Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

DAWN OF THE DEAD...The Romero Original...Returning Soon To Theaters...In 3-D!?!?

isss nice.. by Darth_Valinorean	May 19th, 2008 09:51:29 AM
i like zombie.. you like??
holy chocolate coated awesome! by v for vienetta	May 19th, 2008 09:53:11 AM

No. No no no no no! by Theta	May 19th, 2008 09:53:52 AM
Enough! I am sick and fucking tired of this! These films were not meant to be three-dimensional! It's like colorizing them for Christ's sake! When will this fad (and it is a fad) DIE?
Best. Horror movie. Ever by Col. Tigh-Fighter	May 19th, 2008 09:54:36 AM
Nuff said! So WILL be catching that when its done Although the Exorcist is bloody good too. Come to think of it - Exorcist in 3D could kick some serious ass too!
So the 3-D Star Wars Special Editions by Samuel Fulmer	May 19th, 2008 09:59:04 AM
Are still a go? I haven't heard news about these in years. I figured it was just a pipedream.
Creepshow 3-D by Samuel Fulmer	May 19th, 2008 09:59:58 AM
Would be cool. Cockroaches bursting out of E.G. towards the audience.
Braaaaaaainsssss in 3Deeee by quantize	May 19th, 2008 10:08:56 AM
yum
Where do these movies show??? by Series7	May 19th, 2008 10:09:40 AM
Because I have never seen the Nightmare 3-D showing anywhere.
Skip regular movies... by 69DUDE	May 19th, 2008 10:11:59 AM
just convert porn to 3D. 'Nuff said.
Series7 by postalpez	May 19th, 2008 10:14:57 AM
Ive seen xmas play all over the place. if they do the disney digital. I know rave and amc both had xmas both the past years in columbus.
I don't understand... by Sailor Rip	May 19th, 2008 10:16:53 AM
...the process. Can someone explain? Do you need glasses? Does shit just look more "in your face"? This shit just seems unnecessary.
There is no way on Earth this is gonna work by Jugdish	May 19th, 2008 10:20:26 AM
The film is not a action film - its more narrative based- THis is dumb- ROmero always has his hand out
Interesting by tomdolan04	May 19th, 2008 10:20:44 AM
that a low-fi indie horror classic is being tarted up for a 3-D release. Not sure to be happy it's been selected over the standard blockbuster summer fare or sad that part of the appeal for me on initial watchings was watching it in the dark on my own in my living room on grainy VHS. Super hi-def and 3D-ing the crap out of this is a bizarre venture but one I'll probably try and catch should it come to fruition
Real fans don't need gimmicks to see a movie in theaters by Osmosis Jones	May 19th, 2008 10:20:53 AM
They just want a great print of the frickin' movie. DOTD fans would flock to see it again on the big screen, they don't need 3D guts flying out at them.
Why this!? by FILMFUNK	May 19th, 2008 10:27:32 AM
My Brainz intersprets the movie into 3D quite well as I'm able to discern Perpective and angle and shit within the format of the Huge letterbox format screen. That being said I really loved Beowulf in 3D as I thought it would be red and green shit but amazingly it's now clear glasses and I think this new 3D is another step further so maybee it will be amazing!? But why this? is it a simple film to convert? are there scenes that look like they'd be improved a lot by the technology or am I missing the bigger picture and this new 3D enhances Everything so It's ALL fucking Brilliant in which case re-do Everything in it and blow my mind all over again!!! MOVIES ARE FUCKING BRILLIANT AINT THEY.COM
Top 3 topics are Dawn, Dawn, Dusk? WTF by joeelliott	May 19th, 2008 10:29:41 AM
piddlegims
Ummmm why? by skimn	May 19th, 2008 10:30:34 AM
Dawn Of The Dead still shows the seams of its low budget in film stock, cinematography, lighting and such. Will 3D just magnify these flaws? Granted its fine just as it is. Can we stop strip mining classics just to make some extra bucks??
Romero Zombies dont say "Braaains" by Knobules	May 19th, 2008 10:32:48 AM
They just groan and eat everything. Get your movies straight. Find a Return of the Living Dead thread.
Also by tomdolan04	May 19th, 2008 10:32:49 AM
$50,000 - $100,000 per minute. Yikes. Sure DOTD isnt chock of complex images but even if they did the US 139min version (as opposed to the 156min one) absolute bare minimum outlay would be $6,950,000. Not earthshattering but financially (and that surely can be their only motivation here) is it really worth it for them?
I'd rather see the far superior REMAKE in 3-D by ShiftyEyedDog2	May 19th, 2008 10:34:27 AM
The new version was better in every conceivable way. Turn THAT one into 3-D and I'll be interested. The original? zzzzzzzzzz
Red Dawn of the Dead in 3-D! by spidercoz	May 19th, 2008 10:42:22 AM
Communist Zombies! Kids with assault rifles! EXPLOSIONS!
Jugdish - ROmero always has his hand out by Zombieflicker	May 19th, 2008 10:46:47 AM
Romero doesn't have the rights to Dawn (or Night or Day), so he's not the one trying to get this going. I can't say whether or not he'll get any money (they'll want to market it with George's name on it, not sure if they can do that without paying the man), but I do know this is Richard Rubinstein's gig, not George's. Get your facts straight before sounding like a idiot.
GET READY FOR EVERY MAJOR STUDIO HIT by BurgerTime	May 19th, 2008 10:47:33 AM
in history to be converted to 3D and re-released to theatres. I for one wouldn't mind seeing the likes of Ben Hur or Gone with the Wind reimagined in the third dimension. But does all the razzle-dazzle of the new process really bode well for Hollywood? Or does it hide the dark fact that we may have finally reached the pinnacle of post-modern culture, where everything old IS truly new again? I fear for originality now.
Instead of putting all that money into it... by tonagan	May 19th, 2008 10:50:43 AM
just do a William Castle-type deal and have people dressed as zombies in the theater sneak up behind people and scare the bejesus out of them, and maybe throw bloody entrails at opportune moments. That would be fun.
I liked the original alot... by liljuniorbrown	May 19th, 2008 10:56:00 AM
But it does show it's lack of budget in later viewings. How many zombies really are completely blue in the face? It kind of makes it less frightening when being stalked by a black zombie in blue face who looks like he's trying really hard not to laugh. Still a classic though.
From What I've Heard by tolomey	May 19th, 2008 11:05:03 AM
Lucas is not too pleased with this new 3D process. I read that it is taking far longer than expected and is costing an absolute fortune. That being said, I think that Star Wars in 3D will be incredible, imagine the space battles at the end of Jedi....wow....I'm just not holding my breath. I still think that it'll be a few years off yet. As for DOD in 3D...it'll be ok but hardly dynamic. Give us Aliens, Close Encounters or The Thing and I'm there. Hell, even Citizen Kane would blow people's minds and re-introduce it to a new audience.
BurgerTime by skimn	May 19th, 2008 11:07:23 AM
(BTW, one of my favorite old school games) Just as in the '50s when the advent of television forced filmakers to get butts in seats via "gimmicks"...3-D, Vistavision, Cinerama, early stereophonic sound, etc. Now with home theaters nearing film quality, they repeat the gimmicks of the past to once again get butts in seats. See the "new" Journey To Center Of The Earth, which I'm sure has as much to do about Jules Verne than I do, but with "in yer face" 3D effects. ( A 3D Brendon Fraser may be more than I can take)
I'd Love to See a Raiders of the Lost Ark in 3D by kevinwillis.net	May 19th, 2008 11:12:06 AM
Big screen + 3d, I'd be there. Certainly I'm not the only one.
Creepshow 3D, good call Sam. by Boba Fat	May 19th, 2008 11:14:24 AM
I love me some Dawn but a Creepshow 3D, with all the comic book bits and lurid lighting and compositions, would get my ass out of this seat and into a cinema seat.
The NBX 3D was not that great. by Gil Brooks	May 19th, 2008 11:24:34 AM
Actually, I was rather disappointed with the way it turned out. Hopefully, they've improved the tech since then.
Already posted on Chud 3days ago by j_difool	May 19th, 2008 11:44:10 AM
Once again, AICN is beat to the news by chud. No, I don't work for them. I read both sites. They take the lead in breaking stories that are interesting. AICN takes the lead in whiny geeky bitchiness with retarded talkbacks.
Totally Unnecessary! by Darth_Kaos	May 19th, 2008 11:54:21 AM

enough with nightmare before christmas already by prunkhaft	May 19th, 2008 11:54:36 AM
it seems it'll never go away. I can't believe the obese teen girl demographic still shell out for that shit movie.
Wow, Romero keeps finding ways to make us pay for DOTD again by Trazadone	May 19th, 2008 12:01:14 PM
After a gazzilion VHS and DVD releases Romero must have asked himself, "How can I make even more money on this property"? Big yawn.
Shawshank Redemption 3D by JBouganim1	May 19th, 2008 12:08:16 PM

How about enough of DAWN OF THE DEAD, already??? by Nosferatu Jones	May 19th, 2008 12:20:38 PM
I am SO totally gonna get flamed for this, but the original DAWN OF THE DEAD has never impressed me that much. The plot and set-up are great, but the acting's terrible, and I'm not so sure the direction is that hot, either. I do understand that they were all working on a shoe-string budget, but I rented this again last year (having not seen it since the early '90s) and I still don't get what all the hub-bub is about. For my money, CREEPSHOW and the original NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD are the 2 best films Romero has ever made. I just don't find most of his efforts to be that SCARY, odd considering he's supposed to be a "Master of Horror." Most of his thrillers just don't seem to have the scares, atmosphere and well-edited tension that far better horror films have. Sure, the original DOTD had a neat sequence where the blond guy turns into a zombie underneath the bedsheet... but he slips the sheet off his face and his EYES ARE CROSSED. Silly little instances like that drove me nuts. Sorry. Flame away. I realize it's geek sacriledge, but I honestly prefer the DAWN remake from 2004. Scarier, more realistic and much more visceral. THAT one gave me nightmares. The original just kind of made me chuckle.
OH God! Nooooooooo... by Dead_Geek	May 19th, 2008 12:30:59 PM
Another turd into our minds. WHY DO THIS? Hollywood can't make anything new! @#$%!
Trazadone by Zombieflicker	May 19th, 2008 12:34:56 PM
Unless he gets paid for a commentary track or interviews, he doesn't make shit off of another version of DOTD. Just because he wrote and directed it, doesn't mean the movie belongs to him. Richard Rubinstein owns it and has been pimping out the name for years now.
Um it's not a remake by Gozu	May 19th, 2008 12:42:13 PM
And I would love to see the original in theatres, 3-D or not.
Just re-release Jaws 3D! by Pops Freshemeyer	May 19th, 2008 12:49:10 PM
Or would that be Jaws 3D:3D?
Noferatu Jones....you're DEAD on (heh) by Brians Life	May 19th, 2008 12:59:02 PM
I enjoy the original Dawn of the Dead...in fact I own the 3 version set. It is BY NO MEANS a great movie. I see the social commentary...I see what Romero was (and always is) going for...but for my money the original NIGHT is a MUCH scarier and well put together film. Now, that being said, I think DAWN would've been MUCH improved had he kept his original scripted ending intact.
RESHOOT THE ENDING!!!! by Brians Life	May 19th, 2008 12:59:58 PM
Yeah, I know it's impossible! But I read the Dawn script before i saw the movie and the screenplay had Romero's original "downer" ending....never should've changed it.
NO MORE 3D!!!!! by Laneykaz	May 19th, 2008 01:06:47 PM
Ugggghhhhh!!!
I'd love to see all 3 originals on the big screen by Mavra Chang	May 19th, 2008 01:08:14 PM
It'd be a great drive-in triple feature. I'm iffy about the 3-D gimmick. I'll be grabbing up "Diary" tomorrow, so I still have to sample 'shaky-cam' zombies before I can contemplate 'reach out and touch someone from the screen' zombies.
At the risk of losing my film geek card... by TheLastCleric	May 19th, 2008 01:15:02 PM
I actually prefer Snyder's remake as well. I respect Romero for all his vast contributions to the genre but I have mixed feelings when watching much of his work, Creepshow excluded. I'm still interested in Diary of the Dead, which hits DVD tomorrow, but poor word of mouth has me worried on that one.
NOTLD on the big screen by MCVamp	May 19th, 2008 01:20:25 PM
Mavra, I just saw the original on the big screen here in 'Querque last weekend. It was great...once you get past that initial eye-shock of seeing something so obviously old and low-budget, you forget about it completely within five minutes (unless the movie sucks, which this obviously didn't.) There were even people sincerely squealing in surprise at certain scenes. Also, before and after the show, a local video store (Burning Paradise) organized a bunch of geeks into a "Zombie Walk" before and after the flick. Good times, especially when you're drunk.
yeah like a blue slow moving zombie in 3d would be scary by bongo123	May 19th, 2008 01:25:18 PM
the original has dated terribly but is still a landmark in horror but it just isnt scary anymore
MCVamp by Mavra Chang	May 19th, 2008 01:27:27 PM
That sounds like fun. We have a theater that often shows older films with theme night and a restaurant-sponsored meal ('Godfather' with Olive Garden, etc.). A Romero-themed night would be kick ass! They have a sense of humor. This week, they're showing 'Sweeney Todd' with Fazoli's. Hope they have extra sauce...
Nice... by MCVamp	May 19th, 2008 01:31:39 PM
Things like this are the reason I occasionally wish I'd stayed in L.A. On any given weekend I could drive 15 minutes and see a classic on some big screen somewhere...even the chains had their "Summer Special" nights where they'd show Raiders or Top Gun. Here in ABQ, there's ONE tiny fucking indie theater and it's almost an hour from my house. Gas and beer are cheaper here though, that usually gets me through the week sane.
The Godfather with Olive Garden..??? by skimn	May 19th, 2008 01:48:40 PM
Thats like saying you're enjoying Kurosawa with Chung King.
skimn by Mavra Chang	May 19th, 2008 01:56:29 PM
They go for the chains to keep the price lower. It's not high class, but it's a start for a place like this. Romero might get what...Noodles and Co.?
by wenis	May 19th, 2008 02:18:21 PM
awesome news, just wont have to watch it in 3d.
BUB RULEZ!!! by Broseph	May 19th, 2008 02:49:27 PM
I'm down when and where?
Nosferatu Jones by brokentusk	May 19th, 2008 02:50:37 PM
Word brother, word. The DAWN remake owned my ass when I first saw it (I was stoned at the time, but it really ruined me). That's the film I hold as example of why remaking a film isn't necessarily always a terrible idea. Sometimes you can take the same basic concept of the original, yet construct it completely differently so as to improve upon the idea.
Why the hell not? by Vern	May 19th, 2008 02:51:25 PM
It's one of my favorite movies, I enjoy 3-D movies, why would I not enjoy this? I don't think the colorization comparison is quite right because at least right now you can't do 3-D at home so this is just a temporary gimmick for one particular night at the movies and cannot replace the version(s) on DVD that I have bought more than once. The thing I haven't seen brought up though is that this must be a cut version. DAWN was released unrated. It is possible to release unrated movies in today's market, but I doubt it is possible to release unrated movies to the specific chain theaters that have the right digital projection for this.
i cant watch 3d movies by LarryTheCableGuy	May 19th, 2008 02:56:27 PM
i wear an eye patch.
though rereleasing classics in 3d by LarryTheCableGuy	May 19th, 2008 02:57:33 PM
is a better idea than remakig really good movies, like monster squad and revenge of the nerds.
i didnt not care for the remake of dawn by LarryTheCableGuy	May 19th, 2008 02:59:36 PM
i do see the beauty in how good the original is.
Damn you, George Lucas! by Motoko Kusanagi	May 19th, 2008 03:05:15 PM
Damn you to hell!
Release as 38DD, then we'll talk... by Teddy Artery	May 19th, 2008 03:06:07 PM
EOM
WTF?! REALLY?! AWESOME!!! by LaserPants	May 19th, 2008 03:10:51 PM
haha! Oh man, thats gonna be great!
It gets up and kills...the people it kills GET UP AND KILL!!! by thecomedian	May 19th, 2008 03:25:57 PM
My favorite cheesy movie quote ever.
Just watched DIARY by Brians Life	May 19th, 2008 03:49:20 PM
It suuuuuuuuuuuucked. It was almost like you could tell some one that is only passingly familiar with the technology and the voyueristic mood was behind it. hey, i love Romero and NOTLD is still the ONLY movie that truly scares me...but I think he lost it. Land was pretty sad and Diary was better, but still bad.
3D the future of cinema!?!? by Brians Life	May 19th, 2008 03:52:18 PM
I think Harry or Quint said that after a few months ago, but presented as though the major chains were expecting that. Am I wrong to assume that 3D will ALWAYS simply be a fringe? I mean, I agree with a previous poster in that all real film fans want is a beautiful print and good sounds....everything else is unnecessary.
Last 3D I saw was Jaws 3 and that was awful by Knobules	May 19th, 2008 03:57:37 PM
So there is no way this could work.
oh, genius.... by duanejones	May 19th, 2008 03:58:56 PM
...the original _dawn_ was 16mm, for fook's sake! the advantage of this film getting this treatment, other than to watch wooley go apeshit and a (by now) goofy head explosion, um, comin' at me in WHAT WAS FREAKIN' LOW RESOLUTION IN 1979 would be....what, exactly? virtualizing something that looks fake to begin with strikes me as making two mistakes with one effort. at this rate, why don't they 3D-ize cassavettes' _husbands_ or episodes of _kojak_? i get the feeling only directors of photography will get that gag...
....and the remake sucked by duanejones	May 19th, 2008 04:09:06 PM
period. the end. good lord, what could possibly have been "better" about it, aside from the memorable first ten minutes? more cross-dressing? sarah polley? i'll go with the latter, perhaps, but every single one of you who finds snyder's version superior is wrong/fucked in the head. i guess it's possible it might have looked superior with my head up my ass, but sadly that was not the condition wherein i viewed it -- that's the only way any of you could have come to this risible conclusion. i'm not really -- oooo, look out now! -- a big fan of his version of _300_, for that matter. mr. miller's original seemed so much more vital and exciting, whereas the film version came off overwrought ("we are undone, i tell you!") and absurd. and poor lynn varley! her lovely, dramatic color work in the comic was transformed via CGI into a film that looked like it took place in andres serrano's "piss christ". i get the feeling only modern art fans will get that gag...
@Brians Life by MCVamp	May 19th, 2008 04:10:39 PM
As long as 3D is cost-prohibitive, it will indeed remain fringe. If you can create a viable non-glasses method of 3D (Spielberg's brought up some process he's invested in for a while now that's still not quite there yet) and then make it relatively inexpensive on a mass scale, you're there. But it will probably be ten times as difficult to integrate into regular moviegoing than digital filming and projection...look how long THAT took to catch on. Now most new theaters have at least one or two digital screens if not more. In the end your final assessment is what it is...a nice print and good sound. That'll do.
Remake "FIREFOX" in 3D by KurtLockwood	May 19th, 2008 04:28:28 PM
I wanna see the scene where the topless high school chicks (inculding a very young Angelina Jolie) are in 3D, yum.
besides the remake blew it out of the water by bongo123	May 19th, 2008 04:36:19 PM
do zack's one in 3D and im soooo there
Thanks, MCVamp....and DuaneJones, you funny man. by Brians Life	May 19th, 2008 04:39:40 PM
MCVamp...to further discuss, is the integration of 3D cinema on a grand scale something that you are looking forward to? I only ask because as a film fan, I am curious as to whether this is something I'm missing out on. I do not seek out 3D or IMAX version even when they come along...in fact I think I willfully avoid them. I understand we're talking about an eventual "glasses free" experience, but I still can't help but feel that there's something inherently "wrong" (for lack of a better word) with a push in that direction. Duane Jones...I agree with you. There is NO COMPARISON of the remake to the original. I don't dislike Zack Snyder as much as you seem to...but much like the recent remake of DAY it almost seems like they made a completely separate film with small elements and slapped DAWN on it. Not a noble effort, but I DO think the remake made for a good Zombie movie outside the Romero realm. Of course the action and effects are a VAST improvement over the original. Even Savini has come out with how bad he thought the blood looked.
KurtLockwood by Shawn F.	May 19th, 2008 05:15:07 PM
You mean, FoxFire? If that were Firefox, then I'm royally pissed that I missed that verison and saw the one where Eastwood played James Bond (Badly) and stole a Soviet plane. Cool arcade game though.
sigh. by ultragoregrind	May 19th, 2008 06:12:46 PM
Look, im totally in the minority here, and 1 man can't halt progress and innovation - however, this bums me out. My left eye has been pretty shit since birth, and as a result this 3d shit just doesn't work for me. Ah well, at least i've got Dawn on BluRay.
I really like the new 3D process, but... by SoylentMean	May 19th, 2008 06:18:03 PM
Us bespectacled folks need a clip on option. I believe I mentioned this before in Beowulf and TNBC-3D talkbacks before, but wearing 3D glasses on top of prescription glasses is kinda irksome. I like this idea, but I'd really like to see if they could do this with the Evil Dead trilogy. Just imagine, the tree rape scene in The Evil Dead, in 3D!!!!! Why must I dream?
i fuckin hate you kids by bacci40	May 19th, 2008 06:38:39 PM
"the remake blew the original out of the water" why, cuz zach had more money for better effects and more blood???? the original dawn was commentary on america's addiction to mass consumption, cloaked in a zombie movie...zach's movie just happened to be filmed in a mall set...there was no purpose, there was no reasoning...it was a straight zombie action flick, with some of the best scenes borrowed from other movies...but all you mindless sheep care about is fast moving zombies and lots of blood and gore...christ...you kids sicken me...michael bay has a career cuz you fucks love to eat shit and ask for seconds...you dont care is there is a story, you dont care for subtext...you just want cool explosions and cgi you cant see on your xbox...fuck you all
In 1978 by mcordy	May 19th, 2008 06:41:11 PM
I saw this in a theater in the same freakin mall it was shot in (Monroeville, outside Pittsburgh). I must admit it was pretty surreal to exit the theater right back in the mall, only to be bumped by people mindlessly walking through the mall. Quite disconcerting.
It didn't work for SUPERMAN RETURNS the 3-D sucked by Mace Tofu	May 19th, 2008 06:56:58 PM
Sure its one thing to take a space ship on a star field and make it look 3-D but zombies walking slow in a mall won't work. SR in IMAX 3-D was a awful mess and proves you can't just take any old movie and make it 3-D. Nightmare worked because it "looked 3-D" to begin with. Why taint what AVATAR is doing with the 3-D market by putting out these half-ass money grabs.
I. AM. SO. THERE. by xannibal	May 19th, 2008 07:29:37 PM
Don't know if the misses is, though.
Here's a thought by Larry of Arabia	May 19th, 2008 07:32:02 PM
How about you come up with a new, original idea and film it in 3D? Don't finance it because "wow that would look awesome flying out of the screen" finance it because it would be better in 3D.
When do we get 3D technology at home? by SoylentMean	May 19th, 2008 08:08:54 PM
That's what every discerning filmgoer wants to know. That is, if they like seeing movies in 3D.
PIXAR should re-do all their flicks in 3D by SoylentMean	May 19th, 2008 08:12:55 PM
The Incredibles in 3D! Ratatouille! Hell, even Bug's Life. I know they're doing this with Toy Story 1, 2, and 3. Monsters, Inc. I'd even like to see what Cars looks like in 3D. It's really a cool thing to see when done right, and traditional cell type animation looks beyond amazing when given the 3D treatment (like that Donald Duck short before TNBC I saw last year). It's a fun way to see movies and I think the ticket and DVD buying public deserves more of it.
This is a good idea by Stuntcock Mike	May 19th, 2008 08:21:38 PM
The best of the bunch in 3d. Count me in.
Instead of 3-D, what about IMAX? by Mavra Chang	May 19th, 2008 08:27:24 PM
THAT would be sweet!
shawn f. by KurtLockwood	May 19th, 2008 08:44:17 PM
Foxfire it was! Thanks for saving me a wasted night, haha!
I have always loved 3D ...but.....stupid choice by TRON	May 19th, 2008 08:49:38 PM
I have seen the follwing in the theaters, Spooks(3 Stooges), Dial M for Murder, Jaws 3D, Friday the 13th part 3. Comin at Ya, House of Wax,,Captain EO, Muppets. Nightmare on Elm part?3... etc etc etc. Vern you are right about unrated vs a "R" rating... When they are just starting the process of converting to 3-D.... wouldn't T-2 be a better choice to convert to 3-D? If I wanted to make money on 3-D... I'd pick a blockbuster movie with special effects and an outstanding film print. With Camerons camera angles and motion,, damn !!!!!!certain that T-2 would break the box office bank again. Love, Dawn of the Dead,, saw it in the theaters when I was 15,,,,, not a money making choice.
Hey Harry,,, no Sterwardess 3-D jpeg imbedded on this page by TRON	May 19th, 2008 08:54:11 PM
THE SCREEN COMES ALIVE IN. STEREOVISION 3D The Unpublishable Novel Is Now America's Most Controversial Film! Now At Last On The Wide-Screen--The Most Talked About Girls In America--The One, The Only... The Stewardesses Ahh you smutpeddler!!!!!!!
Ahem..thats Stewardesses by TRON	May 19th, 2008 08:55:21 PM

Wow. by SebastianHaff	May 19th, 2008 09:55:03 PM
Maybe I'm just living in the past, but to me Romero's original holy trilogy is absolutely perfect. I can't wait for this. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if George Romero's Dead films were six year old boys, I'd be in jail for how much I love them. This is the one instance where I freely admit to being a blind fanboy.
Bacci40: Oh, go fuck yourself... by Nosferatu Jones	May 19th, 2008 10:38:02 PM
...and the high-horse you rode in on. Some of us just don't suck at the Romero teet like some others on these boards. And WE'RE supposed to be the sheep, 'cause we prefer the 2004 DAWN OF THE DEAD??? Boo-fuckin'-hoo. Don't sprain your arm trying to pat yourself on the back for your lame grandstanding.
new 3D is nothing like old 3D by GavinVanDraven	May 19th, 2008 10:38:48 PM
trust me. i saw beowulf in 3D (digital realD theater) and it was amazing. no blue and red or green and red glasses. just clear glasses. everything is so layered. everything pops. its like a religious experience. the experience. not the movie. beowulf was ok, but far better in 3D. i think its funny how people fight about the original dawn vs the remake dawn. two totally different movies, two totally different ways to rock. and dont bash the old one because of its effects, they were increadible for the time. bash movies that use cgi every 5 seconds. bad cgi that is....
Diary of the Dead Tomorrow by Autodidact	May 19th, 2008 10:56:58 PM
The plan for Tuesday is to get a little work done in the morning, go for a jog in the afternoon, then I'll be renting Diary of the Dead and making some home-made french fries to enjoy along with it. I expect it shall be quite enjoyable!
FRY: Wow, the 3D looks great! by Osmosis Jones	May 19th, 2008 11:06:43 PM
LEELA: Mine's not working...!
Who gives a shit about 3D?!? by Motoko Kusanagi	May 20th, 2008 02:21:59 AM
Seriously. Movies should stay in 2D. Forever and always. Everything else is fucking child's play and worthless wannabe-eye-candy about which I don't give a flying fuck. Period.
just do a 3-D version of .. by nolan bautista	May 20th, 2008 03:46:36 AM
..the opening sequence of "Day of the Dead"...(everything up to the opening title)
You can love both DOTD movies! by Eyegore	May 20th, 2008 03:47:10 AM
Seriously, why can't some of you see that? Liking one doesn't mean you must hate the other. I love them both and own them on DVD. I saw them both in the theaters on release and would love to see them both again in 3D. Yeah, Romero's got a message in his movies, we get it bravo. It doesn't mean you have to marry the fucking thing and shit on it's remake whenever it's mentioned.
when we gonna get Breakdance2 in 3D??? by The Goon	May 20th, 2008 03:53:18 AM

mariachi madness...suck mi huge white verga, you fuckin poser by bacci40	May 20th, 2008 04:03:03 AM
why dont you tell the whole story...of how you went to the drive in with your wannabe gf, hoping that a horror film would send her into your arms and you would get a cheap thrill...but then, she was the one transfixed as to what was going on, on the screen, so you were (once again) forced to go home and wack off in the bathroom...cuz if you take away the bigger budget, the better effects and the professional actors...there is nothing better in the remake...im sorry, but gross out scenes made only for the gross out factor dont excite me...its like kids today see the original halloween and say...hey that was crap...where's the blood, where's the gore...where's the torture porn scene, why doesnt jamie lee take her top off? fuck you all...thats the whole point...that movie didnt need that shit to scare you...and in romero's classic zombie movies, the horror wasnt coming from the gross out scenes, it was coming from the audiences realization of the human condition...in night, that was about the destruction of the nuclear family, racism, and the end of the ozzie and harriet generation...in dawn, it was the recognition that we didnt need some outside entity to zombify us...we did it to ourselves, becoming zombified consumers, with day it was the warning about the miltary industrial complex...and ya, what a hack romero is...which is why filmmakers continue to recapture the magic he found back with a bunch of amateur actors and cheap film stock...and none of them have done it yet...
The sole reason why the remake blows: by Lost Jarv	May 20th, 2008 04:42:06 AM
Zombie Baby- unfuckingforgivabe
Tonagan: Top drawer idea by Poopipepunisher	May 20th, 2008 04:58:25 AM
'just do a William Castle-type deal and have people dressed as zombies in the theater sneak up behind people and scare the bejesus out of them, and maybe throw bloody entrails at opportune moments'. That sir is a work of genius, i would rather attend some sort of fucked up 'Rocky Horror picture show zombie jumping out and lobbing guts and shit audince particiption event' than this. Why DOTD? rahter see CE3K 3D upped myself
The funniest one of those is the Jaws one by Lost Jarv	May 20th, 2008 05:21:56 AM
where people watch it sitting on inner-tubes in the ocean and every so often someone pulls them under the water. The Descent cave was good as well.
For the love of God... by Breotan	May 20th, 2008 06:33:39 AM
These Romero flicks were sorta cool in a geeky kid kinda way when they were first released. Now when I see these I'm thinking that I just woke up with a huge hangover and there's no asprin to be had. Even more liquor doesn't stop the pain. The only thing worse than Romero's zombie flicks is the fact that the flicks themselves seem impossible to kill. It's like one of those self recursive acronyms in that the zombie film has become the zombie. It just won't die.
Bacci40: Congratulations... by Nosferatu Jones	May 20th, 2008 06:57:51 AM
...you've now made the 1978 DOTD seem even MORE boring than it is. Like someone over-explaining a joke to the point where they completely sap it of its original humor, who've made DAWN OF THE DEAD '78 sound about as scary as a Monday morning English lit class, taught by an 80-year old professor with bad breath and even worse ear-hair. We should be singing praises of any horror film because it's SCARY first, rather than picking it apart to the point where it ceases to be a horror film and just becomes a thesis. It's a fucking zombie movie. It ain't Bergman.
I like both versions but... by Mavra Chang	May 20th, 2008 08:13:49 AM
The zombies in the original had personality, at least as much as a mute walking corpse can have. So he didn 't spend a fortune on effects, but how many of you remember the Krishna, the nurse, etc.? The remake had scarier, faster zombies with better makeup, but the original zombies could leave an impression deeper than a gaping bite wound.
Lost Jarv: Cheers by Poopipepunisher	May 20th, 2008 08:21:53 AM
Thanks for the interaction…long time reader… first time writer. The only audience participation we have had recently has been a twenty minute argument with an obese ‘Jabba the Hut’ type mother fucker, who after eating his own body weight in M&Ms, then mashed a number his mobile with his paw and proceeded to yell into it the whole plot of Iron Man at the top of his voice. (You know the type he’s seen the film more times than he has seen his feet in the last five years and just has to tell his other fat knacker of a pal, who can’t squeeze his girth out of the front door to come to the movie, what’s happening on the screen) His argument that he’ has paid good money to see the film and can do what he wants’just wound me up like a cheap Japanese watch. And the cherry on the cake was hearing the dulcet tones of ‘SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH’ screamed at him and then realising those words had sprung from the lips of your own daughter. Getting pulled under water whilst watching Jaws seems somehow to be a lot more fun than this.
Fucking audiences by Lost Jarv	May 20th, 2008 09:18:12 AM
Drive me mad, I thank the lord I live in Britain and censorship is such that we don't get Children in films I want to go to. I really pity Americans sometimes.
That scene where the guy gets eaten in the elevator by TheNorthlander	May 20th, 2008 09:21:52 AM
I can totally see it working in 3D. But on the other hand... why do we need to see a movie 3Dlized (nightmare before christmas, starwars, DotD) or Director's Cutted (Alien, Starwars again, blade runner) in order to bring them back to the movie theaters? They're classics and just seeing them on the big screen with an audience is enough. Like, how would a shorter version of Reservoir Dogs made into 3D be better for instance? Just bring back the classics the way they were.
Why? by Frankenbastard	May 20th, 2008 09:25:42 AM
Why do they keep trying to retrofit films that were never intended for 3D?
LEY-HOO-ZUH-HER: L7 by Rubbertoes	May 20th, 2008 10:58:00 AM
2 Things: 1.) Someone said the Dead REMAKE is "Better!" wow. yikes. yeesh. I like the remake - and I've found almost NOBODY in the horror world that even likes it - let alone says it is "better." It's good - but not better. Not nearly as frightening as the original. The relationships between the characters in the original are what made it scary. The remake has none of that - it's very different (but still good..just not better.) 2.) Why are you guys complaining about it being remade in 3-D? I don't care if they put it in black & white with a French over-dub - it's still the original Dawn of the Dead in the THEATER again.
Great!! by pdennett316	May 20th, 2008 11:23:47 AM
Now it can be overrated in an extra dimension!!
Both Dawns are great by BrightEyes	May 20th, 2008 01:19:43 PM
But Romero's is a perfect 10, while snyders is an 8. different movies but the remake was one of the best zombie films I have ever seen anyone beside Romero or fulci make.
3D TV is Here by RaRoMo	May 20th, 2008 03:52:54 PM
At least in Japan, where they're testing it. And...you don't need any special glasses. We'll probably get it in the states in ten years.
Nice idea. by proper	May 20th, 2008 07:50:19 PM
This is one trend that wouldn't bother me.In my opinion,Both versions of D.O.T.D. are top notch in their own way.I own the original ultimate version so I don't care what they do,I'd go to the cinema and watch it in 3-D just for the hell of it.Go all the way and CGI the personality zombies :0
DOTD:Wanking it dry edition by iremonger	May 21st, 2008 07:50:56 AM
Cumming soon to a cinema near you.
Count Floyd presents CITIZEN KANE-- by thegreatwhatzit	May 21st, 2008 01:07:56 PM
in 3-D. "It gonna be a scary one, kids! Aaaaooohhhh!"

Talkbacks

DAWN OF THE DEAD...The Romero Original...Returning Soon To Theaters...In 3-D!?!?

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks