Defending Dawn O4

[Griff]

damn, its a rare day when a romero fan compares dawn to 28 days later, though it does rock and it is a zombie film, but lets not start that again I was referring to the remake, my point being that 28 DAYS LATER and DAWN04 do the brief shopping spree stuff as fantasy fulfillment whereas DAWN78 went way, way beyond that.

[zombievsshark]

I dunno, I liked Dawn04 as much as the original, just in a different way. It's not a masterpiece, but it is fun, funny (sometimes without meaning to be), and I just like the way it was shot. The script wasn't amazing I agree but it wasn't the mess some make it out to be. I think what comes into play for me is that while I loved the social commentary in GAR's movies, I don't need it as a requirement for a good zombie flick. Zombies are what I enjoy, what I like and they don't have to be symbols for mindless America for me to enjoy watching them tear people apart. Of course, naming the remake what they did was controversial but I personally was able to reconcile that the two movies had little if anything to really do with each other and more importantly I can judge both independent of the other...ain't I great (that's sarcasm). Anyway, we know WHY they named it after the best film in the genre and for some that's blasphemy but my world didn't crumble because the producers used GAR's title.

[riddleone]

Dawn of 04 was Synder's first popular direction gig and compared to a lot of the stone cheesy and straight up whack zombie films coming out today, you got to give the guy some credit! I was in Hollywood/blockbuster video the other day and noticed 11 fairly new zombie releases out. I saw many of them, including, Dead & Breakfast, Zombie Hoodz, Zombienight and a lot of other trash. The only one I thought was actually pretty cool just because it took the zombie genera with a lot of camp and humor was Necropolis (Newly released on DVD), but that whole "Return of the living dead" series was always entertaining to me --not serious in anytone, but funny and entertaining nontheless. I'm a big "Evil Dead" fan and I rememebr when Sam Raimi first came out with th EvilDEad back in 79 & 80, critics hated the film and a lot of people thought his ideas on possessed ghouls were stupid and ridiculous. They also ragged on his trippy style of filming in wild camera angles, too. But by the time Evil Dead 2 came out, the first in the series was considered a masterpeice of occult horror, expertly pumped out on a slim budget. Comparing Sydner to Raimi does sound kind of blasphamous, I agree -but let's not fry Snyder just yet. It's obvious he has a knack for strange horror films too. Who knows, maybe he'll pump out something that will rock the horror world -- Heaven knows we need more skilled directors trying.

[AssassinFromHell]

I can't speak for everybody, but I think alot of people had more against Gunn than they did Snyder. In my opinion, Snyder wasn't too bad. Gunn was the cancer.

[Khardis]

Then, they should have named it something else. Let's see,......maybe I'll make a "Re-invisoining" of Casablanca, only THIS time Rick will be an albino, elephant herding midget that runs a tattoo shop in East L.A. and falls in love with a Philipino transexual. Ah yes,....and Sam can be a 7' tall failed basketball star (Japanese) that plays the accordion and waxes poetic at Rick for being so foolish........ it don't work, mate! why do a "remake"? Why not just be (or at least try to be) original? Remakes are for writer/Directors that have no vision of their own. Its not a remake, its just good business sense. If I had aquired the rights to a very famous film and wanted to make a new film that tackled some of the same issues, like zombies and hiding out during the end of the world, I would definatly use the name of the old classic too, not because I want people to think my film is the same or better, but because of name recognition. If they named the movie the mall of the damned or something it wouldnt have been as popular or as hyped. Dont think of it from an artistic point of view, morally I agree with you, but I am also a business owner. And from a business sense they made a sound decision.

[Brubaker]

Its not a remake, its just good business sense. If I had aquired the rights to a very famous film and wanted to make a new film that tackled some of the same issues, like zombies and hiding out during the end of the world, I would definatly use the name of the old classic too, not because I want people to think my film is the same or better, but because of name recognition. If they named the movie the mall of the damned or something it wouldnt have been as popular or as hyped. Dont think of it from an artistic point of view, morally I agree with you, but I am also a business owner. And from a business sense they made a sound decision. Snyder and Gunn would have been killed in the press if they had made something more like the original Dawn. The two of them would have been called old fashioned if they had slow and stupid zombies or used the same type of music. You'd have most reviewers talking about the "old", "tired" or "dated" cliches that they chose to use in the film. Everybody knows GAR's Dawn is timeless. However, that doesn't mean you could get away with releasing that very same movie (frame by frame) today or even something similar to it. Not if you expect to make a cent. It'd probably go over like a lead balloon to everybody but 4,000-5,000 devoted fans. There are old tricks and ideas that guys like GAR used to employ which you can't get away with in a movie anymore and be taken seriously. Think Robert Englund. If he was able to "get away with" Freddy Kreuger and his cliches on a regular basis, like he did in the 80's, don't you think he'd be making those movies far more often than one every 8-10 years? I would expect Snyder (and Gunn, perhaps) had to play it safe because if he made something to appeal to internet message boards, the film wouldn't have made any money and he would probably have never gotten any directing gigs again. Why should he risk having a colossal box-office failure and kill his directing career to appease those 4,000-5,000 people? Especially since any real future in the business for him, directing, was based on getting this film off the ground. I mean if the guy was going to make a statement or do something artistic, don't you think it'd make more sense to him careerwise to wait until he is established as a director with a few films under his belt? I'm sure he understands a select number of people feel he is pissing on Romero's work but nobody seems to understand the guy has (had) a job to do, as did Gunn, and they have to give at least some thought to making a movie that will help their mainstream career instead of bringing it to a halt.

[Khardis]

Snyder and Gunn would have been killed in the press if they had made something more like the original Dawn. The two of them would have been called old fashioned if he had slow and stupid zombies or used the same type of music. You'd have most reviewers talking about the "old", "tired" or "dated" cliches that they chose to use in the film. Everybody knows GAR's Dawn is timeless. However, that doesn't mean you could get away with releasing that very same movie (frame by frame) today or even something similar to it. Not if you expect to make a cent. It'd probably go over like a lead balloon to everybody but 4,000-5,000 devoted fans. There are old tricks and ideas that guys like GAR used to employ which you can't get away with in a movie anymore and be taken seriously. Think Robert Englund. If he was able to "get away with" Freddy Kreuger and his cliches on a regular basis, like he did in the 80's, don't you think he'd be making those movies far more often than one every 8-10 years? I would expect Snyder (and Gunn, perhaps) had to play it safe because if he made something to appeal to internet message boards, the film wouldn't have made any money and he would probably have never gotten any directing gigs again. Why should he risk having a colossal box-office failure and kill his directing career to appease those 4,000-5,000 people? I mean if the guy was going to make a statement or do something artistic, don't you think it'd make more sense to him careerwise to wait until he is established as a director with a few films under his belt? I'm sure he understands a select number of people feel he is pissing on Romero's work but nobody seems to understand the guy has (had) a job to do, as did Gunn, and they have to give at least some thought to making a movie that will help their mainstream career instead of bringing it to a halt. I think making something like this is a part of him trying to get famous enough to be able to tackle real movies that dont have a pre-attached fan base already. This movie wasnt meant to win an oscar, it was meant to drag in a lot of cash in the summer months, releasing it was a business decision pure and simple because they had the rights to the name. If this was the next Braveheart or somethign you'd never see Snyder on it because its too much of a risk considering that that kind of film has no real market other than "drama" which is the hardest market to make money in, since its generally a blanket genre, which is why I believe you will see Snyders next few movies until he get shis big break to be all genre movies or sub-genre genre movies. Zombies = Horror, genre and subgenre. The reason they didnt remake the actual Dawn of the Dead film is because, and this is my personal opinion. I dont think its slow pace would work in todays market. Some people like me and you and as you said 5000 others may like that kind of film, but the zounds of 13-18 year males who spend the most money in the summer months wont. I feel that that was the reason alone not to remake it. If they felt that remaking Romeros film line for line would have earned more money, I am 100% sure Snyder and all the Execs behind the project would have greenlit it in a heartbeat. I lament the fact that Hollywood is nothing more than a business now, and films arent made to be films anymore, but to make cash. I really lament that. Maybe its why I have been getting into independantly done small and short films. They seem to have a bit more heart.

[bassman]

I think making something like this is a part of him trying to get famous enough to be able to tackle real movies that dont have a pre-attached fan base already. Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300". I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film. True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse. Just my two cents...

[Adrenochrome]

Nothing original from him yet. exactley

[Khardis]

Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300". I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film. True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse. Just my two cents... Of course there is nothing original from him yet, he hasnt made it yet. He is stuck doing these corporate rehash jobs making other people money until he has his breakthrough and he gets picked to do something really good. Its the same Reason people like M Night Shamalan(sp) get to keep producing flops after flop after terrible awful flop. He is an established name and had his big hit, and people go to see the flick because its his film. When Snyder breaks through and has more freedom to stray from the formulated rigors of corporate money, youll see him start coming out with big picks. Personally I liked the Dawn 04 film *dont kill me* I didnt like it for the same reasons I liked the Original Dawn and GAR flicks, I liked it because it was a fast paced thriller with the added advantage of gore and walking dead. I fully expected it to be as such and would have been pissed if they tried to remake the original the way it was. Was it a great film? No... horror films usually arent, even the greatest ones. Cripes the original dawn was terrible film-wise, continuity errors, low budget, mostly crappy acting, etc etc. But I LOVE the hell out of it anyway. Same goes for the new Dawn, it wasnt as poorly filmed as other GAR zombie films, but it was still amusing and fun to watch, even if it missed the special little magic that makes Romero's films work better. (the writing). But I appreciate your opinion, as you can tell I am rather new here. Well not new, I have lurked a lot, but never made an account to post. So if I am stepping on any toes you can let me know.

[bassman]

First off, let me say that there are no toes being stepped on. This debate has been going since the film opened and it will go to until the world stops spinning. Actually, I believe you are in the majority. I THINK most people around here like Dawn04. But hey....it's all opinion, anyway. I see what you're saying about him making money and then moving on...but that's no always the case. There are others that start out with their own script and their own direction and hit it off big time. One that pops to mind is Richard Kelly with "Donnie Darko". Like I said....I don't like Dawn04, but I'm waiting until I see "300" before I pass judgment on Snyder.

[panic]

I dug Dawn '04. Its and action-horror flick that takes the basic premise of Dawn and updates it with modern production values, competent actors, a workable script, and very tight editing and sound work. Is it the holy grail of zombie films? No. Does it work on its own as a movie? Definitely. You may not like the movie because its not Dawn '78. Fine. Just ask yourself, would you really want to see someone else try to ape everything about Dawn '78? Imagine if Snyder had actually tried to go the whole satirical anti-consummerism route. That was GAR's vision, this is Snyder's. They're different enough that the one doesn't subtract from the other. That said; I'm not saying anyone else has to like it, just that I do.

[Chakobsa]

Snyder's next film is an adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel, "300". Nothing original from him yet. Although it's nothing original, I'm hoping he can redeem himself with "300". I'm one of the ones that don't like "Dawn04". It's not because it's a remake of a classic, Romero's work, or it screws with the mythology or any of that......but because if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's work or zombies in general, I would still find it to be a rather sad excuse for a film. True, they updated it for the MTV generation so they could make more cash.....but some of the things within that film....whew....there's no excuse. Just my two cents... I Read in SFX that there was talk of Snyder directing the long talked about Watchmen movie, make of that what you will. Generally speaking I really enjoyed Dawn 04 but there's no denying there was a lot of room for improvement, for instance, that whole baby thing sucked to a spectacular degree. I really don't know if that whole idea was the zenith or the nadir of suckness.

[MinionZombie]

*ug* the zombie baby thing ... *sigh* ... as soon as I heard about that I just knew it was going to suck beanbag, and I don't understand some reviewers on TV that gave it good marks for having a zombie baby in it, like it was something never seen before ... err ... Braindead (aka Dead Alive) anybody? Do your damn research you Alex Zane type dimwit movie "reviewers", ya plonkers!

[ssbib]

I love all of Romero's Dead films, without a doubt I am a fan and when I first heard they were going to do a remake of Dawn of the Dead I was shocked. However, by the time I read about it it was coming out in the Cinema about a month later so I went to see it. I cant believe some people dont like it. The 2 Dawn films are so radically different you cannot really compare them, the only similarities they have are Zombies in a shopping Mall. I liked the concept of the fast Zombies, something I feel has been taken from "28 Days Later" infected. Someone on the first page of this thread said that the concept of fast zombies in Dawn04 had been conceived before "28 Days Later" however, 28 Days Later was released in November 2002, probably just as Dawn04 as being conceived, so I think we have to thank "28 Days Later" for the fast moving Zombies, something which I personally loved. Rumour has it on the net that they ARE making a direct sequel to Dawn04 (not Day remake) and I would love to see that too.