dawn remake > dawn original

[DrDead]

i checked to see if there was a thread for this already and didn't see one, so sorry if already beaten to death..

I'm also sorry for you purists out there, but the remake is far far far superior to the original. Some people probably aren't sure which to call the better, so i'll lay out my reasoning and let people make up their own minds. I love the zombie genre and would be happy to debate anyone on the topic if interested. In the end, i hope some of the undecided agree with my point of view. I write this all out after reading the top 10 list where so many people have the original > remake.

The first argument commonly made in favor of the original is, simply put, its originality. I'd respond that there was nothing original about it. Night of the Living Dead was made in 1968, after multitudes of low-budget zombie movies before it. Dawn was the second of the Romero movies, in 1978, but featured the same type of staggering zombies seen in Night.

The second argument for the original that people make is the social commentary Romero weaved into the story, with people staggering around mindlessly in a consumer-driven society. In fact, most advocates of the original use this to support their point of view. I'd respond first by pointing out that the original was made during the seventies, when it was common to make social commentary via film. You can use the atomic bomb in planet of the apes, the countless films holywood has made attacking big business, etc. as examples. You don't find that as much these days. The last film I can truly recall with social commentary was Fight Club. Secondly, I think romero tried to load the remake with social commentary as well. Look at the coffee shop in the mall, Hallowed Grounds, which is obviously symbolic of man's having placed its lust for consumerism above religion. Then, look at the priest on TV, that raves about adultery, abortion and homosexuality - well, the Steve guy represents adultery in the film, the black guy and his russian girlfriend represents abortion, and that old white guy is homosexuality.

Now, in favor of the remake, the drama is much much more intense, and includes some powerful moral dilemmas. Look at the scene where they first figure out that a bite is lethal and they debate whether to shoot the young girl's father. Look at the scene where the black guy knows his girlfriend is bitten, but wants to try to save the baby before she dies. Then there's their friend across the street thats starving to death and their struggle to get him food. That's intense stuff. The only drama i can think of in the original is whether the swat folks were going to leave the couple to fend for themselves, which was hohum at best imvho.

Secondly, the remake effectively created a sense of hopelessness that the original didn't achieve as well. The zombies in the remake were FAR more brutal and realistic, and the mall they holed up in was surrounded by tens of thousands of them. The scene in the remake where the priest says, "When there is no more room in hell the dead shall walk the earth" creates a religious overtone that supports the feeling of hopelessness that is central to the effectiveness of films in the zombie genre. The original had nothing like that.

Finally, the remake had far far superior acting, makeup, special effects, dialog, character development, etc etc etc. that the original lacked. All these things helped make it a much more effective, and thus entertaining movie.

Thanks,

Drdead

[Sadogoat]

I'm also sorry for you purists out there, but the remake is far far far superior to the original.

Well, whatever your reasoning, you cannot state that as fact. This is purely your opinion and your preference.

The zombies in the remake were FAR more brutal and realistic, and the mall they holed up in was surrounded by tens of thousands of them.

'Realistic'? Even if the dead hypothetically could rise, I doubt they'd be sprinting around like Olympic track runners. Personally, I think the zombies in the 1990 remake of George's Night were the most 'realistic' zombies around - if we're going to use that particular term. The zombies in the original Dawn suffered mostly from the rather absurd blue/grey facepaint. I didn't like the hyperactive zombies in the Dawn remake at all, but them I'm confess to being a fan of the 'classic shambler' variety.

The scene in the remake where the priest says, "When there is no more room in hell the dead shall walk the earth" creates a religious overtone that supports the feeling of hopelessness that is central to the effectiveness of films in the zombie genre. The original had nothing like that.

Well, that line was also used in the original film by the same actor, suggesting the same religious elements. I'd also argue that the crippled priest in the original Dawn also makes a pretty effective statement when he declares "When the dead walk the earth, we must stop the killing or lose the war". That does indicate a rather hopeless situation. Or the TV broadcast in which Millard Rasch suggests feeding the zombies or dropping nukes on cities. I don't think it gets much more hopeless than that.

Finally, the remake had far far superior acting, makeup, special effects, dialog, character development, etc etc etc. that the original lacked. All these things helped make it a much more effective, and thus entertaining movie.

The remake had alot more money to play with, so the better makeup and special FX are obviously benefits from that. I don't agree at all that it had better character development. It had too many characters, which meant that screen time had to be spread much more thinly between them than the four protagonists in the original film. Sure, many of them were likeable individuals from what we could learn of them (Michael and CJ stood out for me), but a fair number of them were barely fleshed-out and ultimately little more than zombie chow. Most of them didn't even have any character arcs - unlike Roger, Fran, and Stephen in the original.

I don't dislike the Dawn remake - as one of the people who hated the idea of it before it came out, I was pleased to discover that it was an entertaining, well-made movie that demands repeat viewings. But there is no way it'll replace the original in my esteem - even based on pure entertainment value alone and without the social commentary aspects.

[SicklyBug]

Firstly let me state that these are my opinions, they are not facts. Just as your thoughts are opinions and not facts. Secondly, my post was not written to offend anyone so please do not take it that way.

With regardes to the coffee shop being named Hollowed Grounds, I think people are reading far too much into the name. In the commentary with Snyder he says that he wanted the shop named Starbucks, but since they wouldn't agree to it he had to come up with a nifty name for it. Bare in mind that at the beginning of the commentary they mentioned that it is odd that they are recording the commentary track the day before the movie hits theaters. So none of the, oh you saw it that way? Yeah that's what I meant by it, that's the ticket! kind of thing going on.

The original has alot more going for it than you give it credit for. It's hard to compare a movie from the late 70's to a movie for the recent past as far as effects and make-up go. Take for instance the first star wars movie which was seen as the turning point in special effects. The undisputed best of it's time. Now compare that to the last Star Wars movie. Same effects company, same director. The original Dawn's make-up effects were decent for it's day when considering it's budget.

Not only is there a social commentary on consumerism but there is the same theme that Romero used throughout all 4 of his 'Dead' films. That is that we are our own worst enemy. The survivers at the mall don't want to let anyone in and would rather shoot the bikers who enter the mall rather than try to co-exist with them. And on the opposite side of the coin, rather than find a place of their own the bikers would rather put the Stephen and the gang at risk in the mall.

You compare the bites in in the remake of Dawn as good drama and then go on to say that there is little drama in the original. I disagree. In regardes to the remake there are few people who are bitten that have more than bit (pun intended) parts in the film. The pregnant lady may have been bitten, but we knew very little of her. The father may have been bitten but we weren't given any real character development nor much screentime to care about him. Steve was an arse and we were made to hate and thus were glad when we was bitten. That was good writing I must admit. And then the major bite was at the very end when Micheal gets bitten, this was a good good bit of drama I must admit. He was a major character and we were made to feel that him and Anna were going to survive together.

As far as the original goes, we have Roger being bitten. Roger was a major character and a big take action kind of guy. While most people in the remake spent the majority of the film talking about what they should do Roger was out there risking his butt driving trucks to block doors, he was shooting quite a few zombies in the mall to clear the place out and make it safe. You could see it in their eyes and facial expressions after roger was bitten that they were unsure of what to do next and might not really want to accept reality. Also Fran starts out as a passive character that is more or less along for the ride. At the end of the film she has become alot more proactive in her survival after being attacked by a zombie when nobody else is around to save her. Stephen starts out as a rather weak (of strength and contribution) character and over the course of the film learns how to be a true contributing member of the group and become decently skilled with a gun. Keep in mind he could barely fend off a single zombie that attacked him at the landing strip that they tried to refuel at. Peter, well peter was simply bad arse not much more to say about that. He did however start to soften up in character as the movie progressed.

While comparing the running zombies with shambling zombies, we must bare in mind that since we have yet to see a real zombie attack we have no idea how they might move. Since there is no explaination as to why they are reanimating we also have no idea how it effects their muscle tissue. From a real world point of view the body becomes rigid after death and thus one would think that the muscles would become harder to move. The running vs. shambling debate can be expained as pure opinion, apples vs. oranges if you will, hey they're both fruit, but it all boils down to prefference.

Don't get me wrong I had very low expectations for the remake when it first came out and I was pleased that my expectations were wrong. I actually enjoyed the film. I however think that both films have good parts and bad parts. For the record I prefer the original but I will say that I enjoy the remake as well.

[Pain]

It's all down to personal preference, nothing more, nothing less.

[zombiekilling101]

The first argument commonly made in favor of the original is, simply put, its originality. I'd respond that there was nothing original about it. Night of the Living Dead was made in 1968, after multitudes of low-budget zombie movies before it. Dawn was the second of the Romero movies, in 1978, but featured the same type of staggering zombies seen in Night.



I dont think you can say something isnt original just becasue it was a a sequel to something and that the zombies where shambling. If that were the case, every movie made today could be said not to be original becasue a killer stalks with a knife or a shark eats a human.

But like pain said.. its all personal. I prefer the original over the remake for a couple reasons.

1. It bust my cherry and got me into the horror genre. It was shocking and just without finding a way not to sound like a fan boy.. still rocks my world to this day.

2. Everything in the this movie, characterzation, statements, action, drama, meshed well. It managed to have many things going on and still make a good film. The remake did not.. it relied on action and people making character connections for themself instead of us seeing the characters grow on screen. meaning we were already supposed to be connected to Kenneth becasue he was a tough black cop, CJ casue he was a security job with an attitude and too much power that was good for him

I love the remake almost as much as 1978 one.. but just not quite as good. IMO

[UNDEAD FRED]

Personaly I like Dawn of the Dead 1978 the best. It is my favorite zombie/horror movie of all time. But Dawn of the Dead 2004 is in my top 5 zombie movies. Both where great. Dawn of the Dead 2004 does have some great extras on the DVD, and the best beginning to a zombie movie in my opinion. The first 10 minutes, and the Johnny Cash intro song where fantastic. Especially when Anna falls out her bedroom window into a world going to hell, quickly. Dawn of the Dead 1978 overall was just a great story. The extended version in the Ultimate Edition box sets the story better than the theatrical version.

[DrDead]

Don't get me wrong, I loved them both. In fact, I'm 20 chapters into a full-length zombie novel myself. Also, thank you to all who want to discuss the topic. These are two of my favorite movies.

With regard to the character arcs argument - I disagree. I think the arcs are more compelling in the remake. The first example is CJ. At the beginning of the story, he is an egocentric narcissist. Half way through, he changes and becomes a team player, exactly during the scene where he goes off about the plan to vacate the mall to steve's ship, saying, "OK, I'm in". At the end, he sacrifices himself so the others can get away. Then there's the black cop, who again is all about himself and his brother in the beginning. Halfway through, he changes and develops a friendship with Larry, the arms dealer, and becomes less self-centered.

Somebody mentioned the scene with the priest in the original movie and the religious aspect there, and I forgot about that. I'll concede that point.

On the point about lack of character development in the sequel, i disagree. Romero went to great lengths to develop the main characters, namely the dude who sold TV's at best buy, especially in the scene where he shares information about himself being a lousy husband but a good dad. The black father dude shares information about his past and how he wants to change things. These are bold examples of trying to introduce the audience to a character, but as an author, i can tell you that you can't do very much of that without having the story drag. Another way to develop characters is to have them espouse a certain philosophy and hold tightly to it throughout the story. Steve, for example, was a prick, and was a prick throughout. You feel confident in what to expect him to do in certain situations. The nurse and the tv salesman are all about "doing the right thing". By the end, you fully expect them to continue doing this. the Tv salesman in particular tries to persuade the others to this point of view. It was nice to see the nurse and the tv salesman develop a romance by the end. Ok, so they didn't develop the father that got bitten, or the russian pregnant woman, or the trainee security kid, but these are minor characters in the story only put there to develop the main people in the movie, like the nurse, CJ and the black father dude.

Then there's the common argument that the nudity was unnecessay in the remake, but again, they tried to establish Steve as the adulterer, consistent with what the priest said in his tv dialogue and the nudity fit in with developing this theme.

People also say that the zombies in the remake lacked character and that none of them were noteworthy. Here i wholeheartedly disagree. The remake had the Jay leno, rosie o'donell, and burt reynolds. The remake had the fat lady in the wheelbarrel. The only noteworthy zombie in the original was the chopper head dude.

Someone also made the point that the original was more about a struggle again eachother as well as the zombies. CJ, et al, establishes this as well in the remake, but thankfully they drop that line of thought to concentrate on developing the hopelessness theme. They all need to "band together" if they're going to make it out of there alive. The original did the same thing. Flyboy wasn't exactly accepted by the swat folks until midway through.

Thanks for discussing the movie! look forward to more discussion..

Drdead

[DrDead]

Techincal problems galore, sorry.

[DrDead]

I can't seem to post without multiple errors. Sorry.

[zombiekilling101]

movies.

With regard to the character arcs argument - I disagree. I think the arcs are more compelling in the remake. The first example is CJ. At the beginning of the story, he is an egocentric narcissist. Half way through, he changes and becomes a team player, exactly during the scene where he goes off about the plan to vacate the mall to steve's ship, saying, "OK, I'm in". At the end, he sacrifices himself so the others can get away.

d

that whole use of the badass turned hero is done all the time in films. The whole do the right thing in the end is constantly used..

meh theres no use arguing. I love CJ.. I love the remake.

[Dagnammit]

Sadogoat summed up most of my opinions on the subject. I would just like to add that I think the best way to tell a true classic from a run-of-the-mill decent movie is the re-watch test:

I saw Dawn 2004 in the theatre and was very impressed with it, it was incredibly enjoyable and it certainly exceeded my expectations, but for some reason I never felt the urge to buy the DVD, and when I finally did grab a copy (about six or seven months ago), I stuck on the shelf and have still not watched it.

On the other hand, since I first saw Dawn 1978 when I was a teenager, I have watched it, on average, about once every six-to-eight weeks. Despite its blue-faced zombies and creaky acting (in places), there is something deeply fascinating and fulfilling about the movie that keeps drawing me back, time and time again. I think it has a spark, a soul for want of a better word, that the remake lacks. You can really tell it was a labour of love for Romero... I just can't get enough of it.

[Chaz McBane]

I used to watch the original whenver it was on tv but since I now own both movies I just about always watch the remake.

[dead and loving it]

I really can't compare the two as they're almost totally different. The only similarities are that there's zombies and it takes place in a mall. The story and characters are not even remotely the same. That being said, I like both movies but DOTD 78 will always be a favorite of mine because it was my first zombie flick, and a life changing experience.

[Corpse Grinder]

I love both versions. They are just two different takes on the same situation. I told my son, who prefers the original, to look at both movies happening at the same time at different locations. The survivors at the Monroe Mall in Pittsburgh got stuck with slow zombies and the survivors at Crossroads Mall in Milwaukee had to contend with faster zombies. Both movies have different characters & different situations.

The only credit George Romero has in the '04 version is the '78 screenplay. He didn't have anything to do with the remake. Richard Rubinstein produced the '78 film & executive produced the '04 film. So Richard probably had more to say in the remake & had the influence. And it was a nice touch to have the 3 cameos & the Gaylen Ross store in the remake.

Depending on my mood, I'll watch one or the other or both if I have time. But since this is a choosing thread, I'll have to go with the 1978 version. My friends & I saw it when it first came out and we still pretend that zombies are taking over sometimes! In fact, I made my mom take us, the theaters weren't strict on the no one under 17 allowed rule & she liked horror films; my poor mom, the movies I had to make her take me to!

[Barbara]

I dunno, comparing the two movies is like comparing apples to oranges.

Except for the fact that they we're placed in a mall...theres really no similarities...even the zombies we're different.

Therefore, I think this subject is moot-ish.


Becca.
Sometimes I make sense.....sometimes.

[forsaken101]

Im am going to have to side with DrDead. I prefer DOTD 04 to the original. Dont get me wrong, I love the original, but the acting is what always makes a movie better (in my opinion of course) and the dramatic acting in Dawn 04 just made the movie more enjoyable to me. I mean like in the original the one thing i dont understand is, when the group is at the helicopter and the main white guy fights a zombie with a hammer i think it was, why is it that when he hit the zombie HE fell down?

Also i feel that the fast running zombies would create more of a problem to get away from then the slow zombies who in real life could be avoided easier.

[B00Ne]

Completely different films, really only comparable in name and setting. So unless you want to compare the kearning of the movie posters or which mall had niftier shops, the rest of any arguments are pointless.

[MaxVeers]

Boy, I'd like to be drunk, too.

[ZombieJohn]

Well, whatever your reasoning, you cannot state that as fact. This is purely your opinion and your preference.



'Realistic'? Even if the dead hypothetically could rise, I doubt they'd be sprinting around like Olympic track runners. Personally, I think the zombies in the 1990 remake of George's Night were the most 'realistic' zombies around - if we're going to use that particular term. The zombies in the original Dawn suffered mostly from the rather absurd blue/grey facepaint. I didn't like the hyperactive zombies in the Dawn remake at all, but them I'm confess to being a fan of the 'classic shambler' variety.



Well, that line was also used in the original film by the same actor, suggesting the same religious elements. I'd also argue that the crippled priest in the original Dawn also makes a pretty effective statement when he declares "When the dead walk the earth, we must stop the killing or lose the war". That does indicate a rather hopeless situation. Or the TV broadcast in which Millard Rasch suggests feeding the zombies or dropping nukes on cities. I don't think it gets much more hopeless than that.



The remake had alot more money to play with, so the better makeup and special FX are obviously benefits from that. I don't agree at all that it had better character development. It had too many characters, which meant that screen time had to be spread much more thinly between them than the four protagonists in the original film. Sure, many of them were likeable individuals from what we could learn of them (Michael and CJ stood out for me), but a fair number of them were barely fleshed-out and ultimately little more than zombie chow. Most of them didn't even have any character arcs - unlike Roger, Fran, and Stephen in the original.

I don't dislike the Dawn remake - as one of the people who hated the idea of it before it came out, I was pleased to discover that it was an entertaining, well-made movie that demands repeat viewings. But there is no way it'll replace the original in my esteem - even based on pure entertainment value alone and without the social commentary aspects.

wow, Dr. Dread... YOU JUST GOT OWN3D!!! :lol: Well, I personally agree with everything you say here Sodagoat... I how ever favor the remake as well... But for different reasons. I just think it's more intense and interesting to me, I do love the original it's a close second if not tied first but the only reason I can come up with is probably that I live in this era where kids need an explosion every five seconds but yeah... I still have respect for the original... And Pain put it as clearly as anyone else who types out five paragraphs.

[DrDead]

This being a zombie-related board I thought people might enjoy debating the two movies, comparing and contrasting aspects from the two. To say that it comes down to personal preference or that its like comparing apples and oranges is a copout, since there is a thread tacked to the top of the board, http://www.allthingszombie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3217 where people rank a top ten. If there is going to be a top ten, then I should be able to argue that the remake should be higher ranked than the original. And again, this thread comes about after reading the list and seeing how the overwhelming majority of people consistently ranked orignal > remake.

I believe there's a couple of reasons why this happens:
1. There's a lot of peer pressure to say that the orignal is better.
2. People loved the original and were upset when they announced a remake and weren't going to like the remake no matter what.
3. Horror movies frighten people more when people are young and haven't seen many of them, and as such were more vulnerable to being frightened by a horror movie with the original.

See, these three points represent bias. If I could somehow click my timemachine and pop-out the original and replace it so that the remake was released in 1978 and the original was put out in 2004, then we all would have laughed at flyboy and the swat team.

Drdead

[The Blind Dead]

I agree with DrDead on the point that many will side with the original so as not to be ejected from the purist herd but I also believe many are attracted to the remake because it appeals to those with the attention span of fleas. Dawn 2004 is a good film but I'm inclined to simply use a cop out and insist it only owes whatever greatness it holds to the original and its importance to the genre.

[Sadogoat]

wow, Dr. Dread... YOU JUST GOT OWN3D!!! :lol: Well, I personally agree with everything you say here Sodagoat....

Err....."Sodagoat"?

To say that it comes down to personal preference or that its like comparing apples and oranges is a copout, since there is a thread tacked to the top of the board, where people rank a top ten. If there is going to be a top ten, then I should be able to argue that the remake should be higher ranked than the original. And again, this thread comes about after reading the list and seeing how the overwhelming majority of people consistently ranked orignal > remake.

Since when is personal preference a "cop-out"??? People's likes and dislikes are ultimately based on this - not any number of alleged 'facts' and arguments that you might choose to present. Heck, your own endorsement indicates your personal preference for the remake, so how can you accuse others who have a preference to the contrary of 'copping out'?

I believe there's a couple of reasons why this happens:
1. There's a lot of peer pressure to say that the orignal is better.

Which indicates you think that people here can't think for themselves and like having their tastes dictated to them. I'm sure most would disagree.

2. People loved the original and were upset when they announced a remake and weren't going to like the remake no matter what.

I hated the idea of the remake, but I still ending up thinking it was a great film. Infact alot of 'old skool' Dawn fans enjoyed the remake - even going as far as to rank it high in their 'favorites' lists, even if not above the original version. So I don't agree here either.

3. Horror movies frighten people more when people are young and haven't seen many of them, and as such were more vulnerable to being frightened by a horror movie with the original.

Meh. I grew up on horror movies from my pre-teen years and I found very few horror films 'scary' - that would include Dawn when I saw it in the early Eighties. I didn't find the remake scary either (that said, most zombie films aren't 'scary' - they focus more on shock/gore than actual 'frights'). Infact I'd be surprised if many people here found either of them 'frightening' (outside of the 'what if it really happened?' notion) so I don't think that is a valid point either.

See, these three points represent bias. If I could somehow click my timemachine and pop-out the original and replace it so that the remake was released in 1978 and the original was put out in 2004, then we all would have laughed at flyboy and the swat team.

I get the general impression that you are out to accuse the old Dawn fans of being biased while trying to argue your way out of being obviously biased yourself in favour of the remake (which is ultimately based on what you called a 'cop-out' - ie. personal preference). Argument and debate is fine, but you have to respect the simple fact that just because you like the latter more doesn't mean everyone else has to, and for the same reasons you do. Sure, the original is flawed in many respects and was made on a low budget (which often shows), but it has still endeared itself to a legion of fans for a multitude of reasons - the main one no doubt being that it resonated with them. You can't just abitrarily dispell that with a flurry of criticisms of it in comparison to the more recent remake. Nor can you hold a legitimate debate while you present the bottom line as an inferred "I'm right, you're wrong" statement.

[Steve P]

I also believe many are attracted to the remake because it appeals to those with the attention span of fleas.

You've taken the words right out of my mouth. I suspect it's an age thing, because I just can't understand anyone preferring the bland, white-bread remake to the original.

[chewy]

You've taken the words right out of my mouth. I suspect it's an age thing, because I just can't understand anyone preferring the bland, white-bread remake to the original.

I wouldn't say that. I first saw the original over 20 years ago when I was about 16. I didn't think it was that good of a film then, and my opinion hasn't really changed. Then again, I don't really care much for the remake, either.

[SicklyBug]

I believe there's a couple of reasons why this happens:
1. There's a lot of peer pressure to say that the orignal is better.
Drdead

Peer pressure isn't nearly as big of a factor online in a forum as it is in real life. It's far too easy to anonymous online or even make another handle if need be.


2. People loved the original and were upset when they announced a remake and weren't going to like the remake no matter what.
Drdead

I must admit that I felt there was really no reason to make a remake. However, I did go to the theater to see the remake and I bought it on DVD the first day it came out. If that says anything.


3. Horror movies frighten people more when people are young and haven't seen many of them, and as such were more vulnerable to being frightened by a horror movie with the original.
Drdead

This could be, but for me personally it's less about if I was scared/creeped out or not, but more on how I actually liked the film. I loved Silent Hill for it's atmosphere, but it didn't scare me. Horror movies never really scared me in my youth, yet I love them to death. Horror movies and sci-fi are tied for the 'my favorite genre' award in my book.

For the record I did see the original first and I still like it the most. Maybe it's because I have been to Monoreville Mall or perhaps it was one of the first horror movies that I had seen that felt like it could have happened to me.

[Crombie]

For me they are two different experiences. Just like Alien and Aliens. I would not be able to say which of the two are better because I enjoy both equally. I have watched both about 5 times a piece in the past couple of years.

[liljb15]

I'm a youngster (15 years old) so I actually saw the remake first and loved it. After watching it I bought the original and I got to say I loved the original WAY more than the remake the original just gave me a more "end of the world" feel I also loved the character developement.

[Steve P]

I'm a youngster (15 years old) so I actually saw the remake first and loved it. After watching it I bought the original and I got to say I loved the original WAY more than the remake the original just gave me a more "end of the world" feel I also loved the character developement.

I'm very glad to hear it.

[B00Ne]

Truthfully one of the main reasons I like the original better is because they actually had to WORK for the mall, not have it handed to them like in 2004. I also liked the fact that despite the world being infested with the living dead, the 1978 team's downfall was other humans. In 2004, their ultimate end came at the hands of attaching a bag of sandwiches to a dog. I try to step back and put myself in either movie, and the survival instinct of the 1978 team is more appealing to me personally.

That and the fact that 1978 didn't assault my senses with shitty nu-metal.

[R-Complex]

That and the fact that 1978 didn't assault my senses with shitty nu-metal.
I had a lengthy, insightful and profound response as to why Dawn' 78 is far superior to the remake but BOONe's point is more than enough ammo to drive that bullet home.
:clap:

[Dagnammit]

Further to what I said before - Dawn of the Dead has this gritty, genuine, down-to-earth feel to it... it's partly down to the odd little touches (some unintentional) that kind of create this indescribable feel of realness despite the dated effects and questionable acting... the squalour of the apartment block, the busted coffee machine covered in post-it notes, the gormless cops at the police dock, Blades' switchcomb, the Hare Krishna zombie, Millard Rauche with his eyepatch, the guy who keeps trying to use the blood pressure machine, the chick that looks like a six-year-old boy who wakes Fran, the teepees, the tatty 70s products that everyone thought were the bee's knees at the time... Weird little pointless things that add depth and flavour to the movie.

Dawn '04, on the other hand, is just this big slick juggernaut of a film, which moves too quickly for silly little eccentricities and is an incredibly entertaining, but soulless, experience. Dawn 1978 is like a fine whisky, Dawn 2004 is Coca Cola.

[B00Ne]

Dawn 1978 is like a fine whisky, Dawn 2004 is Coca Cola.

Beautifully put :clap:

[Dagnammit]

Beautifully put :clap:

Thanks. :drinking:

I know, I'm great! AND RIGHT! :lol:

[jackskellington]

I love different things about both versions. '78 focused heavily on the drama factor while '04 is simply a roller coaster ride of a horror movie. Simply depends on what you're in the mood for.

[UNDEAD FRED]

Both movies are fun to watch, but Dawn of the Dead 2004 there is something missing. Like zombies tearing apart, and eating the flesh of the living.

[chewy]

but Dawn of the Dead 2004 there is something missing

Maybe a pie fight would've improved it.:roll: :x

[UNDEAD FRED]

Maybe a pie fight would've improved it.:roll: :x
Even better, what happen to the pie in the movie American Pie:lol:

[Evil Pug]

Love both but have to give the edge to the 1978 one because of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouy34LmCnu8 :evil:

[F Stop]

I'm sort of ashamed to say, but I just finished watching the 2004 version this morning. I've had it on my DVR forever, and have seen bits and pieces of it on the movie channels, but never actually completed it the whole way through.

I've been thinking about it all day...and I have to say this was a friggin amazing movie...

One of the things that drew me to this genre of horror was the complete hopelessness and post-apocolyptic scenarios that things like this movie, The Walking Dead, and even zombie novels draw you in to.

The end of this movie was absolutely amazing. As soon as they got off the boat and that dog took off, I knew they were ****ed. The scenes with the camcorder at the end were amazing as well.

I'll have to pickup the DVD next time I'm out...

[irtehstoopid]

In Dawn of the Dead original zombies "Remembered" stuff. Like liking to go to the mall and where the secret hideout was. Also when the Bike gang raided the place that one guy was being chased by a group of zombies SO HE STRAPS HIMSELF INTO A BLOOD PRESSURE TESTER! THEN THE ZOMBS RIP HIS ARM OFF! They just wanted to get an arm ripped off scene in their so they made it stupid. It was still pretty good though. I actually like the new one a little better.

[C J]

Enjoy reading everyones opinions here. Excellent thread!

IMO The original is a classic. Without this their can not be a 2004 remake.
These movies are different.

The 04, is a entertaining buddy film that must be watched more than once to be properly appreciated. This film generates feelings of fright and suspense because the zombies are a constant threat and are very capable. Throughout the film the characters do develop and bond despite what some say. One example is CJ and his claiming redemption even though ironically enough he was right in the first place not to let the others in the mall and the way Ken and Cj bonded in the end working as a team showed this.


In the End of the 04 film the zombies win!

[LittleLebowski]

The whole running zombie thing in the 04 one pissed me off. Took away from the slow menace that characterized the original.

[Jack Swift]

I liked the original characters better. Didn't really care what happened to the people in the remake.

[nirvroxx]

Maybe a pie fight would've improved it.:roll: :x

LMAO! that is one of the worst scenes I've ever seen, in any movie....

IDK, I just never got into the original....I couldnt get over the uber-cheesy blue-gray make up the zombies had....they didnt look "real" to me at all, and that really hurt the movie....that scene where the bikers come in and start playing gags on the zombies, still get me angry, along with the "clown music" playing thru-out that scene...I think that one scene alone, ruined the whole movie for me, because up until then I thought the movie was ok....

[Eknytz]

I like the remake much better, most people i show the original to think its really boring and they even say "this sucks, can we change movies?" until the movie gets to around halfway through then they stop complaining as the climax picks up.
When i show the remake to people they are always engaged in the movie, even before the zombies even show up, the one thing that i hate about the remake is the pointless nudity which seems like it was put there to exploit some perverted moviegoers minds, i wish there was a version of the movie that did away with the movie, the nudity in the movie is the only reason why i haven't showed the movie to much more people.