Defending Dawn O4

[riddleone]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original. But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast. What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did. Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more.

[Adrenochrome]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. 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.

[bassman]

sigh. You know what YOU fail to realize? That some people dislike the film because to them it is, in fact, a BAD MOVIE. I'm one of these people. I would dislike it even if I had no prior knowledge of Romero's films or zombies in general. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more. For some people....this is wrong. The real horror and suspense of Romero's films were that the zombies weren't the bad guys...the humans were. We screw it up. That's the suspense and horror. Gunn and Snyder didn't know this..... "Dawn04" is okay for an occasional, turn off your brain, munch some popcorn and be completely oblivious to the world kind of way. I'll give you that. But that doesn't make it a good film, by any means. Not to me, anyway. By the way....this has been said. And said again. Then again. And then once more. Once after that. Another time. Back around again. Stated once more. And then repeated. Once more for good measure. Just in case someone missed out, it was said again. It was written in braille. It was written in hieroglyphic. It was forseen by Ms. Cleo. It was shot through the universe when a freak worm hole opened up and shot it all the way to the restaraunt at the other end of the universe. And then it was said once more. And now it's said again....just to make sure the bacteria in the bottom of the ocean didn't miss it. Even Anne Frank heard it.

[Cody]

it was "ok". MY OPINION!

[AssassinFromHell]

Let's cover the formula behind this "wonderful" classic. The writer of this remake...wait, lets use the classic excuse word "reinvisioning"...is James Gunn. Gunn's resume includes a string of films lacking any significance to the progression of any genre. His largest hit was a lame rip that could be called a remake, a reinvisioning of the classic cartoon Scooby-Doo. In this flick, he recycled the typical monsters and such in, only to include a desperate plot twist at the end. This is his experience he carried into remaking what is arguably one of the most monumental zombie flicks of all time. So, with this, he created a slew of characters, all left lacking development. You have a bitten pregnant woman, who dies. Becoming a zombie, her unstable husband, ties her up and awaits the baby. The baby too, was a zombie. Now this scene had potential, but James Gunn's "experience" ruined it. Zack Snyder, while he wasn't bad, wasn't anything out of the ordinary. I'll give him credit on stepping up to the plate and doing a decent job. Unlike his writer counterpart, his efforts weren't juvinielle. Let's note, that without the edits made to the James Gunn original script, we'd have zombies climbing walls of malls too. This movie was nothing more than a kiddie flick. Instead of attempting to create a complex storyline, it creates a simplistic and cliche plot inwhich the zombies are the enemy. Romero had an interesting way of making the zombies seeming like another specie on the world, just trying to survive, where the humans were the enemy with their egotism and greed. And the moral of the story? DON'T LET KIDS PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS!

[Deadman_Deluxe]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original. But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast. What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did. Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more. That's all kinda boring though ... right?

[radiokill]

Even Anne Frank heard it. smith rocks! by the way, the humans did cause their own folly almost everytime in dawn 04, this wasn't done powerfully, though. As a result, the movie is great. Fun and Scary. Not an excellent film, though. I do agree that it should have been named differently.

[DjfunkmasterG]

What poeple fail to realize about the remake of Dawn of the Dead, is that it was never intended to be a complete rendition of the original. In fcat, Snyder said this over and over again in various press releases before the film went out. Even so, many zombie fans, particulary George Romero fans, felt a sting of pain when they ehard about the remake. ...And why shouldn't they? Look what happened when Coca Cola introduced Coke 2 -- it went down the drain pretty fast. Basically, there's a thing about remakes, where people are expected to see something better or up to par as the original. But I was pleasently surprised. When I went to the show expecting to see a dull, hashed out imitation of Dawn of the Dead -- but instead, I was very pleased. Yes -- I was shocked and a little offshot about seeing the running zombies. But since I had just seen similar ghouls in "28 days later", it only seemed natural to up the stakes. Consequently, Dawn o4 had the concept of running ghouls before 28 days later, despite the fact that 28 days later was released first. How is this known this? ..There was talk of an Xbox game about to be made based on the film, which never happened. At anyrate, the concept art for it (which was posted on conceptart.com way back in 2002/3) had clear taglines about the ghouls being fast. What freaks me out, is the nasty reaction people get when they see "Runners" in Dawn 04. The director did this to "modernize ghouls", much like other classic beasts have been. Example, when Bram Stoker's Dracula came out, you didn't see a Bella Lugosi-style Vampire, but something new. The same could be said for werewolves -- just look at films like underworld and others. I mean much worse insults have been made to the Romero classics; one being that sucky film Contagion -which actually had the nerve to claim their film as a direct prequel/sequel. People should be ****ed, it should be at crappy attempts to exploit the name of Romero's zombie work like Contagion did. Lastly, I'll admit that I like the original Dawn of the Dead better than the remake, however, the remake is one of my best zombie films. It was well directed and eventhough they put in running zombies, all that did was to make escaping the ghouls much harder, thus prompting the suspense up a whole lot more. Riddle, don't waste your breathe here. I like you very much enjoy DAWN 04. When i first saw it the night before the world premiere I actually stood up and loudly proclaimed my disgust over the fact they changed the mythology, and at the morning press conference I talked with Zack Snyder and told him I hated it because of the mythology. That very night at the WORLD PREMIERE I watched it again and ended up enjoying it. I still hated the fact the zombie mythology was changed, but I loved how well it was done. I like the running zombies, I find them to make the terror level in the film go up a few nothces, but I hate the change of mythology in that only someone bitten comes back. DAWN 04 is a great action zombie film and stands on its own. Everyone that bashes the film pretty much hates it for the title and running zombies, but everyone agrees the 1st ten minutes were the most kick ass 10 minutes of any zombie film ever made.

[AcesandEights]

but everyone agrees the 1st ten minutes were the most kick ass 10 minutes of any zombie film ever made. That was the best opening to a movie that I've seen in a long time.

[Danny]

i agree with what romero said: "the first 10 mins were spectacular, but then it lost its way and became a videogame" lets hope dead rising doesnt end with a "escape on bus". HEY, YEAH!!!! how in gods name can you defend a movie with that god aweful "bus upgrade scene?!?!?! all it was missing was B.A ,hannibal and faceman.

[AcesandEights]

all it was missing was B.A ,hannibal and faceman. Don't even go bashing the A-Team, FOOL! The movie was fun and had some major plot holes in it, but--that aside--was fine by my reckoning.

[Danny]

Don't even go bashing the A-Team, FOOL! i never would man ,i never would ... ... ....... I PITY THA FOOL THAT DISSS DA A TEAM GRRR! c'mon....you know i couldnt help it, no one can its like talking like a pirate, its unstoppable

[Svengoolie]

The writer of this remake...wait, lets use the classic excuse word "reinvisioning"...is James Gunn. Gunn's resume includes a string of films lacking any significance to the progression of any genre. His largest hit was a lame rip that could be called a remake, a reinvisioning of the classic cartoon Scooby-Doo. In this flick, he recycled the typical monsters and such in, only to include a desperate plot twist at the end. This is his experience he carried into remaking what is arguably one of the most monumental zombie flicks of all time. So, with this, he created a slew of characters, all left lacking development. You have a bitten pregnant woman, who dies. Becoming a zombie, her unstable husband, ties her up and awaits the baby. The baby too, was a zombie. Now this scene had potential, but James Gunn's "experience" ruined it. Before NOTLD, GAR had absolutely no produced scripts to his credit. And, his biggest deal to date was a soap commercial that aired only once on local television. Instead of attempting to create a complex storyline, it creates a simplistic and cliche plot inwhich the zombies are the enemy. And GAR's plot and storylines were in some way "complex"? LOLOLOLOL!

[radiokill]

I was elated that Dawn 04 wasn't some cheeseball slasher crapfest like Return of the Living Dead & company and Zombi 2, etc.

[Griff]

Sorry, but I have nothing but pity and contempt for those that truly believe that running zombies somehow 'ups the stakes' or 'makes them more terrifying'... Giving zombies the ability to run is like giving Jaws the ability to go over land - its f*cking stupid. You're also destroying the things that make your monster unique. To me, this matter is more than is just a difference of opinion. Its about a right and a wrong way to do things. Here's something I noted sometime ago from a forum and author I don't recall: Something running at you can be scary, but it's a primal reaction that passes with the adrenalin. Shuffling zombies are psychological horrors, because you can't just bust your best Chris Redfield impersonation to escape them. See, zombies aren't about the individual, but one's fear of the masses. It's about conformity, and inescapable doom. It's about being a living person with thoughts and ideas having the crushing realization that you're surrounded by the dead. They're the people who will re-elect George Bush. They're the people that will destroy the environment for transitory wealth. They're the people who are more excited about the next Michael Bay feature than Richard Kelly's. You're smarter than them, stronger than them, and it doesn't matter, because they'll still get you in the end. They'll devour you, take all your visionary ideas, and turn them into Philip K. Dick screen adaptations. Running zombies are for stupid people with monkey brains to get their hearts racing for a few minutes while eating their popcorn. Shuffling zombies are about recognizing your own mortality, the limitations of society, and the probability that there is no God who loves us and will protect us from the hell of our lives. Worst of all, shuffling zombies are us, and we are no better than them, just more cognizant of the abysmal emptiness of our brief, petty little lives. At the end of the day, I don't see why zombies need upgrading or enhancing, anyway. If you're not a good enough filmmaker to make them threatening as is, maybe you should pack your f*cking bags and look for something else to do. Before NOTLD, GAR had absolutely no produced scripts to his credit. And, his biggest deal to date was a soap commercial that aired only once on local television. Yeah, but Assassin's point was that he didn't go out and remake James Whale's FRANKENSTEIN as his first movie, did he? And GAR's plot and storylines were in some way "complex"? LOLOLOLOL! I'd say so. There's no telling where George's DAWN is going to take you, not even 5 minutes before the end. For a zombie film, DAWN OF THE DEAD is very sophisticated. By contrast, the remake reverts back to the more basic structure of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, making it a simple seige movie.