Badmovies.org Forum

Hey, I was wondering what you guys are thinking about the "Dawn Of The Dead" remake.

I should probably be hating the idea because the original is my favorite movie of all time and I'm something of a purist, but for some reason I'm really looking forward to it.  I know it won't measure up to the original (or even come remotely close), but I figure that if it at least TRIES for some depth and character development and isn't too dumb and doesn't have too much CGI I will have a good time with it.

Plus, it's got a hell of a cast (Ving Rhames, Sarah Polley, Mekhi Phifer...all 3 I like).  The teaser was great, but I'm not too sure about the trailer.  Got mixed feelings about it.

What do you guys think?
______________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (01-13-04 08:12)

THe new trailer looks great though i wish they called it something else like Waking to the Dead or Morning of the Dead because the idea is a lot more different than the classic

I'll probably check it out depending on word of mouth.  I have less problem with this than the TCM remake just because I don't like DAWN OF THE DEAD as much.  If they could make this with a lot of human against zombie action with not a lot of time wasted on "social commentary" b.s. it might be worth checking out.  It depends on how many of the dumb elements of recent horror they use.  I would really love for the movie to have an original soundtrack [even if it's contemporary sounding] and not just a compilation of songs....if they did something like that I would probably be more likely to get behind it.

While I loved the first Dawn, I have to say I'm looking forward to the remake.  It looks promising.

---

Im a little aprehensive of this remake.Most remakes of classic horror movies suck, so Im a little worried.

Thanks - I'm glad to know I'm not the only one looking forward to this.

I have to say, though, jmc, that I DO hope it at least makes an effort at the social commentary that I think made the original so brilliant.  Zombie action is great too, but I hope there is some meaning and some really nice character development in it as well (like there was in the original).

And about the music, wouldn't it be great if they got Goblin to do another score for it?  Would never happen though.
______________________________________________________________________

I'm kinda looking forward to the remake.  I loved the original and I hope this one stays true to the whole "feeling" of the original.

I'm going to be attending a Q&A with the director of the remake at the end of the month at a film fest.  Hopefully the guy will impress me enough to check out the new one.

As long as it doesn't take them 20 minutes to do what could have been done in 5 minutes I'll be satisfied.   It really wasn't the social commentary itself, just that it was done really poorly.

I think that if - as the trailer portrays (but as a lot of recent films show, good editting of a trailer can make films look a whole lot different) - it's going to basically be about people caught up in a world gone mad, it might be passable.

The original was good - I don't think that it was genius but it was a good film, so I'm not entirely sure how they justify this remake (money). Let's remake the Star Wars prequels if we're going to do anything.

The whole "super" zombie idea doesn't sit well with me though. I don't really think that there's much point to having zombies running around because where's the suspense in that? To have the zombies as some sort of inescapable mass - that's genuinely frightening. That you can run but there's nowhere to run to.

I agree with Prophen Tenebrae about the zombies being able to run and things like that.  A slow moving mass of zombies would be much better.

I do believe that they are going to be cutting out all of the social commentary that was in the original Dawn.  Each group was a level of society.

Zombies-Lower class
Bikers-Middle class
Mall Group-Upper class

Lower class was trying to feed off of the upper class.  Eventually the upper class seperated themselves from the lower by locking themselves in their own "mansion".  Then the bikers come in and make way for the lower class to take over.

Anyway, I believe the director is going only for an action flick more than he is a smarter horror film.  Oh well.  

:o(



Oh wait.  Did you actually say to remake the original Star Wars trilogy???? Ack!

What I don't want to see is lots of fake-looking CGI zombies swarming all over the place.  Scores of extras with lots of fake blood and prosthetic rot: it's the only way to make a zombie movie as far as I'm concerned.  And shotguns, shotguns, shotguns.  Any movie character who kills a zombie with something other than a shotgun or a machete deserves to have his brains devoured.

The main reason I was asking you guys' opinions was that I was handed an invitation to a test screening last week that simply said it was "a horror movie" - no title.  I thought that maybe this might be it, because it was a remake, and they didn't want fans of the original swarming the theater.  And...I was right.  

I turned out to be a member of the first audience, anywhere (according to the lady who introduced the film) to see a cut of the remake.

And, well, to tell you the truth, it's pretty damn awesome.  Not perfect (there are 2 pretty dumb parts), and they don't take any time for the social commentary or political subtext that I feel made the original a masterpiece - but as a streamlined, pure visceral action version, it's pretty awesome.  Fast-paced, intense and don't worry Eirik, there are lots and lots of shotguns, lots of good gore too.

It was basically a hell of a lot of FUN.  Definitely not the travesty that was the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

This wasn't the final cut so I can't totally speak for it, but the cut I saw didn't disappoint me at all.  Also Ving Rhames is a great badass (no Ken Foree, but hey, he's cool) and Sarah Polley makes for a great heroine.

Oh yeah, and the opening scene and credits are  AWESOME.
_____________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (01-15-04 18:49)

No spoilers then? I suppose that's fair enough and while I find your comments encouraging - I believe I'll have to see it myself to judge (as is always the case).

Did they make the outbreak of zombies random?

And I wasn't suggesting the original star wars trilogy was remade - just the prequels...

Saw the trailer for it. Dunno. It doen't look the greatest to me What is with the damn zombies crawling on the ceiling!? This isn't Spiderman!  The original is one of my favourite movies and a remake of any kind really leaves me cold.

Although I will say I will go see it. I didn't like the look of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but I actually kind of enjoyed it.

Nah, I don't wanna give out any spoilers - I'll only say that for the MOST part, the makers stayed true to Romero's vision - in my opinion anyway.   Enough that I really dug it and could get into it without feeling like I was betraying the original (my favorite movie of all time).   It's even got the same deadpan, darkly satirical sense of humor, which was a nice surprise.

And about the zombie outbreak being random?  It happens suddenly and there is no attempt at an explanation, which is just like the original (the way it started in Night... anyway), and I'm so glad they did it that way.,

I can't wait to hear what the general reaction of everyone else is (genre fans especially) - I hope everyone who loves the original like I do gets the same kick out of it.
______________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (01-16-04 07:15)

Eventhough you liked it, I'll still have to see it.  I'm hoping that the disappointment I am awaiting will never come.  I hope that I walk into the theater and am completely blown away.  

It just seems that anyone today thinks that they can go out and make a "Zombie" film.  They say they are inspired by the classics, blah blah blah.  None of this rings true.  All of the zombie films today have FAST moving zombies-almost superhuman.  That isn't right.  They should be slow, shambling zombies.  It's just more proof that Hollywood believes that America needs MTV style sensory overload.  

"Slow zombies!?  People would never go for that!  Lets make them fast. Oh!  And super strong as well!  That'll keep the audience's feeble little minds entertained."

My wife is unfortunatly one of those people who doesn't get the horror in the Night-Day series.  She doesn't understand why the characters are so completely afraid of the "zombies".  She usually questions why the characters don't just run past the zombies.  

It's kinda hard to get past a mob of 20 bodies each trying to eat you.

Anyway, I'm off on a rave.  

I'm just sick of the new "zombie" films that have come out in the masses within the past couple of years.  I see the new DOTD as being a cash in on the success of other "zombie" films while forgetting just where it came from.  But, I hope in the end I'm wrong.



Prophet-Sorry about the Star Wars mix-up.  I agree with you, the prequels are horrible and should be remade immediatly.

Believe it or not, this makes me feel a little better about the movie.  

I guess slower zombies are a lost cause now...but I agree, when people speed zombies up they get rid of everything that makes zombies scary.  I think it was someone on this board, but I'm really starting to agree with whoever said that the reason they speed zombies and everything else up is that they think that the audience can't accept anything that isn't moving quickly because they want everything to be like a video game.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that the zombies ARE fast-moving (but not superhuman I don't think), and I agree, it's better the other way.  But I still really enjoyed it.  

After all, my 3rd favorite zombie film is 1985's "Return Of The Living Dead", and the zombies not only run but TALK in there.  And I LOVE that movie.

So yeah, I love Romero's shambling (but relentless) zombies most of all, but if they're running that's pretty scary in a way too.  The new "Dawn..." subscribes to that unfortunately, but I still enjoyed the hell out of it.

I don't think it's a cash-in, because I think I remember reading a couple YEARS ago that the director (or writer or producer, can't remember) was already wanting to do it then, and had for a while before that.  I do hope it's a hit though, based on the success of "28 Days Later" and "Resident Evil" (both of which I also like) - if it was it would definitely inspire some people to check out the original.

And maybe I wouldn't get such strange looks when I tell people it's my favorite movie of all time!
______________________________________________________________________

I think it will increase interest in the original, and that's always good, but I just KNOW it's going to replace the original for younger fans and that bugs me.   But I know people who just can't wait to auction off any DAWN stuff they might have once this gets released.

But I'm probably going to see it now.

I'll definitely go to see it.
I did like the original.

You know what will be sad though?
The fact that there will probably be many many people out there that don't know it's a remake because they never heard of the original.

>My wife is unfortunatly one of those people who doesn't get the horror in the
>Night-Day series. She doesn't understand why the characters are so completely
>afraid of the "zombies". She usually questions why the characters don't just run
>past the zombies.

Get her a copy of the game Thief and have her play level 3. You're down in a huge underground crypt and there are zombies everywhere. The first time I played it, I was so busy trying to deal with the two in front of me that I didn't notice the three coming up behind me and more were coming out of every passageway. I  swear I had flashbacks to the start of Day of the Dead with the zombies waking up and shuffling out of the doorways. Sure, you can run past them, assuming you're not trapped in a room with a gang of them coming through the only door. :)

I must say these fast moving zombies are ludicrous.  Have we forgotten about a small thing called rigor mortis?  Regardless that zombies are fantasy, any director should try to adhere as much as possible to physical laws.  I'm sorry but zombies running faster than Flo Jo with her ass on fire, zombies ceiling walking (WTF???), and zombies throwing people across the room just don't jive with the fact that they are dead and suffering from rigor mortis.

I'd rather see the money from this project given to Romero for his fourth dead film. At least then we'd have another classic on our hands rather than this drivel.

I dunno...Romero is too far past his prime, and began losing interest in the horror elements of the Dead series during DAWN.  He'd probably just make another talkathon with zombies thrown in as an afterthought.  

Anyone picked up that book The Zombie Survival Guide?   Max Brooks makes some good common sense points about zombies that movie makers would do well to pay attention to....for one thing, he says that zombies are deceptively strong when it comes to pushing down barricades and such just because their muscles don't tire.  Also, it makes no sense that zombies would be afraid of fire.
He says that setting zombies on fire basically means they become mobile torches until they're eventually consumed.  

I've gotten to the point where I'm not expecting a classic...I'm just glad that they seem to be avoiding a lot of the crap that's been in a lot of recent horror films.

>zombies throwing people across the room just don't jive with the fact that they
>are dead and suffering from rigor mortis.

Actually, rigor mortis is only a temporary condition, which eventually goes away.

 Rigor Mortis facts  (http://chemistry.about.com/cs/biochemistry/a/aa061903a.htm)

  Yeah, on one hand (just because the man is a hero of mine) I agree that it would have been AWESOME to give Romero the money to do a fourth film.  I would hope that it would be as brilliant as the first 3, but unfortunately, his later films were just not that good.  I mean, "Bruiser"?  Lame, lame, lame.

  I do agree that the slower zombies are more scary, but these fast zombies are fun too (at least in this film they are) - they add to the intensity, especially in the later action scenes - with the jittery, grainy cinematography (which somehow reminded me of "Black Hawk Down"), the faster moving zombies become really terrifying.

  And I just want to clarify that that's NOT 'ceiling walking' that the zombie is doing - that's a zombie with nothing but bloody stumps for legs pulling itself along a pipe on the ceiling.  It's pretty creepy, being in a darkened parking garage and all.
_____________________________________________________________________

"especially in the later action scenes - with the jittery, grainy cinematography"

Arrrgh.  Please tell me that this isn't the "new-age hyper kinetic quick cut dunnowhatthehellisgoingon flash of zombie flash of human little millisecond shot of gore" film style that we have seen so often in recent horror films.

I'm sick of the super fast shots.  I want to see what is going on.  I don't want to see a frigging camera jiggle.  As I said in an earlier reply, it's just more proof that Hollywood is convinced that our "MTV Generation" needs super fast films that make no sense but cause sesnory overload.

Bastards!

"I'm sick of the super fast shots"

Me too Skaboi.  And it's not just horror flicks.  I saw League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (forgettable high-budget crap) and all the fight scenes are a series of shots that are about four frames long on average.  I think it was the only way to make Sean Connery look like he can still kick ass.

Also bought my kids Tarzan - the Disney version where Tarzen "surfs" through the treetops at approximately the speed of sound.  It gave my son a headache, but I was helpless to console him because I was on the ground having a seizure.

"but I was helpless to console him because I was on the ground having a seizure"

LOL Eirik

I just don't understand why they want to do the quick cuts/shots.  Do they honestly believe it makes for a good movie?  I guess that they find the quickness exciting, really gets the heart pumping; you know?  

NO.

Arrrgh, it doesn't get my heart pumping.  It p**ses me off!  I'd much rather see a more traditionally shot action sequence than something that's going to make my eyes bleed.  Although these types of films aren't so bad when watching them at home, trying to watch a sequence of events shot in this manner at a theater can be downright painful to your mind.  

"Hurts....thinking.....trying to slow down time with brain...who was that....ahhh...flash of bright light....person....what happened.......my eyes are bleeding....sob..."



See, I really need to win the lottery.  You know 100 Million or so.  I'd invest it into a film.  A regular film though, none of this new directing.  

Everyone can dream, right?

"I just don't understand why they want to do the quick cuts/shots. Do they honestly believe it makes for a good movie? I guess that they find the quickness exciting, really gets the heart pumping; you know?"

Look at it this way, Skaboi:  what is THE classic element of horror?  Answer - the unknown.  One way of creating the unknown is to make the entire audience constantly wondering what the hell they just saw.  

It's logical, it just doesn't work in practice.

I love the Orginal Dawn of the Dead. Deep down I hope I can at LEAST have a fun time watching the new Dawn of the Dead, thouhg I still wish it had it's social commentary,but I also worry that people around my age will only like the new movie and find the old movie "boring". No matter how much I enjoy the new Dawn I'll always have more fun watching the orignal. Say I wonder if they'll have the seen where in the first movie a zombie gets the top of his head cut off by helicopter problers. I also wonder if those two zomibe children will appear in the movie, I dunno we don't like hurting children anymore even if they want to kill you. I'm gonna see this in theaters.

My problem with zombie movies of late is that they all seem to be trying to cash in on the "fast, aggressive zombie" craze started by 28 Days Later, which was a fairly decent film, but there was a REASON the zombies were fast and aggressive.  Personally, I enjoy Romero's slow, shambling, mindless zombies.  I don't hold out much hope for the Dawn remake.  Here's hoping the Main Man himself gets started on his fabled fourth Dead movie.

Max,

I don't think we will see another Dead film for quite some time.  Romero is currently working on a script about an undead rock band.  The title so far is "Diamond Dead".

And no, I'm not joking

Well, "Diamond Dead" couldn't be any worse than "Bruiser", haha.

Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest that the entire movie is in Michael Bay-style seizure-inducing editing.  Just that some of the action scenes near the end had a surprising extra punch because of their grainy, raw look.  I never said the cutting was fast, just that all of a sudden it gets very raw and intense (along with the characters' situation).
______________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (01-22-04 18:00)

I love(and own the DVD) of the original Dawn of the Dead, but I have two questons. Just who the "HELL" is Zack Snyder! And how did he get to direct the remake. How could they even think of remaking George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" without George Romero or Tom Savini? Is that the ultimate slap in the face of George, Savini, and "Dawn" fans, or what? So is it going to be any good, I leave it up to you? But without George or Savini, I seriously doubt it and showing such disrespect for the "God" of the Dead movies why should we care? I would be interested in hearing what you all think.

Horror Fan

The original (and only) Dawn is a classic because Romero knew how to create horror, tension and reality.  In addition to the commentary about  society and class, consumerism gone made--there was a sense of mysticism.  Our fears about life's meaning (or lack of meaning) tapped a strong feeling in our collective unconciousness.  

The "remake" may be a good ride (time will tell) or it may just show that Hollywood is "on the ropes" in terms of originality.

in the remake i heard that the zombies can run, which will be pointless & lose the meaning of the original, & when someone  is bitten they will transform straight away into a zombie, its well gay! just like ash-campbell, lol how ya doin man???

all in all it will suck ass.

take a beautiful thing and destroy it

hollywood gaylords!

First of all, yes the zombies run and yes that's kinda too bad, but no, it doesn't ruin the movie.  At all - it makes for some pretty intense scenes (remember "Return Of The Living Dead"?  That's one of the few GREAT zombie movies and the zombies run in there)
  Second, people who get bitten do NOT transform immediately into zombies.  Thank god, that would be awful.

  Like I said before up there, it doesn't  really have the smarts or social commentary of the brilliant original, but as a straight-up balls-to-the-wall action horror film with cool characters, that's good enough good enough for me.

  And I don't know who Zack Snyder is either, but he obviously has a lot of respect for the film because the entire film is peppered with cool cameos (Tom Savini, Ken Foree..., Scott Reiniger was supposed to be in there somewhere but I missed him) and tons of cool in-jokes that I felt like I was the only one in the theater who was actually getting them (which means you all will too).

  It's a cool movie.
______________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (02-12-04 04:04)

Ronin,

thanks for the info about the "remake".  Since you're such a fan of the original, it sounds like the remake will be fun!  Very few really great fright movies since the early 90's so.....I'm looking forward to this.  Did you think the acting was good or "cheeky"?  Were the special effects too gory?  or too computer graphic-y?

Appreciate your imput and you're definitely getting the enthusiasm up!

its not only my enthusiasm he's getting up!

The acting was very good from Ving Rhames (an excellent choice for the badass role), Sarah Polley (one of my favorite indie actresses) and Jake Weber.  Some of the other performances are a little sketchy - I usually like Mekhi Phifer, but I had a small problem with his character and his motivation at a crucial moment (don't wanna spoil it).

  It's been over a month now since the test screening I saw, but I do remember quite a lot of good gore (not quite on a par with the big "biker buffet" scene at the end of the original "Dawn...", but pretty damn gory nonetheless).  There are definitely some CG effects (and some were rough looking, because it was an early print and the effects weren't perfected yet), but I don't remember them distracting me very much (and I do HATE it when they do stuff with CGI that could have been done with real effects).

  Anyway, I can't vouch for the final product - it was a very early test screening I saw, so there is still the possibility they could f*ck it up big time in post-production.  Although the audience (many of whom were unfamiliar with the original) seemed very psyched about it, I heard a few grumbling about the not-devastating-but-definitely-not-happy ending.  It had a PERFECT ending and if they change it I'll be p**sed.

  So anyway, I hope all you guys enjoy it as much as me.
____________________________________________________________________



Post Edited (02-12-04 18:46)

I was reading "The Zombie Survival Guide" this morning, as a matter of fact.  I love that it's not tongue in cheek at all, but takes itself completely seriously.  I had to have a long discussion with my wife on what she should do and what she should expect should the living dead threaten our household at any time.  Apparently trying to school her on the finer points of zombie extermination and disposal is "crazy talk".  Whoda thunk it?

I really doubt that it will be anywhere near as good as the original, but I know I've spent enough money on movies that looked even crappier, so it's probably worth it.  Hell, I saw "Paycheck", and no amount of weeping and threatening will ever give me my two hours back.  

I'm wondering, though, how they're going to explain the zombies.  The original had the benefit of following "Night of the Living Dead" and having all of the characters know what was going on at the beginning of the movie.  Hopefully they won't just have a bunch of zombies attack and not even try to explain why.  Though I guess they could throw in the explanation from "Night" (in what I'm sure would be the most horrifically expository thing ever), but that would just seem somehow...wrong.

One important thing about zombie flicks, though...you HAVE to come out of the gate with some straight up horror in about the first fifteen minutes of the movie.  After trying to watch Troma's "Buttcrack" the other night (and that's a whole other thread right there) I realized that there's nothing more boring than a zombie movie wherein the first and (as far as I could tell before I fell asleep) ONLY zombie shows up forty five minutes into the movie.  Screw you, "Buttcrack".  I want my forty five minutes back!

kriss, man that was really funny,

i know. its well busy at work! dont think im coming out tonight

A few thoughts:  zombies should not be fast or coordinated--they're DEAD and there should be decay and breakdown of body musculature, vision etc......slow, clumsy zombies seem more realistic.  And there is something creepy (and funny) about lumbering zombies.

But....fast moving dead could really be terrifying.  How the heck do the living stand a chance against zombie hordes who can move as fast as they can?  Where's the hope?  Or, is that the point--there is none.

Also, the zombies represent challenge:  if the "living" people band together and don't succumb to panic or ego--then they'll survive.  That was one of the great things about the original DAWN--it wasn't til the end when Stephan lost his cool that caused "all hell to break loose" and to ultimately lose his life.  Peter, was the guy with the clear head.  Alot of relevant psycho-dynamics going on.

Lastly, I don't think there should be "an explanation" for how or why the dead are returning to life and attacking the living.  It's more tense and scary--not knowing why everything is happening.

Romero has said that he never intended the story abou the Venus probe to be the explanation for the zombies...it was just a theory from the government.  

Supposedly, on one of the Japanese discs they have a special prologue title where they have some story about a virus.  According to one of the fan sites ran by an American living in Japan, the Japanese have trouble accepting science fiction and horror unless there is some kind of explanation.

I haven't been here for a while, and I was prompted to throw out my views on the Dawn remake after seeing the trailer last night.  First, Dawn is my favorite horror movie of all time, and I even got to meet Tom Savini once and get my pic taken with him.  Really cool guy.

I will give this new one a chance, and I am going to see it.  However, I know it will never compare to the original.  I have a feeling it will be much like the zombie crap I've seen as of late, ie. House of the Dead, etc.  Every time a new one comes out, i tell myself I'm not gonna rent it, and I still end of wasting  4 bucks foolishly.  (Would have been put to better use as toilet paper).  I have never seen Ving Rhames act, except in the Radio Schack commercials.  (Hope he doesn't try to shoot any zombies with a cell phone.  lol)  I highly doubt the zombie children will appear.  Too many damn  liberals would oust that idea right away.  Which, only movies from the 60's, 70's, and possibly early 80's would show anything like that.  I just love it how movies of today are quicker to show horny teenagers screwing the s**t out eachother than a zombie child being shot.  I'll give the fast moving zombies a chance, though, it might make for a scarier feeling.  I also like the social commentary from the original , and it sounds like that was pretty much non existent in the remake.

I also hope that the soundtrack doesn't sound like death metal all the way through either, like these new horror flicks have.  And, if i can put 2 more cents in, it is sad that those who see this new Dawn ,and have never seen the first, will think the original is booorrrrring.  Teenagers of today don't know what a real horror movie is.

What takes the build up and the mythology out of this it seems everyone dies of plague and comes back as biters, as opposed to those who were already dead coming back and killing and THOSE become biters. It's much better that way. Slow moving tells you they are dead. fast moving they just are monsters. Big difference. In Romeros Dawn the scene when they are parking trucks and their is almost a phot os two or three zombies hardly moving. What a portrait of horror. Horror movie fear and alienated lost poor wal mart start a fight for no reason fear.

While watching the commercial on TV the other night, it finally struck me why I prefer shambling zombies to those who can run; When they're running, it breaks the illusion and they look too much like normal people. When the zombies shamble, it's obvious that there's something wrong with them.

does n e 1no if they will have the famous scene in as well where bikers come in and raid the mall?

yeah i am lookng forward to it as its a zombie movie, but it wont be as good as the original, yo kris u mofo, i got soooooooo f**ked on saturday at toms, i threw up in his kitchen, u coming out this fri?

the original sux, horror? gringos is to lol..... blue zombies? smurfs???

f**k THE f**kING PEACE OF s**t!!!

the remake is better... the cast SUX of course, the history is to s**t like original.... and the nerds fans of dead people? f**k YOU!!!!!!

DUMB CULTURE

Lame atempt at trolling there bud.

I dunno Lee, do you think his attempt would've worked better if we could have understood more of what he was trying to say? Trolls that write things that make no sense...

I finally saw a TV commercial for this.  Looks....okay.  Really don't like the running zombies but there are some cool looking scenes.  My wife is put off by the presence of some teenybopper actors I haven't heard of, but I'm still going to give it a chance.

If you left your computer screen and walked out your door and saw a man on the next block slowly notice you and ever so slowly come your way..is much more frighting then some guy running toward you. At least there is more time to be afraid...I dont like aspect of the remake  this one night everyones dead and next morning every one is a zombie, It's much more terrfying to see humans slowly lose control. Almost as terrfying as people and silly fog boys who can now access the internet and just curse and splash stale racist anti human thoughts on the internet. George Romero said he feared while growing up his neighbors more then Godzilla. To me the scariest zombies were in the b/w night of the living dead when you see one come through the door or come creep up behind the pickup truck. They were scarry as were similar white faced lost soulssssss in Carnival of Souls.

I'm sort of looking forward to the 10 minute sneak preview on the USA Network.

Sneak preview on USA? I haven't heard anything about this. When is it?

BTW, anyone get the new DOTD disc yet?  It looks great!  Mine seems to have a slight problem at the layer change, but I don't want to send it back....

JohnL:

I believe it's on next week . . . the 15th or the 16th.  It's on during one of USA's regular programs . . . I'm not sure which program or what time.  They are showing the 1st ten minutes of the movie uncut.  There was a huge ad in THE BOSTON GLOBE a couple of days ago.

Thanks, I'll look for it, but in the meantime if you happen to find the exact scheduling of it, please post it.

  Wasn't there going to be a bigger version of the original on DVD? I thought I read that is was a 2 disc set, with Romero's 139 min version. I thought it was to have the Document of the Dead making-of included. Anyone remember this? The version out today doesn't have this. i'll probably still buy it.

The big DOTD set which has multiple cuts of the film, is due out in September--or so they say.  I think it was originally supposed to be out last year sometime, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.  That's the main reason I bought this disc since I didn't have it on DVD at all and didn't want the possibility of having to wait till sometime in 2005 to get it.   The commentary is pretty good, the rest of the extras don't really stand out....trailers and radio spots, but not much variety--I have a VHS that has way more trailers, including some European ones.  I hope that's on the box version.

I think Document of the Dead is out on DVD already...actually I know it is because I rented it a few years ago but I don't know how easy it is to find.  They still might include it as an extra though...I know they did that with one of the European releases of DAWN.

For those who are interested, I saw a commercial tonight that said that USA will air the DotD preview Monday during Final Destination at 8pm.

i think th emovie will b great and gory thats what we all want

I heard someone say on another board that it's not very gory.  I don't mind as long as it's scary--I don't expect them to come close to the original when it comes to gore.    

Of course, the same person raved about the film but people accused them of being a shill or trying to get some sort of bonus points for promoting the film, which is apparently common these days.

The cut I saw was pretty gory, a good amount of blood and guts, but not overboard, which is nice.  I've heard it had to be toned down some for the R-rating, but it will probably be gory enough to satisfy you guys.

I just hope they didn't screw it up in post-production and it sucks now and all the good stuff I've been telling you guys will be wrong, but I'm confident.  The test screening audience really seemed into it, so I doubt many changes were made.
______________________________________________________________________

.  .  .  .  I'm not really feeling the film, from what I saw of commercials, but will a big box office help Romero get financing, er, uh, whatever the technical term is?  
.  .  .  .  btw: caught a TV add for the DVD re-release of Dawn of the Dead on TNN at 2-3am.

George Romero in Quarterly Review of Film & Video (2001):
“I’d love to do it [a fourth installment of Night of the Living Dead, Twilight of the Dead] and I’m looking for a way to begin doing it."

I watched the 10 minute preview on USA tonight. Not bad, but I don't really like the way it just starts with no explanation of what's going on. Someone else here said that it was some kind of infection, but there's no explanation of how the people you see at the start got infected. One night they're fine and the next day they're zombies. Not sure I like the fast moving zombies either. Except for acting psycho, you couldn't really tell that they weren't just crazy people.

I see your point, but it's kind of hard to remake the middle film in a trilogy.  They couldn't just start in with the world already in chaos like the original "Dawn...", because it would confuse the hell out of average joe movie-goers, yet they also don't have the time to spell out how everything starts in "Night...", so they just kind of had to dig in, I think.

If this part hasn't changed since the test screening I saw, there ARE some ignored radio announcements in the very beginning that allude to some strange behavior occuring in the nearby areas.  I think that's good enough, just a little hint that the whole world is on the verge of going bats**t, but nobody notices.

And besides, there weren't any real explanation in Romero's films either, for Barbara and Johnny it's a regular day until they see the tall guy shambling towards them, and then before you know it, it's covering the world.
______________________________________________________________________

>I see your point, but it's kind of hard to remake the middle film in a trilogy. They
>couldn't just start in with the world already in chaos like the original "Dawn...",
>because it would confuse the hell out of average joe movie-goers, yet they also

Maybe so, but the original DotD came several years after the original, so it wasn't like sequels today where the next one is announced just a month or so after the first hits video/DVD. I'm kind of disappointed that this Dawn doesn't follow the NotLD remake from a few years ago.

>If this part hasn't changed since the test screening I saw, there ARE some
>ignored radio announcements in the very beginning that allude to some strange
>behavior occuring in the nearby areas. I think that's good enough, just a little hint
>that the whole world is on the verge of going bats**t, but nobody notices.

Yes, I noticed a few radio announcements, plus an emergency alert while they were in the shower. It just seems kind of fast. If this had been happening in nearby areas, you'd think that someone at the hopsital would have heard something about it. When she leaves the hospital, everything seems normal, or at least normal enough that they're not making a huge deal of it on the radio, but the next day, it seems that almost everyone is infected.

>And besides, there weren't any real explanation in Romero's films either, for
>Barbara and Johnny it's a regular day until they see the tall guy shambling
>towards them, and then before you know it, it's covering the world.

True, but in the original, all the dead were rising, not just those who had been bitten, so there didn't have to be any connection between the areas where it was happening. In the new one, if I understood what's been said so far, the only ones who come back from the dead are those who have been infected by other dead, so you need an actual connection between areas.

I went to see Dawn of The Dead remake not expecting to see any of the original scenarios in the movie except the mall.  Dawn of The Dead and the remake are both very different, there were some downsides to the movie, I think they rushed to get into the movie a bit too fast but anyways, all in all it's one of the best zombie movies i've seen and I am a zombie fan!  This movie isn't liek the original, and if I were basing my opinion on that fact, it wouldn't be a good movie because it doesn't follow the same plot lines as the original.  WHO CARES!!!  The only reason why this movie was named Dawn of The Dead was becuase it takes place in a mall, well if they hadn't named it DOTD it would have seemed like a rip-off of the original.  I also like the fact that the new age zombies are fast and bad ass.  In the old zombie movies and video games they are slow and can easily be avoided.  Well you'd better watch your ass now and be good at cross country cause this is the way zombies should be.

I got the feeling that the characters were only assuming that someone had to be bitten, and that it wasn't necessarily the case.  They make a lot of other bad choices and assumptions throughout the fim and I figured that was probably just another one.   Were that to actually happen I'm sure there would be all kinds of misinformation floating around.  I'm surprised they were so quick to show the way to destroy a zombie.  

I think the movie would have done poorly if it had followed the original story too closely--it would have been more like the PSYCHO remake then, or the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake, which is an okay movie but doesn't really have anything new to add to the original.  Romero's film was really more about social concerns of 25 years ago and to simply re-tell his story wouldn't have worked.  
He himself says in his commentary for the new disc about not being able to see how a remake could work because his film is so tied together with what was going on in the Seventies.

YO dumbass, Savini and his crew not only handled the F/X, but he cameoed as he always does. The two swat members from the original cameoed as well. the film has had Romero's blessing from day one. Snyder is a dead fan from way back and more importantly, an apocalyptic film fan in general. after seeing the remake, it's hard to watch the original without saying "how lame is this?". don't take that the wrong way, the dead trilogy is probably my fav of all time. the remake is beautifully done though and opting to get away from a Goblin heavy score, adds to it tremendously. it has a much quicker pace than the O.G. and gets a little more psychologically involved with the characters. Not as much as I would have liked, but that is just my personal opinion. so, get your story str8 before you start blowing smoke out your ass online again. LOVE, BEN.

Excuse me senor, LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH already. f**k.

YO dumbass, Savini and his crew not only handled the F/X, but he cameoed as he always does. The two swat members from the original cameoed as well. the film has had Romero's blessing from day one. Snyder is a dead fan from way back and more importantly, an apocalyptic film fan in general. after seeing the remake, it's hard to watch the original without saying "how lame is this?". don't take that the wrong way, the dead trilogy is probably my fav of all time. the remake is beautifully done though and opting to get away from a Goblin heavy score, adds to it tremendously. it has a much quicker pace than the O.G. and gets a little more psychologically involved with the characters. Not as much as I would have liked, but that is just my personal opinion. so, get your story str8 before you start blowing smoke out your ass online again. LOVE, BEN.

I would tell you guys if I like it or not but I have never saw it.
Sorry.

anyway, is it good?? its not in spain yet. cant wait to watch