Shaun of the Dead or Dawn of the Dead 2004

[UNDEAD FRED]

In your opinion what is the best modern day zombie movie. Both are great zombie movies, but I like Shaun of the Dead way better.

[Mobius]

You really can't compare the 2. One was a uk(en) satirical funny film and the other was down right gore.

They were both great with the exception of poor preforming maki pheifer.

Nick frost and Simon pegg are 2 THUMBS Way up! I met Simon last year in a con. He was a down right funny guy.

I'd say if you had to compare 2 moder day zombie movies it would have to be...

Dawn of the dead and something along the lines of either Dellamorte Dellamore or Versus.


Just my :2cents:

[UNDEAD FRED]

They were both great with the exception of poor preforming maki pheifer.


Really? I thought Maki Pheifer was great in it. How he went crazy over what happened to his family.

[Victor Clark]

I don't think I can easily answer that, just because they were both GREAT zombie movies. Plus I agree that they're too different in style to choose accurately. I'll have to think it over for a while.

[DarthJoe8]

Shaun of the Dead was the better movie. I liked DotD04 but why compare such opposite movies??

I kinda agree with Mobius, I didn't find Maki Pheifer character believable or really likable. A pretty bland performance...:think:

[archivesofthedead]

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. Dawn 2004 was not.

I don't think they can be pitted against each other. :drool:

I'm calling the genre police on you.

[UNDEAD FRED]

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. Dawn 2004 was not.

I don't think they can be pitted against each other. :drool:

I'm calling the genre police on you.

I have 9000plus post, most of them bad, but that means I can do whatever I like:lol::lol::lol: But the thread is the best modern day zombie movie, these two movies are the best.

[Mobius]

I have 9000plus post, most of them bad, but that means I can do whatever I like:lol::lol::lol: But the thread is the best modern day zombie movie, these two movies are the best.

\\ ACTUALLY you cant do whatever you want.. says darkness and her modding.

[Interdeadical]

\\ ACTUALLY you cant do whatever you want.. says darkness and her modding.

:x Mobius, I don't know you, so I have nothing against you, but could you please stop aggravating the moderators? I hate seeing these little comments you keep dropping everywhere on the forum. I joined this place to enjoy myself in a place where I could make friends and talk about one of the things that I love. I'm afraid you're starting to hinder that enjoyment. Sorry if I've offended you.

[mitzidemarco]

I would say Shaun is better. :)

[RIP]

Dawn remake is definitely the better film imho cause of the great gore and kills scenes, the zombie makeup, the cast and crew, etc....

[Zombreach]

I like both movies, however, I have seen Dawn of the Dead many times and Shaun only once. Therefore, I would have to say I like Dawn better!

[zombie surfer]

Dawn is more exciting but i love Shaun of the Dead as much for different reasons. I might go with Shaun though cause it's British & so am i.:)

[archivesofthedead]

I have 9000plus post, most of them bad, but that means I can do whatever I like:lol::lol::lol: But the thread is the best modern day zombie movie, these two movies are the best.

Holy! I didn't see that you are a Jedi. Huh? What did you say?

Yes. You're right, this isn't the thread I'm looking for.

Moving along.

[Interdeadical]

I know I should probably vote for Shaun since I'm a Brit and all, but I have to go for Dawn 04. It was one of the movies that got me into zeds in the first place! :evil:

[Subgenius]

Shaun of the Dead was a comedy. Dawn 2004 was not.

I don't think they can be pitted against each other. :drool:

I'm calling the genre police on you.

I agree, and voted other because of that genre difference.

[UseYourHeadAndYourMachtte]

i think barney was scarier than dawn but i did like shaun but it wasnt scary:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x:lol:

[VegetarianZombi]

Dawn had some interesting moment, but for the most part, I give it a meh. I thought the whole preg-o zombie part was kind of lame. Also, what was the deal with Vingh Rhames getting his arm cut? There was this entire buildup about his arm throughout the movie with no payoff. The thing that I liked most about the movie was the dude on top of the gun shop. To this day, I still wonder about a good way to save him without getting munched by the horde.

As for Shaun of the Dead ... I loved the first half of the movie. It was really funny and pointed. The second half became was the type of movie that the first half had satired So, I'm meh on it as well with a plus-plus for the first half.

Really ... my fave zombie flick in the past few years has got to be 28 Days later. And the worst goes I am Omega although I was most disappointed with Diaries.

[Subgenius]

28D/WL = not a zombie movie.

I Am Omega = not a zombie movie.

28 Days/Weeks Later had living infected humans.

I Am Omega had "feral, cannibalistic" humans.

Those two films do not compare with Shaun of the Dead or Dawn of the Dead.

[DarthJoe8]

The thing that I liked most about the movie was the dude on top of the gun shop. To this day, I still wonder about a good way to save him without getting munched by the horde.

I've thought about this also and I would have used a remote helicopter (or a bow and arrow) or something like that to bring a string over to him then connect it to a larger rope. They could have shared food or weapons using this "clothes line".

Really ... my fave zombie flick in the past few years has got to be 28 Days later. And the worst goes I am Omega although I was most disappointed with Diaries.

I gotta say it, 28 days later had no zombies in it...:lol: Great movie though!! :drinking:I haven't seen I am Omega...looks pretty dumb based on the reviews...Check out Zombie Nation for real garbage...:puke:

[VegetarianZombi]

Subgenius, you're being pedantic. Both of those films featured traits that are shared in most zombie films with the major deviation being that the "infected" are not dead. If someone followed your chain of thought, the zombie genre would be almost exclusively limited to Romero which I think is a mistake. As consumers and even participants in the genre, we should be looking to expand it as opposed to rigidly keep it confined. Look at how the vampire genre stagnated in the 90's when every writer out there decided to follow rewrite all of Rice's books instead exploring other questions of genre. Now ... if you even approach a publisher with a vamp story, you'll get a door shut in your face (even with the success of Twilight)

As for the movies - considering that the remake of Dawn of the Dead was strongly influenced by 28 Days Later, I would argue that the two films have more in common than you'd let on. I would even argue that the Dawn of the Dead remake solely existed because of the success of 28 Days Later. The undead became mainstream again even though the undead in 28 Days were not really undead. Shaun of the Dead is a wonderful film, but it falls apart for me at the end when it becomes the type of movie it is making fun of. It's like making fun of clown suits, then wearing one. That's my only issue with it.

As for I am Omega ... that movie doesn't even deserve discussion.

[Subgenius]

28D/WL and Dawn of the Dead are both survival horror or apocalyptic horror genre films, but between them, only Dawn of the Dead is a zombie horror film. The horror genre has many, many sub-genres. But, in the end, they are all horror genre films. 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later are, IMO, more comparable to Outbreak (1995) or The Andromeda Strain (1971) and even Twelve Monkeys (1995) or The Crazies (1974). All of those films are about the outbreak of a virus (whether intentional or natural).

The key element in a zombie genre film has to be that the dead come back to life. Being slow movers or fast runners is not important. It is not even important that the zombies eat people or want brains for dinner. It's the undead element that makes it a Romero based zombie genre film. And, let's face it, Romero did NOT invent zombies. Romero invented the modern zombie survival horror genre.

As for Shaun of the Dead versus Dawn of the Dead, we are again mixing genres, but at least the two genres are close enough to justify that. Shaun of the Dead is a dark comedy, and some say it's a romantic comedy set in a zombie outbreak. Dawn of the Dead is a horror film. Both have undead zombies. I think that they are each great in their genres (comedy and horror) as well as being good zombie films.

[DarthJoe8]

^What Subgenius said...:eat:

:drinking:

[VegetarianZombi]

I see your point. To me, it's kind of like calling a tomato a vegetable when in fact, it is categorized as a fruit. Yet every one nods their head without missing a beat. We can quibble over categorization, but I don't think that is productive for anyone at the end of day, except maybe if you work in a video store.

In any case, I thought both those movies were meh. Night of the Living Dead was great, but I show everyone Dawn of the Dead (70's version). There's nothing like a pie fight breaking out in a zombie flick.

[Subgenius]

Yeah, it's like saying "you're comparing apples and oranges" when, in fact, both of them are fruit. Just different types of fruit.

The strange thing for me when it comes to Dawn of the Dead 1978 and Dawn of the Dead 2004 is that I like the original film much, much more. People jump on me because it was not filmed in digital camera and that it has obsolete make-up and costuming, but none of that matters. The original, despite flaws and dating, is still (IMO) a superior film.

Maybe it's like looking back at Star Wars in 1977. Compare it with modern films, and it falls short. I mean in technical special effects terms. I also mean the original film that has not been remastered. No matter how many flaws it has, the impact of seeing the original film in theaters (IMO) beats out all of the prequel films combined.

Shaun of the Dead is an original film, despite it having its roots in the original Romero Dawn of the Dead. When you compare the films scene-by-scene, it becomes clear that the only similarity is the zombies. The masterwork of Shaun of the Dead is that it tells a new story. I also want to comment on Shaun of the Dead's setting, which has the survivors hiding out in a local pub called the Winchester pub. This had not been done before. We had survivors in a rural farmhouse. We had them in a mall. We had them in an underground military base. But, none of them took place in a bar. It's a funny setting, but it is also great storytelling.

[TralltZombies]

I really love Shaun of the Dead. The dialogue is excellent. It's really everything I'd want in any movie, let alone a zombie movie--memorable characters, excitement, hilarious/creative situations, touching moments, and characters you can relate to. This movie is still my favorite zombie movie, though "Fido" is a close second. I am biased in that I prefer humor in the zombie genre. Shaun of the Dead did a great job with keeping the movie funny (but not over the top). I still feared for the characters and felt sad at some parts.

[MThomas]

Although I did like Dawn of the Dead and thought it was a good zombie movie, I have to vote for Shaun of the Dead. It is just such a great film; it is pretty much the perfect zombie comedy. That, and Simon Pegg was a fantastic actor in it.

One of my favorite parts was the scene where they are walking home drunk from the pub and they see that zombie moaning... Dubadah-dubadah-dubadah-duh...

[CityOfChicago]

I love when they're creeping along and he takes the phone call for weed.

[Zombie Dad]

I like my zombie movies scary. Shaun was a nice change, but Dawn 04 is my choice.

[Creeping Death]

Dawn 04' is easier to watch over and over again.

Therefore its better to me. :drool:

[LycanZombieHunter]

i agree with some that shaun of the dead doesnt compare to dawn of the dead bcuz of the genre difference. but both had good moments and bad. but i side with dawn of the dead. although now picking DOTD instead of other bcuz i just thought of george a romeros land of the dead was a seriously good zed movie in my opinion. and those who disagree i respectfully says that yuor entitled to your opinion.

[Eknytz]

I kinda agree with Mobius, I didn't find Maki Pheifer character believable or really likable. A pretty bland performance...:think:

What did you expect Mehki Pheifer to act like???
I thought he did great acting and he was believable.
And who says a character has to be likeable??

I actually thought his whole storyline/character was probably one of the deepest next to kenneth's.

[JohnDRobinson]

Shaun of the Dead big time. DotD was a satisfying experience but Shaun... has more rewatchability for me.

[Amish]

I don't think I can easily answer that, just because they were both GREAT zombie movies. Plus I agree that they're too different in style to choose accurately. I'll have to think it over for a while.

I agree with this.



But, I would have went more along the lines of 'Which film could you not live without?'
In consideration of this, for me, it would have to be DotD04. Shaun plays on some of the themes and intent of zombie films to a tee, but I see DotD04 as being part of the core element; with the main ingredient being to make you deathly frightened over that which is around you. With Shaun, you'll be frightened at first, but then get some laughs. Afraid, yes, indeed! But maybe coming off as someone unstable and not fit for your survival group. I personally choose life and DotD04.

[SirZombieEnthusiast]

Even though both movies are completely different. Shaun of the Dead was much better.

[DarthJoe8]

What did you expect Mehki Pheifer to act like??? A better actor...:lol:

I thought he did great acting and he was believable. I thought he was cardboard....some of his lines came out like he was reading them from a card...:doh:

And who says a character has to be likeable??Not likable in like I want him over for dinner and drinks, I mean likable as an actor playing a character. Ice Cube would've been a more convincing hood rat. :guns:

I actually thought his whole storyline/character was probably one of the deepest next to kenneth's.

His character wasn't the problem, his portrayal of the character is what I thought was weak and shallow. I don't see a movie and say, "Oh!! I gotta see that!! It has Mehki Pheifer in it....oooooh." :lol:

[detpat]

i thought the whole side story wasn't very interesting.

[UNDEAD FRED]

His character wasn't the problem, his portrayal of the character is what I thought was weak and shallow. I don't see a movie and say, "Oh!! I gotta see that!! It has Mehki Pheifer in it....oooooh." :lol:

He wasnt that bad, I thought he did a good job of somebody who couldnt handle reality. Beside I would say OOOOOH to Sara Polly.:lol:

[Amish]

He wasnt that bad, I thought he did a good job of somebody who couldnt handle reality.:lol:

Or, couldn't handle the reality of being a paid actor. Mekhi Pfeifer in a movie, BOOM!, tough actin Tinactin!, no-- I refuse to see it otherwise.

[NeonBlack]

Zombies make good comedy, whether it's intended or not. I thought Shaun of the Dead was brilliant!

[Pain]

Shaun was a better flick than Dawn 04. But then again they are totally different movies.

[Subgenius]

Shaun was a better flick than Dawn 04. But then again they are totally different movies.

They are different. Shaun of the Dead had tons more comedy while providing really good zombie story elements in the tradition of Romero (shamblers). Dawn of the Dead had tons more horror while providing really good zombie story elements in what can be called modern zombie tradition (fast-moving zombies). I give both films five stars for what they were intended for in the zombie genre. One is a zom-com (zombie-comedy) and the other is a post apocalyptic horror film.

[Pain]

Great answer mate. It's unfair to compare the two

[ZombiesAteMyDog]

I think it is fair to compare the 2, while the 2 movies tonally are totally different from one another, they are both regarded as 2 of the best zombie movies in the last 10 - 15 years ( as this thread states ) and that is the common thread between them,

ever hear anyone ask , which do you prefer mcdonalds or burger king? well they are totally different one is fried and one is flame broiled but they are both infact burger joints and inevitably your going to prefer one over the other, same here while they are totally different they are both zombie movies and people are going to enjoy watching one more then the other, and in that sense this is a fair question.

for me personally, I would have to go with shaun of the dead , but just ever so slightly, if dawn 04 had shamblers, or even just threw some shamblers into the mix say 40% slow 60% runners it could very well overtake shaun if not several other zed movies on my top 10 list.

:drinking:

[Pain]

One was intended to make you laugh, the other was not. Whereas BK and McDonalds are both intended to fatten you up:drinking:

[UNDEAD FRED]

I think its fair to compare the two simply because they are the two best zombie movies to come out since Day of the Dead 85, maybe you can throw Planet Terror in there to, But great arguments, thank you for the imput.

[ZedHunter]

If you own the SoTD dvd, you'll know that this movie was in production for quite a while. Well worth it, IMO.

[ZombiePunisher]

without dawn of the dead there would be no shaun of the dead.

[ZedHunter]

This is about the 2004 version. shaun of the dead would come about without DoTD 2004.

[Nathinial]

In consideration of this, for me, it would have to be DotD04. Shaun plays on some of the themes and intent of zombie films to a tee, but I see DotD04 as being part of the core element; with the main ingredient being to make you deathly frightened over that which is around you. With Shaun, you'll be frightened at first, but then get some laughs.

[Dr GonZo]

Dawn of the Dead (2004) wins in photo finish