Defending Dawn O4

[AcesandEights]

Isn't there some stupid rule too where you must spread rep to about a thousand people before you can give it to the same person again anyway? Yes, which is cool to keep down abuse, but a bit out of whack, since I can never give rep to the people who constantly add good remarks, links, info or content; Philly Swat is the person on the top of my list who always gets rooked, because I can never give him enough rep to keep up with all the details and other informative info he pops up (crackpot timeline-theorizing, aside ). It is, however, good motivation to remember to look around at what other people are contributing, which is,after all, one of the 2 reasons I'm sure it was introduced

[Craig]

For some people....this is wrong. The real horror and suspense of Romero's films were that the zombies weren't the bad guys...the humans were. We screw it up. That's the suspense and horror. Gunn and Snyder didn't know this..... It's kind of the opposite to the Godzilla remake of 1997, the originals had Godzilla portrayed as an unholy monster crashing through Tokyo, where as the remake or whatever you want to call it tried to give Godzilla a heart. This day and age, no one wants to see a monster/zombie/ film where the monster has feelings or aren't the bad guys. They're dead and eat human flesh, what's more of a reason after all the years that zombies have been around for people to see them as bad or evil? Anyway. Call me childish, because I am only 14 and that apparently makes me stupid. But I don't see the point in trying to find too much hidden meaning or even blatant meaning in films which are supposed to be entertainment*. I loved Dawn '04, maybe because I respect the zombie genre as a whole and I can see past the fact that the story isn't very well developed to enjoy the fact that at least zombies are getting some attention. Plus the running zombies don't bother me, in fact, I liked them and I did like them in 28 Days Later, it just adds an urgency and a unique twist to the genre which most zombie films fail at nowadays. Yes it may be a big budget Hollywood film but it does have some heart and they were willing to go and take the zombie genre in a new direction with the runners and I respect that. But it's each to their own in the end. *I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning.

[Blackdragon6]

i liked it, it was alot better than what i thought it would be.especialy the first 10 minutes.

[bassman]

*I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning. Actually, that was THE thing that attracted me to Romero's films. And yes, ALL of them have underlying commentaries. Romero's films have meaning. I am not a "zombie fan" by any means. In fact......you would be hard pressed to find a zombie film that I enjoy outside of Romero's because to me,they're just total cheese(I do like "28 Days Later" but it's technically not a zombie film). Film making, to me, is an art. Art is supposed to mean something to the creator, as well as, the audience. So once again I restate my comment that Gunn and Snyder did not know this. Either that or they knew that most audiences these days will gobble up any garbage that's thrown at them.

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, Yawn04 is to Dawn what Traci Emin's sh*tty bed is to Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus. 'nuff said really.

[coma]

]I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning. Any decent artist hides his intent within a larger context. To beat you over the head makes it a hamhanded political tract rather than a piece of art. The fact thar Dotd04 has no underlying context means the filmakers HAVE NO UNDERLYING CONTEXT. They are shallow and the Subtext in GARs DAWN (I hate saying that) about shallow, meaningless consumerism is about them. Shiny surface and nothing underneath. The Project scenes in the beginning is about contrast. The Poor people want to hold onto their building because its their home and the Protaginists want to hold the mall, not just because it's a refuge but because of all the stuff inside. If GARs films had no undercurrent there wouldnt be 10 million threads about picking apart all of the subtexts. I have thought plenty about his films. Some of the issues may possibly go over your head because you are a young dude and they don't reflect your experience. Myself, after repeated viewings (and life experience), became more aware of them. A good artist can't help but put dense subtext in his work, even if he doesn't want to. Mangia! Exactly, Yawn04 is to Dawn what Traci Emin's sh*tty bed is to Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus. 'nuff said really. DAwn04 is to coors light what GARs dawn is to Samuel Smiths Nut Brown Ale (my favorite beer)

[AssassinFromHell]

It's kind of the opposite to the Godzilla remake of 1997, the originals had Godzilla portrayed as an unholy monster crashing through Tokyo, where as the remake or whatever you want to call it tried to give Godzilla a heart. This day and age, no one wants to see a monster/zombie/ film where the monster has feelings or aren't the bad guys. They're dead and eat human flesh, what's more of a reason after all the years that zombies have been around for people to see them as bad or evil? Anyway. Call me childish, because I am only 14 and that apparently makes me stupid. But I don't see the point in trying to find too much hidden meaning or even blatant meaning in films which are supposed to be entertainment*. I loved Dawn '04, maybe because I respect the zombie genre as a whole and I can see past the fact that the story isn't very well developed to enjoy the fact that at least zombies are getting some attention. Plus the running zombies don't bother me, in fact, I liked them and I did like them in 28 Days Later, it just adds an urgency and a unique twist to the genre which most zombie films fail at nowadays. Yes it may be a big budget Hollywood film but it does have some heart and they were willing to go and take the zombie genre in a new direction with the runners and I respect that. But it's each to their own in the end. *I'm not saying the meanings behind Dawn weren't there or aren't important but come on, it was nothing spectacular that really made you stop and think, it had a message about consumerism at the time and that is about it, the message about human conflict had been done in NOTLD and any other messages or meanings were completely absent in the rest of his Dead films, so it's not like his films were all about the meaning. Meanings hidden in dead films- NIGHT=Racism, Vietnam, the whole sixties mess DAWN=Consumerism DAY=Military dependence, humans falling to themselves. FLORIDA IS A GONER LAND=9/11, terrorism OVERALL=Human ability to collapse to its own inner evil. Being fourteen doesn't necessarily make you stupid, unless your already a liberal You're just naive. And you can't respect the genre as a whole anymore when Uwe Boll is on the scene, it just doesn't work that way. Or when you've already had countless indie disasters after indie disasters. The zombie genre is a crappy genre with a shortage of actual flicks that are all around decent. I like zombies, don't get me wrong. But alot of zombie films are made very poorly. James Gunn can say he respects the genre all he wants, but I do believe Boll said it himself. Look what happened. Snyder didn't do a half bad job with DAWN 04. But it was horribly written. Gunn is talentless trash whose career is full of indie, cliche pieces of work that are either naive in meaning (if not lacking any whatsoever) and/or rips off the work of another. So when you turn fifteen, let me know, I'll buy you House of the Dead (and please note, I'm not trying to be an ass hole. I'm trying to get a point across while adding humor. )

[Arcades057]

If the movie had been called anything but Dawn, people may have taken to it better than they did. It was, on its own, an OK movie that added a few new dimensions to the genre (running zombies, only bites turn you), and provided a few cool scenes (the opening montage is the one that springs to mind). It was an OK movie, not on par with GAR's, but what did we expect, really?

[bassman]

If the movie had been called anything but Dawn, people may have taken to it better than they did. It was, on its own, an OK movie that added a few new dimensions to the genre (running zombies, only bites turn you), and provided a few cool scenes (the opening montage is the one that springs to mind). It was an OK movie, not on par with GAR's, but what did we expect, really? Sigh.... I'm sick of people making this "if the title of the movie was different" argument. I would still say that it's not a good film if it was called anything else("Cliched Characters In A Mall" maybe? ) The film is okay for a mind-numbing, "I want to become braindead for two hours, summer popcorn flick. It will have no shelf life for that reason. There's no depth to it....

[MinionZombie]

Zactly - no matter what the flick is called, it still has an absolutely atrocious script, RUNNING zombies and shady direction ... plus it relies on that "Saving Private Ryan" effect towards the end to "amp" the action ... *sigh* ... the movie requires less brains than Tokyo Drift!

[AcesandEights]

the movie requires less brains than Tokyo Drift! Hehe, that's, like, the meanest swipe at Dawn04, yet

[MinionZombie]

Damn straight, I bust out the "bitch, my man ain't yo baby's daddy" style slap-fests when the down gets dirty ... or something like that ... yeah, take that Yawn04 *whi-tish* ... have that for a slap.

[Brubaker]

In fairness, Snyder's merit as a director should not be set in stone until he has several movies on his resume. Wasn't Dawn his debut as a director? It's not like he will have anything to do with the Dead movies ever again but he could still end up doing work with some real merit. If everyone was judged in history solely for their first film, there would be a lot of perfectly good actors and directors who are out of work. It could be said there already are but that is a different argument.

[Trancelikestate]

well, i see lots of good supporting facts for both sides here. i personally thought the movie was entertaining in it's fast pace, let down was i? no i dont think so. as said before what did we expect? and also i dont know if any of you listened to the deadpit.com's interveiws but the one with gary klar he said he thought it was a decent movie but failed in the sense of a re-make because of it's totally differant pace, aside from the obvious. so a failure? no, but should we be scared for the day re-make? yeah i definatly think so.

[AssassinFromHell]

I think Snyder did a decent job. I kept in mind it was his debut so he hasn't had alot of experience to work with. He did well, it just got overshadowed by the script he was given. See, the session went like this between Snyder and the producer... RUBENSTEIN: How'd you like to do a movie for me? SNYDER: Sure, what movie? *Rubenstein holds up a screenplay that reads "House of the Dead"* SNYDER: House of the Dead? I hated that game. *Rubenstein crosses off the title, and writes "Dawn of the Dead" on the front page* SNYDER: Wasn't that film already done? RUBENSTEIN: Remake. SNYDER: I hate remakes. RUBENSTEIN: Reinvisioning. SNYDER: Deal. (And yes, I know, it originally wasn't House of the Dead. But I had to rip Gunn some how...)