldiers and the extra scientist guy. Land did that with ... well, tons of them. That's not the problem. The problem is that the characters Dawn '04 had standing around sucked. Zombie baby daddy/baby momma/baby, stupid girl with dog, rent-a-cops, high-heel old guy, skank (okay, she was fine), selfish guy... I liked Michael, Kenneth, Andy, and nurse-chick (Anna??)... the rest... suck. They were too integral to ignore them. And too suck to forgive them. I also like something that article Neil posted mentioned. In Dawn '78 the zombies were characters in the movie. You could look at them and see that they were once real people. From the apartment guy husband zombie to the nurse zombie to the Hari Krisna zombie to the baseball player zombie... you can fill in the blanks of what their lives were like. In Dawn '04 you just cannot pick them out of the crowd.

[MinionZombie]

I also like something that article Neil posted mentioned. In Dawn '78 the zombies were characters in the movie. You could look at them and see that they were once real people. From the apartment guy husband zombie to the nurse zombie to the Hari Krisna zombie to the baseball player zombie... you can fill in the blanks of what their lives were like. In Dawn '04 you just cannot pick them out of the crowd. Another fine point - the zombies are just as much characters in Dawn as the four leads are ... but in Yawn is just a blur of red/brown/grey (read bloody/rotting) Veloci-screaming at you, a lazily utilised slab of loud noise thrown vaguely in the direction of a dumb-dumb MTV target audience.

[shootemindehead]

It isn't an "homage", nor is is a "re-invention", nor is it a "re-visioning"... It's simply an abuse of an eye-catching and familiar title and a ripoff of a good idea for a script. That's all.

[Trin]

You just have to apply the correct adjectives. It is a failed homage. It is an uncreative re-invention. It is a short-sighted re-visioning.

[darth los]

You just have to apply the correct adjectives. It is a failed homage. It is an uncreative re-invention. It is a short-sighted re-visioning. And being those things it's still a good film. It just sucks as a homage. Yes things can be both.

[shootemindehead]

Unfortunately, all of those adjectives imply respect for the original material and creator and I don't believe that Snyders 90 min "popcorn" farce had an awful lot of respect for Romero's original. No, the correct adjective is "rip-off".

[Trin]

He clearly invented things (zombie baby, runners) and brought his own vision to the film (action, intensity, atmosphere). So I think it qualifies as both a re-invention and a re-visioning. Having respect for the original is not required. As for an homage I really don't know. I'd say it cannot be an homage and a ripoff at the same time. Those don't mix. But to comment on whether it is one versus the other assumes knowing what Snyder was thinking as he did it. In my mind it was either an insulting homage or a successful rip-off.