Support NeoGAF

[Prime crotch]

his point is that the people usually didn't like the original movies in his example because of execution, not concept.

a great example for me would be the new Halloween movie by Rob Zombie. The original today, 20 years later, is still probably the single greatest horror movie ever. Ever! Why remake it? To what purpose? I'm not saying Zombie's remake won't be good, but why not create say, his own Halloween 2 that pretends 2-12 or whatever never happened. Pick-up with Michael going over the edge and go from there in a good way. Remake the path that bastardized the franchise.. not the brilliant and classic start...

Because the serie's dead to the general audience. A reboot is the only way to go with trying to breath some fresh air to the series.

 

[borghe]

Because the serie's dead to the general audience. A reboot is the only way to go with trying to breath some fresh air to the series.

But in this case, Dawn of the Dead wasn't a reboot considering it is essentially what I just described, only in this case the second movie was brilliant and not horrible.

 

[temp]

his point is that the people usually didn't like the original movies in his example because of execution, not concept.

a great example for me would be the new Halloween movie by Rob Zombie. The original today, 20 years later, is still probably the single greatest horror movie ever. Ever! Why remake it? To what purpose? I'm not saying Zombie's remake won't be good, but why not create say, his own Halloween 2 that pretends 2-12 or whatever never happened. Pick-up with Michael going over the edge and go from there in a good way. Remake the path that bastardized the franchise.. not the brilliant and classic start...

Yeah, duh, and I'm saying that good movies are remade because they have a good name. Bad movies aren't remade because no one liked them because they were bad, even if it was just because of the execution, not the concept. That's why we're not getting a new Waterworld; no one liked it, it doesn't have a built-in fanbase, and it doesn't have a positive connection.

 

[Prime crotch]

But in this case, Dawn of the Dead wasn't a reboot considering it is essentially what I just described, only in this case the second movie was brilliant and not horrible.

Yeah I was speaking only of the Halloween series. I don't know why they decided to make a Dawn remake but I'm glad they did. It's sucess was probably a big factor on Land of The Dead being made, even if it didn't turned out as good as one would expect from Romero. And like I said before it was a good zombie flick which was something we didn't had for years until this came out.

That's why we're not getting a new Waterworld; no one liked it, it doesn't have a built-in fanbase, and it doesn't have a positive connection.

I liked Waterworld, although I was like 12 or so when I saw it.

 

[Stoney Mason]

But in this case, Dawn of the Dead wasn't a reboot considering it is essentially what I just described, only in this case the second movie was brilliant and not horrible.

To be fair it was a slight reboot. Things are normal at the beginning of DOTD remake unlike the original which starts off theoretically after Night where the zombie attacks started. At least that's the way I always looked at it.

 

[WickedAngel]

Land of the Dead is great. I can't believe there are this many people with this little taste.

And we can't believe there are people who have actually managed to convince themselves that it's good.

 

[borghe]

land of the dead was entertaining, but unfortunately that isn't enough to make a movie good, let alone great.

 

[temp]

I liked Waterworld, although I was like 12 or so when I saw it.

Me too. Dennis Hopper = totally awesome

 

[Costanza]

Don't forget Shaun of the Dead!

SOTD was a total meh from me for some reason, but I gave Hot Fuzz a chance and loved it.

 

[mollipen]

Sad thing is, Land of the Dead wasn't much better than DofDead remake.

Except that Land of the Dead was total garbage, and nowhere near as good as Dawn of the Dead 2004.

I was really dreading the remake, because I was one of those people who thought "OMG you can't remake a Romero movie, you'll screw up a classic, this is garbage!" Then I watched DotD 2004, and absolutely loved it. Then I saw Land of the Dead, and combining that with Romero's also-garbage ideas of the original Resident Evil movie, I couldn't figure out why I was trying to defend the guy anymore. He made a couple awesome movies a long time ago, and now comes off looking like a total hack.

 

[DaCocoBrova]

The movie was pretty good up until

Spoiler

they let in the obviously infected fat lady/dude. That and the whole baby thing...

You just made me watch the first few minutes of the movie and believe or not, it made me really sick. Had to lie down for a short time.

Pussy

 

[Stoney Mason]

The movie was pretty good up until

Spoiler

they let in the obviously infected fat lady/dude. That and the whole baby thing...

The first thirty mintues of the movie or so are quite good. Then the rest of it drags it down to average imo.

 

[WickedAngel]

The first thirty mintues of the movie or so are quite good. Then the rest of it drags it down to average imo.

That was my take too. There should be a movie that follows that balls-to-the-wall action seen in the first 30 minutes for the standard length of a film.

 

[Gattsu25]

That was my take too. There should be a movie that follows that balls-to-the-wall action seen in the first 30 minutes for the standard length of a film.

supposedly, that's the premise behind Roth's adaptation of king novel 'Cell'

edit: found a quote from eli roth himself

I fucking LOVE that book. Such a smart take on the zombie movie. I am so psyched to do it. I think you can really do almost a cross between the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake with a 'Roland Emmerich' approach (for lack of a better reference) where you show it happening all over the world. When the pulse hits, I wanna see it hit EVERYWHERE. In restaurants, in movie theaters, at sports events, all the places that people drive you crazy when they're talking on their cell phones. I see total armageddon. People going crazy killing each other - everyone at once - all over the world. Cars smashing into each other, people getting stabbed, throats getting ripped out. The one thing I always wanted to see in zombie movies is the actual moment the plague hits, and not just in one spot, but everywhere. You usually get flashes of it happening around the world on news broadcasts, but you never actually get to experience it happening everywhere. Then as the phone crazies start to change and mutate, the story gets pared down to a story about human survival in the post-apocalyptic world ruled by phone crazies. I'm so excited, I wish the script was ready right now so I could start production. But it'll get written (or at least a draft will) while I'm doing HOSTEL 2, and then I can go right into it. It should feel like an ultra-violent event movie. FUCK this is gonna be so damn fun!!!!!!! I can't wait!!!!!

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/22663

 

[Stoney Mason]

supposedly, that's the premise behind Roth's adaptation of king novel 'Cell'

Cell was all over the place with a silly second half imo.

 

[BobFromPikeCreek]

That movie kicks ass. The only people who hate on it are purists. It's allowed to be good for different reasons than the original was good. It's not hard to like both.

 

[Gattsu25]

Cell was all over the place with a silly second half imo.

it was almost like an uber lite throwback to The Stand...and I didn't find it too successful, but the first half of the novel was a great read IMO

 

[Stoney Mason]

That movie kicks ass. The only people who hate on it are purists.

Actually I wish it had followed the original 30 minutes and kept up the pace as suggested above. The movie tanks when it tries to actually go to the mall and slow down the action with zombie baby and such..

 

[Stoney Mason]

but the first half of the novel was a great read IMO

Agreed. It starts of well and early on is quite suspenseful so I would be happy if they re-wrote the second act.

Then again it's Eli Roth...

 

[VistraNorrez]

That movie kicks ass. The only people who hate on it are purists. It's allowed to be good for different reasons than the original was good. It's not hard to like both.

Baloney. It's possible to not like the film simply because one does not like it. The original is my favorite film, and I was looking forward to the remake. It deeply dissappointed me. It had awful characters, that were amongst the stupidest I've seen in any film, and no interesting zombies. Plus the zombies were never convincing they just looked like people running in makeup. Zombies are unsettling because something seems off about them. Return of the Living Dead is the only film that has done fast zombies right.

The first thirty mintues of the movie or so are quite good. Then the rest of it drags it down to average imo.

That sums up the film. The fact that it is so average is what really bugs me. DoTD has a great concept that could've been done so many different and good ways. I feel they squandered it.

Furthermore I think Zack Snyder is the ultimate mediocre director. He's only good at adrenaline, and even then he lacks any real excitement. I hope no one that hates Bay or Ratner think Snyder is any sort of good director, he's about equal to those two.

 

[Gattsu25]

Then again it's Eli Roth...

I'm still hopeful. The movie will be guaranteed to push the limits of the R rating (until the money changes hands at least) which is one of the things I look forward to in a zombie flick. (Other things such as an unrelenting and unkind treatment of characters will likely be present as well knowing roth, but I'm not expecting a cynical reflection of our society)

 

[hey_monkey]

I loved it. Are there really people (sans vaginas) who didn't like it?

Sigh. Someday, I can only hope this kind of shit will end. There are plenty of male-types who didn't like the film, because a) they think it's cool to hate on anything popular and b) felt it didn't do the original justice. There are also plenty of chicks who love zombie movies like ice cream. I have a whole group of girly friends who always get together for every zombie movie in the theater, and we aren't alone. If you don't know any, sorry. I feel like I should just write up some template reply to posts like this and save it somewhere on my computer.

That said, I loved this remake, though I could have done without the zombie baby, me. Chainsaw action on the bus was hot, and the stuff between Ving Rhames and gunstore Andy was great. Like 300, some good special features on it, too. I'm half-looking forward to Snyder's future films just for the DVDs now.

Fast zombies I'm not sure about, but I'll say one thing... they are way scarier than slow zombies to me. Fast zombies pretty much just mean your ass. There's not much you can do but hope to die quickly.

Regarding comparisons to the original: I think the original certainly has a deeper intensity and is overall the better film, but this version had some good popcorn violence moments and a real sense of "fuck, we're screwed, but let's try anyway," which is one of the things I like in zombie movies. I think both are great, and Snyder's is more fun.

It did have one major apparent flaw in my eyes, however.

Spoiler

When Ving Rhames washed his messed-up arm in the water that was tainted with zombie blood, it should have totally gotten him. That disappoints me every time I re-watch the film.

Definitely a gun-on-the-mantel kind of issue.

 

[hey_monkey]

Cell was all over the place with a silly second half imo.

Agreed. I thought the first half was brilliant, maybe even one of his best... and the second half, it seemed like the ball got dropped and maybe eaten by a monster.

 

[Jon_Danger]

Good action

terrible actors

bad movie

 

[Gattsu25]

I was thrown off by the fact that used car salesmen were able to pick up a handgun and get running headshots on zombies 80 feet away 5 seconds after struggling to take off the safety...THAT gets me every time...

 

[Ceb]

The original is annoying and overly dramatic to the point of cheesyness, and so filled to the brim with stupid character decisions (ie, what the characters choose to do) that it gets annoying.

"Stupid character decisions" is a staple of horror movies we'll just have to deal with most of the times. DotD 2004 has a LOT of these as well. Mekhi Phifer's character protecting his zombie baby is perhaps the most retarted one.

You hate the shopping hijinx in the original DotD. I think it's both a relief and a nice snapshot of 70's culture. The original DotD is also more varied in its settings, and the journey to the mall being much longer makes the whole thing feel more... ugh, here it comes... "epic".

I don't hate DotD 2004, but other than the escape from suburbia and the escape from the mall, nothing in it really stands out. Nothing makes an impact. I liked the addition of the Andy character, but the awesomeness of that plot point was cancelled out by the fucking mutt and the obligatory teeny-bopper crush. The violence wasn't really up to snuff either. Lots of fake-looking headshots.

Let's just agree to disagree, and stop being so fucking annoyed by people genuinely prefering the original DotD over the remake.

 

[Pachinko]

I don't even call Dawn of the dead 2004 a remake, it's more of a re-imagining based on the same general idea of a bunch of people getting trapped in a mall while zombies rage around outdoors. The 70's version was appropriate for it's time and the 2004 version works for it's time. I mean, I enjoy the original for it's slightly more intimate characters and I enjoy the new one because it's a beautifully shot film and fast zombies are actually something to be scared off, makes them seem as though they're actually a threat.

 

[Solo]

Well obviously that would be the ideal, but I really hope you understand the logic behind using something people LIKE as a base as opposed to something people generally disliked.

The next post summed up my thoughts well:

his point is that the people usually didn't like the original movies in his example because of execution, not concept.

a great example for me would be the new Halloween movie by Rob Zombie. The original today, 20 years later, is still probably the single greatest horror movie ever. Ever! Why remake it? To what purpose? I'm not saying Zombie's remake won't be good, but why not create say, his own Halloween 2 that pretends 2-12 or whatever never happened. Pick-up with Michael going over the edge and go from there in a good way. Remake the path that bastardized the franchise.. not the brilliant and classic start...

But I also understand your point that it would be a disaster from a marketing/sales point of view. So its kind of a double edged sword.

For the record in this thread, I saw DotD 2004 once, and I can barely remember it. Which is usually not a good thing. A movie that fails to make an impression is worse than one that offends me by being mind-numbingly bad.

 

[so1337]

Pussy

Ouch. I'm psychologically stricken, have merci.

 

[Mar]

I'll stick to the original awesome movie thanks.