Cool News
Zack Snyder is raising an ARMY OF THE DEAD!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I'd love to see Zack Snyder direct another zombie movie. I liked a lot of DAWN OF THE DEAD and as a stand-alone zombie movie it's a cool flick. But as a remake it forces you to compare it to the original DAWN OF THE DEAD, which was a no win situation for him. Either he was going to disrespect the original or make a boring retread, which is the reason why remakes in general are dangerous things to attempt.
I myself have trouble disassociating the original DAWN from the remake, which makes it hard for me, as a viewer, to fully give myself over to it. However, I like the frantic, balls to the wall style.
So, this project at Warner Bros, ARMY OF THE DEAD, intrigues me.
Snyder came up with the scenario... sounds a little like Paul Schrader's HARDCORE mixed with Romero... It's about a father that goes searching for his daughter in quarantined Las Vegas after a zombie outbreak.
No word on whether or not he'll direct, but he'll definitely get a story by and producer credit, along with his wife Deborah. Snyder himself is busy with WATCHMEN... That in and of itself is something of a miracle. I mean, I can't believe we're in a world where WATCHMEN is really moving forward, especially with a director that is coming off of an incredible success, who might actually now have the power to keep the film as hardcore and crazy as it needs to be.
So, excitement on all fronts. I'd love to see Snyder do another huge, epic zombie movie, especially if he's able to step away from the "moving painting" shoot-in-a-green-box style of filmmaking and try to ground it in a recognizable reality. More than anything, on a completely personal level, I just want to see a no-strings-attached hardcore zombie movie with Snyder at the helm that I can just dive in to. What about you?
-
+ Expand All
-
it would be interesting to see him direct some original material... but i'm excited for watchmen. as long it has soul!
-
He'll lose the geek audience forever.
-
it will likely employ some of the green screen stuff.
-
Like Scorsese, what the fuck is with the 18 different projects? announcement after announcement... just do the ONE movie, let us maintain interest in THAT. Then say, oh here's my next one. With all this shit on your plate, it makes us think you're distracted and unsure.
-
he seems to understand and respect the book... i mean he'll do his best, but will it be good enough?
-
At least he knows how to do it...
-
Although I would give a pass to Romero. He can make a zombie film whenever he feels like it.
-
I loved Dawn 04, it was a great survival horror movie. I don't compare it to the original, they're both great on their own terms. Even Romero had good things to say about it.
-
Mar 26, 2007 1:51:09 AM CDT
The scaryt hing about Watchmen is that you get one shot
by industrykiller!
One. Thats it. If it's off then the project is fucked for eternity. No do overs. No casting a different guy as the lead and starting the franchise over. Once they do it once and it sucks it's gonna take 20 years for a studio to give them the greenlight to remake a film with a story everyone already knows and didn't like the first time around. It's the only Watchmen film we get for a very long time. Heady stuff. tread lightly Snyder.
-
Of course I'm a little biased just because any movie with batshit-crazy Dennis Hopper gets some bonus points in my book.
-
he's gonna be another director who has 8,000 projects in the pipeline....
-
Directors don't produce experiences worrying that the audience won't enjoy it because they have a lot of IMDB credits. that's absurd, virtually every popular director i can think of generally has more than one project in the works at a time. Even Terrence Mallick is developing multiple things at once. soothing your worries doesn't affect or concern the quality of his films.
-
how about somewhere else, like disneyland?
-
Romero really wasn't all about the nakedness in his zombie movies (plus if you want Asia Argento in some nekkid glory... "Scarlet Diva". 'Nuff said). Also the bit with the dead reckoning at the end isn't that bad. It's Shane riding off into the sunset. Only at night. With zombies. And fireworks. Although I will agree. Zombies creep me out too and hopefully this ends up being a good movie. Just feel a little burnt out with the whole zombie genre.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
I get where you're going with the title considering it should be the final Rambo movie but Last Blood? First Blood makes sense considering it's about drawing first blood. Is there a term with Last Blood? I do agree that John Rambo isn't a very good title either.
-
zack snyder = c.r.a.p.
-
must be some sort of had to see when it was released kind of things cause I find it boring to dead.
Remake Dawn of the Dead = super exciting, lots of thrills, good pace, brilliant claustrofobic zombie pic.
Best Zombiemovie = Shaun of the Dead -
Milla Jovovich alone makes it an amazing work of sublime masterpiece. Those who dont like Milla J might as well love Brokeback Mountain. Milla Jovovich + Resident Evil = Excellent Movie!
-
believe me or not, i got my movie shown at Cannes once. And its sure a hell lot better than Z Synigelpuss.
-
Just so you dont miss it. Order your DVD copy now.
-
prefer remake dawn to original.its probably only case in which i can say that.romero is well overrated though(land of the dead was pretty poor).i do appreciate him making zombie themed films an accepted movie genre though...
-
Ever read the bloody thing? Christ. At the moment I'm 50/50 on Snyder doing it. On the one hand he's certainly talking a better game than Greengrass was - setting it period etc... But on the other, nothing about his run-and-gun zombie metal-video or his abs-and-gore shouting-fascists epic suggest he'll have a handle on the complexity of Watchmen's characters and plot.
-
..movie, ill be happy, that straight-to-video hack is so way past his prime it aint even funny. Land was the biggest pile of shite i ever watched and i was sooo fucking hyped for it... fucking learning zombies, blatant commercialisation messages, piss poor action, totally craptactular direction.. man that movie sucked balls. Now Jack's remake of Dawn of the Dead, now that was one balls to the wall zombie film, easily as good as the original which has dated heavily, but running zombies are waaaay fucking scareyier than lumbering slow ass fucks that could be outrun by my granny, but fuckers that will come at you relentlessly no matter what at full speed to eat you... now thats some scarey shit, fuck i hope he makes another zombie movie, the guy rocks.
-
Short description of Keene's book: "Horrifying thriller about a man who embarks on a cross-country trip to save his son after a plague has turned nearly all of America's population into zombies" Ok not all fits but the similarities are definiteley there
-
The original "Dawn" is overrated... say it out loud, even if only to yourself in a mirror. Repeat after me: "pie fight." Now, in next week's session, we'll get into how the whole "consumerist satire" angle is so overblown. Make an appointment at the desk on your way out.
-
I liked the remake of Dawn quite a bit but I don't think it'll compare to Aliens in the long run. Case in point, can you think off the top of you head quotes or iconic scenes from Dawn that just sticks with you? I think 300 might have a better chance at being that kind of movie as far as people remembering it years and years from now.
-
Is gonna make or break him.If he can pull off the impossible {Watchmen} then ill follow his career forever {except the dawn remake,sorry ill never watch that}.But besides that ill be watching.
-
most it anyway. The Frank Miller half of 300 was great, the tacked on Snyder stuff was cack. So I'm half enthusiastic for Watchmen, but more enthusiastic about this.
-
Maybe after Watchmen is made, then we can get an adaptation of Brat Pack series. and then maybe even Maximortals!
-
I'm guessing he Photoshopped "le" onto the dancing "Le Popcorn" title card for the French audience.
-
Zombie movies don't interest me at all and I haven't seen "Land" yet, but wasn't it about a year old? That would be great! And, if it was a remake of "Land", I hope they could soon start remaking films before the original one is made.
-
its not an euro shitters if that concern you.
its...just a documentary. But still it would be miles better than Zack Pooper Snyder. My hatred for monseiur Syngelpus started when he remaked and butchered the lovely memory of Dawn of the Dead to think that the director of that original is still alive. Sure the studios gave him a chance to do a new zombie movie but its just rubbish. RUBBISH PIECE OF CRAP. Zack Snyder loves Osama bin Laden!! -
zack snyder = crack
-
It will be like THE BLACK DAHLIA all over again. Too much materiel in the source and none of it expendable.
-
Zach's da man. The DOTD remake (still cringe when I type that because they are very different flicks)rocked. Quint, "I get it." on the original DOTD, but really, the film has not held up and if you can't get into a zombie flick that winds up with a Jim Carrol tune and rotten zombie head in a cooler, then brutha, you just are not into zombies. I agree with posters that LOTD was hard to watch and for some reason, reminded me of John Carpenters most recent flops. I would have liked to see Zach do a Day of the Dead remake, but beggars can't be choosers. Zach haters? C'mon, you putzes are just trying to get an argument going. He's one of the good ones out there and you guys should feel blessed. Go slag PWA or Uwe or Bay for your jollies. For me, I'll go back an re-watch the zombie-baby-delivery scene in DOTD in total awe of the ballz it took to put that scene on the big screen. GO TEAM VENTURE!
-
I can't believe how many people buy into that bullshit. Our man Vern even calling the original DOTD "the most thought provoking horror film... etc". I don't buy that. It was a gag, nothing more. "People at the mall look like zombies... let's put REAL zombies in a mall" That's it. There is nothing more thought provoking to it than that. Hell, Shaun of the Dead did the same thing with ravers and corporate commuters. And guess what. It was funny. A good gag. But some sort of biting, profound satire? Nope. It seems like people want to tag it as such to make them feel clever for "picking up on it". But that's like someone feeling clever for realizing that Tyler Durden didn't really exist. It's right there! Now don't get me wrong, I love BOTH DOTD movies... but the ridiculous amount of praise heaped on the original for what I see as little more than a JOKE (the fact that the setting allowed the characters to survive with food and supplies is much more important than the consumerist "zombies" angle) is just that... RIDICULOUS. Night and Dawn are both great. Creepshow is great. Day, Land and the majority of other Romero works bite it. OK, rant over.
-
I'm quickly becoming a fan of this guy. I loved the Dawn remake and 300 is a superb film and not just a great adaption of an already incredbily graphic novel story. So Watchmen, Army Of The Dead and anything else this man conjures up I will, from here on in, be excited to see.
-
I don't have any interest in seeing any documentary by someone who thinks putting the word "Pooper" into someone's name is a clever jab. You're mental. Your movie isn't LOOSE CHANGE is it? Yeah, that's it. You must be that sniveling little twit, Dylan Avery. Heh. See you at Cannes next year with your new doc, BITTER POOPER: THE STORY OF ME.
-
Zombies in a mall. That's pretty much it. Everything else about it was different, from the story to the characters to the zombies themselves. They did try to shoehorn some kind of half assed social commentary but otherwise it was more like Dead Rising the Movie than a remake.
-
She brought some class and indie film cred to Dawn of the Dead. In the commentary, Snyder was joking that they somehow tricked her into signing for a dumb zombie movie.
-
Keep telling that to yourself as you shell out ANOTHER 15 bucks for the "The Official George Romero authenticated version The Man didnt want you to see with 8 extra minutes and a brand new commentary!!!"
-
I've already buckled and bought it twice... and that's it for me. Well I guess it's like the kids say.... "Romero Gotta Eat"... or whatever.
-
...to the overratedness of anything Romero's done since NOTLD.Actually, scratch that. He was perfect for Creepshow...because that knew exactly what it wanted to be and it committed fully.ROmero's zombie flicks became incrementally less interesting the more he became absorbed in his own social insight. The man is incapable of subtly lacing a decent horror story with satire or cultural critique. He's got to hit you over the head with it.LOTD may well be the single worst and least original zombie film I've ever seen, and I include Boll's House of the Dead in that heat.s doing. I say bring it on.
-
...he took what worked in the original Dawn (really, just the premise) and turned that into a genuinely scary and engaging survival horror film (CTU Mole may be right about it being a Dead Rising movie or, more accurately, about Dead Rising being a Dawn of the Dead game, and there's nothing at all wrong with that).Plus, Snyder managed to work in some subtle social commentary without cutting the balls off his story.I've pretty much had it with zombie/crazed human apocalypse genre movies. It feels like everyone and their brother has been working on one recently and precious few of them (Zach's Dawn, 28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead) have been worth a warm shit. But Snyder's proven he knows what he's doing in this genre (and in comic adaptations, imho), so I'll give anything he puts out a shot.
-
Putting the re-re-re-re-re-re-releases of the same damn movie and the "I get it." mentality of the origanal Dawn lovers: BRILLIANT!
-
heh heh
-
Remember in about 1986 when it seemed like every third movie was about a parent and a child switching places? That's how I feel about zombie movies. 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead finished it for me, I don't need to see another zombie movie for 30 years. Thank you.
-
I'm no expert on the zombie movie genre, but I did make the mistake of watching "Land of the Dead." It sucks overall, but there are lots of little things too, especially at the end, that really made me hate it. Like at the end, when they shoot off all of the fireworks...why would they do that? Just because the local zombies have wised up, that doesn't mean the trick won't work on the next horde they run into. But even worse was the leader guy's rationale for not blowing the hell out of the zombie leader and his followers as they exit the city. He says something like 'they're just trying to find their way' or some bullshit like that. If he wasn't going to destroy them, then make it for something rational, like a desire to preserve ammunition, not some stupid, possibly political message. I guess it didn't matter to the sensitive leader that these zombies would, you know, eat him if their paths happened to cross again as they both try to find their way in the world. That movie really needed a good ending to salvage it, but the ending was the worst part of all. And has there ever been a zombie movie where humans actually turn the tide and win the war?
-
There's no crying in zombie movies!
-
how to tell a story, because his last two movies sucked. I really can't remember the last time I was excited about a new up and coming director. It seems like most new directors just can't tell a story to save their life.
-
Let's see, in 28 Days, London in successfully quarantined. More to the point, Shaun Of The Dead has the living prevail over the dead and (bonus) converting them into cheap labor (just like Mexicans) and entertainment (just like Rob and Ambuh).
-
...I just got off the phone with Zach Snyder and he thanks you for your astute career advice.
-
His films have moments in them, but in between these moments they are completely vapid. The opening of Dawn was great, but then we had to watch a bunch of sub-moronic characters for two hours. It was excrutiating. There were a couple of visuals in 300 that were striking, but in between these visuals was too much slo-mo and a bunch of characters yelling about Sparta or some other stuff I couldn't give two shits about. The guy isn't talentless, he's just unable to pull a story together. He's more concerned about the visuals than he is the story and it really ruins his films.
-
...also wanted to thank you for being the first in line at his releases and also promises to attend your next direction seminar. He also said to check out SLITHER and let his buddies know what you think. Man, you are getting all sorts of response today! Congrats!
-
DOTD-04 did have a feeding scene. The Best Buy guy walks in on one in the sports apparel store. Remember? He ditches his crobar for a wicker mallet. What zombie movies are worthy of you?
-
I kept hearing about the 'classic' that was the original Dawn of the Dead, I just had to see it. Wish I hadn't. It didn't work as a full on horror movie, because it wasn't the least bit scary. It was fairly amusing, but not enough to be a comedy. It looks like crap, the acting's bad. The only thing I can give it props for is originality. All the people who say it's so much better than the remake are just living in a self-made bubble, where you tell yourself that shitty movies from the past are much better than they actually are. Don't even get me started on Land of the Dead. I'd much rather see a Zach Snyder zombie flick than George Romero's latest dud.
-
those shit zombie films of yesteryear are just that "SHIT", all of romero's films look like shite, they have aged so badly as to make them unwatchable. Your probably one of them fucking transformer nutjobs that seems to think the original cartoons where the fucking be all and end all of animation and that they shouldnt change one fucking thing about it... DUDE! your not a kid any more, youve grown up, the shit from our childhood (bar some classics) has dated like fuck and these remakes set out to appeal to a different generation, not some dickhead who grew up in the 80's and cant let go of the past. The kids nowadays love em, heck i love em simply cause i can see them for what they are.. pure entertainment, not some attack on my childhood memories like half the idiots seem to think hollywood is out to do, anyways rant over.. bring on the vegas zombies
-
Mar 26, 2007 10:36:12 AM CDT
Aw man, that would have been a good Evil Dead 4 title
by purplemonkeydw
oh well, damn you spider man?
-
THERE is a mess-up zombie movie...LOTD is arguably the worst one ever.
-
I'm not a huge comics fan but I read Watchmen some years ago and... ennh. I guess it appeals to a certain adolescent mentality that wants to see the icons torn down, but most people simply move on from comics to something else, they don't have an inner need to find out that Superman was really a drunk. Maybe some people find that adult and edgy, I don't-- to me it's just investing excessive interest in something enjoyably two-dimensional and kid-oriented. And it was very flatly drawn, there's little visual interest in it (which makes one wonder what Snyder is going to base his compositions on). All in all, I never got what the big deal was.
-
The original version is the antithesis of the remake. Although they are both horror movies one is a social commentary with horrific elements and the other had a slight agenda(300) but no real substance. There is nothing wrong with pure horror but the original calls attention to mindless consumerism and the remake is mindless like most of the popular entertainment today. When there is a film with an underlying message they are soo heavy handed today they can’t match the subtly of the writers just 20-30 years ago.
-
it's also all about the storytelling, the panel transitions. it was a great story, but also the way they told it was brilliant. i don't know what you mean, by 'no visual interest'... because they didn't have giant guns, muscles, eyes, and boobs?
also, i really like the remake of dotd, but the original has a special place in my heart. -
Jimmy_009, I really don't think Snyder's DOD was to "better" Romero's version but instead to simply re-imagine it. I like both as seperate entities, albeit Snyder's is a lot more faster pacesd with more action. Romero, however, seemed more into making a political film with ambiance. The original is great to me, because you never really saw movies like that, and you still don't see movies like that. It was a zombie movie that made fun of society and took itself more seriously than the genre formorly did. Anyway, not why I posted. I just got done reading "Watchmen" for the first time and I hope Snyder knocks it out of the park. Here's my dream cast: Rorscharch - Willem Dafoe, The Comedian - Ron Perlman, Ozy - Kevin Bacon, Night Owl II - Kurt Russell, Dr Manhattan/John - Gerard Butler (not my ideal choice but since hearing he was up for a role I hope this is it, he has the physique and could do motion capture stuff), The Spectre II - Parker Posey, Spctre I - Ellen Burstyn, Night Owl I - Ian McKellen, Hooded Justice - Russell Crowe (be good to see him in a small role), Captain Metropolis - Ryan Reynolds, Guy at newstand - Paul Giamatti
This is of course assuming the younger versions would be played by unknowns. -
You really think the remake was better than the original? Please gimme some of what you've been smoking. Both Dawn of the Dead remake and 300 are very good but both are extremely overrated.
http://tinyurl.com/pv8do -
...you've got to be joking right..? I know and love every frame of that film and to compare it with Snyder's childish remake is like comparing excrement to cream. You've obviously never experienced the joy of [spoiler] watching Ken Foree reverse his decision to stay and not get on the 'copter. Plus, every one of Savini's effects are better than those in the remake - yes, zombie baby, i'm looking at you..!
-
Its like Stephen King once said..same wine, different bottles. Yea, the original didn't age as well ( mostly due to some BAD acting ), but has the helicopter beheading scene, the invasion of the bikers, the Krishna zombie and other good stuff. The new has good use of musak, and the target scene and of course running zombies...They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but are good for what they are...goofy zombie movies. We're not talking the Godfather people......
-
...you've got to be joking right..? I know and love every frame of that film and to compare it with Romero's childish original is like comparing excrement to cream. You've obviously never experienced the joy of [spoiler] watching Jake Weber reverse his decision to stay and not get on the boat. Plus, every one of David LeRoy Anderson's effects are better than those in the original yes, workshed, i'm looking at you..! Wow, that was pretty easy.
-
Ooooh, a little touchy aren't we..? Stick around thirty years and we'll see which version will still be reverred the world over as a great cult movie, one of the best. Although it has to be said it's not my favourite Romero - that honour belongs to 'Martin'.
-
and time is all you need
-
Dawn of the Dead was released in France under the name "L'Armée des morts", which means Army of the Dead. Coincidence?
-
Agreed! That's why I duplicated worksheds asinine commentary (only interchanging the titles & events). The original had it's time (and some cool concepts), but you just can't go hating the Zach's Dawn just because you go slack-jawed and start drooling everytime you pop in you Directors Cut Re-Re-Re-release quadruple-dip DVD of the original. To sit there and throw stones at one or the other (jeez they were made 30 years apart fer chrissakes) is self-mastubatory at best.
-
Mar 26, 2007 12:02:47 PM CDT
I personally much prefer the original DOTD
by judge dredds dirty undies
Just because its an old film and wasn't even particularly slickly made in its day doesn't take away from the fact it is a bona fide classic, the same cant be said for Synder's version.
-
yes pooper
-
Again with the "Pooper"? Well boogers on you and your cootie infested documentary. See you at recess.
-
...were you trying to cite Romero as an example of subtlety in the use of social commentary with your last post. Because, um, wow...subtle, he ain't.I maintain that people who put the last three movies of Romero's Dead quadrology on some sort of intellectual pedestal are desperate to have something they can claim to "get" that the masses do not.I've said it before and I'll repeat it until it sinks in: We get it. It just wasn't very successful or particularly enjoyable.By way of an example, let's say you found yourself craving both something sweet and something salty. Romero would throw some cotton candy in a blender with some anchovy paste and spend the rest of the afternoon congratulating himself on the gag face he forced you to make. You could've had a chocolate covered pretzel, dude. Or maybe some caramel corn. Sure, both have been done before and wouldn't be considered particularly original or creative. But I know which I'd prefer and which I'd be likely to order again given a similar craving.
-
I loved the DOTD remake, then I loved 300. I'm also so happy he's on Watchmen...and now this?!
Seriously, can we clone this guy so he can make em both at once? We could also all grab our torches and head to MSJ's house while we're at it so he can't do anything else. C'mon yal! -
I dont see how a 2 - 3 hour movie could possibly do the book justice.
-
It doesn't sound like they have the script nailed, bu they are moving forward...not a good sign.
-
Isn't a zombie flick per se, but uses that convention to give us an all out fucking 80s style action movie, with this generation's John McClane go against insane odds to rescue the one he loves. Terrorist/zombies I mean they are all the same... ALthough you may as well make the head zombie have an european accent to his groans, just to keep in the spirit...
-
Slick, stylish, talented at making things "COOL"... also shows no sign of having a single thought in his head. Possibly a robot, but not in a good way like Stanley Kubrick or somebody.
I enjoyed both of his movies. The Dawn of the Dead remake really surprised me, because I was ready to hate it, and I didn't. 300 I thought was a fun dumb-guy-macho movie with very nice visuals, and I find myself defending it alot since pretty much everybody I know hated it. So I am not entirely against Mr. Snyder, he obviously has talent, I trust him more than many directors out there who are very successful.
But JESUS CHRIST some of the shit you kids are saying is disappointing to me. How the fuck did your parents and garbage culture twist your minds so bad that you would HATE the original Dawn of the Dead? Don't like it, fine, your heads are full of fuckin Super Mario mushrooms and Flavor Crystals, of course you can't pay attention to a 2 hour and ten minute drama about characters, even if it's full of the greatest zombie mayhem ever filmed. But HATE it? Come on, how did this happen?
And the guy who said LAND OF THE DEAD was "the worst shite I've ever seen"? Apparently you didn't see BRUISER. Or 99% of the movies that have come out in the last ten years. It's not a perfect movie by any means but you just said it had a forced message of "commercialism" which makes me wonder if you can't even figure out what the movie is about so you just pretend it's about what you heard Dawn of the Dead was about.
(For the record it's about the class divide, the way these rich elitists are able to literally wall themselves off from the problems of the world and leave the less fortunate behind to die.)
And by the way I got a present for you bud: George Romero already shot his next zombie movie, it's called DIARY OF THE DEAD. Merry Christmas.
I don't mean to argue with or attack you kids, obviously everybody has their tastes and nobody's gonna convince anybody of anything. But that comment about "DAWN OF THE DEAD REMAKE is this generation's ALIENS" and some of these other posts got me thinking about it. I just gotta point out this generation gap because I think Zack Snyder, at least based on these first two movies, is the perfect symbol of it. A talented guy, but all surface, apparently doesn't even know that there is an area beneath the surface where you can put things. And a generation of kids who for the most part would RATHER have it that way. If there was a way to just take the gloss off of a glossy magazine cover, they would be mainlining that shit. Because the brain thinks about movies different when it also has to have time for extensive critical thought about ringtones.
Or to put it in less poetical type terms, I am talking about the difference between the guys who want to see an EXACT, frame-for-frame literal restaging of comic books (camp 1) and the people who want to see a director make a REAL GOD DAMN MOVIE where he or she puts their own spin on things and has, like, ideas and shit (camp 2). I am in camp 2, and I'm trying to figure you other guys out.
As the great Quint once said, "what do you guys think?" -
YES!
-
U r merely encouraging me.
-
=Zack Pooper Snyder!
-
The man makes one film a la Green Screen, and everyone doubts if he has the gonas to do something else. Honestly...you said it yourself in the damn article. He did DAWN OF THE DEAD (Excellent Zombie Flick). I mean, gawd damn. Let the man be! I said it when i first saw DOTD, and was only proven when i saw even the trailer for 300. This man is going to be epic in the Fandom and Film world, but this pre-film doubting bullshit has gotta end! I have a feeling we're all in for a boat load of good projects from Snyder. Lets just sit back and enjoy shall we?
-
Scared the shit out of me for real. The first thrity minutes were pure terror on a level I havn't see at the theaters since. I watched it the weekend it came out,it was like Easter Sunday night when I seen it,anyways I remember people screaming and saying they were going to leave around the time the little girl zombie started chewing up the husband.The use of imagery and the score(including soundtrack) in that film was great. My problem.... running zombies,goes against the whole living dead thing But I guess thats just me.That being said the re-emergences into the culture, comics and otherwise has been suprising and almost always entertaining so I hope Army gets made along with World War Z. I watched the 90's NOTLD remake the other night and I thought it was solid on all counts,my question is, does the NOTLD ending count as a happy ending? I mean we contained the threat in those films (original and the remake) so we came out on top.
-
I think 300 was exactly what it was meant to be. Fun. I'm pretty indifferent on the whole Dawn of the Dead remake. Vern is right-ish, these movies aren't intelligent, but they are entertaining. And more than most films these days, they're actually coherent.Does that make Snyder stupid or does it just make him an opportunist? Did he take projects he knew he could deliver in a way that would be commericially popular so that he could build up some cred with audiences and the studios so that he could take bigger risks? We'll see. I've never heard him speak so I have no idea about his character.Once this guy destroys Watchmen we can all rip into him. I really feel that will be the make or break moment for this guy. Until then, I refuse to call this guy anything.If this guy went the Michael Bay route and makes ten more movies like 300 about how cool blood and spears look then I'll call him shallow. But his desire to take on Watchmen shows that he is interested in challenging himself.His two films have nothing in common aside from being entertaining. So suggesting that Zach Snyder direct every project under the sun OR arguing why he's not up to it is a fairly unqualified statement.
-
vern, what you say about zack snyder not realizing there is space under the surface-- i wonder if he is as oblivious as you think. how in gods name do you manage to make a zombie movie without any sociopolitical subtext? it seems like you would have to try very hard to remove social subtext from something so conceptually loaded as the classic zombie movie setup. the fact that snyder wound up with such a politics-free movie makes me wonder if he is trying harder than we think to make movies devoid of substance... maybe it's not an accident, is my point, because hollywood's figured out there is a generation quickly climbing the wall of purchasing power who prefer it all filler and no killer
-
And who trained them?Raised in a society that bombards them with sound-bites and commercials and a voracious consumer appetite from day one.Todays "running zombies" are the perfect metaphor for them and their little ADD scrambled brains.They need the camera to shake in time to their Red Bull,caffeine jitters and need their opinions given to them usually by an adult that doesn't give a shit about anything but their own "me"time.The zombies are no longer "us"(those of the "Romero school),but we DID create them.
-
There is nothing about Snyder's DOTD that is any less or any more shallow than Romero's. As I said (and many others as well)before, his so-called political commentary in the film is completely surface level and there is no nuance to it because it's NOT a commentary so much as it was a gag. He, himself said back in the day that it was simply a gag and a unique setting and wasn't meant as anything more. Only lately has he started to believe the praise that others have heaped onto this supposed "commentary" and change his to tune to "Yeah, I meant to do that". The same thing happened with NOTLD. It was meant to scare people, nothing more. Duane Jones happened to be the best guy for the role... and since he was black, people suddenly project all this racial commentary onto the movie that I don't buy was ever intentional. Don't get me wrong, I love the original NOTLD and the original DOTD for what they are... but I don't buy Romero's backtracking of his own statements as to his intentions with the movies when after decades of armchair musings on their apparent "social importance" he flip-flops and says "Yeah, that's it... that's the ticket!" Honestly, I think DAY was the first one that he set out to have a "message" and look where that got him... Dullsville.
-
bravo.
-
Let's see if I get this straight; if I don't like the original DOTD, my brains full of crystal-meth and I'm barely outta high school. We'll brutha, I'm probably older than you, saw the original m-fer at the Waterfall Drive-thru in MI and while impressed by some of the makeup and sfx (Yes, I did "get" the subtle as kick to the crotch message on consumerism.), I found the film to have a silly feel that took away from the story. I'm getting a little sick of the elitist fun-guvners that want to take away from Zach's DOTD. "Waaa, it's brainless! Waaa, there's no message(at least that my superior intellect could divine)! Waaaa, 300 wasn't a chick flick and now I have to go see Premonition, with a friend, to get in touch with my feminine side!" I love yer little black & grey posts brutha, but I think you're a little off base on your "brainless" comments. (plus the new DOTD had much better T&A...yoinks)
-
I prefer real movies. And its the rabid comic book nerds that demand that the movies be made frame for frame, not the general movie going audience. Most people who saw the trailers for Sin City and 300 went because they looked cool, they didn't give a shit that they were "finally paying respect to Frank Miller's genius" or whatever. And I think you are selling Snyder short saying that he is empty. With 300, it wasn't about exactly making the Frank Miller comic book into a movie as much as it was cost effectively making the 300 story as exciting as cost-effectively possible for the audience, which is what i think he represents. It would've been more expensive to make that movie real realistically, and what the hell the art style is cool. Both of his first two movies are kickass experiences. They appeal to audiences in a visceral way visually and emotionally better than most things which have come out in a long time, which is how movies are supposed to appeal to people as an artform. Its one of the reasons all these critics analyzing it as a proBush thing appear like such iditos. It wasn't made to be seen that way assholes, it's a MOVIE, it was made without any subtext in this case and those daft assholes can't see that, yet they still pretend to be be movie aficionados. I think Snyder is a really good moviemaker and I agree both of his movies are sort of dumb so far, but that doesn't matter so much when they're good movies and i believe in him, he can go the distance and produce something heartwarming and deep like Ralph Macchio talking about his dead dad in Karate Kid II.
-
I can see what some of you are thinking about him being a surface director. But you have to understand, he approached his other two films and gave them what they NEEDED. Not what others thought it needed. Or what might be kinda cool there...it was what it needed. And what i liked most about 300, was that the movie seemed like it was made by spartans. And i am yet to see someone think similarily, and that surprises me. I mean to say, if the spartan world still existed, and they had some red cloaked buff guy sitting in a directors chair, what would he do?! and i think that was the question Snyder asked himself. And we got his answer. 300 spartans fucking shit up.
Dawn of the dead. What worked. People trapped in a mall. What else can work? Subtle and fun stabs at our culture today, while giving a film great moments and action, fighting and gore, yes also, love and coversation. Fuck Yes. A fucking balance.
I mean, why can't you all just get along?
Snyder will give WATCHMEN what it needs. Maybe even more than it needs...(I think the black freighter should be left to extended dvd, not theatrical release...but even the fact that it'll be there emphasizes my point) and i think we all just need to become happy about film again. Because that's what snyder is trying to do. Just get us happy and pumped about a film, and thank god, fucking deliver the goods on Release Day.
Thank you Z.S. Please don't go away, and please keep directing commercials. At least you still have your head outta the clouds.
(Yes, that's right. He directs commercials, because they're fun and he likes the work, and doesn't walk around with his cock out spewing that he's a film director. Now that sounds like a director i can respect.) -
Now I went back and read what Childe Roland and some others wrote so now I gotta preach some more to you boys. I apologize in advance.
Yes, I have always loved the Legendary Consumerism Angle of Dawn of the Dead, but I agree that it is not real deep or anything. It's more of an ironic note, to stage the last stand of humanity in a shopping mall. That's funny and observant, I love that type of shit, but that's a very small part of why I consider the movie one of the best ever made.
I love the way the movie begins in total chaos, civilization losing its footing as symbolized by the bedlam in the TV studio. When 9-11 happened all of us turned to our TVs to try to find out what the hell was going on and to try to make sense of it. And it was a nightmare, but imagine if when you turned on your TV you saw what you see in Dawn of the Dead - everybody yelling at each other, nobody agreeing on what to do, out-of-date info about where to go for help, total confusion. The opening of the remake is classic, but it doesn't have the same punch-you-in-the-gut dread of starting off with zombies ALREADY having overrun the earth, no recap. You're just tossed into the shit unceremoniously.
I love the discussions of whether or not to run. The networking, using their connection to someone with a helicopter as an opportunity to run for it. The way there is an obvious guilt, is it cowardly to abandon your job and life, and hide out, or is it the only wise thing to do? Especially if you're a cop - is your duty to keep civilization intact or to save your own ass? This was a question many New Orleans cops faced during Katrina. The first ten minutes of the movie alone gets deeper into humanity than most movies even aspire to.
When they get to the shopping mall I love it because I can relate to it, I can see myself in their shoes and imagine that's exactly what I would do. They are in this disaster but they are having fun. Who wouldn't want to run around in an abandoned mall and steal shit? Put on a fur coat and go rob the bank and play with the useless money. Set up mannequins in the ice skating rink and shoot at them. It's a very funny movie but I don't think there are any jokes, the humor comes from the situations and the recognition that that's what you would really do. It's not what people in a movie (or a remake) would usually do, but it's what you would do.
More than that, the systematic way they go out and massacre the zombies, once they have their strategy in place. The way they obviously are enjoying it a little too much. And exactly as much as you yourself would enjoy it.
And then after a while they become horribly bored and depressed, and you know that would happen to you too.
And then when the bikers show up, I love the way the movie forces you to side with our heroes, as if the mall is "theirs" just because they broke in first. And at least they are more protective of the resources, they're not just going from place to place wasting everything. At least not as quickly as the bikers are.
Somebody even had the nerve to criticize the music!? I don't think you were talking about the Goblin score, so I won't blow a gasket. But the canned music of triumph used at the end is clearly ironic. They use this goofy music because Peter has decided not to kill himself and instead make a heroic escape, but you still know he's in a helicopter with limited fuel and there's nowhere to go. Don't think it works? Fine, but I cannot fucking BELIEVE you just complained about the end credits music (unless I misunderstood you). I ain't budging on this one, the end credits are a fuckin masterpiece. The silly muzak song (I believe it's called "The Gonk") playing, with zombie moaning audible beneath as they continue to stumble through the mall. And then the song ends and all you hear is the zombies and some bells ringing for the last minute or so of the credits. You don't even like THAT? I have one question about that: WHAT IN GOD'S NAME IS WRONG WITH YOU? Show you guys the fuckin Mona Lisa of end credits and you complain because the smile is too ambiguous.
And what in the hell is so wrong with the pie fight? The pie fight is genius. For the movie, Tom Savini and his team came up with a million great ways to kill and abuse zombies. No other zombie movie has come close, and would not be allowed to since nobody is willing to go unrated anymore. One of the reasons the movie hits so close to home is because of the way the people come up with stupid ways to play with the zombies, including knocking them over ledges and throwing pies at them (or in the remake the shooting contests they have with them). One way they deal with this disaster is by further de-humanizing the zombies. Or are they de-humanizing themselves? That's one of the many questions in the movie.
I suppose some of you are pulling that "fast zombies are better because they are faster" horse shit so let me explain to you why you are missing the point. Romero's zombies aren't SUPPOSED to be the biggest baddest monster you ever faced, that's a Zack Snyder Generation way of seeing things. The fact that you can "beat 'em or burn 'em, they go up real quick" is irrelevant to the fact that they are scary. They are scary because they were humans, because they are endless, because you can never kill all of them. Facing off one is easy, being surrounded by them is a problem. Kill the hundreds of zombies in the parking lot, there will be more the next day. And because of that you'll never get your job at the TV station back. This is your life now, killing zombies until they kill you.
The "scary" in Dawn of the Dead is more of the ol' existentialist dread. It's the scary that the whole world has gone to shit, that there is no hope of a solution, that nobody even knows what anybody else in the world is doing about it. It is a movie that begins and ends in chaos, with no hope, with the status quo nowhere in sight.
Again, I like the remake. I even bought the DVD, Thunderballs be damned. It's a fun movie. But the original is more fun, and more original, and much more thoughtful. It's a god damn unequivocal masterpiece, if you ask me. Which you didn't, but I don't give a fuck, I'm sayin it anyway. the end. (or is it?) -
...the original DOTD was more "original" than the newer one? BRILLIANT! Thanks for the preaching, reverend, but I'll take the Shoot-The-Celebrity Look-Alike game over the Pie-In-The-Zombie-Face-Fight any day.
-
CHASTAIN: I mostly agree with you there. I am not saying Zack Snyder is responsible for the style over substance, obviously. But I do think he's the perfect symbol because he's just so good at it, and because every movie nerd web sight I know is "creaming its pants" over the movie without any reservation at all.
POTSMOKINALIEN: That's exactly what I wonder. As fun as DOTD remake is, you gotta wonder how you could make a movie about that after 9-11 that has no sign that it was made after 9-11. And I think even more so with 300, because Snyder is American and we've been in two wars for four god damn years, and yet I get a feeling that in his mind there is NO connection in his mind between the movie and what's going on in the real world, even when he has a character saying "freedom isn't free." I have heard that many right wingers have latched onto the movie, and I don't blame them, I'd probaly do the same thing if I saw my politics in the movie. But I really think he didn't mean the movie to be political, and didn't realize it would be taken that way. Which is pretty thick.
FRIJOLE: Point taken, but to me there's alot more to the movie than what you're talking about (see my second post for details).
BIGGLES: Fair enough. Didn't mean to call everybody brainless, so I apologize. But there definitely is a brainless generation out there, they actually admire Paris Hilton and they are closer to their cell phones than to their parents, I've seen them before. I guess I am trying to connect those people to the trends I see here on The Ain't It Cool and similar web sights, and you're right, I'm probaly stretchin it, and definitely exaggerating.
TROUTEPENCIL: Good point about Karate Kid 2.
Maybe I misjudged Zack Snyder, I hope so. But Potsmokinalien I think hit the nail on the head. It would be hard to make movies about these topics so substance-free unless you either were trying to or were really, really shallow. But we'll see when he makes more movies.
Anyway thanks for the comments everybody, sorry to be polluting the talkbacks with so much grey. -
Yeah, but to me most of those characters seem like movie types, not people. In the original, like I said, they behave more like real people than most movie characters. "Asshole cappucino guy" is exactly right. Good point about speaking over the dry erase boards, that was my favorite part of the movie. But I felt like it had way less of that humanity than the original.
Biggles, you're not being fair bud. The remake is totally different from the original, it doesn't even take place in a mall for the most part. It's a completely different set of characters, the zombies are completely different, almost none of the same things happen, which is why some of you can love it and hate the original, and vice versa. For the remake they had many clever things they added, but it ends up feeling like a mishmash of various movies we are all familiar with. A good mishmash, but not the wholly unique creation that the original is.
It's a valid point bud and I accept your apology in advance, thank you for being a gentleman about it.
thanks buds. -
If by "apology" you mean give-up, then ok. I was trying to make you understand, without preaching, that both movies had creative lunacy (although the pie thingy was too silly for my taste, pun intended). And your sermon on how unoriginal the remake is falls a lil' flat as the remake, or re-imaging is exactly that. BTW Did you find Batman Begins as uninspiring as the original Adam West Batman from the 70's? THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE 70'S VERSION DOESN'T HAVE IT'S PLACE! There, hopefully, I've made my point a little clearer. I apologize if did not do that before. Please don't begrudge my gentlemanly behavior as, hopefully, it gives you something to aspire to.
-
...but I don't see how you can say the original movie works. It's not a horror movie because it's not scary. It actually works better as a comedy movie than a horror movie, but since it's only mildly amusing, it's not much of a comedy. The pokes at society are too on the nose to make it a true commentary on society. Frankly, when I watched it for the first time, I felt REALLY let down. All my friends raved about it as one of the best movies ever. I think people just have that nostalgia factor that they enjoyed it so much as kids. I mean, I enjoyed a lot of movies that turned out were pretty bad. That doesn't mean I don't still enjoy them, but I can recognize that they're bad. And to the A-hole that threw out the 'people today don't think' garbage: A) well at least we still have you to tell us how retarded we are, since you're such a deep thinker. B) people are entitled to their opinions. If I had a choice between watching the new version or the original, I'll watch the new one any day of the week. It's endlessly more entertaining. And to call the original a drama now instead of a horror movie is like the Bush administration saying now we're in Iraq for this reason, not WMD's. You're just changing the genre because frankly it doesn't work as a horror movie. The new version worked as horror, comedy, action. The point is it worked.
-
We'll always have the snobs (like Jack Black's record store clerk from Hi Fidelity) to deal with. Unfortunately, for many of them, DOTD was their first brush with the message behind the horror film concept and they've just not been able to get over it. It's kinda sad really. Poor little guys.
-
I enjoyed DAWN of THE DEAD 2004, but in all honesty, watching it just made me want to see the original again...and watch Peter, Roger, Fran, and Steven, battle marauding cycle gangs, renegade policemen, the hungry living dead, and each other as they tried to survive in a world gone mad.
Peter: "What do you say? Go for it, or bag it?
Rodger: "I need lighter fluid."
Peter: "You got it."
I wanted to see the familiar bites, disembowelments, and the multiple gunshot wounds to the head.... I wanted to marvel at Savini's artistry once again and chuckle at the tempera paint red of the blood.
DAWN has became an exercise in nostalgia. Like a walk through of your favorite elaborate neighborhood haunted house. The zombies were mostly simply painted a bluish gray and the gore worked in a midnight movie shock-um way.
But (and here's where Zach can really benefit) it was Romero's storytelling that has stuck. It always has. The thrilling tale of 4 humans trying to survive, and trying to find a reason to even bother surviving in a fallen monument to mindlessness. But even beyond all that. There is a human story there. Roger and Peter, Fran and Steven, their relationships and their fears, their loves and their hopes...we got to know them, and by the gore drenched conclusion, we joined them in that mall.
"You know Macumba? Voodoo? Granddad was a priest in Trinidad. He used to tell us, when there's no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth."
-
Give it three movies to tell the story. Truthfully, it should be a miniseries on HBO.
-
Is that the answer for every movie that's gonna clock over 3 Hours? F$#K that! Lord of the Rings woulda made a great miniseries on HBO, thank god it wasn't.
-
Not only is RE already doing this, Steve Niles' couple-year old miniseries REMAINS is about a guy and a girl in a post-zombified Las Vegas. Could they not get a script outta Niles?
-
I've got to be loyal to the original if only because it was my gateway drug into the whole zombie movie genre. I love the characters and yes I can even get over the pies in the face because those same zombies who were pied end up getting some sembalance of revenege later on. The remake is a fun movie and runnning zombies are pretty damn freaky.
-
It's just that the elements that you map out in the original are, I think, on par with similar (if not totally paralleled) elements in the "remake". Another post-er listed out several characters and moments and character moments in the remake that I think rival, if not surpass, those same types of developments/moments in the original. Again, not to totally dog the original either... I DO like the movie a great deal. I just find that generally those that regard it on such a higher plateau... usually do so without really thinking and while parroting the (to me) tired old "but that one MEANT something" argument.
-
Mr.T should be a vampire lord who teaches them all respect. And we all know that you can't spell respect without T.
-
...this is going to be another one of those movies we just disagree on.I think you know me well enough to know that a.)I'm not a product of the ADD/MTV generation. And, b.) I'm not one of the "running zombies=scarier zombies" crowd.I just like the remake better than the original in this instance. And it's because I think Snyder handles his social commentary in a much more sophisticated/competent manner than Romero did.Let me throw this in context. For my money, the best zombie movie ever made was Romero's original Night. It was pure, simple, minimalist, immersive horror that happened to carry societal undertones to the extent that a.) any movie about zombies is a movie about why people choose to do the things they do and b.) the best guy for the lead role happens to be a black guy who looks so run down by the movie's end that he's killed by a southern-seeming cop who may or may not have been able to tell Ben wasn't a zombie. That's it, so far as the social commentary in that movie goes. And it works in that a.) it doesn't get in the way of telling a good, scary story and b.) it leaves you thinking about those things even though it didn't spend the whole movie hitting you over the head with them.On to Romero's Dawn. It was a confused film. It wanted to be funny, yet it wanted to be important. It wanted to be scary, yet it wanted to make a larger social statement about consumerism (and when has anyone ever successfully scared a consumer off of consuming? if the label on the cigarettes saying: This will kill you isn't enough, nothing will be). It wanted to be a zombie movie, but it also wanted to be Assault on Precinct 13 (which was, arguably, a zombie move...but that's neither here nor there). There was not an ounce of subtlety or finesse in the combination of these elements and, as such, the resulting film is kind of a mess (not at all unlike the two that followed in the series). It sure isn't scary.Snyder took that premise (you know, the beautiful thing about a movie concerning end-of-the-world undead consumers attacking a mall?) and left it totally intact but also decided to make a scary movie out of it. In the process, he managed to touch on a lot of fun stuff to make you think. For instance, why would a group of people trapped in a mall with guns start singling out celebrity look-alikes for their sniping game? What does the presence of elevator sanitized rock n' roll say about the inevitability of entropy and decay and what should that have been telling our main characters about the futility of their stuggle, both for power within the mall and to survive and escape into a world where the inevitable is in full swing?You can prefer your Romero original all you want and I'm all five flavors of cool with that. But when you start knocking the remake and those who prefer it for some perceived inability to think or appreciate more complex issues, well, that's when I wonder if you're the same Vern I've come to know.And, you'll note, that's where I start having issues with any of Romero's undie hardest of fans. It's when they start telling people "You didn't get it" or "there must be something wrong with you for liking the remake better." Nope. I got it all just fine and I'm fit as a fiddle. The original just didn't do a thing for me. The remake did.
-
I wrote a full fledged essay about ten or twelve of the reasons why I love Dawn of the Dead, all you picked out was the two words "more original" to tear me apart. And it sounds like you don't even realize that I like the remake, even though I mentioned it several times already. Now Jimmy informs me that Dawn of the Dead simply "doesn't work" because it doesn't fit his formula of the particular genre he assigns it to because it has zombies in it. Which it seems to me should obviously a point in its favor. Oh boo hoo, I don't know which section to put it in at Blockbuster, it must not be good.
I don't know man, it seems to me like this is only proving my earlier point that there is a huge generation or some other kind of gap going on here. I pour my heart out about why I love this movie and all I get is "sigh." Well fine then, I give up like Peter did in the original ending before they changed it and added that goofy music that the one guy hated so much. No matter how hard I try they keep coming, there is no hope in a world of zombies or in a talkback. (bang.) -
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. But again, I like the remake. I apologize if I insulted anybody's intelligence just on the basis of liking or not liking one of these. I don't mean to attack the remake (which I have defended from that Thunderballs dude more than once). What set me off was all these people saying that the original is not good, in fact that it's really bad, that it doesn't stand up and that anybody who likes it is a purist or nostalgic pretending to think it's deep. Fuck that, that's bullshit, I think it is pretty clear that it's a masterpiece and I think I did a decent job of laying out many of the reasons why. I guess I go into get off my lawn mode when I see so many presumably younger people writing off a great fucking movie as a piece of trash.
So let's leave it at that, sorry for the negativity and please accept my praise for this movie as my main point.
By the way, I will watch this other Zack Snyder zombie movie if he makes it. It could be good but I'm betting not Romero good. -
If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have gone back and re-watched the original TCM and TCM2 (the latter of which has become my very favorite installment in that mythos). So I'm always open to different perspectives on movies.I really do think Snyder and Romero were trying to do different things with the premise and direct comparisons of the films are bound to ruffle somebody's feathers.For me, it's bad enough comparing newer Romero to older Romero (I've got Night on a pretty high pedestal).
-
.. and just take them for what they are, entertainment. If you look into any movie deep enough you'll find some sort of incedential commentry, the thing with the original DOTD it was so blatant and in your face as to render it comical and romeros land was just pure over the top social commentary. I think Jacks remake works so much better cause the zombies are now scarey motherfuckers and not the slow ass blue faced piece of crap that romero portrays them as, the original has dated beyond watchfulness although the opening panic scenes are still great, i think its time to lodge romero and his movies into "were great at the time, but you had to be there" drawer, to me it lost its "classic" status when a far superior remake came out and trounced it in every way
-
John C couldnt of made that movie any better, its perfect bar a few ropy effects but the majority of the effects still stand up, the characters, tension and acting along with genuine fear is still as good now as it was then, DOTD is laughable in comparison to the Thing, now that there making a remake of thing, i cant wait, im not gonna go all fanboy and get pissed cause there remaking my fav horror movie, heck im hoping its gonna be better than the original, fingers crossed. But DOTD just doesnt cut it in the 21st century, the remake does but i dare say not one person will disagree when saying that the Thing still stands the test of time
-
Original "Dawn": Yes, Zombies walking around the mall look like Joe Blow walking around the mall. We got that in five seconds of footage. You know, I wouldn't be so bitter about "Dawn" if I hadn't seen "Land," which exposed the man behind the curtain. "Night" is a classic, but in this case lightning struck once. P.S. FAO Vern: Pie fight.
-
is that you don't know what you're getting into. It's a genre film, and that usually means there's a certain formula. However, Romero already created the formula in Night (which was a lot closer to the remake than the original Dawn was), so he decides not to repeat himself. I was completely thrown off by the movie when I first saw it, which is why I like it. It wasn't what I expected. For example, I expected a showdown between the helicopter pilot and the cops. The helicopter pilot would have been an incompitent asshole who eventually is responsible for letting the zombies into the mall and then there's some sort of final showdown or the zombies kill him. That's what would have happened in just about any other movie. However, in Romero's film, the pilot is incompitent only because he's not used to these situations but he grows and starts to take on responsibilities he didn't have before the apocalypse. He's a real person, not a plot point. There are a million more examples of why Romero isn't making a "genre" film (at least as that is used in a pejorative sense) and instead is making a real movie. While watching the original Dawn I ask myself what I would have done in their situation, but in just about any other zombie film I just wonder who's going to die next.
-
To say that he's all style and no substance you obviously haven't been watching the films or listening to the commentaries. Dawn '04 was good and fresh. We all know how most remakes go. Just about everyone I've talked to liked it. Even people who just casually watch films. And I don't know what was going through some of your fucking heads as a kid, but the original Dawn sucked. I'm not a fucking teenager. I didn't see Dawn or Day until I was 26. And those movies were just shit. I didn't have some gore fetish or being trapped in a mall as a kid fetish so maybe that's why I just watch them as they are. And hating Snyder for remaking Romero's shit movie is dumb in itself. They were different takes on the same general subject. If Snyder has just copied Romero, you would have bitched about that too. You can't have it both ways. His visual style helped with the lack of story (they're stuck in a mall) and the small budget. That takes some creativity. Snyder is on a roll so I hope he keeps on making good films as oppossed to all the Rob Zombie's and Michael Bay's out there. Even better is that he could probably get whatever gig he wants, but still wants to make another zombie film. Fuck the haters. Go lock yourselves in your rooms hugging your super deluxe edition of a 20 year old, blue-faced, pie-throwing, biker-gang, horribly acted Dawn, sit in the corner and cry. I want to see films that the people making them care more about the film and not more about their ego.
-
To say that he's all style and no substance you obviously haven't been watching the films or listening to the commentaries. Dawn '04 was good and fresh. We all know how most remakes go. Just about everyone I've talked to liked it. Even people who just casually watch films. And I don't know what was going through some of your fucking heads as a kid, but the original Dawn sucked. I'm not a fucking teenager. I didn't see Dawn or Day until I was 26. And those movies were just shit. I didn't have some gore fetish or being trapped in a mall as a kid fetish so maybe that's why I just watch them as they are. And hating Snyder for remaking Romero's shit movie is dumb in itself. They were different takes on the same general subject. If Snyder has just copied Romero, you would have bitched about that too. You can't have it both ways. His visual style helped with the lack of story (they're stuck in a mall) and the small budget. That takes some creativity. Snyder is on a roll so I hope he keeps on making good films as oppossed to all the Rob Zombie's and Michael Bay's out there. Even better is that he could probably get whatever gig he wants, but still wants to make another zombie film. Fuck the haters. Go lock yourselves in your rooms hugging your super deluxe edition of a 20 year old, blue-faced, pie-throwing, biker-gang, horribly acted Dawn, sit in the corner and cry. I want to see films that the people making them care more about the film and not more about their ego.
-
I think your review of "The Secret" is the best thing you've ever written, a veritable magnum opus of Geocities journalism.
-
posted before you guys
-
Double post.
-
if i gotta listen to a commentary to learn what a movie was trying to communicate, i am gonna consider that movie (or at least that aspect of it i need to watch the commentary to learn about) a failure.
what you dont say but i think you would agree with is that dudicand's made 2 movies so far, and one of them has been in release for a week, so it is as premature for me to say 'this man does not put substance in his films as a rule' as it is for you to say 'synder is on a roll'... even though, based solely on what little evidence presented, we are both kinda right at this point. -
I went and saw it with my brother's free tickets.
It took me by surprise how good this film was. Would like to see the Z do another one.
By the way.
Best use of a J.Cash song ever. -
I get that Hopper and those living in the Green (???) are the bad guys (i.e. rich white people, most likely Republicans), who are oppressing the people on the street. That's very profound. But even if the movie were good leading up to the end, the end is complete shit, and it overrides all else. Again, why would this Riley guy let the super-smart zombie leader live when he had a chance to kill him? Riley surveiled him earlier, so he must recognize him as some sort of evolving leader. The smart thing to do would be to destroy that threat immediately, lest it spread and then the living would be even more screwed. And yes, I realize that I let that bother me too much, but up to that point, I felt I was just watching another bad-mediocre movie. After that moment of idiocy, however, I hated it. And again, its the reason Riley let him go that makes it so insulting and stupid -- 'the zombies are just trying to find their way in the world, just like us'. Their way? WTF? Their way is to kill and eat any living person they encounter. That moment called for a little less social commentary, and a little more violence and destruction.
-
Yeah, I forgot about "28 Days Later", where the living did seem to have a handle on the situation, at least outside of Britain anyway.
-
...it's John Ford's THE SEARCHERS mixed with DAWN. We thought HARDCORE was THE SEARCHERS in pornland, until we got out of film school and realized that it was in fact THE SEARCHERS in Paul-Schrader-Is-Fucked-In-The-Head-Land.
-
Damned straight I would have gone to a Mall if I was a zombie or a survivor. Hell, I went to the mall anyway. You could walk around and nobody was sure whether you were supposed to be there or not. They had cool record stores like MusicLand. For those of us with literary inclinations, they had book stores although you had to make sure that the other kids didn't see you going in or out of one. There were lots of chicks. See, the zombies weren't so dumb. Like, the mall was a bad thing. I think malls were probably to the 70s and 80s what the malt shops and drive-ins were to the 50s. You couldn't do that today. Hole up in a mall and whaddya got? Fuckin' wireless kiosks everywhere. What're you going to do? Text a fuckin' zombie? "Dude, u + me et brains." Last time I went to the mall, they didn't even have a music store because everybody just downloads shit or if they buy a CD they get it from Amazon or something. It's sad because there's no place for the zombies to hang out. They'd all just sit at their computers or something.
-
...or more derivative, it would've been the theatrical equivalent of a retarded ten year old screaming the "Orange you glad I didn't say banana?" knock-knock joke over a loud speaker ina bowling alley.I suspect Romero and I probably agree on a lot of the things we percieve as wrong with the world, but he can't seem to understand the use of allegory or innuendo to get a point across.Skyflowers. Ooooh!Plus, he buttfucked three of my favorite movies in patching together the shit-stained quilt of a story to frame his commentary: Escape From New York (essentially the entire character arc for the hero and the inspirations for much of his supporting cast), Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (for the big arena-fight set piece, complete with annoying midget who runs bartertown) and Stripes ("It's an Urban Assault Vehicle"). And these things, I do not forgive...I don't care how damned much I loved your first zombie movie.Oh, and I would agree that The Thing definitely stands the test of time. It maintains the theme of paranoia and subversive infiltration (a commentary on communism in the original) while layering in some class issues (the black guys got no respect at that station and the captain was both aloof and incompetent) without getting in the way of a balls-to-the-wall claustrophobic survival horror fest. Number one in my top-five horror films of all time (with Romero's Night taking a close second).
-
I mean, read some of those talkbacks above, you know I'm at least *partly* right. "Why do we have to read so much shit into movies, and just take them for what they are, entertainment." Exactly my point, I am talking about people who WOULD RATHER not have to think about movies. This is exactly the divide I'm talking about, Bongo123 is mad that we are even talking about the meaning behind a movie. Look, I liked TRANSPORTER 2, I'm not saying dumb movies can't be good. But you can't eat cotton candy for every meal is my point. Or if you want to I don't really get you.
And for the thirty-eighth fucking time, I liked the remake. Who are these "haters" you are angry at? I think almost everyone here agreed that the remake was fun, what I was disagreeing with was this horse shit about the original being bad or obsolete. -
He's in the catbird seat right now, bay-bee. He's getting sent everything and can hire his buddies to write anything he wants. It's like how everyday we see a story about a new movie that Scorsese/DiCaprio/Monahan are doing. They aren't going to do them all. Only Spielberg makes all the movies he says he will and sometimes that takes years.
-
...Of course, I didn't see it.I'm just jerkin' yer chain...I did see it. No, I know you liked it and I didn't see it.
-
to me than the orignal. I keep reading that DOTD had all the substance and DOTD 2004 was only glossy action. I just don't get that. To me DOTD 04 and its cousin 28 Days Later are the two Post-9/11 horror films of our time. Romero's DOTD is one of my all time favourites since I saw it on VHS in the mid-80s, but it is commenting on the social upheaval of the Vietnam/Civil Rights Movement era. The ironic satire of materialism is funny but not the main point of Romero's zombie trilogy. In all of Romero's films the zombies are not the real problem, the conflict between the living is the problem. The zombie outbreak is just the mechanism for exposing the disharmony which Romero sees in america/humanity. In each of his movies if the living could just cooperate then the zombie plague would be over in no time. Vern hits it on the head when he points out that DOTD begins with the authorities screwing up left and right and capable people dodging responsiblity to save their own hide. DOTD doesn't begin with a zombie attack, it begins with a police shootout with ethnic minority radicals. The cops have racists in their ranks who shoot hispanics for no reason. Only after that do the zombies show up. Even when the heroes get to the shopping mall they easily wipe out the zombies in the mall. You feel like with another dozen survivors they could purge all of Philly of zombies. But again the violent bikers show up to create havoc and get themselves killed too in the process. Romero's films are great but they are consistently pessimistic in their view of humanity and especially america. They present argument and conflict as our natural state rather than cooperation and compromise. In Snyder's DOTD '04 the threat is external. People do the best they can to deal with the danger and yet they lose out because it simply isn't in their power to overcome such a catastrophe. Snyder acknowledges racism in his movie (overtly with CJ's character, subtly with the burning wrecks on the roads & people pulled from their cars recalling the LA riots/Reginald Denny), but he also recognizes that americans aren't automatically at each others' throats, especially when confronted with a danger that is bigger than us. The thing that DOTD 04 captures is the feeling you had on 9/11 when you woke up expecting just another day and then you discovered that while you were sleeping suddenly the whole nation was thrown into chaos. This was especially true on the PST zone out west where it was like being hit with a sledgehammer. Suddenly the racial divisiveness of previous generations, or even of the 90s, seemed trivial disputes compared to a jihad of psychotic maniacs who can't be reasoned with hell bent on killing as many americans as possible. This world turned upside down from which there is no escape even if we try to work together (Flight 93) is a lot more powerful and relevant to me than Romero's commentary on the civil disorder of the 60s/70s.
-
Everytime I see Znyder's name, I think of the heat Jan DeBont had behind him after Speed and Twister, or Emmerich and ID4. It's the same noise, just a different decade.When I see numerous deals in a row like this, I wonder how secure Watchmen is. The neo-Alice In Wonderland deal was one thing, but we're now up to one a week. Most of these never get off the ground, so besides the studio money, what the hell is the point?
-
..it just seems that everyone and there dog reads so much into romeros DOTD that it borders on fanatism, heck one of the reasons that the movie is held in such high esteme by its fans is this social commentary that runs through the movie, a commentary that is so in your face obvious to render it mute in my book, infact i didnt think you could get more obvious until i had the misfortune to watch Land. Romero hit some nails on the head with Dawn, like the sense of panic and urgency and total collapse of society in his opening 5mins, that opening still sends a chill up my spine (like the opening of 28days later) there have been few to capture the feeling of hopelessness as well as romero did but the in your face social commentary, the horrible acting, cheesey lines and completely unimtimidating zombies are what ruined the rest of the movie for me when watched recently. The movie just doesnt cut it today, and to call it a classic horror does a complete disservice to actual classic horrors which by there very nature should be just as watchable today as when they scared the shit outa of us kids, i.e. The Thing, Alien, Halloween, American werewolf in london etc, those movies may have the odd moment but would still entertain a kid today wereas DOTD would have them rolling in the ailse in laughter. But hey we all got our favourite movies and DOTD used to be one of mine but i find it real hard to watch now after Jack's remake which is infinetly more enjoyable.
-
It's perfect satire. The fact that they used cheezy mall-muzak also makes me giggle.
-
Walter: good post. I don't really get most of that out of the remake, but you make some good points. Maybe if the characters felt more real to me then I would connect to all that more.
My question for you, do you think Snyder thought or cared about any of that? Not that it's relevant to the movie itself, but it is to what to expect out of him in the future. I didn't think much of it the first time around but after 300, where I think all politics are completely by accident, that's when I started thinking the guy was hollow. And the fact that he doesn't want to update this "Watchmen" story to be about the war on terror sounds good, but taken alongside the other two movies I suspect it's really because he doesn't give a shit what anything is ABOUT, he just wants to dress people like some guys he saw in a comic book and see how AWESOME they look.
Bongo: thanks for the clarification bud. I do agree with you on all those other movies you mentioned being classics. But I guess I just can't agree with you on Dawn. I do not see where you're coming from with these claims that the acting is horrible, that there are "cheesy lines," etc., or especially that the remake is better in those respects. Ving Rhames and Sarah Polley are both great in the remake and help to elevate it, but alot of the other characters aren't as good and nobody's as memorable as Ken Foree as Peter.
And by the way, you can't use those examples and then use kids not liking Dawn of the Dead as evidence. Kids (some of them in their 20s) now claim that the effects in The Thing are cheesy. Kids today will watch Alien vs. Predator before they'll watch Alien, and there are even many reasonable adults who don't appreciate the genius of Alien anymore because they are so into Aliens. I say fuck 'em, they're wrong. But thanks for the debate, bud. -
Am i the only one who thinks, what with the success of 300 and the vivid CGI used therein, that that type of technology might be used to make a fairly good adaption of Steohen King's Dark Tower Series?
-
I was going to go on and on about how the remake was like saved by the bell and original is degrassi jr high. But it really is just about the message of both the movies. The remake, 300 and Sin City although they may be pretty flashing pictures sends out the message that in my opinion promotes fear under the guise of manliness instead of celebrating manhood
-
You perfectly summarize Romero's ultimate point in Dawn, but then you clam that the generic monster movie "external threat" Snyder version is more relevant? How does THAT work? Romero's is about how societies actually die, and Snyder's is just an Irwin Allen disaster movie, by the terms of your very analysis. How can "Zombie Poseidon Adventure" be the more relevant film?
-
So no one give me this "which one works better as a horror film" crap. DOTD 2004 is an action film, and a damn good one. But it's not scary.
-
He really is not that good.
-
"But as a remake it forces you to compare it to the original DAWN OF THE DEAD, which was a no win situation for him"
Then why do it? Why not instead come up with an ORIGINAL idea and do that, instead of riding Romero's coat tails? Oh, not not nearly enough talent. A zobmie-flick-loving friend and I sat down and filled eight PAGES with mistakes, screwups, and general "what was the director thinking of?" comments vis the remake. It was pretty bad. From fast zombies (hunh?!) to incredibly stupid 'heroes', to a 'plot' that's merely a string connecting the chain of huge holes ... just awful from one end to the other. -
is another zombie movie.
-
The Mountain Dew version of Dawn of the Dead was brainless, silly and completely forgettable. I saw it once in the theater and had a really good time. I went into it expecting a travesty and was very relieved at what Snyder accomplished. It was fast-paced and the colors were pretty. It was certainly not a zombie/horror film but I didn't hold that against it. After 28 DAYS LATER I was open to the idea of a zombie/action film. Upon viewing it a 2nd and 3rd time however, the whole thing collapses. I don't blame Snyder for this, I blame Gunn. There is no heart in the film; just half-baked archetypes and juvenile motivations. It is nothing more than a Troma movie with a higher budget. The original DOTD has stood up for decades and is still relevent and irreverent. Romero has a strong and individual voice. All you twerps need to go back and watch KNIGHTRIDERS, MARTIN and MONKEY SHINES before you slag on Romero. He made these fucking films on HIS terms...that takes balls. For Romero to accomplish what he did is very VERY hard. Pandering to the moronic action-starved hordes is very VERY easy.
-
Snyder was a director-for-hire on DOTD '04. It was not an auteur film, not something he financed himself and dreamed of for years beforehand. The triumph in the movie... is that he took what could have and SHOULD HAVE been a total fucking trainwreck and made a damn good zombie movie out of it. The fact that it wasn't "original" is irrelevant... Where, by studio standards, only COMPETENSE was required, he actually showed TALENT and made the very best out of the oppurtunity that he'd been given. Now, had he taken the job after a string of other successful movies, then I could see your point, but as it stands... I don't.
-
Let's end on this absurdist note, shall we?
-
Get all goth on us, guys. I love the way that white on black theme looks in the comments that the inner circle leave, so from now on, when you post an Obit, use the white on black. It screams "mourning."
-
point is obvious; however, in all of the talkbacks I've never heard anyone mention the reason behind the montage of each character living his or her life in the mall. It's not just about consumerism, but about the need for humanity to work towards something better than himself. Each character seems empty as they live each life because they live in a world where everything is given to them. In fact, the happiest the characters seem is when they are planning to wall off the mall from the zombies. This speaks to a profound human need, but no one in these talkbacks has even mentioned it. In fact, I've heard movie lovers talk about other aspects of the film that haven't been touched upon here. While the basic anti-consumerism message is obvious, there are plenty of layers to the film that many viewers just don't get, or don't care to take the time to get. Sure, the basic message is simple, but there's a lot more than just the basic message. The reason I can watch this film again and again, and the remake is a one shot deal, because there's no depth to the remake.
-
He's the wrong director for Watchmen. "300" was a fun action movie that didn't really require a director of great depth. "Dawn of the Dead" exceeded the original in terms of raw entertainment value, which was no small feat. Watchmen is an epic drama. After Children of Men, my money would be on Alfonso Cuaron to do justice to the graphic novel. Or maybe Ridley Scott, if he's not too spent. I'm hoping Snyder has something in him we haven't seen yet because Watchmen is NOT an overextended music video at all. It's great science fiction/adventure drama; honestly the script should just be lifted directly from the book. No horrible Hollywood re-writes (a la the weak adaptation that was V for Vendetta, which was a disaster). A great song for the Watchmen: "I Saved the World Today" by Eurythmics. Listen to it, Mr. Snyder. It's thematically right in tune with the source.
-
Nice work. I really thought you were a total douchebag from everything ive read up to this thread.... But I learned a lot about you tonight and think you are right on point with everything you said on this TB. I've actually been real worried that Hollywood is going to start re-making stuff like "Close Encounters" or "Jaws" just to dumb them down so this new generation won't have to watch smart movies again... It's depressing watching something like "Rob Zombie's Halloween" actually being made when the original is the perfect and king of all horror movies... Why? So that hack fuck can dumb it down, show more tits and blood and make a dime? depressing...
-
if you can't even spell... just kidding dude. i really liked the remake, but the characters were a little cliche in my opinion. visually, it was great, and there were a lot of great moments. the original however holds a special place in my heart. i think the characters are what make it great, they don't seem cookie cutter. i like the pilot, the crazy guy who gets bit and gets wheeled around in a wheelbarrow. i think there was some commentary about women in our society, they talk about her getting an abortion like she's not standing in front of them. later on she wants to learn to fly the helicopter. i thought the open ending was really good, cause she's pregnant, so should we be hopeful, or feel bad cause the kid is going to be born in such a messed up world? it's a lot more thought provoking than the zombie baby, although that was an entertaining moment.
the remake doesn't have any of that, or at least none of it stuck with me. what stuck with me from the remake was stuff like the zombie girl's attack in the beginning of the movie, moments like that. they're 'wow that was cool', but they don't resonate.
i'm assuming that vern hasn't read watchmen, but it's about a lot more than cool costumes or whatever. it will show if snyder is capable of depth in his films or if he's all surface. it's still too early to judge him. -
to the poster above me, who cares what classics they remake, as long as the movie brings something to the table, like a new angle etc it can be all good, we got some great remakes of films, they arnt fanfuckingtastic but certainly enjoyable, DOTD, Hills have Eyes, Texas Chainsaw.. to name a few, all watchable films, granted we also got the Fog but hey... cant have everything. I'm all for remakes, take a classic story, throw in some cool new sfx modern setting and hey presto... new film to enjoy for years to come. Classics will always have a place in my heart but theres plenty room for a good remake.... *please for the love of god dont fuck up the Thing*
-
n i first heared that they were remaking dawn i was disgusted, appalled and pissed as fuck in general. however, curiosity go the better of me and i went it see it...then again...and again...then again...till i eventually saw it theatricaly times. i was so appy he made DAWN his own as much as he could. it could have been called anything else, cuz i saw it and realized the only connection between the original and his version was the mall. it had new characters, new zombies, new situations...it was NEW. it didnt feel like a remake. i mean, look at the remake of psycho...all they did was add a masterbation scene and headphones...bullshit. snyder made dawn his own film and that made me repect it. he could have done a shot for shot remake like so many other directors but he didnt. he put his stamp on it and made a fast, fun and gory fuckn zombie flick and i give him props for that. all in all, i cant even imagine what he has in store for Army of the Dead..bring it the fuck on snyder
-
Because it was so boring and scare-free you had plenty of time to soak in the "social commentary." Like Roland said, "Rich white people...bad! Poor street folk...good!" The hero's solution? Let the zombies "find their way," i.e., eat the rich and the poor, and then haul ass to Canada in your tricked out RV. Um, OK.
-
'cause it's meaty and there's a lot to chew on. By the way, I know I'm a pussy, but I thought Max Headroom's death scene was really touching. Anyone? "You want every minute." I credit Mr. Zack with getting a lot of nice human performances on film, along with exploding craniums.
-
"Classics will always have a place in my heart but theres plenty room for a good remake...."
Considering how many thousands of novels and short stories are out there, begging to be made into good films, just redoing what someone else has already done very nicely seems pointless. Why not do something else? -
Frijole - He may have been a "director-for-hire", but directors still wield enormous power. He cound, and SHOULD have ordered huge rewrites. For example, just to touch a few...
- who the heck was that little girl (the neighbour?) and how did she get in the house without anyone hearing her break in the door?
- how did the woman get the car started? She was in her bedclothes. Does she keep a spare set of keys in her lingerie?
- how does a zombie manage to keep up with a fast-moving car?
- why go to the mall? No reason given other than it's in the script
- once there ... throw a toilet through the glass door?!?! First, where did the toilet come from? Second, that puts a hole in your defenses. DUMB.
No sign of any planning or thinking things through on the part of the characters. Hey! Let's leave our fortress for no good reason and wind up where zombies can chomp on us (who didn't see it coming, EXCEPT the main characters?). Dumb dumb dumb ... -
One of these days I'm gonna fall into your trap, I'm gonna defend the PSYCHO remake and then I'm REALLY gonna fuckin get it from you guys.
Ah, fuck it. Let me just say this. Shotgun Slinger says Snyder "could have done a shot for shot remake like so many other directors but he didnt." That's not true though because NOBODY does shot for shot remakes. Van Sant came the closest and that's why that movie is worthwhile, because it's a crazy fuckin approach nobody else has tried. It's a weird experiment and I'm glad he did it. And that's all I will say because I have to go into my panic room now. So long. -
Zing.
-
remake of Dawn was better than the original. I would actually argue that it is a different film entirely. It is fast, loud, dopey fun- whereas the original was cereberal and a cultural comment. Totally different.
-
So sorry I missed it.Some nice points made, both for and against subtext. For me, flawed as the original is, I'll take Dawn version 1 over version 2 just because it made the effort to have some subtext. Sure, Romero tends to be heavy-handed, but bless the guy for trying. Just like almost any meal can be improved with the addition of cheese, most films are better with a little substance. Also, cheese.That said, I don't think this Snyder guy is an idiot. Like others have said, to make films like Dawn and 300 with no trace of subtext whatsoever (not even by accident) suggests he's deliberately going for, as the Manics might say, all surface, no feeling. Not there's anything wrong with that, but his films feel more disposable to me because of it. Fun rides, nothing more.
-
They were plot conveniences (and some were simply the acts of desperate people in panic situations... who can't be expected to think and reason as rationally as someone sitting safely on their couch eating Cheetos), no more or less blatant than thousands of other in thousands of other better AND worse horror and action movies. And you're grasping at straws because you backtracked your argument about why he didn't just do something original in the first place and turned your argument to a different aspect of the movie instead of either defending your original statements or conceding. And no, a director for hire on his first big gig with a major studio movie cannot DEMAND huge rewrites. Are you from Mars??? And as for the biggie... why they left the mall... that's kind of the point of the whole MOVIE. People will sacrifice safety and comfort if there is even a shred of hope that someone else, somewhere has a better situation than they do. I see it as an attack on complacency.
-
rather than reacting to evil hobbit. I am indeed a fool.
-
People are, for the most part, actually being smart and well thought out in their arguments. And the fact that several aspects of both sides of the coin seem to be equally represented is a nice change of pace. Kudos to all... even those I disagree with. :)
-
Sorry Vern, but the acting in that movie is terrible. The dialogue in itself is fine, but the actors delivering it are poor at best. The movie does not hold up well, even in comparison to NOTLD, and is hard to sit through. Not in terms of length, but in terms of the beats and pacing being all over the place, coupled with sub-par acting. You can say it is clearly a classic until you are blue in the face, NOTLD was a classic, Dawn was mediocre in comparison.
-
in reference to the original DOTD. Heh. :)
-
I still remember walking out of the mall just stunned. It was my first "Unrated" movie as a young teen. I've seen it about 30 times over the years. I've seen the remake twice. Have both movies on DVD. I think I have 3 versions of the Original DOTD with 3 different soundtracks and I do remember not liking one of them as much as the original theatrical tracks music so I can see how someone would bitch about that remasterd music track if that was the only version they saw.
-
Box Office and DVD sales were a smash, right Vern?! Dude, I've respected some of your reviews, but I'm glad you've stopped posting on this thread as you seem to be digging a hole that you'll have a hard time getting out of, unless there's no more room in Hell.
-
Anyone who thinks Romero's original DotD is a better film than Zack's 2004 re-make requires the Lobo treatment a la WWZ. DotD & 300 - no director EVER has started a career with two such awesome movies - Snyder will be bigger than Speilberg one day - and soon.
-
DOTD remake was fun. Not great but fun. 300 was fun, again flawed but fun. There is nothing to suggest that he will be bigger than Spielberg. BTW other directors with 2 awesome films early in their career: Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, George Lucas, I could go on.
-
level of talent, hes a different type of director and old steven is on his own planet when it comes to movies.
-
...after getting that Land of the Dead rant out of my system.I hope any of Romero's fans understand that the only reason I'm so passionate in my dislike for that film is that I had such high hopes for it. As I pointed out above, Romero directed one of my five favorite horror films of all time (Night). I want to see the guy make great movies (again). Really I do.As for directly comparing the two Dawns, I've already said I think it's a bad idea. They are two different films with slightly different agendas. But to argue that one is attempting a subtext and one is not is sellling the latter short. I would never argue that the original Dawn isn't a classic simply because it isn't my cup'o. Clearly it has a following and has earned its status. But, to me, it's an inferior film to the remake based purely on my preferences and sensibilities. And here's why:Snyder used his subtext like cilantro. A little went a long way. We've got the mall surrounded by zombies, which automatically sets up the whole consumerism irony/angle. He then pretty much leaves that element alone to speak for itself throughout. But he uses that setting to make additional commentaries.The use of muzak is brilliant. Not only does it symbolize undeath (effectively ripping the life from those rock songs and condemning them to the purgatory of shopping malls and elevator rides for all eternity) but it's also a pretty solid metaphor for cannibalism. Subtle, but effective.The power struggle and criticism of authority in the face of compete disaster is also approached with a minimalist's touch, but is no less effective for the economy of the conflict.As for pathos, are there people who really felt nothing for Sarah Polley's character, particularly after the opening sequence? Or for Ving Rhames when his rooftop buddy, Andy, dies? Or for Jake Weber when he laments on having been a total screw up as everything but a dad? These characters had pathos in bags. And even the ass-holiest of them, Mike Kelly's C.J., manages to find the strength in his humanity by the end of the film.I recall reading someone's extolling of the "life in the mall" montages of the original Dawn. Actually, those were some of my favorite sequences from that film (precisely because they were subtle, in contrast to a lot of the other stuff going on), but Snyder's film had its own montage along those lines which, I belive, conveyed a different but equally relevant (in the post 9-11 world) point about the need to simulate normalcy in the face of constant terror. Did it linger as long on each character? No. But it conveyed its point very concisely.About the only thing I can't help thinking Snyder didn't think all the way through was the undead baby. Which is a shame, because the character arc for Mekhi Phifer was pretty compelling. The baby moment, however, felt like it was done more for shock than anything else. Despite that, though, Snyder's Dawn had depth. As a viewer, you just need to be willing to take the plunge.And, Vern, I hope I've gone some distance toward explaining why I think it's okay to prefer the remake to the original. I appreciate your concern about the director's intent, but execution is important as well. Art is a collaborative experience. Keep in mind that society is far more cynical now than it was in Romero's day. Maybe his Dawn needed to be more overt in its message. I can appreciate that, but it doesn't resonate with me in the same way Snyder's remake does. And I get a little worried about Romero as a film maker when I see him using the same hammer to drive his points home in a more recent release like Land. That's all.
-
did someone say it? Because otherwise that could be construed as seeing some depth that isn't there. Having said that- I missed it and I usually pride myself on spotting shit like that.
-
...that's all me.I tend to overanalyze the shit out of everything I watch, but I genuinely enjoyed Snyder's Dawn on my first viewing, so going back and picking up on the muzak thing wasn't really a chore for me.As for seeing depth that isn't there, well, shit...isn't that what 90 percent of all art appreciation really is? I guarantee that not every person who sees a movie, reads a book, looks at a painting or hears a song is going to seize 100% upon exactly what the artist was thinking/feeling/trying to say. In fact, I'd argue that art which is so completely straightforward and accessible isn't art so much as an instruction manual, illustrative diagram or high-school health film. There has to be some variance in interpretation for a work to appeal to more than one person. It's got to say soemthing to you as an individual (which I absolutely believe the original Dawn does for Vern) for it to be successful, and citing a lot of stuff other people have read into a work doesn't so much tell me whether it works for you.Know what I mean?
-
RIP Ernest P Worrell
It doesn't stop today! -
it shows her grabbing them
-
That's not what I meant- I was just wondering if that was officially sanctioned. If that is what you get out of it then fine, but I believe that Snyder isn't capable of that intent- and the muzak was used because that is the generic sound of a mall. I could be wrong though
-
...are you telling me you think all interpretations of art need to be officially sanctioned by someone to be legitimate?I didn't think you rolled that way, man.
-
I don't think that at all, I should probably have put quotation marks around it. I just think that your interpretation may be far superior to the directors, and therefore you are not watching the film he made rather you are watching the film that you would have made, one that irons out the flaws of the original. wow- this is degenerating into an intentional fallacy type discussion. i haven't had one of them for years and am not sure how it goes now.
-
with Cedric the Entertainer.
That's what we all SHOULD be talking about. Oh wait... -
...you had me worried for a moment there.As for intentional fallacy, that may be one way of interpreting it. But, as I tried to point out earlier, artistic intent is, at best, a third of the artistic experience. There's artistic execution (changes often are made on the fly during the creative process in virtually any medium and result in "happy accidents") and then there's the experience/interpretation of the art.I know that, in this day and age of director's cuts and commentary tracks, it can be pretty easy to determine an artist's intent. They'll come right out and tell you what it is they were consciously trying to do. But that doesn't speak to the artist's conscious sensibilities don't necessarily reflect his or her subconscious sensitivities, which are often what leap out and speak to the audience on a personal level (i.e. it's not so much what you sang as the way you sang it that spoke to me).I honestly don't know what Snyder's stated intent was as I don't do commentary tracks (with the exception of the Spinal Tap one, done in characcter, which made it a whole different movie experience for me). I'm of the mind that, as an artist, once you've "birthed" whatever it is that was crawling around in your soul, it needs to stand and live or die on its own. You can't always be there to explain every nuance or direct everyone's interpretation. So you can't realistically expect that everyone's going to get out of it what you put into it.I think some of the best artists are kind of savants in that they put more into soemthing than they realize, and this is evidenced by how much their audiences are able to draw from their work.Artists who spend a lot of time telling people what they meant and how those people really should be looking at something always strike me as pompous and less capable of creating actual art, if that makes any sense.Anyway, for all I know, Snyder did intend every bit of what I picked up in my analysis of the picture and I may have even missed something that gave the undead baby sequence more relevance. He may even be the kind of pompous asshole who tells people exactly how they should interpret his work. I wouldn't know, because I never heard him do it. I just know the movie works for me on the levels I described and I'd be curious to know if anyone else saw it that way.
-
Mar 27, 2007 12:00:14 PM CDT
Ok this is now total conjecture(and overly pretentious)
by lost prophet
Before I start this, I have to stress that I do actually quite like this film, I just struggle to see depth in it. I have also not seen/ heard the commentarySorry to anyone that has blundered in,Fair enough that an artist's intentions are only part of the experience- but I would contend that they really do matter in this instance. We are talking about levels of depth and intelligence in this film- and your muzak one, if correct, is a belter. (Nice critical language, that)I think, in this instance, that the film actually has very little depth, and anything that we credit it with is our creation, and a consequence of what we wish to see- not the film itself. As far as I remember, Snyder was a director for hire, and he intended to film a script that he was given for a fee. Now obviously he didn't want to make a shit film (He isn't Bay, after all) but he wanted to make a cool, thrilling, edge of your seat, zombie experience. He was 100% successful. He was not, I assume on those facts, deliberately trying to create a film that would have overeducated fools like me searching for hidden meaning to it. Therefore, any meaning that I find- for example the rooftop Zombie shooting made me laugh because I thought it was part wish fulfillment and part sly dig at the HELLO! culture- are just those, mine. They are nothing to do with the depth or otherwise of the film. Again, I don't think it is a bad film- but I would put down anomolous sequences ,like the zombie baby, to the script (the zombie baby is the single most brainless piece of writing ever- should have been cut)and the fact that it was very much a point and shoot type film- not every scene has to mean something, as it is all about the action. I do not believe that any artist should be forced to explain any meaning they found (I am a big fan of crediting the audience with some intelligence) but if we have to look that hard for it- well it's simply not there. leaving work now, look forward to this tomorrow when we attempt to find the meaning of life in MINO's vagina shaped mouth.
-
Just like I think the last thing on Romero's mind on NOTLD was a racial commentary. But over the years so many others have read that into it, that his original agenda (or lack of) is almost moot at this point (and he's backtracked earlier comments and now says that WAS an intent- maybe it was subconscious) and now it barely matters because of how it's been interpreted by others. So yes, the viewer's take can often be as valid as the artist's (or director or whatever). Still not sure I roll with your theories on the MUZAK, but who knows... in 30 years the consensus of fans of DOTD '04 may be "Duh! Of course that's what it meant!"
-
Yep, that's the way I saw it. And that middle thingy too. Total agreement.
-
I would actually argue that it is only because the original has the, albeit unsubtle, subtext that people attempt to find hidden meaning in the remake
-
...he was given? And, in doing so, how could he help but to infuse it with some of his own sensibilities/sensitivites?I'm not saying he deliberately and consciously plotted out the symbolic meaning of every note of music (or muzak) in the piece or carefully thought through the implications (of which there are many) in the rooftop celebrity skeet shoot, but he touched these elements and assisted in their translation to a medium I experienced and then drew the conclusions I drew.Conversely, I think Romero had a whole bunch of intent going into a movie that, ultimately, just feels too forced to work either as it was pitched and marketed (as a zombie horror movie) or as it was intended (as social satire/criticism). The director's vision didn't resonate with me (and I would consider myself another overeducated, overthinking audience member).It's like the Salieri/Motzart debate. Is there some inherently greater value to the convoluted and less accessible work consciously and carefully structured by the self-aware artist than there is to the deeply resonant and impactful work cranked out by the savant?Who's to say?Well, I guess the audience, ultimately. They'll vote with their hearts and their wallets.
-
quality to this film. Not that that is a bad thing.If that is the case, then the meaning is actually the writer's and not the director's. This is indeed a very circular argument.Last point on this, Dreadful unsubtlety can actually demean a film- for example, snorting ether of the stars and stripes in Fear and Loathing, actually diminished Hunter S Thompson's conceit. Fuck it, let the geniuses of the future argue it out. I'm obviously not qualified.
-
gets to bang Pam Beesly every night. Not that that has anything to do with anything. SLITHER and DOTD combined almost make up for the Scooby-Doo movies... and TROMEO & JULIET and THE SPECIALS certainly have their moments as well. I like James Gunn... so it's a shame I'm gonna have to get him out of the picture somehow.
-
...another five or ten years before trying to compare the relative brilliance of the two dawns. Romero's original has a bit of a head start in terms of generations of fans (not just of the film but, rightfully so, of the director and the genre he inspired) bringing to it what they want to see. The remake's only been in the world a couple of years and the director is still establishing himself.Tell you what, LP, I'll meet you in the talkback for the next Dawn of the Dead remake and we'll hash it all out then.Deal?;)
-
I see what you are saying about Snyder's intentions and i want to believe that it was really him. I, like Vern, didn't pick up on as much of the implied sociopolitical horror stemming from a post 9-11 world, which is likely why I think the original speaks a little more about values and morality in the modern world. I loved the new DotD, but mostly because it's a rarity that a first time studio director can kick the shit out of a movie every fanboy expected to suck. I don't see the commentary that you did, at least it's not as poignant to me, so I guess I lean to Vern's side a little on that
issue. But I really am rooting for Zach Snyder. I'm impressed with his visceral ability, and let's face it, he hasn't had the most heady material to work with so far. Watchmen could be fantastic or it could be a disaster. I'm hoping it's great, I don't want to see him fail. Also, that's going to be a movie that speaks about his team's ability. For anyone who knows a good deal about making movies you realize that a lot of the talent in being a great director is surrounding yourself with more talent. In the technical fields he's done that well, now I'd liek to see him do that with writers, actors, and producers. If that all falls into place I don't see how "Watchmen" could suck.
-
First of all, if you believe in freedom of speech you gotta believe in it for everyone, even if it's the most hateful thing you can imagine, like the KKK having a parade or me defending the Psycho remake.
It doesn't sound like you (or America) are prepared to even consider this argument, but the time has come. First of all, the Psycho remake in no way approaches the quality or effectiveness of the original. None of the performances (except for Viggo Mortensen) are as good as the original. The fact that it must be compared to the original is also distracting, making it hard to get wrapped up in the story like you would watching the original.
But PSYCHO is such an iconic movie, such a pillar of our culture, that if you've seen it enough times it is fucking INCREDIBLE to watch an (almost) shot for shot remake of it. It is not so much a remake as a pop art experiment, a surreal experience to watch a movie that you've seen before but that you haven't seen before. It's more an act of obsession like those kids who did the same thing with Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the people online who redo Star Wars with action figures or hamsters or whatever. Or the guy who told me he wanted to remake Dawn of the Dead with Playmobile toys.
I can completely understand not enjoying the movie (and I haven't gone back to watch it again after the novelty of seeing it once). But the kneejerk reactions people STILL have to the very mention of it make me laugh. And pretty much every argument that I see used against it whenever it comes up is ridiculous. First you got the "he just did it for money" argument. I'm not a big Van Sant fan but I'm sure he's not mentally deficient, he knew that what he was doing was gonna piss everybody off, and was not gonna be a huge mainstream hit (in fact, he had to use the huge mainstream success of Good Will Hunting to get it made). And as you pointed out, it didn't make money (which I guess means it's bad?) So that would've been a bad bet.
Then there's the "kids will like this version better than the original" argument. Well, I'm sympathetic because it pisses me off that kids like that horrible Texas Chainsaw remake better than the original (I won't bring up Dawn of the Dead again). But it wasn't like he was updating it for a new generation, unless a new generation is going to be won over by the simple change of the amount of money that was stolen. It turns out that fear was unfounded because that didn't happen at all. Have you ever heard of a SINGLE person of any age that prefers Van Sant's version? Neither have I. I just say that I kind of like it and people act like I denied the holocaust AND called Indiana Jones a pussy.
And also there's the "what if everybody started doing shot-for-shot remakes" argument. Well, that would indeed get old fast, but it's what, 8 or 9 years later now and still nobody has done it, and it's still considered hate speech to defend the practice, so I don't think that is a reasonable fear either.
If it was a different movie it might not have been as interesting. Doing Dawn of the Dead this way, for example, wouldn't make much sense. But because Psycho is a low budget Hitchcock movie it works - small cast, few locations, almost like a play. And replacing the perfect black and white photography with weird day glo colors (wasn't it Christopher Doyle?) adds to the weirdness of the experience.
And one strength of the movie that I'm sure was not intentional, it is handy to bring up in order to set off certain "douche bag" type individuals. I am not talking about you, Biggles, but a dude I once knew who would start sputtering like an uptight dean in a fraternity movie if you even mentioned it with a positive tone in your voice. Those were good times. -
GOOD WILL HUNTING. He hasn't done anything INTERESTING since PSYCHO. I'll give you that on a plate, Vern. His version is interesting. I haven't gone back and seen it again since it's theatrical release either... maybe I'll give it another go. I DO remember that somehow Julianne Moore's boobs looked HUGE in it. Was she pregnant like Jodie Foster was when she filmed PANIC ROOM?
-
Wow, that was a barf of grey. Simmer down, man. No one is infringing on your freedom of speech nor was it even suggested. If you want to throw on yer white sheets and march, deny the Holocaust, or even call Indy a pussy, that's all right with me. (It does explain your fetish with Psycho, however.) After your Psycho Redux accolades, you said you were signing off. But let me clarify something that you've brought up in previous posts, your snobbery becomes evident when you begin to refer to DOTD '04 as "brainless" (thanks for your apology and it's accepted) and then, fer cryin' out loud, you infer that someone doesn't like the Psycho remake (or finds it abhorrent)is a "douche bag type"!? I brought up revenue only to illustrate the lack of interest in that flawed concept (don't confuse ballzy for stupidity, kiddo). Look, I didn't want to make the TB more about Vern and less about Zach and how to do a remake right. (That's what I think he did with DOTD '04.) I don't think it was "brainless" and I CAN understand how someone would find it idiotic to remake (scene for scene) a classic when there are much better things to do with a studios time and resources. I don't think making movies to "piss off people" is the ultimate formula for success. But then again, I'm just a television guy. What do I know? Gotta go man. I look forward to your next review (if my brainless douchebag mentality can handle it).
-
I don't think I ever used the word brainless for Dawn of the Dead Remake, I did say it lacked substance. I definitely did not say people who didn't like Psycho Remake were douchebags (that would mean the whole world) and I specifically said that YOU were not, just to avoid confusion. I was talking about a particular dude who was funny to set off on a rant. Another way I got him going was by saying that Michael Jackson could do whatever he wanted with the Beatles songs, since he owned them. You shoulda seen it.
As for Zack Snyder, I would like to see him do a shot for shot remake of the remake of Psycho, using all green screen and slow motion. -
Just kidding but i think you DID refer to poor Zach as not having a thought in his head...oh, and your weeping for this generation was a little condescending. I say that knowing that I'm not even part of "this" generation and am probably older than yourself.
-
As for your THEORY on Snyder wanting to dress people up to look AWESOME and not giving a shit? Snyder gave an interview and said that they weren't going to update the time because a)the themes would still be valid today and b) that you wouldn't need to update or change something like, Moby Dick. That really sounds to me like someone who doesn't give a shit what anything is about. Oh, and since you brought up Psycho :). There is no point to do an exact remake. Because then you would have the great original and now a copy. It's kind of a given that some things would be changed. Otherwise, why bother?
-
...to get more work if it's a hit. Yeah, if someone paid me to direct a film, a remake of a horror classic, hellyeah, I'd make it flashy too. What else could I do with someone else's masterpiece? And if they hired me off one flashy picture, they'd be expecting another, right? My biggest beef with 300 was the semi-SIN CITY look, which was great for SIN CITY but what have you done for me lately? Actually, it was a good choice considering, in the minds of the Suits, ALEXANDER tanked, KINGDOM O' HEAVEN and TROY did so so. How else could you get 300 made at that point? So, I'd have probably done that, too. And if that got him WATCHMEN, that would be just too huge an opportunity to pass up. Now, what Snyder does after WATCHMEN, if it's a hit, will give us something to judge. I wouldn't keep doing comic book movies (ala Bryan Singer) or zombie movies myself. Don't get me wrong, I'd still be a ho, but that's the time to be a more interesting ho.
-
>...some were simply the acts of desperate people in panic situations... who can't be expected to think and reason as rationally as someone sitting safely on their couch eating Cheetos ...
But that's part of the point. There's no sign they are being attacked/chased as they head to the mall and find a way in. The panic stage would have gone away by then, else toned down considerably. Certainly by the time they'd been in the mall - without being attacked - for days. Yet, they are still behaving stupidly. And if they are in a panic, retrenching in a safe [key word here], defensible position is much more likely than running off to God knows where. In the original, they had no choice, their defenses HAD been irreparably breached (through no fault of their own) - they HAD to leave. Made a lot more sense. -
...seen taken.I don't recall anyone saying everything old needs a spiffy new subtext-free remake. I simply said I prefer some subtlety in my subtext and went on to debunk folks claiming Snyder's Dawn remake was devoid of such (it wasn't, as I clearly demoinstrated above, whether you want to believe he put it there or the writer did, it was there to be had).I didn't and don't enjoy the original Dawn as much because I feel it was clumsily made and so deliberate in its message that it forgot to be entertaining on the overt level. I don't hate the original Dawn, but I have to admit that -- the more people try to insist I must simply not "get it" because I prefer the remake, the more I resent it and them.Glad you discovered and enjoy the original "The Thing from Another World," though. I have a soft spot for that one, myself. As did Carpenter (which was evidenced by his use of it in Halloween and his reverence of it in his remake). You should read the short story both movies are based on. Very interesting, especially for comparitive purposes.
-
But the original Dawn is still a turd. For any period. The original Night on the other hand, is a great film. I enjoyed the remake of Night as well. That would be the remake that ROMERO and SAVINI made before anyone starts bitching.
-
...COCONUT CREAM PIE! (SPLAT!) Yeah Vern, maybe Romero could remake 300.
-
...that Savini/Romero Night remake as well. It's a very different movie. And, before anyone chimes in on how: no, it's not devoid of subtext compared to the original. It's just the same basic premise approached differently with a different character stepping up to fill the "hero" role. In fact, given that the subtext in the original Night is largely incidental, it could be argued that the remake has more social significance in that there was a conscious decision to play the woman as somehting other than a helpless damsel.Anyway, it's a decent remake and I think the only reason I prefer the original more is that the black and white gives it a different, more claustrophobic feel.I can't endorse your calling the orignal Dawn a turd, though. I reserve that for Land and, to a lesser extent, Day (which I find has a great deal of comedic value).
-
Look, there's subtext and then there's direct text, and depending on the point being made subtlety can be a bit overrated. Romero's Dawn is all over the place story-wise and some of the stuff he does is on-the-nose, but it was the DAMN 70'S, MAN. I get a little annoyed at people who won't engage the film within the confines of its time and genre. It's like people who will criticize "Singin' In The Rain" by saying it's "stagey". Movies at that time were stagey, and the history of film doesn't start with DeNiro's acting in "Taxi Driver". And an unrated genre film made in the 70's with a limited budget is going to have some hammy acting in it, that's just a given. And everybody talks about the Mall scenes as if they're the whole film, and they're not. There are many great scenes in Romero's version that are just there in the service of the story and then he moves on [and because of this people complain about "odd pacing" and "strange beats", because they can't tolerate anything that wasn't mapped out using an outline from "Story"]. What about the scene where the studio audience in the TV station yells at the scientist who insists the zombies are dead - because the average person is convinced that little Johnny is "just sick" and can somehow be cured? What about the scene where the cop is screaming that the public housing is better than his own apartment, and shooting the place up? What about the scene where the black priest has the zombies tied up in the public housing basement? What about the scene where they run into the cops who are also bailing on their cops by boat, and the cops ask if anyone has a cigarette, and all three say "No," and then in the next scene they all light up in the helicopter? What about the scene where they're flying over the rednecks, and they can see the army of zombies marching towards them, and they say, "Stupid rednecks have no idea what's coming" - although maybe if the rednecks had, you know, some helicopter reconnaissance, they would know what was coming? Come on, these are all great scenes, with no equivalent in Snyder's version, and no alternative in Snyder's version either. Snyder made a really good film, and a solid piece of entertainment, and Land of the Dead sucked, but Romero hit a couple of home runs in the midst of all his other strikeouts and his Dawn is one of them.
-
...and I've acknowledged that there was an element of the age at work in Romero's lack of subtlety. I was a wee lad playing with Star Wars figures when it saw theatrical release and didn't catch it until more than a decade later on VHS, so I'm a little further removed from that first-person experience of the age and social issues that spawned Romero's approach (odd that I have no trouble appreciating the humor of that era, specifically Saturday Night Live, which was satirizing many of the same issues, but that may be neither here nor there). But none of that changes the fact that, when I watch Romero's Dawn now, I groan at the lack of sophistication in the writing and the lack of talent in the acting. I don't have those issues with Night (for me, one of Romero's only true home run, with Creepshow and the Night remake being RBIs).I'm not trying to take Dawn away from Romero's fans who want to chalk it up as a win or a home run or whatever. I'm simply saying that it is, in my informed and discerning opinion, in no way superior to the remake (which was in no way obligated to have equivalent scenes to any of the ones you mentioned, seeing as it was telling its own story with its own subtext). I'm afraid you (and other folks who want to insist that the original is objectively better or deeper than the remake) are just going to have to deal with that.
-
...I must've just tuned those posts out. I prefer actual discussion of relative merits to just kind of off-hand rejection of something.But I've got to disagree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Dawn '04 as somethign a machine could've made. Maybe between becoming self aware, ordering nuke strikes around the world and flushing astronauts out the pod bay doors, a computer could whip up something entertaining, but the '04 Dawn has an emotional relevance and resonance all its own. It's just a different set of emotions and sensibilities than the 78 original.
-
Or at least part of ISHTAR. I actually liked ISHTAR. The worse thing about ISHTAR not being a hit is that we didn't get an album of Beatty and Hoffman singing those hilarious songs: "Tellin' the truth is dangerous business/honest and popular don't go hand in hand/ in you say you play the accordian/no one will hire you for a rock 'n' roll band."
-
I guess they still do, but mostly it's a new guy like Snyder. Carpenter and THE THANG. Croenberg and THE FLY. Scorsese and CAPE FEAR. Spielberg and ALWAYS (which was one of his sucky films; for all his success SS is not really a mainstream, straight forward storyteller, which is why we love him). I like all those movies, except for ALWAYS, but I guess I'm more of a rip off kind of guy. Rip it off, don't remake it. Derivative is better than regurgitated. I mean, WATERWORLD sucked sea water, but at least Kevin Reynolds and Joss Whedon and the 57 other guys who wrote it and Costner didn't try to slip Kevin's ass into the seat of Mad Max's V8 interceptor. No, they were original and said, "Let's put it on the high seas and have it suck!"
-
Everybody who ever did anything original and cool took the risk of sucking!"What's yer movie about, George?""Zombies in a mall.""That has the potential to suck.""Yeah, but if it doesn't, it'll be cool.""True. What's yer movie about, George.""These knights in outer space fight evil with laser swords.""Again, I have to say huge sucking potential there.""And huge profit if only the prequels suck!"
-
I just gave myself the idea and am attaching myself to the project. Since Mel is now clinically insane and everybody hates him, I want Gerald Butler for Max Rockatansky. Does anybody know Butler? Call him up for me and put in a good word. Ice Cube for the Toe Cutter. Hayden Christenson for Johnny the Boy. Dax Shepherd for Bubba Zenetti. Justin Timberlake as the Goose. I will need one million dollars salary, a custom made Purdy shotgun, and a new H2 packed with Cuban cigars for my writing fee. I will need that doubled for my directing fee. Plus, I get final cut and casting approval. My nephew Zomb Maverik will do the score and my fellow @$$hole Sleazy G. will be music supervisor. Finally, my friend Eriglione's Mom will do craft services. If you've ever had Mrs. E.'s canoli (the best west of Chicago) you'll know why.
-
Whaddya wanna bet he changed it from Gerald? He's "Gerald" to me. His mama named him Gerald.
-
I am hoping that 300 is the only movie he does with slow mo in it. Although slow mo zombie/people mutilation would rock, just do it in moderation ok Zack?
-
But I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I said it was not not intentional subtext, it was a gag. Meant as a joke and AS a joke, it's completely surface level (people shopping in malls look/ act like zombies... just as in ShaunOTD there was the gag of commuters looking/acting like zombies). To take the movie's setting and a single line of dialogue and project that it is a deep social commentary is silly and only in more recent years has Romero tried to say that it was intentional. The GAG was intentional and surface level... the supposed deep satire that others have projected onto it over the years was NOT an intention of the movie or Romero originally. To sum up. Surface level gag (albeit a great one)= Intentional. That gag being taken as something deeper than it is= Not Intentional.
-
I don't mean to say that if something is humorous, that it can't have meaning. Possibly referring to it as a "gag" is the wrong way to go in discussing it, but I don't know what else to describe it as. It's there, it's a one note thing. It's a visual and it's a line of dialogue. It's not the be all reason for setting the movie in the mall, the huge cache of supplies is. OK, if you put a political cartoon that happens to feature Jason Vorhees into the middle of Fangoria magazine, that does not make the whole magazine a political manifesto. It's still a horror magazine at its heart, meant simply to entertain and nothing more... even if it DOES have a single panel cartoon (that due to a nod to FT13th seemed to fit) stuck in there...
-
Others have alluded to this but I don't think anyone has said it outright. DOTD '04 takes the themes and scenarios of both the original DOTD and NOTLD and melds them. In NOTLD, you have a group of unconnected people who've met up in a farmhouse. They've blocked the majority of the zombie threat OUT of the house, but their own in-fighting struggles with each other weaken their unity, tear them apart internally (to say nothing of their own mistakes weakening the physicality of their little sanctuary). And ultimately everything winds up futile... even as Ben tries to escape. Now in DOTD you have people that know each other or at least have common bonds (Flyboy and Gaylen Ross at the station- Ken Foree and short guy- forgive me not remembering everyone's names), they find a PERFECT place to stay with nearly limitless supplies and that is virtually impenatrable to the zombie threat, but outside (human) forces (the bikers) invade their sanctuary stupidly causing the mall to fail to be as safe as it once was... plus they refuse to sit complacent or resigned to their fate and the survivors make a run for it. The DOTD remake infuses all those elements together. Common bonds, strangers, internal struggles, outside human forces (the second wave of survivors bringing in an infected person) and on and on. Until reading a million and one people's takes on all the Romero movies AND the DOTD remake, I never put my finger on that... but yeah, I think that is why I like the remake so much. Becaue it combines some of the best elements of both movies theme-wise and character interaction-wise... into one cohesive story. Wow, I think I could have written that so it makes a lot more sense. It makes sense in my head... but whatever. I need more coffee, I've been up since 4am.
-
I'm sure you would have picked up on one of the things I loved about the original Dawn. We are constantly being programmed by advertising propaganda that in order for us to be happy we need to keep consuming. It's a simple equation :- the more "stuff" we have, the happier we will be. Well, Peter, Fran & Steven took it and had it ALL and, according to what we are told, should have been the happiest people in the world. They had more money, toys, jewellery & status symbols than they could ever use in a hundred lifetimes. They had everything a person could possibly want, didn't they?
Well, no, because they had none of the things that really matter in life:- family, friends or a future. They were prisoners in a gilded cage and, boy, did they know it.
A fantastic film which works on many levels and is endlesly rewatchable.
-
I've thought of that before but the way you put it is perfect - "they had none of the things that really matter in life." I understand what Frijole is saying about it being a gag that the zombies go to the mall out of instinct, but that's a good example of how even the consumerism theme goes deeper than he's acknowledging.
By the way, there is a sale on rock candy. -
at least we have moved on from intentionality. regarding the remake- it is a cracking little zombie/action film, there can be no doubt about it. If Frijole is right then it seems romero is trying to claim an intention where none existed. The twat (I'm still sore about land). Finally, don't even joke about that Roland, don't even joke.
-
he found it funny that people inferred these commentaties from Night and Dawn, it was grouped in with a bunch of other actors and filmmakers and writers that felt the same way about how their works were often seen as deeper than they were ever meant to be (including Groucho Marx musing on "scholars" interpretations of the early Marx Brothers movies- which was taken from a much older interview of course). You know, at this point it doesn't really matter. We've even discussed that whether the subtexts are always intentional that the viewer is nearly as valid as the creator... so let's movie on. I love NOTLD, love DOTD and love the DOTD remake- and possibly get over defensive when I hear that it is brainless when that's not what I get from it at all. I think it's (as poorly explained above) a clever melding of character issues and themes from BOTH the original Night and Dawn- that is both visceral AND emotional (as emotional as this type of movie could hope to be at least) AND great to look at. So... with that in mind.. Let's all try and get along and maybe we can get out of this mall alive. *cheers*
-
...on the intent of Romero in the original Dawn. His intent is quite plain...painfully so...which has consistently been my primary criticism. He played that piano witha hammer.You may be thinking of the individual who suggested that the social commentary in Night is incidental to the casting. But those are two different movies, which I feel very differently about.I don't recall anyone flip flopping on whether or not Romero intended to cram Dawn with as much not-quite-subtext as he did.As for Martin, I do prefer it to Romero's original Dawn (and to most Vampire movies, for that matter) but I don't hold it in higher regard than Night. It was an interesting take on the genre and well crafted.Kind of hard to believe you don't care for Creepshow. For my money, that's the most successful comic book movie ever made in terms of conveying the "this is what it's like to read a horror comic" experience. But to each their own, I suppose. We've already established that I see a certain sublime societal and human insight in Snyder's Dawn that you (and some others) do not.
-
...finish reading the talkback before responding to a post higher up.I guess that was you who pointed out the incidental nature of NOTLD's social commentary.I'd missed your point on Romero actually not intending depth or serious social commentary in Dawn. That actually makes me feel a lot better about how clumsily he handled it. If he was going for laughs, I'd suggest he didn't go far enough (or the rest of the film...the zombie threat...was not serious enough to establish the appropriate juxtaposition of emotion for the viewer).Either way, I don't feel the original Dawn quite succeeds completely.I find your parallels between Night (which I've already said was one of my favorite horror films of all time) and the Dawn remake. That may help explain some of my emphatic affection for Snyder's Dawn.Thanks, Frijole.
-
that Kramer drops the Junior Mint into during his surgery! How did that little nugget ever escape my attention? With the exception of the opening and some of the gore and Bub and the scientist, I still don't like DAY. Maybe even less so than LAND. I rewatched it last night and it was just a tedious affair. Oh well.
-
Childe, you have impressed me pretty immensely on this talkback. You really made your point and continued to back it up using valid arguments and talking points without reverting to potty language or belittling. Good for you, I give you props.
As to the conversation, I still don't quite see the "symbology" that you saw in the new Dawn. I don't know if you read my earlier post, but I really am impressed by Zach Snyder's abilities as a film maker, but I fear he has a development period ahead of him. Just because of this talkback (and I don't read them often, this one just sparked my interest) I went back last night and watched the new one again and I do see some interesting things in it. Some scenes that you initially gave some political gravity to still seem just there for entertainment's sake to me, but I understand how some of the stuff you caught could have been Snyder's intention. But, after REALLY SEARCHING for as much as I could find in it, I still felt like 28 Days Later, which I thought was a fantastic genre film, has much more symbolism and echoes of that post 9-11 world you refer to. For example the story of how the infection spread, with the madness consuming the crowd before anyone knew what was going on, and completely told through words without the use of flashbacks; I thought that was indicative of that time. Also the idea that even when tragedy strikes, human nature is still the most dangerous thing out there.
Maybe it is because of the lack of subtlety in Boyle's film, but I thought that essentially 28 Days Later was a closer, in tone, remake to Dawn than Snyder's version was. Boyle een threw in the grocery store scene that just screamed Romero. Of course, that's making a pretty broad comparison, but there's no denying that the new Dawn was about completely different things than the old one.
Also, just another sidenote, the character progression in the new Dawn was a little weird, I thought. I never really noticed it before, but there are characters I find I alternately love and hate throughout the movie which was likely a meant convention, but it takes me out of the story a bit. Not saying that people aren't really like that, but the pacing of the character development was pretty weird. Anyway.... -
...SNyder's got a ways to go before I herald him as some kind of artistic master. In fact, as a few folks here have pointed out, any social or emotional gravity I'm getting from the Dawn remake could well be the writer's contribution (although I suspect the music/muzak was Snyder's doing), so I don't want to come off as though I'm saying Snyder is objectively a better film maker than Romero. They clearly have different styles and I tend to appreciate Snyder's more based on what I've seen from both of them.That said, I really enjoyed most of 28 Days Later. It felt very fresh and urgent and the characters were highly engaging (moreso than the Dawn remake, I think, where the characters bordered on standard "types" except for those welcome bits of development and uncharacteristic behavior you pointed out). My biggest gripe about 28 Days Later is the editing. Not so much for content, but for aesthetic. Lot's of shaky jumping about which, I understand, helped contribute to the frenetic "seeing things through the survivor's eyes" feel of things, but it almost felt overdone.Thematically, I think 28 Days Later owes a lot to Day of the Dead, but I feel it far exceeds its source in overall quality as a film.
-
...I had when watching 28 Days Later. What was the motive for the frenzied folks' attacks? They never ate anyone they took down. I talmost seemed like they were just trying to spread the virus, which made little sense to me (as, when everyone's all rage infected, there will be no one left to chase). Is it possible the virus took control of their higher functions in an effort to propogate itself? Does anyone have a firm understanding of how rabies works? Seems like it might be a similar dynamic.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts