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

[MinionZombie]

Zombie baby was done long before Yawn04 - the first example that springs to mind is Lucio Fulci's Zombi 3 ... which also had a variety of zombies in it, shufflers for one, but also many that were very spritely - damn near ninja/kung-fu zombies at times. Even with the runners, they were just ripping off 28 Days Later, and even carried over the same visual aesthetic - and 28DL doesn't even have zombies in it, for clavin-out-loud! Yawn04 was a financially successful (unfortunately), sack of turds.

[bassman]

Yeah....Snyder didn't really bring anything new to the table. He just ripped off multiple other sources and came out with an average action film...

[shootemindehead]

Hmmmm… Snyder didn’t “invent” running zombies. That goes back to ‘Return of the Living Dead’. Some of the Italian ripoffs also have “runners”, IIRC and Snyder probably took his cue from the success of ’28 Days Later’ anyway. As for the “zombie baby”, I think that's been tackled before, but I’m not sure. Neither of which are very “inventive” anyway. As far as “…his own vision”, didn’t the original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ have “action”, “intensity” and “atmosphere”? There is nothing unique there, or particularly visionary. My criticism is that Snyder didn’t actually have a vision. That’s why he (or at least the producers) ripped off Romero’s idea and simply tweaked it slightly into the 90 minute MTV show that it is. ‘Dawn of the Dead (2004)’ is as much a ripoff (if not more so) of ‘Dawn of the Dead (1978)’, as Lucio Fulci’s ‘Zombie Flesh Eaters’ is. Like that Spagetti gorefest, it is cashing in, on the success (and familiar title) of the Romero original and is pretty much devoid of any real originality. Unlike the Fulci effort though, it is far less entertaining, especially after repeated viewings.

[darth los]

Where is that dead horse icon when you need one? You know instead of bashing a successful film ad nauseum people might want to try and analyze exactly what made the film successful and maybe congradulating instead of hating. Because whatever bad thing people have to say about snyder the bottom line is that his film beat GAr's film's ass. End of story. Furthermore, anyone know what a self fufilling prophecy is? Why I'm sure people hate snyder's guts so much for making that film they wish him the worst and that he would just go away. If you notice it's not the people who dig dawn 04' that talk about him it's the haters who are constantly bringing him up. So in an ironic way they're to thank for keeping him alive on these boards. I thought it would die out in time, like the venom toward uwe boll for example, but no, this hate is quick acting and long lasting. We should make a cold medicne advertisement out of it!! We'll be rich boys! I'll share it with all of you!! (trivia, what film is that from?)

[shootemindehead]

Because whatever bad thing people have to say about snyder the bottom line is that his film beat GAr's film's ass. End of story. In what respect? If you mean money taken at the box office? Well, in an age where Adam Sandler and Rob Schnider films do well financially, that doesn't mean shit. Likewise, one would have to compare like for like. In 1978, a film like 'Dawn of the Dead' would have been seen as a treat for a specific audience. Mainstream audiences would normally not go to such a film. These days however, gruesome horror movies are embraced by a much larger crowd and are bound to reap a more significant monetary reward. For the record, personally speaking, I didn't actually "hate" 'Dawn of the Dead (2004)'. I just find it a rather shallow and parasitic ripoff of Romero's original.

[Trin]

Yeah....Snyder didn't really bring anything new to the table. He just ripped off multiple other sources and came out with an average action film... Hmmmm… Snyder didn’t “invent” running zombies. That goes back to ‘Return of the Living Dead’. Some of the Italian ripoffs also have “runners”, IIRC and Snyder probably took his cue from the success of ’28 Days Later’ anyway. As for the “zombie baby”, I think that's been tackled before, but I’m not sure. Neither of which are very “inventive” anyway. Being inventive is often nothing more than combining things in different ways. Bringing zombie baby and runners to the Dawn storyline was inventive. The whole thing with Andy and Kenneth communicating via whiteboard was inventive. The dog taking supplies to Andy was inventive. Ending with the group finding an island only to be eaten was inventive. Whether it is lame or sucks or whatever - he really did take the basic Dawn storyline and re-invent it. GAR taking Matheson's basic setup and changing vampires for zombies and Neville for Ben was inventive.... As far as “…his own vision”, didn’t the original ‘Dawn of the Dead’ have “action”, “intensity” and “atmosphere”? There is nothing unique there, or particularly visionary. Both movies possessing action, intensity, and atmosphere does not make one a ripoff of the other's vision. The two movies are polar opposites with regard to action, intensity, and atmosphere. Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision. I'm not a huge Dawn '04 lover. In fact I tend to be on the basher side. But I won't ignore the things that Snyder brought to the table.

[shootemindehead]

Being inventive is often nothing more than combining things in different ways. Perhaps. Maybe a little more "invention" and a little less poaching might have been a better idea. Bringing zombie baby and runners to the Dawn storyline was inventive. Again, not actually [I]that [/I ]inventive, seeing as they were lifted from elsewhere and both are terrible, terrible ideas. The whole thing with Andy and Kenneth communicating via whiteboard was inventive. The dog taking supplies to Andy was inventive. Ending with the group finding an island only to be eaten was inventive. The Andy subplot was a plus in '04's favor. But like the film as a whole, it grinds to nowhere and is disapointing in its conclusion. The "dog / supplies" idea may have added a new item to the mix, but the stupid cow that follows the dog was absolutely ridiculous. In addition, the grim ending has also been done to death. Nothing "inventive" there Trin. Whether it is lame or sucks or whatever - he really did take the basic Dawn storyline and re-invent it. Don't agree. He simply ripped off a good basic idea for a plot and added a couple of things. There's no real "invention" (or re-invention for that matter) going on. Both movies possessing action, intensity, and atmosphere does not make one a ripoff of the other's vision. I never said it did. But you were offering up those particular words as singular praise for 'Dawn of the Dead (2004)'. The two movies are polar opposites with regard to action, intensity, and atmosphere. Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision. But again, there was no vision. Snyder stole Romero's vision and simply added a couple of elements and subtracted some others, most of which were detrimental IMO.

[Trin]

All I'm saying is that it is inventive to a degree. It's not wonderfully inventive, and it draws from some tried and true idioms, but yet I've never seen a movie quite like it. I don't get your contention that Snyder had no vision. It clearly wasn't GAR's vision that Snyder used. A movie cannot have no vision whatsoever. The director had to envison something. The opening scenes of society falling, the scene of the propane tank explosion, the sewer rescue scenes... those weren't just slapped together without having a vision.

[darth los]

All I'm saying is that it is inventive to a degree. It's not wonderfully inventive, and it draws from some tried and true idioms, but yet I've never seen a movie quite like it. I don't get your contention that Snyder had no vision. It clearly wasn't GAR's vision that Snyder used. A movie cannot have no vision whatsoever. The director had to envison something. The opening scenes of society falling, the scene of the propane tank explosion, the sewer rescue scenes... those weren't just slapped together without having a vision. Good points trin and is an excellent segway into my reply to shootem'. As more time passes it becomes more and more evident through statements such as "Snyder had no vision" that the venom toward this film has more to do with personal feelings as opposed to objective analysis. In what respect? If you mean money taken at the box office? Well, in an age where Adam Sandler and Rob Schnider films do well financially, that doesn't mean shit. Ah, but it does mean something. It means that waaaaaaaaay more people would rather watch adam sandler than a GAr flick. So much of what we discuss on this subject is intangible. Ticket sales are one way that we can measure what the public would rather see and it's not even close. Dawn 04'. Ever wonder why that is? And before you go off on how the general public are idiots keep in mind that the majority of opinions on these boards about DAwn 04', to borrow a phrase from you, "don't mean shit". Because it may be the the majority opinion here but all other tangible evidence, including ticket sales say something else. There comes a point when if 80% of people feel one way and 20% of people feel another the 20% who staunchly support their position have to do some introspection. It's just like if everyone in your life is telling you you have a problem and you just refuse to hear it. There comes a point where that person has to consider the posibility that everyone else is right and they're wrong. Yes, tough, I know. I wonder when republicans will figure that out for themselves.

[AcesandEights]

the venom toward this film has more to do with personal feelings as opposed to objective analysis. So, so true, Darth. And some very good points, Trin.

[Yojimbo]

Snyder did bring his vision to the film. It doesn't have to qualify as a great vision to be a vision. I do hear what you are saying Trin, and within the parameters you have set I agree that Snyder does indeed have vision, as did the makers of Gigli, Howard the Duck and House of the Dead. Clearly, vision alone does not a well-made film make. But I do understand that you are not saying that Snyder made a great film and are merely making a point about the use of the term vision, or lack thereof. Speaking as one of those who did not hate DOTD 04 and found much of it to be entertaining, I can separate my personal disdain for Zack Snyder (who I feel is fucking arrogant, and a paint-by-numbers kind of guy who did not come up with an original idea and has to rely on dudes like James Gunn who was riffing on a good original concept by GAR to put together a decent movie) from the value of DOTD 04, which though I found an entertaining way to spend a few hours I believe will not ultimately have the staying power or win out over DOTD 1978. So, to recap what I have said in the past: 1. I think Snyder can eat shit and die, and the world will barely be affected. He is, among directors, largely replaceable. 2. I did enjoy DOTD 04 for what it is worth - I think it had a decent script and interesting storyline, though inferior to GARs original version. Practically any film school graduate could have taken the James Gunn script for the remake and, with proper funding, put together an enjoyable film. 3. While entertaining to some degree, DOTD 04 is inferior to DOTD 78 (matter of opinion, I am certainly aware) and will never even come close to replacing the original. In the long run, I feel that DOTD 04 will neither have the staying power, rewatchability nor the rabid cult fan base of GAR's DOTD 78. 4. Because he is a contemptible maggot, much too smug, suffering from that same self-entitlement disease that afflicts many in the industry, and because he exhibits little to no respect for the source material, I say again that Zack Snyder can eat my shit and die, and the world will barely notice. In the end, let us give credit where it is due: James Gunn wrote a decent and entertaining script with some bits (like the whiteboard communication) that were new and inventive. Zack Snyder should not receive the credit or praise for those elements which are the result of Gunn's contribution to the project.

[shootemindehead]

All I'm saying is that it is inventive to a degree. It's not wonderfully inventive, and it draws from some tried and true idioms, but yet I've never seen a movie quite like it. I don't get your contention that Snyder had no vision. It clearly wasn't GAR's vision that Snyder used. A movie cannot have no vision whatsoever. The director had to envison something. The opening scenes of society falling, the scene of the propane tank explosion, the sewer rescue scenes... those weren't just slapped together without having a vision. I think we'll have to differ on this. I don't see vision as taking an established premise and simply adding little things that are "cool man!" Which is what Snyder did. The scenes of "society falling apart", while good I agree, have been done before and were probably the vision of the scriptwriter and not Snyder anyway. Likewise for the the other setpieces you mention. But that's the rub for me. Setpieces are not vision. I could take 'Dawn of the Dead' and add a few minor things here and there, but it wouldn't mean I was exercising any vision. Snyder's "vision" was to ripoff Romero's vision and add a few things, like cliches, a rockinroll soundtrack, 28 days Later runners, strawmen characters and package it all in a 90 MTV piece. There just isn't enough in Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' for me to say he had vision and I have seen a film like it...it was called 'Dawn of the Dead'. or '28 Days Later' 'Dawn of the Dead (2004)' is popcorn. It's throwaway. Insignificant. Visionless. Exactly the opposite of Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead'. Ah, but it does mean something. It means that waaaaaaaaay more people would rather watch adam sandler than a GAr flick. That doesn't make them good films

[darth los]

That doesn't make them good films Well, that's true but it doesn't make them bad either.

[bassman]

I'm gonna throw a new twist into this never ending debate.... Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws.

[shootemindehead]

Well, that's true but it doesn't make them bad either. No, their scripts do that. I'm gonna throw a new twist into this never ending debate.... Imo....both Dawn78 and Dawn04 aren't very well made movies. In fact, they both have major flaws. I disagree. I think 'Dawn 78' is an extremely well made film for the money it was made on and I think 'Dawn 04' is a mediocre ripoff regardless of what it was made for.