Dawn 78' Vs Dawn 04

[AcesandEights]

Dawn '78 is still a horror movie for me. It is scary. The atmosphere is creepy. The subject matter is horrific. I think to call it an action flick opens the door to calling any movie an action flick simply because it has action in it. Agreed. Despite some of the comic book aesthetic and questionable shticks Dawn is still a horror film, especially compared to so much of the crap passed off under the same title in this day and age.

[Ragnarr]

Even in death, the Hare Krishna proves his superior strength to mere mortals. But seriously? Dawn is great. It's just great. You guys need to get out more. Why didn't the remake do it right? There was no sense of hopelessness.... of isolation... I know that feeling, and it's terrifying. Snyder had no terror. No... real threat. Just for a few brief seconds in a few scenes before the very very stupid ending. They didn't even have to work at closing up the mall, for crissakes! No, Dawn original is where it's at. An examination of the human condition in times of crisis. And the boxes weren't that heavy, and were stacked inefficiently. - 2D I agree with you that Dawn78 had that creepy feeling of being trapped more so than Dawn04. Also, Romero's zombie outbreak is actually more threatening than Snyder's zombie outbreak solely because Romero's zombies are created by any death whatsoever (heart attacks, gunshots, etc.), whereas Snyder's can only be created by becoming infected. With regards to Snyder's Dawn not being terrifying, I would respectfully direct your attention to Dawn78's "terrifying" pie fight, seltzer squirtings, and that goofy song "The Gonk" played both earlier in the film and during the ending credits. Snyder's character's actually did barricade the mall doors or at least one of them (the footage is in the outtakes section of the dvd's extras). Also agree with you regarding the end of Snyder's film, although I would probably rate it with only one "very" instead of two. -- -------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ---------- I don't get the whole campy/hammy opinions. I can see it as dated. I can see how a few of the scenes don't fit quite well enough. But the core acting to me is very good. I do agree that compared to Dawn '04 it is more campy and more silly. But when I look at the body of horror movies I was watching in and around that time I just don't see it as bad compared to its peers. Don't misunderstand me, I totally dig Dawn78. It has its good points that Dawn04 lacks just as Dawn04 has good points that Dawn78 lacks. I guess with two different director styles, any discussion can easily turn into an apples and oranges sort of debate. I like both movies, each solely for what they are.

[Andy]

Dawn '78 is still a horror movie for me. It is scary. The atmosphere is creepy. The subject matter is horrific. I think to call it an action flick opens the door to calling any movie an action flick simply because it has action in it. Dawn isnt a horror movie! its not scary, the atmosphere is goofy and while the subject matter is horrific, the way its presented is incredibly cheesy! Its a fun action flick but its dosnt register on the horror scale. I found driller killer scarier than dawn The behavior of zombies to ignore humans at times has been discussed before and it's a common element in GAR's movies. Whether it is Bub being trained or Big Daddy focusing on a larger goal, or the nun just not being interested. It's never bothered me because it's clearly part of GAR's intent for his zombies. In fact, in the case of the nun, I think it's an interesting element. Was she able to overcome the urge to feed due to how she lived her life? The Hare Krishna scene is one of the scenes that I have a hard time watching because it makes my skin crawl when he gets so close to defenseless Fran. Why did he go to the stairway instead of following the food? Maybe he was smarter than the others and was hoping where they came from had more food with no competition for it. Maybe he heard Fran opening and closing the door. We know that not all the zombies were lured with food. It's not terribly out of line with the general zombie behavior. Do you really want to get me started on a argument that involves big daddy Zombies ignoring food flies in the face of everything else thats setup about zombie behaviour in romeros universe. In fact, if i can just use a quote from dawn to illustrate this.. The normal question, the first question is always; are these cannibals? No, they are not cannibals. Cannibalism in the true sense of the word implies an intrapecies activity. These creatures cannot be considered human. They prey on humans. They do not prey on each other, that's the difference. They attack and they feed only on warm human flesh. Intelligence? Seemingly little or no reasoning power, but basic skills remain a more remembered behaviors from normal life. There are reports of these creatures using tools. But even these actions are the most primitive, the use of external articles as bludgeons and so forth. I might point out to you that even animals will adopt the basic use of tools in this manner. These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct. We must not be lulled by the concept that these are our family members or our friends. They are not. They will not respond to such emotions. That wraps up perfectly what zombie behaviour should be, was the nun able to overcome her urge to feed due to fran saving her life? i sure as hell hope not becuase if thats it, thats another reason to add to my growing 'reasons to dislike dawn' list. Read the last line of that quote again, These creatures are nothing but pure, motorized instinct. We must not be lulled by the concept that these are our family members or our friends. They are not. They will not respond to such emotions. Which is right, its a core zombie characteristic. I get so pissed off at romero contradicting himself like this, he does it in all his films I don't get the whole campy/hammy opinions. I can see it as dated. I can see how a few of the scenes don't fit quite well enough. But the core acting to me is very good. I do agree that compared to Dawn '04 it is more campy and more silly. But when I look at the body of horror movies I was watching in and around that time I just don't see it as bad compared to its peers. I seriously wish you lived on this side of the pond trin becuase i would love to have you round to my house to watch romeros movies and discuss, we'd have a great time. The campiness/haminess is so hard to explain without actually sitting watching it. Its everything about the film, the characters, the zombies, the make up, the music, the settings, the general atmosphere.. its as camp as dale winton judging a speedo contest Dont get me wrong, i enjoy the original dawn but i enjoy it for what it is, an over the top, cheesy boys action film. Not a horror, and that for reason it dosnt touch day or night in my book.

[blind2d]

The horror part is Flyboy. Some of the funny, but most of the horror. And Fran. And Roger. And... geez. Whatever.

[Trin]

Do you really want to get me started on a argument that involves big daddy Yeah, I think I do. The forums have been too quiet. And I have a lot of free time. I get so pissed off at romero contradicting himself like this, he does it in all his films I think this statement sums up the disagreement here. You are arguing how you want the zombies to be, not what GAR portrays. What I'm suggesting is that if you examine all the examples of odd zombie behavior throughout the movies, then the nun and hare krishna zombies aren't such huge departures. Don't get me wrong, I like what Dr. Rausch describes as zombie behavior, and if I had my way all zombies would abide by his description. But Dr. Rausch was only describing the largest population of zombies... the ones that were causing problems. He's not concerned with the smaller percentage that is wandering around not paying attention to much of anything, and he's certainly not in a position to see the ones who are learning. Take a look at the zombies in Day that refuse to approach the pen gates. They're a slap in the face to Dr. Rausch's description, yet no one is taking huge exception with Day. I seriously wish you lived on this side of the pond trin becuase i would love to have you round to my house to watch romeros movies and discuss, we'd have a great time. That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... The campiness/haminess is so hard to explain without actually sitting watching it. Its everything about the film, the characters, the zombies, the make up, the music, the settings, the general atmosphere. I think our difference in opinion here is as much age related and what we grew up watching as anything else. Compared to the other junk horror I was watching at the time, Dawn '78 felt very modern and polished. And some of my favorite TV from that time was Dr. Who, which set a different standard for campy.

[Neil]

Dawn isnt a horror movie! its not scary, the atmosphere is goofy and while the subject matter is horrific, the way its presented is incredibly cheesy! Its a fun action flick but its dosnt register on the horror scale. I found driller killer scarier than dawn Depends on your frame of mind... Consider this. I saw "The Exorcist" twice at the cinema a matter of a week or so between viewings. The first time was in a nigh on empty cinema, and the film disturbed the b-Jesus out of me! The second time was a late at night and the cinema was full of after-pub-youngsters, who absolutely killed the film by their constant sniggers and laughs. Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor. And I'd say the same about Day too! It's even darker in many ways... And at least it's more accessible if only due to its high production values.

[blind2d]

Neil saves the day again.

[rongravy]

That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... I'd be down for that, as I liked Land!!! (Of course, I'd have to bitch about Big Daddy, and fawn/jizz about Asia. I do love her so...) Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor. Yeah, I think alot of younger folk who've had the benefit of CG don't get Dawn like those of us who had to do things like, ohhhh... play outside instead of fiddle with our iPhones, or XBOX don't get the fear that movie can put in you as a child of days past. I'm not as big a fan of even b/w Night, but the nightmares I had as a child over that stuff was scary as hell. Mostly involving losing a loved one... I think some of the argument against Dawn04 is kind of flimsy, as the original is guilty of some of the same. Sure, it doesn't stand up to the original that probably shaped many of our beliefs on the whole shi-bang, but it did help kickstart the genre again, and whet our appetites for more, more, more. My main problem was sprinter zombies, as I'd be winded before I even hit half a block away. We just don't want to see anyone fiddle with what we know and love. I can definitely understand the dislike of Diary, and the hate for Survival. But dayumn... I'd still love to see someone let George have full say and budget on the epic tale I still think he has in him. Fanboy or not, he ain't washed up yet in my book.

[Neil]

I'd still love to see someone let George have full say and budget on the epic tale I still think he has in him. Fanboy or not, he ain't washed up yet in my book. I think 1980s George, yes... But I think (a bit like John Carpenter) he's lost his mojo now...

[Trin]

I think 1980s George, yes... But I think (a bit like John Carpenter) he's lost his mojo now... I think he never had the mojo we attribute to him. As we've all debated for a while now, the people around him make a lot of difference. What I'd like to see is GAR take a more advisory role in the next Dead project and letting someone fresher take over the actual filmmaking. It might result in a better movie today plus would be a nice way to pass the baton to the next generation of zombie filmmakers, thus assuring his legacy continues.

[Neil]

I think he never had the mojo we attribute to him. As we've all debated for a while now, the people around him make a lot of difference. What I'd like to see is GAR take a more advisory role in the next Dead project and letting someone fresher take over the actual filmmaking. It might result in a better movie today plus would be a nice way to pass the baton to the next generation of zombie filmmakers, thus assuring his legacy continues. Having hand typed in two of his scripts (Dawn & Day), I get the feeling Romero had a very good idea of exactly what he wanted those two films to be, and made it happen. I think Dawn and Day are pretty solid reflections of his film making abilities.

[Andy]

Yeah, I think I do. The forums have been too quiet. And I have a lot of free time. OK ill bite the bait, ANY director who thinks that the concept of 'big daddy' is a good idea is a desperate hack. Even Ewe Boll hasnt sunk that low (yet). Happy? I think this statement sums up the disagreement here. You are arguing how you want the zombies to be, not what GAR portrays. What I'm suggesting is that if you examine all the examples of odd zombie behavior throughout the movies, then the nun and hare krishna zombies aren't such huge departures. Don't get me wrong, I like what Dr. Rausch describes as zombie behavior, and if I had my way all zombies would abide by his description. But Dr. Rausch was only describing the largest population of zombies... the ones that were causing problems. He's not concerned with the smaller percentage that is wandering around not paying attention to much of anything, and he's certainly not in a position to see the ones who are learning. Take a look at the zombies in Day that refuse to approach the pen gates. They're a slap in the face to Dr. Rausch's description, yet no one is taking huge exception with Day. I Think bub is acceptable becuase i do not accept that bub is learning. My personal theory is that bub is mimicking actions dr logan has shown him and thats all. And i dont agree that its down to my opinion of what zombies should be, it is romero contradicting himself all the time that annoys me. I like all kinds of zombie movies with different behaviors in all of them, from night of the living dead to day of the dead to return of the living dead and evil dead, because they are all consistent with their own rules. What romero does bothers me in the same way as if you sat down to a dracula movie and it was established that the vampire dies if its exposed to daylight and then a few scenes later, you see the vampire walking down a street in broad daylight. Thats what romero does with his zombies. That'd be pretty awesome. I would... however... insist we watch Land too. Bwuahahahaaahaaa... Id do that but be prepared to listen to me moan for 3 or 4 hours :P I think our difference in opinion here is as much age related and what we grew up watching as anything else. Compared to the other junk horror I was watching at the time, Dawn '78 felt very modern and polished. And some of my favorite TV from that time was Dr. Who, which set a different standard for campy. Possibly, although i like junk horror and low budget movies. I love alot of old campy horror movies and thats probably why i don't totally hate dawn.. but i still stand by my statement that its the weakest movie of the original trilogy. Depends on your frame of mind... Consider this. I saw "The Exorcist" twice at the cinema a matter of a week or so between viewings. The first time was in a nigh on empty cinema, and the film disturbed the b-Jesus out of me! The second time was a late at night and the cinema was full of after-pub-youngsters, who absolutely killed the film by their constant sniggers and laughs. Now, Dawn is a little like this. If you watch it in such a frame of mind to only let the 70s style and low budget production/effects hit you, then chances are it'll just bounce off. If you instead actually look under its skin, and let the premise of the film sink in, it's actually a very depressing and upsetting flick. I'd suggest it's responsible for more nightmares than every other nightmare I've had put togethor. And I'd say the same about Day too! It's even darker in many ways... And at least it's more accessible if only due to its high production values. I Get what your saying but i still dont think Dawn is a horror movie, its not any less of a movie for it, its a good ole cheesy 70's action movie and it is good, but theres nothing horrifying about it.

[Neil]

I Get what your saying but i still dont think Dawn is a horror movie, its not any less of a movie for it, its a good ole cheesy 70's action movie and it is good, but theres nothing horrifying about it. Don't agree... It's like saying "The Exorcist" isn't a horror movie, because the body count isn't high enough. As I said before, if you want to laugh your way through "The Exorcist," it's easily done... So it's not horror? But if you read between its lines, and let it wash over you, its frikkin terrifying! Same with Dawn - If you judge it by its cover, of course it's just a low budget splatter action flick. But if you buy into the subtext, and go into this alternative reality, it's horrific alright. Damn horrific! There's a reason why it's given me (& others by the sounds of it) more nightmares than anything else... But of course different people get different things from different films. Some people gel with some movies, while other don't. Simple as...

[Ragnarr]

Don't agree... It's like saying "The Exorcist" isn't a horror movie, because the body count isn't high enough. As I said before, if you want to laugh your way through "The Exorcist," it's easily done... So it's not horror? But if you read between its lines, and let it wash over you, its frikkin terrifying! Same with Dawn - If you judge it by its cover, of course it's just a low budget splatter action flick. But if you buy into the subtext, and go into this alternative reality, it's horrific alright. Damn horrific! There's a reason why it's given me (& others by the sounds of it) more nightmares than anything else... But of course different people get different things from different films. Some people gel with some movies, while other don't. Simple as... Agreed. Everything is a matter of perspective. If I were to place a can of Diet Coke on a table in front of a group of people and tell them, "say something true about what I just placed on the table", one person may say "it's an aluminum can" (true), another may say "it's a soft drink" (true), and so on. Same goes for our perceptions of Dawn78 or Dawn04. Neither flick would be found in the comedy section of your local video store, but whether it's placed in the action, thriller, or horror sections totally depends on the pimply-faced store clerk's perspective.

[bd2999]

One of the issues I have found is it depends a great deal on the situation you watch the movie. I think if one sits down and watches the original Dawn of the first time and just watch it they flat out will not think it is scary. Which is fine. If you actually watch it and follow the story, it is slow for modern viewers so that can be harder, than it causes you to think and that IMO puts the seed of horror in there. Horror to me is not about the body count. Sure slashers are horror movie icons but at the same time they are not the scariest movies. To me the most effective horror films are the ones that have messages to them that get you to think what if this happened would it go any different. Horror is more than jump scares. The Exorcist, as stated above, is a dumb movie for many who watch it now because it is sort of slow and has some goofy moments, Rosmary's baby has an unexpected ending that some people just do not like. But at the same time all of them can get under your skin if you truely watch them. And to me that makes them horror.