Day of the Dead(original)?

[Yojimbo]

I'd probably blame that on the writing. The cast was a decent-to-strong enough group of actors, who turned in (for the most part) solid performancs with what they had. But the way they were written? Eh, there's only so much you can do with THAT. Good point Moon. I have seen the majority of those actors, with minor exceptions, in other works and they were undeniably solid. Poor writing coupled with a hack director would make even the most talented actors come off like Paris Hilton.

[rawr]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake. There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling. Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen.

[Yojimbo]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake. There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling. Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen. Ok, so you don't think Snyder is a hack. I beg to differ. No need to call my opinion "ridiculous" in the same way that there would not be any call for me to dismiss your opinion in the manner that you did mine. As far as character development is concerned, I still shit on DAWN 04, however "multidimensional" and "excellent" you think it was. Again, this is only my opinion and you are entitled to think otherwise. The titles you cite, 300 and the Watchmen, do not sway my assessment of Snyder as a hack though I found both to be entertaining on some level, as I also found DAWN 2004 to be. I also found his Budweiser commercial to be acceptable even though I still think he is a hack and will continue to think this whether or not you think it is "ridiculous" Again, you can agree or disagree at your discretion. Either way, these things are a matter of opinion. Moving forward, I will not call your opinions "ridiculous", and I would ask that you extend me and my fellow posters the same courtesy.

[C:/Fodder]

I read over a script for Day of the Dead as it was originally intended to be; and it just seemed a bit too...bombastic for me. All this talk of a small society on these islands, a longer running time: I won't deny it had the feel of an "epic" film, but those kind of films just don't appeal that much to me; nor do I think the label "epic" should be applied to a zombie film. Day '85 is a chilling and haunting film. A long shot from the great, if over the top, humour in Dawn '78. It's a polarising film, too; most people either seem to love its stark portrayal of human desperation and the ever enduring message that it is humanity which is the greatest threat to itself, not the living dead: Or they hate it for departing too far from the consumerist dreams of Dawn, or being a bit too dark. One thing we can all agree on is, I'm sure, the glorious gore. Savini tops his previous efforts in Dawn, that's for sure. I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake. There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). While this is a discussion on Day, and you're entitled to your opinion, I beg to differ; The only characters I felt were really fleshed-out were Ana and Michael. But can you truly say that Nicole, Norma, Terry, Bart, Glen and Steve were truly fleshed out? Hell, even Andre and Luda could've been really well written; but instead, after Luda gets bitten, "We're going to disappear until near the end of the movie now guys, ok?".

[general tbag]

And what is the excuse for Diary/Survival? money! pretty sure he was gloating how both were made cheap. Day is the weakest, but it shows with the small details he had a larger budget with more bells and whistles. notld <---best-Selected by The Library of Congress NUFF SAID

[Neil]

I fail to see a problem with the characters of Zack Snyder's remake. There were MULTIPLE characters followed, all portrayed in a very multi-dimensional fashion, and each character developed throughout the story (with the exception of Ving Rhames, but come on, he was the badass). I didn't see any major problems with the dialogue, and I thought the acting was excellent. This was Zack Snyder's debut film, and it was an epic debut, in my opinion. Sure, he gutted the original Dawn's story, but so what? It was a good piece of storytelling. Also, calling Snyder a hack is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard... The man directed 300 and The Watchmen. But the problem is not the efforts to flesh the characters out, but, a) Their behaviour, b) The events. It's all a little bit daft and unbelievable, hence you don't believe in the situation, hence you don't believe in the characters, hence you don't ultimately care about the characters. ie:- - Ninja zombie neighbour girl at the start: You're dead, and infected, so bounce around supernaturally? - Demon eyes: You're dead, and infected, so within a few seconds get strange contact lenses? - Godzilla lungs: You're dead, and infected, so within a few seconds get lung upgrades? And of course this list just continues through the whole film unfortunately, resulting in characters doing bizarre things risking their lives for no reasons, or resulting in things like zombie being super quiet when 'necessary', and indeed legless nija zombies climbing onto overhead piping. etc etc... The film of course is not a loss, and some of it is excellent, but it's way off what it could have been with a bit more intelligence in the writing (& characters)...

[Trin]

Hey Neil, you are hitting it on the head. The characters are fine but lose their appeal in the situation and actions. When they sit around and concoct a plan to leave their perfectly good mall you have to wonder about them. And Zombie baby? How the actors even managed to get through that scene is a mystery to me. How stupid does an idea have to be before the actor's guild strikes? It's no worse than any other recent zombie movie... just not something worth great praise. I still watch the first half of it. Till they stupidly go after the dog girl.

[Neil]

Till they stupidly go after the dog girl. Exactly! Dog girl was another example! As if she'd go running around like that, or if they'd risk almost certain death going after her!

[JDFP]

Exactly! Dog girl was another example! As if she'd go running around like that, or if they'd risk almost certain death going after her! Eh... in defense... She was pretty hot. I would have hit that. And in a world where there's not many do-able fish left in the sea you have to prioritize. "Dear God! One of the few attractive women left is running away! Quick! Catch her!" j.p.

[Trin]

She's so dumb though. The guys you were attributing that action to were old enough to not care about her youthful hotness anymore. I was at a pizza buffet place and this super hot young chick was lingering in the buffet line right beside my table. I looked over at her, then to my wife, then I sighed. She was working up to give me the "You have no chance" look when I said, "I can't see what kind of pizza they just put up." The sigh was because I didn't care about that hot chick. I just wanted pizza. Sigh. Yeah, she'd get left behind in a heartbeat being that stupid.

[Gryphon]

She's so dumb though. The guys you were attributing that action to were old enough to not care about her youthful hotness anymore. I was at a pizza buffet place and this super hot young chick was lingering in the buffet line right beside my table. I looked over at her, then to my wife, then I sighed. She was working up to give me the "You have no chance" look when I said, "I can't see what kind of pizza they just put up." The sigh was because I didn't care about that hot chick. I just wanted pizza. Sigh. Yeah, she'd get left behind in a heartbeat being that stupid. Perfectly understandable :P Though, that's one thing about the Original Day that just made me go o.O ... There's ONE female in the bunker. ONE. They may be the only humans left on earth, and Rhodes threatens to kill the ONE reproductive option for.... not getting back in her chair?!

[zomtom]

Even though Dawn has always been my favorite; Day is the one that scared the hell out of me the most. First of all, that damned Dr. Tongue zombie. He was before his time. Also, when they are running through those dark tunnels with the zeds in there; that fueled many a damned good nightmare. I would take that any day over that silly shit GAR is offering us now.

[Neil]

Even though Dawn has always been my favorite; Day is the one that scared the hell out of me the most. First of all, that damned Dr. Tongue zombie. He was before his time. Also, when they are running through those dark tunnels with the zeds in there; that fueled many a damned good nightmare. I would take that any day over that silly shit GAR is offering us now. It's definately the darkest of the trilogy IMHO! I love it!

[BOBSMITH]

I've never understood folk who prefer the original DAY OF THE DEAD to either of its predecessors. The story just doesn't hold up and the lack of a budget was glaring. Most of the acting was not very good. Also, from what I understand, LAND OF THE DEAD incorporated most of the ideas and themes that Romero originally intended to use in DOTD. Since LAND it a really awful film, I suppose that DAY would also have been lousy if he'd had the budget to make the film he wanted to make. That said, DAY OF THE DEAD is a film that grows on me the more I watch it. After my first viewing I was terribly disappointed in it, but the more I see it the more I see in it of consequence.

[Andy]

I've never understood folk who prefer the original DAY OF THE DEAD to either of its predecessors. The story just doesn't hold up and the lack of a budget was glaring. Most of the acting was not very good. Also, from what I understand, LAND OF THE DEAD incorporated most of the ideas and themes that Romero originally intended to use in DOTD. Since LAND it a really awful film, I suppose that DAY would also have been lousy if he'd had the budget to make the film he wanted to make. That said, DAY OF THE DEAD is a film that grows on me the more I watch it. After my first viewing I was terribly disappointed in it, but the more I see it the more I see in it of consequence. I Prefer day over dawn, but night is my favourite of all romeros movies. I personally love the dark, claustophobic nihalistic feeling of both night and day which is the perfect atmosphere for a zombie movie and i think its something that romero does really well when he does it. Dawn is ok but i dont like the cheesiness. it ruins it for me.