No Dawn of the Dead Sequel??

[MinionZombie]

I have an issue with the name thing because it really does mean they're just trading on the success of a name, if the film has fudge all to do with the original, why does it need the title? To trade on someone else's success, that's why. But that's not the only reason why I dislike the film. I dislike it mostly because of the poor script, as well as many other bits and pieces, which I've stated many times before here and on Loom.

[DjfunkmasterG]

The name mattered back when the film was released, because alot of people were probably expecting a remake, or at least a zombie film in the same vein as the original. So it's not a stupid argument, and it very much holds up. As it is now, it doesn't have anything to do with the original at all, even if that's what the name implies. That's why it's also a valid argument. Alot of people were disappointed. I know I was, but at least the film was entertaining. You do realize remake doesn't exactly mean a shot for shot, plot for plot remake. It just means being remade... doesn't have to be the exact same. The only true shot for shot remake was Pyscho and look how fricking bad that turned out. Funny how no one bitched about NIGHT 90. That isn't the exact same either. It has a completely different ending.

[MinionZombie]

The Hills Have Eyes remake is a remake. The Thing remake is a remake. Those had many similar elements between the films, especially the first. Yawn04 had fudge all to do with the original film bar a mall. *hypnotised by the Stormare*

[kortick]

I am amazed at how much feelings there still are so far after both films have come and gone of course the remake doesnt compare with the original but the remake was fun in its own way did it have flaws? you bet it did did land have problems of its own? oh yeah dont try to compare the films not the remake to the original not to land not to anything take them as they are the only valid point is they should not have used the name dawn of the dead as the title it should have been its own film with its own title and had a disclaimer saying "based on the work of GAR" that would have made things a lot easier for everyone

[Svengoolie]

A disclaimer? What for? GAR was mentioned in the credits. That is enough. They weren't trying to cash in on the GAR name and rep with the remake--most of the new fan base this film helped to create never heard of GAR going into the theater this time around...and a good deal of those who did didn't care. Personally, I see it as a catch 22...and I think the die-hard GAR fans would've ripped into the remake one way or the other. Hell...people were blasting this film before they even saw it; the same way they were praising Land before they saw it (and still praise it regardless of how they really feel about it). As it stands, they rip into it for not being enough like the original (amoung other things. But, if it had been more true to the original, they would've blasted it for having a lack of originality. It all reflects a fan loyalty in which the fans are insecure over the quality of the original--thus they feel the need to bash and nitpick any other zombie outings to justify that loyalty.

[Hawkboy]

I think we would have had more people angry here if they had a done a shot for shot remake of Dawn instead of taking the basic premise and going in their own direction. The fact people get so angry on here about the Dawn remake makes me think there is a lot more going on with their hate than the just the film, so I doubt there is much point discussing it. Oh well I think I will anyhow! I thought The Dawn remake was beautifully done as they made their own movie with the original Dawn story. I don't want to see the EXACT same thing again, otherwise what is the point??? Go see the remake of Psycho that is a shot for shot of the original instead. For me it's, Bring something new to the table or why bother do something in the exact same way thats been done before. Another fantastic thing the remake did was keep the ****ty power/death/Industrial heavy metal soundtrack out (Until the end ..which didn't really annoy me too much) as that type of music does nothing to scare or frighten in a film ... it only gives headaches. By the way who here loved the film but was let down by the end credits) Oh, and the Acting is fantastic in the sequel as well. Gotta love little Sarah Polley! I could see a way of re working Day to have big boobed Canadian sweetheart Sarah Poley making her way to the Us Military Bunker. Could be cool! And YES we all know the remake didn't have the subtext that Georges original did... but they weren't going for that. And thats fine... they wanted more thrills and spills, no problem!!! Make it your own, put your own stamp on it. As for no dead sequel, well that kind of saddens me as I find Day to be the least of the series and certainly could benefit from a reworking.... How many films carry the same name, yet have different premises. Here is an example, the remake of Shaft. It has a different story, but you don't see people bitching about that film. Well let's be honest the Shaft remake was sooo weak that the few people who paid to see it forgot it existed the next day. There is only one John Shaft in the mind of the public and it ain't Sam jackson!

[Adrenochrome]

I thought The Dawn remake was beautifully done as they made their own movie with the original Dawn story Whoa. To remake a classic proves unoriginality. Why not just make an ORIGINAL zombie movie? Why "re-make"? People get angry because they want something NEW, NOT a Hack's version of an old story. P.S. I'm still waiting on Svenburny's review of the NEW Bad News Bears.

[Svengoolie]

Whoa. To remake a classic proves unoriginality. Why not just make an ORIGINAL zombie movie? Why "re-make"? The same could be said for NOTLD 90. In fact, I think that applies to NOTLD 90 more than it does Dawn 04--the only things the Dawn remake have in common with the original (save for a couple of homages) is a name, zombies, and a mall setting.

[Hawkboy]

Whoa. To remake a classic proves unoriginality. That statement would be true if something wasn't done differently with the remake. That is not the case with the new Dawn. Let me get this straight..... I'm not a big fan of remakes but if you HAVE to do one, Dawn 04 was just about as perfect a way to go about it that I can think of. I have to ask do you also hate Remakes of songs? I HATE people who re-do songs and have them sound the same but if you can put a new arrangement behind it and add your own voice to it... I'm always very anxious to hear.

[Adrenochrome]

That statement would be true if something wasn't done differently with the remake. That is not the case with the new Dawn. Let me get this straight..... I'm not a big fan of remakes but if you HAVE to do one, Dawn 04 was just about as perfect a way to go about it that I can think of. I have to ask do you also hate Remakes of songs? I HATE people who re-do songs and have them sound the same but if you can put a new arrangement behind it and add your own voice to it... I'm always very anxious to hear. Come on! If an artist can't be "original", they should NEVER claim to be an artist.

[Hawkboy]

So you are saying Da Vinci should not have painted the Last Supper because it had been done before???? Sorry your statement doesn't wash...

[Svengoolie]

People get angry because they want something NEW, NOT a Hack's version of an old story Yeah, but...they DID get something new. As has been pointed out in this very thread--the only things the original and the remake have in common (besides a couple of homages) are zombies, a mall, and a title.

[Marie]

[QUOTE=They spend all their time in one little wing of the mall, and most of that in a ****ing coffee shop.QUOTE] OMG, it just came to me... The Dawn Remake.... is actually "Friends" of the Dead! M_

[Adrenochrome]

So you are saying Da Vinci should not have painted the Last Supper because it had been done before???? Sorry your statement doesn't wash... you have GOT to be kidding! Whoa! Did you read back before you posted? Yeah, but...they DID get something new. As has been pointed out in this very thread--the only things the original and the remake have in common (besides a couple of homages) are zombies, a mall, and a title. Bah, go swallow some pills and watch The Bad News Bears! Bucky

[DjfunkmasterG]

it should have been its own film with its own title and had a disclaimer saying "based on the work of GAR" that would have made things a lot easier for everyone The film has that disclaimer. On the poster and during the opening credits. "Based on A screenplay by George A. Romero" And the title was fitting. Because essentially it was DAWN of the DEAD, just not the DAWN of the DEAD you guys are use to it. I hate to say this but the meaning DAWN is: dawn Pronunciation Key (dôn) n. 1. The time each morning at which daylight first begins. 2. A first appearance; a beginning: the dawn of history. #2 is the fitted meaning of this word when used with DAWN of the DEAD. I hate to admit it but the remake using the title is more fitting because in the remake it really was the DAWN of the DEAD. Romero's DAWN already had Zombie running around for 3+ weeks. The remake had it happening about 24 hours prior to the first scene of the movie. So DAWN of the DEAD is a perfect title for the remake.