Dawn04 sequel 'Army of the Dead' info and death

[Neil]

But, there are just as many "jump scares" in the original. With legless zombies being uber quiet when required, somehow jumping down from above? Really? That scene just smacked of daft/unnecessary to me. And I know I'm picking on one or two scenes, but they're representative of the nature of the piece IMHO. Again, I'm picking on negative aspects, which may suggest I'm being overly harsh on 04. My intent is simply to make my point that some questionable scripting elements seem to reduce the overall product. Had some scenes been better handled in a more solid/realistic/believable fashion, I feel the film would have been better for me...

[CJ Markham]

Again, I'm picking on negative aspects, which may suggest I'm being overly harsh on 04. My intent is simply to make my point that some questionable scripting elements seem to reduce the overall product. Had some scenes been better handled in a more solid/realistic/believable fashion, I feel the film would have been better for me... If you applied that sentiment to the original, it would've ended the minute they closed off the Mall...and we would've missed out on the Biker raid entirely.

[Andy]

With legless zombies being uber quiet when required, somehow jumping down from above? Really? That scene just smacked of daft/unnecessary to me. I Wouldnt say anymore daft/unnecessary than the zombie that stood perfectly still posing with store dummies, watching 2 guys go past so it can pounce the third..

[CJ Markham]

<shrugs> Like I said--by the time the Dawn remake came out in 2004, times had changed zombie-wise. You boys can thank your own countrymen for that--"28 Days Later" forever upped the ante in the zombie department...whether the die-hards want to admit that the infected were indeed "zombies" or not. Younger audiences expected more and wanted more than stiff, shambling Frankenstein-like movements from their ghouls. The time was right for running zombies--which I've always found curious, since "Return of the Living Dead" had them years before. Anyways...I guess my point is--don't be so quick to bash the remake simply because it was made...or because it was different from the original. If you're confident in the quality of the original, as I am, then the remake shouldn't bother you. Hell...you can even enjoy it for what it is without it being an insult to the original, or George Romero himself. Romero himself has said that he enjoyed the remake...and, if you think he DIDN'T make a little money off it, you're crazy. In fact, the remake was the best thing to happen to Romero's career in years--because if it hadn't been for the success of the remake, he wouldn't have been given the opportunity to make Land, Diary, or Survival. And, if it's any consolation to the die-hard fans of the original, the remake, however popular and successful, is already kind of slipping into obscurity--it hasn't acheived one one-hundreth of the cult status of the original, and since there's been no sequel, for most movie goers and horror fans it's already been filed away as just "something that came out in 2004". In fact, the only people I still see talking about it are pretty much right here, so.... ;-)

[Neil]

I Wouldnt say anymore daft/unnecessary than the zombie that stood perfectly still posing with store dummies, watching 2 guys go past so it can pounce the third.. I mentioned that example from the original. But 04 delivers such unnecessary contrived scripting in greater quantity with added daftness... Legless ninja zombies? Really! -- -------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ---------- <shrugs> Like I said--by the time the Dawn remake came out in 2004, times had changed zombie-wise. You boys can thank your own countrymen for that--"28 Days Later" forever upped the ante in the zombie department... I don't care if zombies shuffle or run (shufflers are more atmospheric and runners are down right terrifying!)... What I care about is the script behind them. I want believable scenarios and believable behaviour. If characters go off with seemingly little/no concern for their survival, I raise my eyebrows. If zombies seemingly know where to be to launch the best attack, and hide away, or sneak up, being ninja quiet, I roll my eyes! It smells of poor writing to me. AGAIN! Dawn 04 is a perfectly watchable flick. But some of its script elements unnecessarily let it down IMHO. More believable character and zombie behaviour can only lead to a more believable flick, which ultimately stands a better chance of you engaging with.

[Andy]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies.

[Neil]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies. You have a point! OK! I'll trade you one "ninja legless ceiling dropping zombie" for one "pie throwing biker raiding party"! Fair deal?

[CJ Markham]

I mentioned that example from the original. But 04 delivers such unnecessary contrived scripting in greater quantity with added daftness... Legless ninja zombies? Really! -- -------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ---------- I don't care if zombies shuffle or run (shufflers are more atmospheric and runners are down right terrifying!)... What I care about is the script behind them. I want believable scenarios and believable behaviour. If characters go off with seemingly little/no concern for their survival, I raise my eyebrows. If zombies seemingly know where to be to launch the best attack, and hide away, or sneak up, being ninja quiet, I roll my eyes! It smells of poor writing to me. AGAIN! Dawn 04 is a perfectly watchable flick. But some of its script elements unnecessarily let it down IMHO. More believable character and zombie behaviour can only lead to a more believable flick, which ultimately stands a better chance of you engaging with. Compared to 85% of the material George Romero has produced over the four plus decades of his career, it's practically Shakesperian. -- -------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ---------- Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie Anyway, to be perfectly honest Neil i think the remake is better scripted than the original in many ways, but im not a fan of the original so much these days. I mean nothing in the remake, not getting the truck to rescue a dog, the "ninja-zombie" or the zombie baby, is as ridicolous to me as a bunch of raiders breaking into the mall to start a pie and water fight with the zombies. If you're going to ban me for that, all I've gotta say is that I'm glad that freedom of speech is alive and well in the UK. The writing behind the original is not that great--to say the least. It succeeds I think more on a concept level than because of its screenwriting. The characters in the original are not well developed, and if anything they're just two dimensional cookie-cutter characters taken from what was going on in comic books, television, films, and other examples of pop culture of the time period. As for the action, while alot of it was scripted, a whole Helluva lot was improv as well--by the crew's own admission. I've read that Romero produced the first half of the script, pitched it to get it financed, and then wrote the second half later. That wouldn't surprise me, given what we got. When the Mall is walled off and all of the zombies inside are killed, the film is effectively over. I can just imagine George sitting there, thinking, "I've gotta get the zombies BACK into the Mall somehow--I dunno, maybe they could break in? No...that's not enough--I've gotta give them more to eat as well, because gore and feasting scenes are what made the original. Maybe some bad guys could break in to rob the joint, setting off a climactic battle for the goods...with the zombies eating everyone. Yeah...that's IT!" And that's what we got. It's still alot of fun to watch, and they had alot of fun making it. There's a kind of spontaneous energy to that film that George has never been able to duplicate before or since.

[Neil]

Compared to 85% of the material George Romero has produced over the four plus decades of his career, it's practically Shakesperian. I'll give you that... If I had to watch Dawn04 or Diary or Survival... I'd watch Dawn04...

[Christopher Jon]

Before referring to 28 days later as a zombie movie please observe my title line to the left. I should start banning people who call it a zombie movie Correct or not, most casual horror fans and the majority of the planet all consider 28 days to be a zombie film or at least a derivative of the zombie genre. If people want to call rage virus victims zombies, honestly, who gives a shit. They aren't any more inaccurate than Romero was when he called his undead zombies. I don't recall seeing any Haitian priests in any of the Romero films.

[Andy]

A. The infected are alive and not dead or undead. B. The infected do not eat flesh. C. The infected starve to death. D. (Most important point for the last) Both Danny Boyle, the director and Alex Garland, the writer of 28 days later have said its NOT a zombie movie. If 9 out of 10 people tell you red is blue, does it make it true?

[Neil]

Correct or not, most casual horror fans and the majority of the planet all consider 28 days to be a zombie film or at least a derivative of the zombie genre. If people want to call rage virus victims zombies, honestly, who gives a shit. They aren't any more inaccurate than Romero was when he called his undead zombies. I don't recall seeing any Haitian priests in any of the Romero films. I think they're close enough to be considered the same sort of genre. They're mindless 'animals' set on killing (unifected) humans...

[Andy]

I think they're close enough to be considered the same sort of genre. They're mindless 'animals' set on killing (unifected) humans... No im sorry but their really not, its one of my personal peeves.. Dracula is miles closer to popular zombie mythology than the 28 days later infected are but you call Dracula a zombie in front of a load of vampire fans and see the reaction you get

[Neil]

No im sorry but their really not, its one of my personal peeves.. Dracula is miles closer to popular zombie mythology than the 28 days later infected are but you call Dracula a zombie in front of a load of vampire fans and see the reaction you get If the infected's hearts happened to not be beating, and they bit rather than vomited... It would then be a zombie movie of course... Not far away is it from the outcome on the screen I'm happy to consider it the same sort of genre because at the end of the day it ticks so many of the same boxes as regards the outcome on the screen. For me at least... As regards comparing Dracula to zombies, I can't go there due to, a) intelligence (rather than mindless), b) supernatural power(s).

[AcesandEights]

If there was anything obvious about this tired old debate then it would have fizzled a long time ago. Everyone knows that Romeroesque ghouls aren't real zombies, because there's no voodoo. That was the debate, right?